Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia

Ayalew, Zemenu Amare Article Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Ayalew, Zemenu Amare (2021) : Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 1.24-, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/270123 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaef20 Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia Zemenu Amare Ayalew | To cite this article: Zemenu Amare Ayalew | (2021) Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, 9:1, 1953736, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 02 Aug 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5725 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 6 View citing articles FINANCIAL ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia Zemenu Amare Ayalew 1 * Abstract: The paper primarily studied the empirical relationship between capital structure, as measured by total and short-term debt ratios, and profitability of private banks in Ethiopia, for the period 2013/14 to 2018/19, using panel fixed effects. A survey of 16 private banks are included in the study. Based on the regression analysis results, capital structure variables and some bank-specific characteristics explain a substantial part of the variations in bank profitability. Higher profitability measures of ROA and net interest margin tend to be associated with relatively higher total and short-term debt ratios, loan to deposit ratios, and credit risks. Besides, older banks are in a better position than younger counterparts in terms of profitability. The impact of size is found to be significantly negative, at least for the ROA model, implying that Ethiopian private banks are operating below their optimal capacity. Mixed results were found pertaining the coefficient estimates of cos–income ratio and employee productivity. Subjects: Economics; Economic Theory & Philosophy; Finance; Business, Management and Accounting Keywords: Capital Structure; Profitability; Panel Data; Fixed Effects; Private Banks 1. Introduction Every business firm aims to maximize the wealth of shareholders as measured by the firm’s outstanding market price or shareholders’ return. To achieve this intended objective, the management of a firm makes various decisions; one is setting an optimal level of capital, which may in turn minimizes the cost of financing, thereby maximizes the firms’ value and shareholders’ wealth (Frank & Goyal, 2009; Le & Phan, 2017). To this end, firm management’s ability in addressing the issue of the optimal level of capital structure is imperative. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Zemenu Amare Ayalew formerly was a lecturer in the Economics Department, College of Business and Economics at Debre Markos University and currently he is working as a Senior Research Officer at Dashen Bank, Ethiopia. He has got his first degree in Finance and Development Economics at Addis Ababa University and completed his master’s degree in Economics with a specialization of Development Economic Policy Analysis from the University of Gondar, Ethiopia. He has a high interest in researche in the areas of financial and development economics. Email: [email protected] PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT The main purpose of the study was to identify the empirical relationship between capital structure and performance in the Ethiopian banking industry. This study has a wide range of significance to various parties. First, it proved relevant policy information to the central bank regarding the regulatory interventions in capital requirement. Second, the study will help private commercial banks to highlight the mix of capital and leverage they need to remain profitable in the industry. Thirdly, it can also serve as a base for further research and a reference for those researchers who wanted to conduct scholarly studies in the area. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 1 of 24 Received: 17 August 2020 Accepted: 06 July 2021 *Corresponding author: Zemenu Amare Ayalew, Senior Research Officer, Strategy and Innovation Department, Dashen Bank S.C E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: David McMillan, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. After the pioneering but “impractical” work (as quoted by most studies) of Modigliani and Miller (1958)—M&M hereafter, abundant literatures were published in the academia and business ecosphere as to capital structure and firm-level profitability, applied to different sectors and methods. The impracticality of the M&M first proposition is may be due to their unlikely assumptions of perfect capital markets, investors’ homogenous expectations, and tax-free economy (Abdullah & Tursoy, 2019; Yao et al., 2018). M&M later modified their original study by incorporating a tax variable in the model, which provides a new thought in corporate finance theory called “tax shield advantage” of debt financing (Modigliani & Miller, 1963), while their original sentiment remains unchanged in the frictionless capital market. Miller (1977) again questioned the tax shield advantage of debt by considering time serious trend in corporate firm’s debt level against corporate income tax in the USA and introduced the personal income tax rate from capital gains to challenge the tax shield advantage hypothesis of debt financing proposed by Modigliani and Miller (1963). Subsequently, Warner (1977) and Smith and Warner (1979) referring bankruptcy costs related to debt financing; Jensen and Meckling (1976) and Jensen (1986) taking into account agency cost theory of free cash flows; and Myers and Majluf (1984) and Myers (1984) assuming asymmetric information in the capital market, made efforts to justify the impact of capital structure decisions and leverage on the firms’ value. Since then, pieces of literature provide inconclusive results about the impact of leverage on firm profitability. Consequently, ambiguity in research findings resulted in absence of unique methodology to determine the optimal mix of debt and equity (Salim & Yadav, 2012). To the best of the researcher knowledge upon review, the only studies which directly deal with the impact of capital structure on bank profitability in Ethiopia are Rao and Lakew (2012), Lelissa (2014), and Hailu (2015), 1 and Birru (2016). Lelissa (2014) used panel data set, simply applying OLS estimation without considering the appropriate tests for the most frequently used panel data models, fixed and random effect models. Rao and Lakew (2012), on the other hand, consider the capital adequacy ratio as a proxy of the capital structure of banks. To break down the capital structure components into the short-term and long-term, however, it will be worthwhile to consider debt ratios rather than capital adequacy measures (Sufian, 2011). Besides, all the studies used the traditional measures of profitability: return on asset (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). Amid the fact that commercial banks in Ethiopia garner large proportion earning from interest income. Thus, employing net interest margins (NIM) as an additional measure of profitability will increase the credibility of the study. The study has also used average asset values to calculate ROA, ROE and NIM to make adjustments for the prevailing risk factors. Moreover, almost all studies include the state giant commercial bank, CBE, which would probably create an outlier in the dataset while this study focused on private banks only. Thus, this study mainly tried to empirically test the relationship between capital structure and bank-level performance as measured by profitability indicators of ROA and net interest margin per asset (NIMA), calculated using average asset, for 16 registered Ethiopian private commercial banks using balanced panel data from the period 2013 to 2019. The study tried to empirically seek answers to the following research questions: (1) how capital structure and profitability of the Ethiopian private banks evolve through time; (2) does the level of financial leverage affects the Ethiopian private banks’ profitability; and (3) are there other factors than leverage which affect the profitability of private banks in Ethiopia. The findings of the study indicated that capital structure variables and some bankspecific characteristics explain a substantial part of the variations in bank profitability. Higher profitability measures of ROA and net interest margin tend to be associated with relatively higher total and short-term debt ratios, loan to deposit ratios, and credit risks. Older banks are found to be more profitable than younger counterparts. The impact of size is found to be significantly negative implying that Ethiopian private banks are operating under their optimal capacity. The rest of the study is organized as follows: the second section summarizes theoretical and empirical literatures pertaining to the impact of capital structure on firm profitability. The third section deals with data and methodology. Section 4 deals with data analysis and discussions; followed by concluding remarks, some policy recommendations, and suggestions for future research. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 2 of 24 2. Literature review 2.1. Theoretical reviews The theoretical and empirical debate on the role of capital structure on firms’ value began after the “irrelevance propositions” of Modigliani and Miller (1958). While studies quoted the M&M model as irrelevant (Eckbo, 1986; Smith & Warner, 1979), probably due to unrealistic assumptions incorporated in their thesis, all argued that the MM’s pioneering propositions are novel and the catalyst for subsequent discussion, debates, and researches in corporate finance. This is because the “modern” theory of capital structure and firm performance showed remarkable progress after the works of M&M (Myers, 2001). As Myers (2001) pointed out the M&M propositions often used as benchmarks in the capital structure literature. Later, M&M issued a correction paper relaxing one of the assumptions of their original work, absence of the corporate tax. Through this, they came up with new thinking in corporate finance theory in which debt has an advantage over equity due to its “tax shield advantage” (Modigliani & Miller, 1963). Their conclusion was, however, similar to Modigliani and Miller (1958) in a frictionless economy. Subsequently, in an independent study, Miller (1977) questioned firm value enhancement impact of debt financing over equity by looking over the trends of firm value and corporate tax rates and incorporating the income tax effect of capital gains along with corporate taxes in the model for the US corporate firms. Subsequently, relaxing some of the assumptions made by the authors, plenty of researches were done in giving support or criticism the original work of M&M. Following these, different theories of capital structure and its effect on firm performance have been forwarded. According to Harris and Raviv (1991), the bulk of capital structure theories focused on relaxing the assumptions of the M&M original model; corporate and personal taxes, agency costs, asymmetric information, product/input market interaction, and corporate control considerations. Below, the study presents some of the literatures on alternative theories of capital structure. 2.1.1. Tax and capital structure In the Modigliani and Miller (1958, 1963) propositions, corporate financial decisions are irrelevant in frictionless world. One of the assumptions in the M&M proposition was the absence of the corporate tax. In most economies, however, corporate firms are subject to taxes while interest is a tax-deductible expense and sometimes the interest tax shield due to debt financing could be large (Myers, 2001). The general hypothesis is that firms operate in high tax rate economies peruse financing policies that provide tax benefits to them (Graham, 2006). 2.1.2. Bankruptcy cost approach If the tax benefit of debt financing is real, it signals that firms could increase their value by using more debt in their capital mix. But, this line of argument doesn’t tell us the extent to which that firms are going to employ debt over equity in their financing strategy. This leads to the emergence of another theory in the capital structure literature; the static trade-off or bankruptcy cost theory. The trade-off theory favors moderate debt ratios. This theory emphasized on the need to limit firms’ borrowing to the point where the marginal value of tax shields on additional debt is just offset by the increase in the present value of possible costs of financial distress (Myers, 2001). Miller (1977) also tried to show the tradeoff theory including personal tax on capital gains which offsets the tax benefit of debt. Thus, bankruptcy cost or financial distress is one factor which prevents firms from using excessive debt which probably results a trade-off between the tax benefit and the possibility of bankruptcy due to debt financing (Barclay et al., 1995). 2.1.3. The agency cost theory Due to separations of ownership and control for the corporate type of firms, agency problem arises between the managers and shareholders and sometimes between shareholders and creditors (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). The conflict between shareholders and managers arises since managers are entitled to the fraction of the marginal gains in firm value out of their investment Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 3 of 24 decision. Thus, managers may spend shareholders’ money to their ends. On the other hand, since debt financing committed the firm to make out regular cash payments to the debtors, it decreases the “free cash” available to managers (Harris & Raviv, 1991). This is one of the benefits of debt financing which resolves the conflict of interest between managers and shareholders. Barclay et al. (1995) have also argued paying dividends and using debt rather than equity reduces the agency cost of equity. Besides, the conflict of interest between shareholders and creditors arises because debt gives equity holders an incentive to invest the debt holder’s money sub-optimally in high-risk projects (Harris & Raviv, 1991). Thus, an optimal capital structure can be obtained by trading off the agency cost of debt against its tax benefit (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). 2.1.4. The pecking order theory In viewing information asymmetry between investors and firm managers, Myers and Majluf (1984) and Myers (1984) came up with a new theory of capital structure, the pecking order theory. The pecking order theory insists firms first to use their internal sources (retained earnings) and then debt. According to this theory, issuing equity is the last resort. Myers and Majluf (1984) expressed the logic behind the pecking order theory as “a firm with ample financial slacks (retained earnings) or the ability to issue default-risk free debt securities would take all NPV investment projects and it will prefer debt over equity if external finance is needed”. The theory maintains that when firms become more profitable, the amount of financing from debt decreases as retained earnings from the higher profit takes precedence over debt for maximizing the firm’s value. It is only upon the event of insufficient retained earnings that firms decide to finance their investment through debt and if further financing is needed, they would sell new shares. The theory, as the name indicates, asserts that firms order their financing options, from the less risky low-cost retained earnings to the riskier and moderately costly debt, and finally to the riskiest and highly costly new equity issue (Uremadu, 2012). The pecking order theory is empirically justified by Shyam-Sunder and Myers (2001), Atiyet (2012) while Frank and Goyal (2003) are unable to find any empirical explanation for the theory. 2.1.5. The information signaling theory Obviously, it is logical to assume in such a way that managers have better information about the value of the firm than either shareholders or creditors. As Barclay et al. (1995) and Dierkens (1991) indicated managers spend much of their time in analyzing the firms’ product, marketing, strategies, and investment opportunities, which leads to the rise to information asymmetry between the investors and managers. The information asymmetry theory of capital structure acquaints that firm’s capital structure signals information of insiders (managers) to the outside investors (Brealey et al., 1977; Harris & Raviv, 1991; Miller & Rock, 1985; Ross, 1977). Besides its information signaling effect, capital structure mitigates unseemly investment decisions of firm managers in the presence of information asymmetry (Myers & Majluf, 1984). 2.2. Capital structure and bank performance: empirical evidences Abundant literatures were found which revealed the possible relationship between capital structure and firm performance in different sectors of the economy or business organization; manufacturing (Long & Malitz, 1985; Titman & Wessels, 1988); utility companies (Modigliani & Miller, 1963); pharmaceutical companies (Mohammadzadeh et al., 2013); and general business firms (mostly cited as listed companies) (Abor, 2005; Agrawal & Knoeber, 1996; Alonso et al., 2005; Olokoyo, 2013; Salim & Yadav, 2012). Following the empirical works of Short (1979), Molyneux and Thornton (1992), Angbazo (1997), and Neely and Wheelock (1997), extensive bodies of studies examined the factors that affect bank profitability, for many individual economies and a group of countries all over the world. These factors are often categorized as bank-specific, industry-specific, and macroeconomic variables. Some studies are focused on specific country (Ameur & Mhiri, 2013; Amidu, 2007; Anafo et al., 2015; Athanasoglou et al., 2008; Bandt et al., 2014), while others studied a group of countries, regions, and territories (Athanasoglou et al., 2008; Berger & Di Patti, 2006; Demirgüç-Kunt & Huizinga, 1999; Dumičić & Rizdak, 2013; Saona, 2016). Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 4 of 24 Other class of studies also intended to relate capital structure variables to bank-level profitability indexes though profitability is affected by bank-specific, industry-specific, and macroeconomic factors (Dumičić & Rizdak, 2013). Berger and Di Patti (2006), Berger and Bouwman (2013), Demirgüç-Kunt and Huizinga (1999), Musah (2017), Siddik et al. (2017), Awunyo-Vitor and Badu (2012), Amidu (2007), Anafo et al. (2015), Niresh (2012), and Zafar et al. (2016) tried to assess the direct effect of capital structure on performance in the banking industry. These literatures, however, resulted in inconclusive results regarding the impact (in terms of the sign, magnitude, and significance) of capital structure on bank profitability, which eventually resulted in the absence of a clear and common understanding of the optimal capital choice for banks. Using the panel data of 22 banks for the period of 2005–2014, Siddik et al. (2017) empirically examined the impacts of capital structure on the performance of Bangladeshi banks assessed by ROE, ROAs and earnings per share. The results of the pooled ordinary least square analysis showed that capital structure inversely affects bank performance. Likewise, another study by Amidu (2007) investigated the dynamics involved in the determination of the capital structure of Ghanaian banks via a panel data regression model. The study considers 19 banks that were licensed and supervised by the county’s central bank, Bank of Ghana, for the periods 1998–2003. The regression result revealed that short-term debt of Ghanaian banks found to negatively determine profitability; implying profitable banks were more likely to have less short-term debt in their balance sheets. Demirgüç-Kunt and Huizinga (1999), for instance, using bank-level, industry-specific, and countryspecific macroeconomic variables for OECD and developing countries over 1990–1997, tried to identify the relationship between capitalizations, measured by equity to total asset ratio, and bank profitability and found a positive and significant relationship in which well-capitalized banks faced with lower bankruptcy cost, thereby reducing the cost of capital and increase profitability. Similar results were also found by Adesina et al. (2015), Anafo et al. (2015), Idode et al. (2014), Sufian and Habibullah (2009), and Anarfo and Appiahene (2017), employing a Price Water House Coopers Annual Banking long panel survey data of banks from 37 countries in the Sub-Saharan region for the period 2000–2006 and Granger casualty test, has found an insignificant impact of capital structure in bank performance while the effect of profitability on the capital structure is negative and statistically significant. Capital structure as a determinant of bank profitability in general and a determinate of bank performance, in particular, is under-researched topic in the Ethiopian banking industry. As per the researcher’s best knowledge, Birru (2016) and Hailu (2015) are the pioneering works that tried to assess the empirical relationship between capital structure and bank profitability for Ethiopian commercial banks. Birru (2016) tried to investigate the impact of capital structure variables on the financial performance of commercial banks using multiple regression model for the period 2011 to 2015 and found a significantly negative relationship between debt to equity as a measure of capital structure and bank profitability (ROA), whereas the coefficient estimate for debt ratio was found to be statistically insignificant. In a masters’ thesis, Hailu (2015) has also attempted to figure out the empirical ties that exist between capital structure and profitability in the Ethiopian banking industry using 12 years of data for eight commercial banks and employed panel fixed-effect models. The findings revealed that capital structure as measured by total debt to total asset had a statistically significant negative impact, but deposit to total asset ratio had a significant positive impact on the profitability of core business operations of commercial banks as measured by ROA and NIM. Moreover, Lelissa (2014) and Rao and Lakew (2012) studied the determinants of bank profitability. For instance, Lelissa (2014) in his study on the determinants of Ethiopian commercial banks performance, found that capital adequacy ratio and liquidity to have statistically insignificant effect on the profitability of banks while some bank-specific factors (credit risk, income diversification, overhead cost management, and size), as well as inflation, had a statistically significant impact on profitability variable (ROA). Similarly, Rao and Lakew (2012) found statistically significant coefficient estimates for bank-specific variables on average return on asset (ROAA). Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 5 of 24 3. Methodology 3.1. Data and their description The study mainly depends on secondary panel data (data which have spatial and temporal elements), accessed from listed private commercial banks operated in the country. As Baltagi (2005) pointed out, the panel data specification of an empirical model has multiple benefits; overcome the impact of unobserved and heterogeneous characteristics of cross-sections and time, increase the degree of freedom and efficiency, and increase sample elements (observations). The study is based on survey of all private banks in the country. Thus, data were collected from 16 private commercial banks registered and licensed by NBE, the financial sector regulatory body of the country. The names of the banks included in the survey listed in alphabetical order are: Abay Bank, Abyssinia Bank, Addis International Bank, Awash Bank, Birhan Bank, Bunna International Bank, Cooperative Bank of Oromia, Dashen Bank, Debub Global Bank, Enat Bank, Lion International Bank, Nib International Bank, Oromia International Bank, United Bank, Wegagen Bank, and Zemen Bank. Book values, rather than market values, of the financial variables were compiled from audited financial statements published in the annual reports of respective private commercial banks. Some relevant data for the study were also accessed from NBE. In this regard, the study has to depend on the availability of annualized figures in selecting the number of banks and also the period to be included in the study. Therefore, the study included 6 years’ data ranging from 2013/14 to 2018/19 for each private bank whose data is available in the specified periods. The collected data were analyzed both descriptively and using inferential statistics. Simple descriptive statistics on mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum values, and correlation coefficients of the variables of interest were given in the form of tables. Besides, a panel econometric approach to data analysis was conducted to identify the effect of capital structure (financial leverage) and other control variables on the profitability of Ethiopian private commercial banks. 3.2. Variables and hypothesis 3.2.1. Dependent (profitability) variables Existing literatures used various measures of profitability; financial ratios from the balance sheet and income statements, firm values based on information from stock markets, and Tobin’s q which mixes market and accounting values (Berger & Di Patti, 2006). Since market values are difficult to obtain, plenty of researches used book value financial ratios as measures of profitability such as ROA, ROE, earning per share (EPS), and net interest margin (NIM). Among others, Ercegovac et al. (2020), Obamuyi (2013), and Flamini et al. (2009) used ROA to measure bank profitability, and ROE employed by Abor (2005), Soana (2011), Yao et al. (2018), Rachdi (2013), Zeitun (2012), and Sufian (2011) applied both ROA and ROE. Some studies have also used interest margin ratios as profit proxies along with other indicators (Niresh, 2012). Saona (2016) and Owoputi et al. (2014) has employed net interest and profit margins together with ROA, ROE, return on deposit (ROD), and return on average equity (ROEA) to measure bank profitability while a study by Adesina and associates employed Before Tax Profit (BTP) as dependent variable for their OLS model (Adesina et al., 2015). ROA is the best and widely used measure of bank profitability given the relatively low equity of banks in developing counties (Flamini et al., 2009; Saona, 2016). It is used to measure the earning obtained from total assets or the ability of the management to earn profits from the banks’ financial and real assets (Obamuyi, 2013). In most studies, ROA is complemented by ROE (see Saona, 2016; Zeitun, 2012; Sufian, 2011). ROE is a financial ratio which measures the earning derived from equity if a bank. This ratio shows how the management of the bank is efficiently using the shareholders’ fund. This study used ROA as main measures of bank profitability provided that the limited off-balance sheet activities of commercial banks in Ethiopia which directly contributes to banks’ profitability evidenced by the low proportion of investment in the total asset (Trujillo-Ponce, 2012) and as ROE Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 6 of 24 disregard the risk of financial leverage (Athanasoglou et al., 2008). Moreover, if the tax rates differ across banks, it is advisable to use profit before tax rather than net profit (Siddik et al., 2017) as numerators of the ROA ratio. However, since the tax rates applied to Ethiopian commercial banks are the same, there is no problem in using net profit figures. Thus, ROA is the ratio of net profit to the total asset for this study. For robustness checks, however, ROE is used as a profitability variable. More importantly, the study used net interest margin, 2 net interest margin to total asset, as the measure of bank performance (profitability) following Demirgüç-Kunt and Huizinga (1999). All profitability measures were calculated using average total assets as a denominator. 3.2.2. Explanatory variables The main independent variables used as capital structure measure for the study are total debt ratio (TDR)—the ratio of total debt to total asset and short-term debt ratio (STDR)—the ratio of short-term debt to total asset. 3 Previous studies have used these ratios as explanatory determinants of firm profitability (Anafo et al., 2015; Gadzo & Asiamah, 2018; Musah, 2017; Salim & Yadav, 2012; Siddik et al., 2017; Zafar et al., 2016). Contradictory empirical results and theoretical explanations were found on the expected sign of the three measures of leverage on the profitability of banks. For instance, Siddik et al. (2017) found statistically significant negative impact of LRD and STD ratios on EPS of 22 banks in Bangladesh while Zafar et al. (2016) indicated a significant positive impact of STD and LTD and on ROA. A study by Marandu and Sibindi (2016), on the other hand, revealed insignificant impact of saving deposits among South African commercial banks. In the Ethiopian banking industry, amid large proportion of the banks’ earnings is from interest income on loans and advances which directly linked with their level of deposit and less vulnerability to liquidity problems, we expect positive and significant impact for both debt measures and bank profitability. Thus, the following hypotheses have been formulated: (1) Ho—1a: there is a statistically significant positive relationship between total debt and bank profitability, and (2) Ho—1b: there is a statistically significant positive relationship between short-term debt and bank profitability against the alternative hypothesis that all forms of leverage have no statistically significant effect on bank-level profitability. This hypothesis is in line with the agency cost theory while against the distress cost and picking order theories of capital structure. 3.2.3. Control variables Studies identified some important variables which influence the profitability of commercial banks besides the capital structure variables described above. These variables are included in this study as control variables to help the achievement of objectives and increase the precision of the estimated models. The variables are bank size, bank age, loan to deposit ratio, cost to income ratio, credit risk, and employee productivity. The properties and directions of impact for each control variable on profitability are explained below. 3.3. Bank size (SIZE) Size is an important determinant of firm profitability though the direction of its effect is ambiguous. According to the modern economic theory, efficiency is highly related to scale economics which might implies that large firms experiences high efficiency and profitability (Al-Harbi, 2019; Regehr & Sengupta, 2016; Siddik et al., 2017; Sufian & Habibullah, 2009). Thus, large banks are expected to generate relatively higher profit than small banks. This is partly due to portfolio diversification in earning sources and the economic advantage of scale (Yao et al., 2018). Moreover, larger banks tend to get abnormal profits in a monopolistic type of market (Flamini et al., 2009). Amid bureaucratic and other reasons, on the other hand, the effect of size could be negative for extremely large banks (Athanasoglou et al., 2008) while Marandu and Sibindi (2016), based on the trade-off theory, argued that large banks are more diversified and less exposed to the risk of bankruptcy costs. Yao et al. (2018) and Regehr and Sengupta (2016) also found a positive but non-linear (decreasing) relationship between bank size and profitability. In due recognition of its scale and efficiency effects, a positive and significant effect of bank size on Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 7 of 24 Table 5. Unit root test results ROA ROE NIMA TDR STDR SIZE AGE LDR CIR CR EP LLC 4.91* −5.21* −9.59* −18.69* 0.838 −11.45* −7.99* −18.42* −22.42* −85.13* −7.46* F-ADF 62.69* 71.81* 47.32** 63.90* 47.20** 18.90 176.5** 76.39* 110.2* 25.64 43.61*** HT —0.33* 0.06* 0.29* 0.04* −1.33* 0.91 0.42*** 0.20* 0.16* 0.33* 0.41** Note: LLC is the Levin et al. (2002) panel unit root test. F-ADF is the Maddala and Wu (1999) Fisher-ADF panel unit root test. HT is Harris-Tzavalis panel unit-root test. *. **, and *** are significance levels at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 14 of 24 Unlike the finding of Zeitun (2012) on Islamic and conventional banks in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, during the period 2002–2009, this study revealed a significant positive effect of age on profitability in the three models, except for model (3) in which its impact is not statistically significant. This might be because older firms are in a better position than young banks in most bank performance measurement KPIs, such as customer base, deposit, and loans and advances, which will boost their profitability. More importantly, financial intermediation skills and the resulting efficiency gains can be acquired through learning by doing. Liquidity, measured by the ratio of total loans and advance to total deposits, is one of the most influential variables of bank performance. Concerning this variable, a positive and significant relationship with profitability is confirmed by this study for all regression models. The estimated coefficient for the loan to deposit ratio indicates that an increase in the ratio is significantly associated with higher level of bank profitability. The finding gives elaboration on the presence of trade-off between liquidity and profitability amongst Ethiopian private banks; more resources kept aside to meet future withdrawal demands greatly hampered the profitability position of banks. Thus, banks need Table 6. Panel fixed effect estimation results (dependent variables ROA and NIMA) ROA NIMA (1) (2) (3) (4) TDR 0.0382*** (0.0022) / / 0.0474*** (0.0018) / / STDR / / 0.0362*** (0.0020) / / 0.0449*** (0.0016) SIZE −0.0041*** (0.0010) −0.0036*** (0.0010) 0.0034** (0.0014) 0.0040*** (0.0014) AGE 0.0001* (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001) 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.0003* (0.0002) LDR 0.0082** (0.0040) 0.0081** (0.0035) 0.0160* (0.0094) 0.0159* (0.0089) CIR −0.0609*** (0.0152) −0.0532*** (0.0146) −0.0096 (0.0092) −0.0003 (0.0090) CR 0.1486** (0.0748) 0.1298** (0.0583) 0.2736*** (0.0612) 0.2506*** (0.0818) EP 0.0522** (0.0259) 0.0542** (0.0269) −0.0020 (0.0164) 0.0002 (0.0163) Cons 0.0575*** (0.0096) 0.0524*** (0.0094) −0.0383*** (0.0115) −0.0447*** (0.0103) sigma_u 0.0063 0.0045 0.0080 0.0067 sigma_e 0.0034 0.0033 0.0045 0.0044 rho 0.7733 0.6567 0.7571 0.7042 Log-Likelihood 421.97 425.87 394.74 398.89 F-test 11,609.41 (p < 0.000) 2,146.96 (p < 0.000) 1,078.58 (p < 0.000) 1,032.26 (p < 0.000) R 2 0.938 0.943 0.900 0.908 Adjusted R 2 0.933 0.938 0.892 0.901 Hausman-test for FE 110.58 (p = 0.000) 38.38 (p = 0.000) 45.26 (p = 0.000) 24.52 (p = 0.000) N 96 96 96 96 Note: The table reports panel fixed effect regression estimates of capital structure and other bank specific (control variables) determinants of bank profitability. Model (1) and (3) uses total debt ratio (TDR) whereas model (2) and (4) uses short-term debt ratio (STDR) as measures of capital structure, respectively. Values in parenthesis are heteroscedasticity corrected standard errors of coefficient estimates. ***, **, and * represent significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 15 of 24 managerial skills in balancing the two, ensuring adequate liquidity without affecting the banks’ performance. The result corroborated with the findings of (Le & Phan, 2017), Molyneux and Thornton (1992), and Alexiou & Sofoklis, 2009) while in contrast with Liu and Wilson (2010) which find a negative correlation between loan to asset ratio and ROA and ROE. Operational efficiency has also found to be an important determinant of bank-level performance. Thus, this study used the cost to income ratio as a proxy for bank operational efficiency. In this study, results are mixed regarding the impact of cost to income ratio and profitability; positive and highly significant relationship with ROA and statistically insignificant linear bond with NIMA. This implies that management efficiency in managing costs adequately is necessary to advance the profitability for Ethiopian private banks (at least in the ROA model) and the more operationally efficient the banks are the higher will be their profitability. Our finding is in line with many bank performance studies (Al-Harbi, 2019; Trujillo-Ponce, 2012; Alexiou & Sofoklis, 2009), but against the finding of Demirgüç-Kunt and Huizinga (1999). Against our prior expectations, the credit risk (CR) has a positive relationship with bank profitability and is statistically significant at least at 5% level in all regression models, suggesting that banks with higher credit risk exhibit higher profitability. The positive impact of credit risk on bank profitability could be explained by the fact that higher credit risk should improve bank incomes since loans are risky and, hence, the highest-yielding type of assets. Thus, Ethiopian private banks implement risktaking strategies in their attempt to maximize profits. On the other hand, since the Ethiopian banking industry in general and private banks, in particular, have relatively less non-performing loans compared to SSA countries or other developed countries, the management’s risk appetite might be increasing from time to time. For the Ethiopian commercial banks, Rao and Lakew (2012) found an insignificant effect for credit risk which may confirm a negative sign for separate consideration private banks that have lower level of loan loss provisions than state-owned banks. Aligned to Athanasoglou et al. (2008), employees’ productivity meets our expectations at least with ROA. The regression results which used ROA as a measure of bank profitability confirm that higher employees’ productivity is positively and significantly associated with high profitability. This result indicates that as higher employee productivity generates more income, part of this income might be translated to higher profits. The coefficient estimates of models (3) and (4), which employed NIMA as a dependent variable, however, does not confirm a significant relationship between staff productivity and bank profitability. 4.4. Robustness check The study has performed different sensitivity analysis to check the robustness of the regression outputs presented above. To this end, OLS and random effect (RE) models are estimated and presented in columns 2, 4, 5 and 7 of Tables A1 and A2 in the appendix part. With the exception of bank age and credit risk, the regression models revealed almost similar results, confirming the robustness of regression outputs. Particularly, the RE model closely follows the fixed effect (FE) model which strongly indicates panel specific variations. The study has also performed regressions using ROE as a proxy measure of profitability in the model and the findings continued to remain robust, but do not pass all model specification tests, implying ROE is not an important measure of bank profitability, at least for our case and dataset. 5. Conclusion The study empirically tests capital structure as determinant of performance among the Ethiopian private commercial banks using most recent available data covering 2013/14 to 2018/19 and employing robust regression estimations; panel fixed effect regression analysis. This study contributes by studying profitability and its determinants in a more comprehensive way. First, unlike most studies which use the capital adequacy ratio as a proxy for capital structure, this study used debt to total asset ratio as capital structure variable and further cascade the variable to total debt (total deposit) ratio and short-term debt ratio (saving and demand deposits) to have a clear Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 16 of 24 understanding on the topic. This approach is quiet appropriate in bank performance study and used by many empirical studies in Africa (see Abor, 2005; Musah, 2017 among others). Second, besides the traditional measures of bank profitability, ROA and ROE, the study includes NIMA ratio (NIM divided by total asset) as an additional profitability measure. The findings of the econometric model estimations revealed that capital structure as measured by total debt ratio and short-term debt ratio has a significant positive impact on bank profitability. Size, however, has a negative and significant impact on the private bank’s profitability while the impact of bank age is significantly positive for most model estimates. Moreover, banks with relatively high loan to deposit ratios have higher profit than those with a lower proportion of loans relative to their deposits. Cost income ratio, the inverse of operational efficiency, affects profitability in a negative and significant way for the ROA models while the estimates of credit risk implying that Ethiopian private commercial banks are boosting their profits by taking risks. This might be due to the growing trend of the loan to deposit ratio of most commercial banks in the industry. The study has also found mixed results regarding the impact of employees’ productivity; a positive and significant impact for ROA models and statistically insignificant coefficient estimates for NIM models. The findings present implications for the long-lasting debate on capital structure and bank performance using the Ethiopian private banking industry as the case study. The study enables policy makers, bank practitioners and the executive managements’ to critically scrutinize significant determinants of profitability and take corrective actions accordingly. While STD, TD, loan to deposit ratios and credit risk variables revealed significantly positive impact on private banks’ profitability, prudent regulatory requirements on liquidity and credit risk management shall be formulated by the governing body to maintain the stability the financial system in general and the banking industry in particular. Beyond its far-reaching implication for the banking industry in general and private banks in particular, the study has three major limitations that need to be considered in future research endeavors. First, amid the primary objective of the study is to identify the empirical relationship between capital structure and profitability, industry and macroeconomic variables such as competition, economic growth, inflation were not included. Secondly, as many studies on bank profitability, this study has depended on measurable variables while non-measurable variables (bank governance, the regulatory environment, social-political conditions) are excluded from the analysis. Last but not least, the study depends on the book values of variables included in the model though market values might provide a different estimation results and policy recommendations. Thus, addressing the above mentioned limitation in future research undertakings could improve our understanding of the issue. Funding The author did not received any direct and indirect funding for this research. Author details Zemenu Amare Ayalew 1 E-mail: [email protected] 1 Senior Research Officer, Strategy and Innovation Department, Dashen Bank S.C. Citation information Cite this article as: Capital structure and profitability: Panel data evidence of private banks in Ethiopia, Zemenu Amare Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736. Notes 1. Hailu’s study is master’s thesis that is not yet published in any journal. 2. Net interest margin = (Interest income—Interest expense)/Average Total Asset 3. Total debt ratio (time deposit) is not included in the model since its insignificant share from the total deposit and most private banks’ appetite to demand deposits have been declining in recent periods provided that time deposit is an expensive type of deposit. 4. According to Bourke (1989) liquidity is the ratio of liquid assets to total assets while loan to deposit ration can be used as a reciprocal of liquidity. 5. It is also possible to consider one-way error component models that follow the same procedure as the two-ways error components models describe above. Most studies and this study depend on the one-way error component models. 6. For robustness check three cases were also estimated using ROE as a dependent variable and presented in the appendix section of the paper. 7. Similarly, the balance sheet of Ethiopian private banks evidenced that the loans and deposits constitute large proportion of the assets and liabilities, respectively. 8. The result confirmed significant bank-specific effects based on the (F-test statistic = 76.1 and Prob. (F) = 0.000) while time-specific effects are insignificant. 9. Estimation based on ROA as profitability indicator has also performed, but the results are found to be inferior as the coefficient estimates are inconsistent to ROA and NIMA regression results and relatively poor specification test results. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 17 of 24 Disclosure statement The author declares absence of competing interest related to this research paper. References Abdullah, H., & Tursoy, T. (2019). Capital structure and firm performance: Evidence of Germany under IFRS adoption. Review of Managerial Science, 15, 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00344-5 Abor, J. (2005). The effect of capital structure on profitability: An empirical analysis of listed firms in Ghana. The Journal of Risk Finance, 6(5), 438–445. https://doi. org/10.1108/15265940510633505 Adelopo, I., Lloydking, R., & Tauringana, V. (2018). Determinants of bank profitability before, during, and after the financial crisis. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 14(4), 378–398. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJMF-07-2017-0148 Adesina, J. B., Nwidobie, B. M., & Adesina, O. O. (2015). Capital structure and financial performance in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 5(2), 21–31. https://www.academia.edu/ download/42966508/Jurnal_2.pdf Agrawal, A., & Knoeber, C. R. (1996). Firm performance and mechanisms to control agency problems between managers and shareholders. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 31(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331397 Alexiou, C., & Sofoklis, V. (2009). Determinants of bank profitability: Evidence from the Greek banking sector. Economic Annals, 54(182), 93–118. https://doi.org/10. 2298/EKA0982093A Al-Harbi, A. (2019). The determinants of conventional banks profitability in developing and underdeveloped OIC countries. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 24(47), 4–28. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JEFAS-05-2018-0043 Alonso, P. D. A., Iturriaga, F. J. L., & Sanz, J. A. R. (2005). Financial decisions and growth opportunities: A Spanish firm’s panel data analysis. Applied Financial Economics, 15(6), 391–407. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09603100500039201 Ameur, I. G. B., & Mhiri, S. M. (2013). Explanatory factors of bank performance evidence from Tunisia. International Journal, 2(1), 1–11. http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.671. 7188&rep=rep1&type=pdf Amidu, M. (2007). Determinants of capital structure of banks in Ghana: An empirical approach. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 17465260710720255 Anafo, S. A., Amponteng, E., & Yin, L. (2015). The impact of capital structure on profitability of banks listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(16), 26–34. Anarfo, E. B., & Appiahene, E. (2017). The impact of capital structure on banks’ profitability in Africa. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 17(2), 55–66. http://www. na-businesspress.com/JAF/Anarfo_abstract.html Anbar, A., & Alper, D. (2011). Bank specific and macroeconomic determinants of commercial bank profitability: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(2), 139–152. https:// ssrn.com/abstract=1831345 Angbazo, L. (1997). Commercial bank net interest margins, default risk, interest-rate risk, and off-balance sheet banking. Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(1), 55–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(96)00025-8 Athanasoglou, P. P., Brissimis, S. N., & Delis, M. D. (2008). Bank-specific, industry-specific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 18(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. intfin.2006.07.001 Atiyet, B. A. (2012). The impact of financing decision on the shareholder value creation. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4(1), 44. https://media.proquest. com/media/pq/classic/doc/2885143071/fmt/pi/rep/ NONE?_s=S9RTqbSXSde%2FV8uqia36ncRRjC8%3D Awunyo-Vitor, D., & Badu, J. (2012). Capital structure and performance of listed banks in Ghana. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 12(5). http://hdl.handle.net/ 123456789/6103 Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex PO19 8SQ. Bandt, D., Camara, B., Pessarossi, P., & Rose, M. (2014). Does the capital structure affect banks’ profitability? Pre-and post financial crisis evidence from significant banks in France (No. 12). Banque de France. https:// econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:bfr:decfin:12 Barclay, M. J., Smith, C. W., & Watts, R. L. (1995). The determinants of corporate leverage and dividend policies. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 7(4), 4–19. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.1995.tb00259.x Berger, A. N., & Bouwman, C. H. (2013). How does capital affect bank performance during financial crises? Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 146–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.02.008 Berger, A. N., & Di Patti, E. B. (2006). Capital structure and firm performance: A new approach to testing agency theory and an application to the banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(4), 1065–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2005.05.015 Birru, M. W. (2016). The impact of capital structure on financial performance of commercial banks in Ethiopia. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 6, 8. http://www.journalofbusiness.org/ index.php/GJMBR/article/view/2121 Bourke, P. (1989). Concentration and other determinants of bank profitability in Europe, North America and Australia. Journal of Banking & Finance, 13(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(89)90020-4 Brealey, R., Leland, H. E., & Pyle, D. H. (1977). Informational asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation. The Journal of Finance, 32(2), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1977.tb03277.x Căpraru, B., & Ihnatov, I. (2014). Banks’ profitability in selected Central and Eastern European countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 16, 587–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00844-2 Ćurak, M., Poposki, K., & Pepur, S. (2012). Profitability determinants of the Macedonian banking sector in changing environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 44, 406–416. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.045 Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Huizinga, H. (1999). Determinants of commercial bank interest margins and profitability: Some international evidence. The World Bank Economic Review, 13(2), 379–408. https://doi.org/10. 1093/wber/13.2.379 Dierkens, N. (1991). Information asymmetry and equity issues. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 26 (2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2331264 Dietrich, A., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). The determinants of commercial banking profitability in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 54(3), 337–354. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.qref.2014.03.001 Dumičić, M., & Rizdak, T. (2013). Determinants of banks’ net interest margins in Central and Eastern Europe. Financial Theory and Practice, 37(1), 1–30. https://doi. org/10.3326/fintp.37.1.1 Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 18 of 24 Eckbo, B. E. (1986). Valuation effects of corporate debt offerings. Journal of Financial Economics (JFE), 15(1– 2), 119–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(86) 90052-8 Ercegovac, R., Klinac, I., & Zdrilić, I. (2020). Bank specific determinants of EU banks profitability after 2007 financial crisis. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 25(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi.25.1.5 Flamini, V., Schumacher, M. L., & McDonald, M. C. A. (2009). The determinants of commercial bank profitability in Sub-Saharan Africa (No. 9-15). International Monetary Fund. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.372.8743&rep=rep1&type=pdf Frank, M. Z., & Goyal, V. K. (2003). Testing the pecking order theory of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 67(2), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0304-405X(02)00252-0 Frank, M. Z., & Goyal, V. K. (2009). Capital structure decisions: Which factors are reliably important? Financial Management, 38(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1755-053X.2009.01026.x Gadzo, S. G., & Asiamah, S. K. (2018). Assessment of the relationship between leverage and performance: An empirical study of unlisted banks in Ghana. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 10(10), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.5897/JEIF2018.0920 Graham, J. R. (2006). A review of taxes and corporate finance. Foundations and Trades in Finance, 1(7), 573–691. https://doi.org/10.1561/0500000010 Hailu, A. (2015). The Impact of Capital Structure on Profitability of Commercial Banks in Ethiopia (Master’s Thesis, Addis Ababa University). http://197. 156.93.91/handle/123456789/2040 Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (1991). The theory of capital structure. The Journal of Finance, 46(1), 297–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1991.tb03753.x Idode, P. E., Adeleke, T. M., Ogunlowore, A. J., & Ashogbon, O. S. (2014). Influence of capital structure on profitability: Empirical Evidence from listed Nigerian banks. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16 (11), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-161142228 Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Management behavior, agency costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329. https://www.jstor. org/stable/1818789 Le, T. P. V., & Phan, T. B. N. (2017). Capital structure and firm performance: Empirical evidence from a small transition country. Research in International Business and Finance, 42, 710–726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ribaf.2017.07.012 Lelissa, T. B. (2014). The determinants of Ethiopian commercial banks performance. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(14), 52–63. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7 Liu, H., & Wilson, J. O. (2010). The profitability of banks in Japan. Applied Financial Economics, 20(24), 1851–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603107.2010.526577 Long, M. S., & Malitz, I. B. (1985). Investment patterns and financial leverage. In Corporate Capital Structures in the United States (pp. 325-352). Edited by BM Friedman, University of Chicago Press. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631 Marandu, K. R., & Sibindi, A. B. (2016). Capital structure and profitability: An empirical study of South African banks. Corporate Ownership and Control, 14(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv14i1p1 Miller, M. H. (1977). Debt and taxes. The Journal of Finance, 32(2), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2326758 Miller, M. H., & Rock, K. (1985). Dividend policy under asymmetric information. The Journal of Finance, 40 (4), 1031–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261. 1985.tb02362.x Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1809766 Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1963). Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction. The American Economic Review, 53(3), 433–443. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/1809167 Mohammadzadeh, M., Rahimi, F., Rahimi, F., Aarabi, S. M., & Salamzadeh, J. (2013). The effect of capital structure on the profitability of pharmaceutical companies the case of Iran. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research: IJPR, 12(3), 573. https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813274/ Molyneux, P., & Thornton, J. (1992). Determinants of European bank profitability: A note. Journal of Banking & Finance, 16(6), 1173–1178. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0378-4266(92)90065-8 Musah, A. (2017). The impact of capital structure on profitability of commercial banks in Ghana. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 6(1), 21–36. http:// doi:10.18488/journal.8.2018.61.21.36 Myers, S. C. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. The Journal of Finance, 39(3), 574–592. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03646.x Myers, S. C. (2001). Capital structure. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1257/ jep.15.2.81 Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0304-405X(84)90023-0 Neely, M. C., & Wheelock, D. C. (1997). Why does bank performance vary across states? Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 79(2), 27. https://files. stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/97/03/ 9703mn.pdf Niresh, J. A. (2012). Capital structure and profitability in Srilankan banks. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(13). https://journalofbusiness. org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/768 Obamuyi, T. M. (2013). Determinants of banks’ profitability in a developing economy: Evidence from Nigeria. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 4(8), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.15388/ omee.2013.4.2.14251 Olokoyo, F. O. (2013). Capital structure and corporate performance of Nigerian quoted firms: A panel data approach. African Development Review, 25(3), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8268.2013.12034.x Owoputi, J. A., Olawale, F. K., & Adeyefa, F. A. (2014). Bank specific, industry specific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 10(25), 408–423. https://core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/236413203.pdf Ozili, P. K. (2017). Bank profitability and capital regulation: Evidence from listed and non-listed banks Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 19 of 24 in Africa. Journal of African Business, 18(2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2017. 1247329 Rachdi, H. (2013). What determines the profitability of banks during and before the international financial crisis? Evidence from Tunisia. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 2(4), 330–337. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1.671.5105&rep=rep1&type=pdf Rao, K. R. M., & Lakew, T. B. (2012). Determinants of profitability of commercial banks in a developing country: Evidence from Ethiopia. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Management Research, 2(3), 1–20. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20180413011506id_/http://www.tjprc.org/publishpa pers/–1346919100-1-Accounting%20-%20IJAFMR% 20-%20Determinants%20-%20Tekeste%20Berhanu %201.pdf Regehr, K., & Sengupta, R. (2016). Has the relationship between bank size and profitability changed? Economic Review (01612387), 101(2), 49-72. https:// www.communitybanking.org/~/media/files/communi tybanking/2016/session2_paper3_sengupta.pdf Ross, S. A. (1977). Informational asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation: Discussion. The Journal of Finance, 32(2), 412–415. https://doi. org/10.2307/2326773 Salim, M., & Yadav, R. (2012). Capital structure and firm performance: Evidence from Malaysian listed companies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.105 Saona, P. (2016). Intra-and extra-bank determinants of Latin American Banks’ profitability. International Review of Economics & Finance, 45, 197–214. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2016.06.004 Short, B. K. (1979). The relation between commercial bank profit rates and banking concentration in Canada, Western Europe, and Japan. Journal of Banking & Finance, 3(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378- 4266(79)90016-5 Shyam-Sunder, L., & Myers, S. C. (1999). Testing static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(2), 219–244. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(98)00051-8 Siddik, M., Alam, N., Kabiraj, S., & Joghee, S. (2017). Impacts of capital structure on performance of banks in a developing economy: Evidence from Bangladesh. International Journal of Financial Studies, 5(2), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs5020013 Smith, J. C. W., & Warner, J. B. (1979). On financial contracting: An analysis of bond covenants. Journal of Financial Economics, 7(2), 117–161. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0304-405X(79)90011-4 Soana, M. G. (2011). The relationship between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance in the banking sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 011-0894-x Sufian, F. (2011). Profitability of the Korean banking sector: Panel evidence on bank-specific and macroeconomic determinants. Journal of Economics and Management, 7(1), 43–72. Sufian, F., & Habibullah, M. S. (2009). Determinants of bank profitability in a developing economy: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 10(3), 207–217. https:// doi.org/10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.207-217 Titman, S., & Wessels, R. (1988). The determinants of capital structure choice. The Journal of Finance, 43(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb02585.x Trujillo-Ponce, A. (2012). What determines the profitability of banks? Evidence from Spain. Accounting & Finance, 53(2), 561–586. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467- 629X.2011.00466.x Uremadu, S. O. (2012). Bank capital structure, liquidity and profitability evidence from the Nigerian banking system. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 2(1), 98–113. Warner, J. B. (1977). Bankruptcy costs: Some evidence. The Journal of Finance, 32(2), 337–347. https://doi. org/10.2307/2326766 Yao, H., Haris, M., & Tariq, G. (2018). Profitability determinants of financial institutions: Evidence from banks in Pakistan. International Journal of Financial Studies, 6(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs6020053 Zafar, M. R., Zeeshan, F., & Ahmed, R. (2016). Impact of capital structure on banking profitability. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 6(3), 186–193. https://www.academia. edu/download/43927492/Impact_of_Capital_ Structure_on_Banking_Profitability.pdf Zeitun, R. (2012). Determinants of Islamic and conventional banks performance in GCC countries using panel data analysis. Global Economy and Finance Journal, 5(1), 53–72. https://www.academia.edu/download/ 34480864/Determinants_of_Islamic_and_conven tional_banks.pdf Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 20 of 24 Appendix Table A1. Multilevel regression results using ROA as a dependent variable Variables Case-I Case-II OLS FE RE OLS FE RE TDR 0.0351*** (0.0036) 0.0382*** (0.0022) 0.0377*** (0.0035) / / / / / / STDR / / / / / / 0.0330*** (0.0026) 0.0362*** (0.0020) 0.0352*** (0.0024) SIZE −0.0026*** (0.0006) −0.0041*** (0.0010) −0.0025*** (0.0008) −0.0033*** (0.0006) −0.0036*** (0.0010) −0.0031*** (0.0008) AGE 0.0001 (0.0001) 0.0001* (0.0001) 0.0001** (0.0000) 0.0001 (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001) 0.0002*** (0.0001) LDR 0.0075 (0.0053) 0.0082** (0.0040) 0.0094** (0.0045) 0.0079 (0.0051) 0.0081** (0.0035) 0.0093** (0.0043) CIR −0.0721*** (0.0092) −0.0609*** (0.0152) −0.0726*** (0.0128) −0.0590*** (0.0086) −0.0532*** (0.0146) −0.0588*** (0.0118) CR 0.0774 (0.0599) 0.1486** (0.0748) 0.1043** (0.0526) 0.0137 (0.0519) 0.1298** (0.0583) 0.0677 (0.0533) EP 0.0076 (0.0094) 0.0522** (0.0259) 0.0123 (0.0171) 0.0291*** (0.0072) 0.0542** (0.0269) 0.0334** (0.0130) Cons 0.0622*** (0.0091) 0.0575*** (0.0096) 0.0572*** (0.0119) 0.0626*** (0.0089) 0.0524*** (0.0094) 0.0561*** (0.0119) sigma_u 0.0063 0.0019 0.0045 0.0020 sigma_e 0.0034 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033 rho 0.7733 0.2430 0.6567 0.2743 Log- Likelihood 380.53 421.97 381.93 425.87 F-test/Waldtest 27.3694 (p < 0.000) 11,609.41 (p < 0.000) 7297.61 (p < 0.000) 45.47 (p < 0.000) 2,146.96 (p < 0.000) 6662.30 (p < 0.000) R 2 0.904 0.938 0.918 0.907 0.943 0.922 Adjusted R 2 0.896 0.933 0.898 0.938 N96 96 96 96 96 Note: The table reports panel fixed effect regression estimates of capital structure and other bank specific (control variables) as determinants for bank profitability. In Case-I we use total debt ratio (TDR) whereas in Case-II the study uses short-term debt ratio (STDR) as measures of capital structure, respectively. For the first case, the test statistics for the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier Chi 2 test for random effects is 15.33 with Pro-Chi 2 (p = 0.0000 < 1%) and the Hausman specification test statistics is 110.58 with Pro-Chi2 (p = 0.0000 < 1%)(Ho: The random effective model is efficient). For the second case, the test statistics for the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier Chi 2 test for random effects is 15.78 with Pro-Chi 2 (p = 0.0000 < 1%) and the Hausman specification test statistics is 38.38 with Pro-Chi2 (p = 0.000 < 1%)(Ho: The random effective model is efficient). Values in parenthesis are heteroscedasticity corrected standard errors of coefficient estimates. ***, **, and * represent significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 21 of 24 Table A2. Multilevel regression results using NIMA as a dependent variable Variables Case 1 Case 2 OLS FE RE OLS FE RE TDR 0.0465*** (0.0026) 0.0474*** (0.0018) 0.0478*** (0.0029) / / / / / / STDR / / / / / / 0.0434*** (0.0017) 0.0449*** (0.0016) 0.0442*** (0.0021) SIZE 0.0023*** (0.0007) 0.0034** (0.0014) 0.0036*** (0.0007) 0.0013* (0.0007) 0.0040*** (0.0014) 0.0031*** (0.0007) AGE 0.0002** (0.0001) 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.0002** (0.0001) 0.0003*** (0.0001) 0.0003* (0.0002) 0.0003** (0.0001) LDR 0.0257** (0.0104) 0.0160* (0.0094) 0.0214** (0.0097) 0.0260** (0.0103) 0.0159* (0.0089) 0.0207** (0.0094) CIR −0.0229** (0.0093) −0.0096 (0.0092) −0.0216* (0.0124) −0.0055 (0.0094) −0.0003 (0.0090) −0.0042 (0.0115) CR 0.1718** (0.0712) 0.2736*** (0.0612) 0.2108** (0.0912) 0.0887 (0.0771) 0.2506*** (0.0818) 0.1720 (0.1116) EP −0.0737*** (0.0106) −0.0020 (0.0164) −0.0525** (0.0225) −0.0448*** (0.0083) 0.0002 (0.0163) −0.0251 (0.0180) Cons −0.0128 (0.0096) −0.0383*** (0.0115) −0.0285*** (0.0103) −0.0123 (0.0096) −0.0447*** (0.0103) −0.0314*** (0.0097) sigma_u 0.0080 0.0031 0.0067 0.0033 sigma_e 0.0045 0.0045 0.0044 0.0044 rho 0.7571 0.3128 0.7042 0.3626 Log- Likelihood 354.04 394.74 358.16 398.89 F-test/Wald test 56.415 (p<0.000) 1,078.58 (p<0.000) 6974.04 (p<0.000) 106.54 (p<0.000) 1,032.26 (p<0.000) 7105.97 (p<0.000) R 2 0.854 0.900 0. 805 0.866 0.908 0.804 Adjusted R 2 0.843 0.892 0.856 0.901 N96 96 96 96 96 96 Note: The table reports panel fixed effect regression estimates of capital structure and other bank specific (control variables) as determinants for bank profitability. In Case –I we use total debt ratio (TDR) whereas in Case –II the study uses short-term debt ratio (STDR) as measures of capital structure, respectively. For the first case, the test statistics for the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier Chi 2 test for random effects is 10.05 with Pro-Chi 2 (p=0.0008 <1%) and the Hausman specification test statistics is 45.26 with Pro-Chi2 (p=0.0000 < 1%)(Ho: The random effective model is efficient). For the second case, the test statistics for the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier Chi 2 test for random effects is 12.24 with Pro-Chi 2 (p=0.0002 < 1%) and the Hausman specification test statistics is 24.52 with Pro-Chi2 (p=0.0009 < 1%) (Ho: The random effective model is efficient). Values in parenthesis are heteroscedasticity corrected standard errors of coefficient estimates. ***, **, and * represent significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 22 of 24 Table A3. Multilevel regression results using ROE as a dependent variable Variables Case 1 Case 2 OLS FE RE OLS FE RE TDR 0.0581*** (0.0199) −0.0642** (0.0278) 0.0073 (0.0262) / / / / / / STDR / / / / / / 0.0618*** (0.0221) −0.0550** (0.0250) 0.0173 (0.0240) SIZE 0.0746*** (0.0070) −0.0104 (0.0131) 0.0417*** (0.0097) 0.0731*** (0.0070) −0.0099 (0.0134) 0.0426*** (0.0093) AGE 0.0023* (0.0013) 0.0026** (0.0011) 0.0027* (0.0015) 0.0023* (0.0013) 0.0025** (0.0012) 0.0027* (0.0015) LDR −0.0308 (0.0521) 0.0343 (0.0339) 0.0211 (0.0307) −0.0267 (0.0512) 0.0343 (0.0340) 0.0213 (0.0308) CIR −0.7932*** (0.1251) −0.3314** (0.1528) −0.6406*** (0.1356) −0.7737*** (0.1241) −0.3542** (0.1483) −0.6481*** (0.1339) CR 2.2058* (1.1350) −0.0801 (1.0833) 0.7432 (1.1857) 2.0762* (1.1162) −0.0161 (1.1335) 0.7818 (1.1899) EP −0.0778 (0.0742) 0.9540*** (0.3293) 0.2000 (0.1915) −0.0527 (0.0695) 0.9226*** (0.3219) 0.1735 (0.1748) Cons 0.0419 (0.0922) 0.4390*** (0.0937) 0.2183** (0.0957) 0.0418 (0.0904) 0.4416*** (0.0941) 0.2123** (0.0970) sigma_u 0.1362 0.0469 0.1372 0.0470 sigma_e 0.0439 0.0439 0.0443 0.0443 rho 0.9058 0.5333 0.9058 0.5296 Log- Likelihood 126.12 177.01 127.24 176.21 F-test/Wald test 24.75 (p<0.000) 33.8210 (p<0.000) 99.35 (p<0.000) 25.496 (p<0.000) 30.2870 (p<0.000) 91.59 (p<0.000) R 2 0.659 0.659 0.559 0.667 0.654 0.612 Adjusted R 2 0.632 0.632 0.640 0.626 N96 96 96 96 96 96 Note: The table reports panel fixed effect regression estimates of capital structure and other bank specific (control variables) as determinants for bank profitability. In Case –I we use total debt ratio (TDR) whereas in Case–II the study uses short-term debt ratio (STDR) as measures of capital structure, respectively. For the first case, the test statistics for the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier Chi 2 test for random effects is 13.21 with Pro-Chi 2 (p=0.0001 <1%) and the Hausman specification test statistics is 17.41 with Pro-Chi2 (p=0.0150 < 5%)(Ho: The random effective model is efficient). For the second case, the test statistics for the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier Chi 2 test for random effects is 13,14 with Pro-Chi 2 (p=0.0001 < 1%) and the Hausman specification test statistics is 6.54 with Pro-Chi2 (p=0.4779 < 5%)(Ho: The random effective model is efficient). Values in parenthesis are heteroscedasticity corrected standard errors of coefficient estimates. ***, **, and * represent significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Ayalew, Cogent Economics & Finance (2021), 9: 1953736 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1953736 Page 23 of 24