Determinants of Capital Structure: Does Growth Opportunity Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the impact of growth opportunities on the capital structure of South African banks, utilising panel data from registered banking institutions covering the period from 2014 to 2023. While a substantial body of literature examines the relationship between growth prospects and corporate leverage, limited attention has been paid to this interaction within the banking sector, particularly in emerging economies. By employing the dynamic panel Generalised Method of Moments (GMM) estimator to address endogeneity concerns, the analysis reveals a statistically significant positive relationship between growth opportunities and both the total debt ratio (TDR) and the long-term debt ratio (LTDR). In contrast, a significant negative association is found between growth opportunities and the short-term debt ratio (STDR). The findings suggest that banks with stronger growth prospects are more inclined to utilise long-term financing, possibly reflecting shareholder preferences for institutions with favourable future outlooks and lower refinancing risks. These results highlight the importance of aligning capital structure decisions with an institution’s growth trajectory, while indicating that this relationship shifts depending on the maturity of the debt considered. This study contributes to the existing literature by contextualising capital structure decisions within the framework of growth opportunities. Structure theory within the context of the banking sector in a developing market offers practical insights for strategic financial planning and regulatory policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".