Can Financing Constraints Explain the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution?

Abstract

This paper exploits a comprehensive data set on business credit decisions to examine the importance of financing constraints for the evolution of the firm size distribution. The survey of small business finances provides information on whether a firm was in need of external financing. Firms without access to external financing—either because they were denied credit or because they did not apply for credit because they expected to be denied credit—are significantly smaller. To tighten the link between financing constraints and firm dynamics, I estimate the effect of financing constraints on subsequent employment growth and find that firms without access to external financing exhibit up to 3.5 % points lower annual employment growth than do their unconstrained counterparts. These findings suggest that financing constraints are a potentially important factor for understanding firm dynamics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Hall (1987), Evans (1987), and, more recently, Neumark et al. (2011). Moreover, recent studies have shown that the firm size distribution of younger firms is skewed to the right and that the size distribution becomes more symmetric with firm age (Cabral and Mata 2003; Angelini and Generale 2008).

  2. 2.

    See Cooley and Quadrini (2001), Albuquerque and Hopenhayn (2004), and Clementi and Hopenhayn (2006).

  3. 3.

    Lentz and Mortensen (2008) estimate a firm growth model with Danish data and find that positive selection of more productive firms accounts for 53 % of aggregate growth. Foster et al. (2008) argue that new (young) firms have a considerable productivity advantage.

  4. 4.

    A detailed description of the SSBF sampling procedure can be found in the methodology reports. Firms were asked to use tax data and previously were sent worksheets to answer the questions. The data and methodology reports to all surveys can be downloaded at www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/Oss/Oss3/nssbftoc.htm.

  5. 5.

    See US Business Dynamics Statistics, www2.census.go/ces/bds/estab/bds_e_sz_release.xls.

  6. 6.

    Establishment and firm data do not necessarily match, as firms can own more than one establishment and what constitutes a firm does not necessarily match the definition of an establishment.

  7. 7.

    Average firm age increased from 13.3 years in the SSBF 1998 to 14.3 years in the SSBF 2003, after falling from 14.5 years in the SSBF 1993. The median also increased by 1 year from 11 to 12 years. The vast majority of the firms are very small and owner-managed (94 %). Less than 30 % of the firms reported annual sales of more than $500,000. Thirty-five percent of small businesses were located in the South, 24 % in the West, 21 % in the Midwest, and 20 % in the Northeast. Roughly four out of five firms had their headquarters or main office in urban areas, 44.5 % (1998: 49.4 %) of firms are proprietorships, 8.7 % (7 %) partnerships, 31 % (23.9 %) C-Corporations, and 15.8 % (19.8 %) S-Corporations. Bitler et al. (2001) and Mach and Wolken (2006) provide descriptive statistics that summarize the financial services that were used by small businesses for the SSBF 1998 and 2003, respectively.

  8. 8.

    In 2003 the average number of employees for firms that applied for new credit lines was 13.3 (median 5), while firms that renewed credit had (on average) 17.5 employees (median 7). The same pattern holds for firm age. Applicants for new lines of credit were established (on average) 14.3 years (median 12 years) ago, while firms that renewed credit were (on average) 19.2 years (median 17 years) in business.

  9. 9.

    About 25 % of the firms provided more than one type of collateral.

  10. 10.

    For three observations, sales were not reported in the SSBF.

  11. 11.

    Sutton (1997) surveys the older literature.

  12. 12.

    Most commonly they use panel data to estimate the relationship between Tobin’s q, cash flow, and investment. See Hubbard (1998) for a dated survey. More recently, the literature has exploited variation in the violation of debt covenants and self-reported measures of financing constraints; see Campello et al. (2011) and Berrospide and Meisenzahl (2015).

  13. 13.

    The monetary and time cost of credit applications can be considerable. Banks require business and personal financial statements in the application process. Business financial statements include balance sheet information, information on accounts receivable, organizational form, and other business characteristics. Personal financial statements ask for a detailed description of assets and liabilities, including the net value of the private residence, total net worth, and previous bankruptcies. For detailed application forms, see Cavalluzzo and Wolken (2005).

  14. 14.

    To avoid ambiguities, I drop observations that report that they were “sometimes” turned down in their most recent application.

  15. 15.

    The sectoral composition between the participants and non-participants shows only minor differences.

  16. 16.

    As was pointed out above, since the 1998 survey did not record credit renewals, the pooled sample is biased against finding a systematic difference between firms that secured external finance and firms that were denied credit.

  17. 17.

    The largest p value was 0.012 for the age group 1–6 years excluding “discouraged borrowers.”

  18. 18.

    This observation also holds in all firm age group subsamples.

  19. 19.

    Townsend (1979) shows that in the presence of informational frictions, collateral is a key determinant for credit. Osotimehin and Pappadà (2010) find that access to credit is a function of net worth.

  20. 20.

    Campello et al. (2011) and Berrospide and Meisenzahl (2015) document that firms without access to their line of credit invest less.

  21. 21.

    Unfortunately, the NETS database does not provide information on why a firm went out of business; for instance, because of bankruptcy or retirement of the owner. However, if a company went out of business for reasons that were unrelated to its business, such as the retirement of the owner, then access to credit cannot explain this drop in employment, and the estimated coefficient on access to credit would be estimated to be zero. Mach and Wolken (2012) use matched SSBF-NETS data to study the effect of credit on firm survival and find a positive relationship between access to credit and firm survival.

  22. 22.

    Ono and Uesugi (2009) discuss the importance of collateral and personal guarantees for small business lending.

  23. 23.

    The results for the sample of firms with the actual number of employees known are comparable.

  24. 24.

    Osotimehin and Pappadà (2010) estimate a model of access to credit, including discouraged borrowers, on French data and find that access to credit helps to understand firm dynamics in France. This additional international evidence suggests that the results presented here hold more generally.

  25. 25.

    For instance, Lentz and Mortensen (2008) argue that positive selection of more productive firms accounts for much of aggregate firm growth patterns. Foster et al. (2008) find that new (young) firms have a considerable productivity advantage. Warusawitharana (2012) provides a simple product quality ladder model to match firm dynamics.

References

  1. Albuquerque, R., & Hopenhayn, H. A. (2004). Optimal lending contracts and firm dynamics. Review of Economic Studies, 71(2), 285–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Angelini, P., & Generale, A. (2008). On the evolution of firm size distribution. American Economic Review, 98(1), 426–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berrospide, J. M., & Meisenzahl, R. R. (2015). The real effects of credit line drawdowns. Finance and economics discussion series. 2015–07. Washington: Federal Reserve Board.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bitler, M., Robb, A., & Wolken, J. (2001). Financial services used by small businesses: Evidence from the 1998 survey of small business finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 87, 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cabral, L. M. B., & Mata, J. (2003). On the evolution of the firm size distribution: Facts and theory. American Economics Review, 93(3), 1075–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Campello, M., Giambona, E., Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2011). Liquidity management and corporate investment during the financial crisis. Review of Financial Studies, 24(6), 1944–1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavalluzzo, K., & Wolken, J. (2005). Small business loan turnovers, personal wealth and discrimination. Journal of Business, 78(6), 2153–2177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chodorow-Reich, G. (2014). The employment effects of credit market disruptions: Firm-level evidence from the 2008–09 financial crisis. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 1–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clementi, G. L., & Hopenhayn, H. (2006). A theory of financing constraints and firm dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(1), 229–265.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cooley, T. F., & Quadrini, V. (2001). Financial markets and firm dynamics. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1286–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans, D. S. (1987). Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. Journal of Political Economy, 95(4), 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fort, T. C., Haltiwanger, J. C., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2013). How firms respond to business cycles: The role of firm age and firm size. IMF Economic Review, 61(3), 520–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J., & Syverson, C. (2008). Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: Selection on productivity or profitability? American Economic Review, 98(1), 394–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hall, B. H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the US manufacturing sector. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Haltenhof, S., Lee, S. J., & Stubenovs, V. (2014). The credit crunch and fall in employment during the great recession. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 43, 31–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haltiwanger, J. C., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hennessy, C., & Whited, T. (2005). Debt dynamics. Journal of Finance, 60(4), 1129–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holmes, T. J. (1998). The effect of state policies on the location of manufacturing: Evidence from state borders. Journal of Political Economy, 106(4), 667–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hubbard, R. G. (1998). Capital-market imperfections and investment. Journal of Economic Literature March, 36, 193–225.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kleiner, K. (2014). How did the 2007–2009 credit crisis become the great recession: Budget constraints, collateral, and small firm employment. Manuscript. Bloomington: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lentz, R., & Mortensen, D. T. (2008). An empirical model of growth through product innovation. Econometrica, 76(6), 1317–1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mach, T. L., & Wolken, J. (2006). Financial services used by small businesses: Evidence from the 2003 survey of small business finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 92, A167–A195.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mach, T. L., & Wolken, J. (2012). Examining the impact of credit access on small firm survivability. In G. Calcagnini & I. Favaretto (Eds.), Small businesses in the aftermath of the crisis: International analyses and policies (pp. 189–210). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meisenzahl, R. R. (2014). Verifying the state of financing constraints: Evidence from US business credit contracts. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 43, 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Neumark, D., Wall, B., & Zhang, J. (2011). Do small businesses create more jobs? New evidence for the US from the national establishment time series. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ono, A., & Uesugi, I. (2009). Role of collateral and personal guarantees in relationship lending: Evidence from Japan’s SME loan market. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 41(5), 935–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Osotimehin, S., & Pappadà, F. (2010). All you need is loan: Credit market frictions and the exit of firms in recessions. CREST Working Paper 2010–51.

  28. Sharpe, S. (1994). Financial market imperfections, firm leverage, and the cyclicality of employment. American Economic Review, 84(4), 1060–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sullivan, T. A., Warren, E., & Westbrook, J. L. (1989). As we forgive our debtors: Bankruptcy and consumer credit in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sutton, J. (1997). Gilbrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Townsend, R. (1979). Optimal contracts and competitive markets with costly state verification. Journal of Economic Theory, 21(2), 265–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Warusawitharana, M. (2012). Profitability and the lifecycle of firms. Finance and economics discussion series. 2012–17. Washington: Federal Reserve Board.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Larry Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, Traci Mach, Robin Prager, Missaka Warusawitharana, Larry White, and participants at the Royal Economic Society Meeting for helpful comments. All errors are mine. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf R. Meisenzahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meisenzahl, R.R. Can Financing Constraints Explain the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution?. Rev Ind Organ 48, 123–147 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-015-9498-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Financing constraints
  • Firm size distribution
  • Firm growth

JEL Classification

  • L11
  • L25