Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of cash flow on investment: an empirical test of the balance sheet theory

  • Published:
Empirical Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a large data set on investments and accounting information for private firms, we put the balance sheet theory to test. We find that firm cash flow has a positive impact on investment and that the effect is enhanced for firms which are more likely to be financially constrained. We also find that the investment-cash flow sensitivity is significantly larger and more persistent during the first half of our sample period, which includes a severe banking crisis and recession. Our results suggest that financial constraints matter more in periods characterized by adverse economic conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The crisis in early 1990s is the most severe financial and economic crisis that Sweden has experienced in modern times. GDP fell for three consecutive years accompanied by a severe contraction of bank credit (see Figure A1 of supplementary material). In contrast, the global financial crisis in 2008 led to a sharp fall in exports but a quick recovery.

  2. For examples of more recent work, see Chatelain et al. (2003), Carpenter and Guariglia (2008) and Martinez-Carrascal and Ferrando (2008).

  3. This presentation follows Cummins et al. (2006). The model was originally developed by Hayashi (1982).

  4. However, the purpose of this paper is to empirically test for financial frictions rather than theoretical modeling. See Gertler (1988) for a broad survey with a focus on theoretical models, and Bernanke et al. (1999) for a representative model.

  5. Some other criticisms of the investment-cash flow sensitivity literature are that: (1) it is not necessarily true that investment-cash flow sensitivities measure the degree of financing constraints (see Kaplan and Zingales 1997, 2000; Gomes 2001), and (2) the positive coefficient on cash flow disappears when the earnings forecasts of equity analysts are used to construct Q (see Cummins et al. 2006).

  6. See Gilchrist and Himmelberg (1995) and Schiantarelli (1995) for further discussion and additional references.

  7. GH also develop a second, more structural method to control for possible information in cash flow about investment opportunities (current and future MPK). Following Love and Zicchino (2006), we do not use this alternative method, which has been criticized for not properly identifying the effect of cash flow on investment (see, for example, footnote 11 in Cummins et al. 2006).

  8. Another possible measure of MPK, which is used by GH in their earlier paper, is based on operating income rather than sales. As discussed in Gilchrist and Himmelberg (1999), the operating-income-based measure requires the possibly unrealistic assumptions of zero fixed costs and perfect competition, which makes the measure less reliable.

  9. See, for example, footnote 11 in Chatelain et al. (2003).

  10. For 1996, Statistics Sweden had data-collection problems and the separate variables for investments in machines and buildings are missing.

  11. Looking at the impulse responses, the confidence bands are collapsing around the point estimates for the response of I/K and MPK to an I/K shock. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that the standard error of the estimate of the effect of an I/K shock in time t on I/K and \(\textit{MPK}\) in time \(t+1\) is very low. The second reason is that the coefficients for the effect of an I/K shock in time t on MPK and CF/K in time t are very small. This means that there is little feedback from MPK and CF/K in period t to I/K in period \(t+1\) and thus very little uncertainty around that estimate. These effects combined lead to the very low uncertainty around the estimate of the effect of an I/K shock on I/K and MPK.

  12. The double sample split gives rise to few observations on the unconstrained firms in the two sub-periods. We therefore obtain a high estimation uncertainty and wide confidence bands for the group of unconstrained firms. None of the impulse responses are distinct from zero at a 99 % confidence level for the unconstrained (high-dividend, large and group) firms, whereas the impulse responses for the constrained (low-dividend, small and non-group) firms are separate from zero at a 99 % confidence level during the recession period but not significant (99 % level) during the non-recession period.

  13. By splitting the firms based on time and dividend payments, we obtain relatively few observations for the sample of high-dividend firms during the recession period (1055 observations). Although we truncate our sample with respect to the 1st and 99th percentile, the estimates for the small sample are influenced by a few large positive values for the cash flow to capital (CF/K) variable which lead to a high estimation uncertainty and very wide confidence intervals. To deal with this, for the sample of high-dividend firms in the recession period, we have chosen to eliminate observations for CF/K that exceed 200 % (3 observations) to obtain more reasonable estimates and associated standard errors.

References

  • Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econom 68:29–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke BS, Gertler M, Gilchrist SG (1996) The financial accelerator and the flight to quality. Rev Econ Stat 78:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke BS, Gertler M, Gilchrist SG (1999) The financial accelerator in a quantitative business cycle framework. In: Taylor JB, Woodford M (eds) Handbook of macroeconomics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1341–1393

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard OJ, Rhee C, Summers LH (1993) The stock market, profit, and investment. Q J Econ 108:115–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond S, Meghir C (1994) Dynamic investment models and the firm’s financial policy. Rev Econ Stud 61:197–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter RE, Guariglia A (2008) Cash flow, investment, and investment opportunities: new tests using UK Panel Data. J Bank Finance 32:1894–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatelain JB, Generale A, Hernando I, Vermeulen P, von Kalckreuth U (2003) Firm investment and monetary policy transmission in the Euro area. In: Angeloni I, Kashyap AK, Mojon B (eds) Monetary policy transmission in the Euro area. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Christiano LJ, Trabandt M, Walentin K (2011) Introducing financial frictions and unemployment into a small open economy model. J Econ Dyn Control 35:1999–2041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins JG, Hassett KA, Oliner SD (2006) Investment behavior, observable expectations, and internal funds. Am Econ Rev 96:796–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazzari SM, Hubbard RG, Petersen BC (1988) Financing constraints and corporate investments. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:141–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertler M (1988) Financial structure and aggregate economic activity. J Money Credit Bank 20:559–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertler M, Gilchrist SG (1994) Monetary policy, business cycles, and the behavior of small manufacturing firms. Q J Econ 109:309–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist SG, Himmelberg CP (1995) Evidence on the role of cash flow for investment. J Monet Econ 36:541–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist SG, Himmelberg CP (1999) Investment, fundamentals and finance. In: Bernanke BS, Rotemberg JJ (eds) NBER macroeconomics annual 1998. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 223–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist SG, Himmelberg CP, Huberman G (2005) Do stock price bubbles influence corporate investment? J Monet Econ 52:805–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes JF (2001) Financing investment. Am Econ Rev 91:1263–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi F (1982) Tobin’s marginal q and average q: a neoclassical interpretation. Econometrica 50:213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard RG (1998) Capital–market imperfections and investment. J Econ Lit 36:193–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez G, Ongena S, Peydró J, Saurina J (2012) Credit supply and monetary policy: identifying the bank balance-sheet channel with loan applications. Am Econ Rev 102:2301–2326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan SN, Zingales L (1997) Do investment-cash flow sensitivities provide useful measures of financing constraints? Q J Econ 112:169–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan SN, Zingales L (2000) Investment-cash flow sensitivities are not valid measures of financing constraints. Q J Econ 115:707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love I, Zicchino L (2006) Financial development and dynamic investment behavior: evidence from panel VAR. Q Rev Econ Finance 46:190–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Carrascal C, Ferrando A (2008) The impact of financial position on investment: an analysis for non-financial corporations in the Euro area. ECB working paper no. 943

  • Oliner SD, Rudebusch GD, Sichel DE (1996) The Lucas critique revisited: assessing the stability of empirical euler equations for investment. J Econom 70:291–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poterba JM (1988) Comment on financing constraints and corporate investments. Brook Pap Econ Act 1:200–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiantarelli F (1995) Financial constraints and investment: a critical review of methodological issues and international evidence. In: Peek J, Rosengren ES (eds) Is bank lending important for the transmission of monetary policy. Conference series no. 39, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, pp 177–214

  • Shiller RJ (2000) Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Whited TM (1992) Debt, liquidity constraints, and corporate investment: evidence from panel data. J Finance 47:1425–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeldes SP (1989) Consumption and liquidity constraints: an empirical investigation. J Polit Econ 97:305–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monetary Policy Department, Sveriges Riksbank, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ola Melander

  2. Department of Economics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Maria Sandström

  3. Research Division, Monetary Policy Department, Sveriges Riksbank, 103 37, Stockholm, Sweden

    Erik von Schedvin

Authors
  1. Ola Melander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Sandström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik von Schedvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik von Schedvin.

Additional information

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions by Anders Åkerman, David von Below, Mikael Carlsson, Martin Flodén, Nils Gottfries, Tor Jacobson, Kai Leitemo, Jesper Lindé, Johan Lyhagen, Iryna Shcherbakova and Karl Walentin, and seminar participants at the Stockholm School of Economics, Sveriges Riksbank and the 13th International Conference on Macroeconomic Analysis and International Finance (University of Crete, May 2009). We are also grateful to Jan Wallander’s and Tom Hedelius’ Research Foundation for financial support and to Inessa Love for sharing panel VAR Stata code. We assume full responsibility for any and all errors in the paper. The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of Sveriges Riksbank.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 139 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melander, O., Sandström, M. & von Schedvin, E. The effect of cash flow on investment: an empirical test of the balance sheet theory. Empir Econ 53, 695–716 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1136-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-016-1136-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation