© 2017 Nicolaus Copernicus University. All rights reserved. http://www.dem.umk.pl/dem D Y N A M I C E C O N O M E T R I C M O D E L S DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/DEM.2017.007 Vol. 17 (2017) 115−127 Submitted October 25, 2017 ISSN (online) 2450-7067 Accepted December 28, 2017 ISSN (print) 1234-3862 Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka * Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach A b s t r a c t. This study is to investigate the influence of the selected factors of the capital structure on the corporate performance. An empirical analysis covers a sample of 90 non- financial companies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, in the period of 2000–2015. The panel data models for two corporate performance measures such ROA and ROE were esti- mated. The company’s capital structure negatively affects its performance. It is in line with pecking order theory and previous studies on capital structure of Polish companies. K e y w o r d s: capital structure, efficiency, panel data modelling, ROA, ROE J E L Classification: G32 Introduction Chakravarty (1986) states that superior financial performance is a way to satisfy investors and could be represented by profitability, growth in sales and market value of the company. These three aspects complement each other (Santos, Brito, 2012). Profitability measures a company’s ability to generate returns. Growth reflects firm’s ability to enlarge its size. Increasing size, even at the same profitability level, lead to increase company’s abso- lute profit and cash generation. Larger size also can bring economies of * Correspondence to: Ewa Majerowska, Faculty of Management, University of Gdańsk, ul. Armii Krajowej 101, 81-824 Sopot, Poland, e-mail: ewa.majerowska@ug.edu.pl; Magda- lena Gostkowska-Drzewicka, Faculty of Management, University of Gdańsk, ul. Armii Kra- jowej 101, 81-824 Sopot, Poland, e-mail: mgostkowska@wzr.ug.edu.pl. Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 116 scale, leading to enhanced future profitability. Market value represents the external assessment and expectation of company’s future performance. It is postulated, that company’s value depends on its financing decisions (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Myers, 1977, 1984). It means that capital structure has a significant impact on corporate performance. It is also argued that profita- ble companies are less likely to depend on debt than less profitable ones. Moreover, it was found that companies with high growth opportunities have a high profitability ratio. Also asset structure and size of the firm were found as important factors affecting firm performance level. Therefore, one of the most important decisions that must be made by the financial managers is to choose the right combination of debt and equity capital that optimizes a corporate performance defined in terms of return on assets and equity. Moreover, it is necessary to identify the major factors influence the relationship between a company’s capital structure and its per- formance. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of the selected factors of the capital structure on the corporate performance of Polish companies listed on Warsaw Stock Exchange. Obtaining clear and comprehensive answers about the nature of the fac- tors shaping the corporate performance of Polish companies is difficult due to the small range of domestic research. Previous research on capital struc- ture of Polish companies showed that they prefer to finance with internal founds (e.g. Hamrol, Sieczko 2006; Wilimowska, Wilimowski 2010; Jędrzejczak-Gas, 2014). This is in line with pecking order theory, so it is assumed that: H1. A company’s leverage is expected to decrease its performance. H2. Growth opportunities affect a company’s performance positively. H3. There is a positive relationship between size and a company’s perfor- mance. H4. A company’s tangibility has a negative influence on its performance. An empirical analysis covers a sample of 90 non-financial companies traded on the Warsaw Stock Exchange, in the period of 2000–2015. The panel data models for two corporate performance measures such ROA and ROE were estimated. The paper is organized in following way: after intro- duction, the first section discusses the literature review on corporate perfor- mance. The second section presents the determinants of corporate perfor- mance. The third section presents dataset and methodology of the research. The fourth section shows the empirical models used to investigate the effect of capital structure determinants on corporate performance, and the last one concludes the paper. Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 117 1. The Literature Review on Corporate Performance Corporate performance is an ambiguous term and it is used interchange- ably with terms of business or firm performance. It appears in most branches of management and finance and it is of interest to both academic scholars and practicing managers. Cameron and Whetten (1983) state that the im- portance of performance in strategic management can be argued along three dimensions, i.e. theoretical, empirical and managerial. Theoretically, the concept of business performance is at the center of strategic management and finance. Empirically, many research studies employ the construct of performance to examine a variety of strategy content and process issues. The managerial importance of this category is all too evident in many prescrip- tions offered for performance improvement. Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) offered a scheme of three overlap- ping concentric circles with the largest one which is representing organiza- tional effectiveness. This broadest domain includes the medium circle repre- senting business performance. This one includes the inner circle representing financial performance. Santos and Brito (2012) state that business perfor- mance is a subset of organizational effectiveness that covers operational and financial outcomes. Corporate performance measures could be either finan- cial or operational. Financial performance, for example profit maximization, maximizing profit on assets and maximizing shareholders' benefits are at the core of the firm’s effectiveness. Operational performance could be measured by growth in sales and growth in market share. It provide a broad definition of performance and focus on the factors that ultimately lead to financial per- formance (Chakravarthy,1986; Hoffer and Sandberg, 1987). Corporate performance could be defined in context of accounting or market measures. The most commonly used corporate performance measures are return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE) and return on investment (ROI). They are financial ratios that are assumed to reflect the fulfillment of the economic goals of the company (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986). These indicators are used by many researchers (e.g. Rajan, Zingales, 1995; Nawaz et al., 2011; Addae, Nyarko-Baasi, Hughes, 2013; Gupta, 2015, Igbinosa, 2015). In the ,,value-based” approach market performance measures are more appropriate than accounting-based ratios (Hax and Majluf, 1984). Such indi- cators as price per share to the earnings per share (P/E), market value of equity to book value of equity (MBVR), and Tobin’s Q are often used in many studies (e.g. Rajan, Zingales, 1995; Demsetz, Villalonga, 2001; Zeitun, Tian, 2007; Van Essen et al., 2015). Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 118 2. Determinants of Corporate Performance The capital structure theories suggest that leverage level can have a ma- jor impact on corporate performance (Bandyopadhyay, Barua, 2016). Some of theoretical predictions on this effect are contradictory. Under framework of trade-off theory Lewellen and Roden (1995) showed that the total debt and the profitability of a company are positively related. Hadlock and James (2002) using a sample of 500 non-financial United States firms concluded that companies prefer debt financing because they anticipate higher returns from a higher debt level. Fama (1985) argued that bank borrowings could lead to increase in company’s performance, be- cause it avoids the high information costs incurred in public debt offerings through bonds issuance. Thus, companies relying more on bank loans are expected to be more profitable. The pecking order theory (Donaldson, 1961; Ross, 1977; Myers and Majluf, 1984) proposes a negative relationship, because companies prefer to finance with internal funds rather than debt ones. A negative relationship between capital structure and corporate performance (profitability) was also found by Kester (1986), Rajan and Zingales (1995) Wiwattanakantang (1999) and Chen, Strange (2005). The assumptions of trade-off theory and pecking order theory are often used to explain the factors that determine the capital structure. These factors also could be used to describe the corporate performance. Among these fac- tors the most frequently mentioned are: size of the firm, company’s tangibil- ity (asset structure), growth opportunities (e.g. Margaritis and Psilaki, 2010; Banerje and De, 2014; Yinusa, et al., 2016). A company’s profit is in line with its sales turnover. This is why it could be said that if a company’s sales increases, there is a probability that its prof- it will increase. Wagner (1995) argues that large companies leads to scale expansion. As a result of such expansion, a company becomes more profita- ble. Further research (Harvey et al., 2001) showed that firm size is signifi- cantly and nonlinearly related to profitability. It suggests that although big- ger companies are likely to experience higher profitability, revenue growth is likely to slow faster in larger firms. Tangibility refers to a company’s investments in tangible assets. If these investments are effective, the company’s performance improves. Ghosh (2008) found that the greater asset tangibility, the lower the scope for infor- mational asymmetries between insiders and outsiders. It allows for higher leverage with a concomitant positive effect on profitability. This relationship Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 119 is U-shaped. It suggests that greater increases in tangibility exerts a positive effect on profits, what is in line with trade-off theory. In turn, in line with pecking order theory there is a negative relationship between tangibility and company’s performance. High profits motivate com- panies to accumulate surpluses. They are invested in short-term securities. These funds can be spent to fund the investment. In such a situation, the company does not need to have large amounts assets in the form of collat- eral, as its investments are financed by cash from the sale of its short-term securities. Companies in the growth phase have a high performance ratio. They are able to generate profit from investment. So, growth opportunities are ex- pected to be positively related to a company’s performance. Literature also indicates other factors of corporate performance. There are age of the firm, risk, debt service capacity, dividend pay-out, develop- ment expenditures, degree of operating leverage, ownership structure and ownership type industry affiliation, macro factors (e.g. Bandyopadhyay and Barua, 2016; Margaritis and Psillaki, 2010; Banerje and De, 2014; Zeitun and Tian, 2007). 3. Dataset and Methodology The object of analysis are companies continuously listed on the main market of the Warsaw Stock Exchange in 2000–2015. There were 117 com- panies, including 6 from the sub-index WIG-20, 17 from the sub-index WIG-40, 22 from the sub-index WIG-80 and 72 not included in any of them. The affiliation of a company to a given sub-index was determined by its composition at the end of December 2015. In this analysis we omitted the fact that the company could change its size during the period of the analysis. Of the above companies only entities from the non-financial sector were included into research. Therefore, 16 companies were excluded from the sample. In addition, entities that did not submit complete financial state- ments were also rejected, i.e. 11 companies. Finally, 90 companies were qualified for the study, i.e. 77% of the pre-selected entities and the balanced panel was created. In this study we used four variables: growth opportunities, firm’s size and tangibility (asset structure) as determinants of corporate performance. Capital structure is measured by total debt ratio to total assets (LEVER- AGE). Growth opportunities are represented by growth of sales (GROWTH). The SIZE is measured by the growth of company's total assets. Asset structure is measured by assets tangibility (TANG), i.e. the ratio of Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 120 fixed assets to total assets. As a corporate performance measures we used return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). As it was mentioned, in the literature there are more factors that could influence the corporate per- formance. Due to the scope of this research only four factors out of all was taken into account. The selected factors are the factors of the capital struc- ture of companies. So the rest of them was omitted. The two variables, ROA and ROE are modelled using the panel data ap- proach. The proposed model takes a form: ititit titit TANGSIZE GROWTHLEVERAGEy     43 210 (1) where it y is the explained variable, represented by the ROA or ROE of i’th company in time t, 43210 ,,,,  are the structural parameters and the it  is the error term. The model will be estimated by the pooled OLS and using the fixed effects estimator and the random effects estimator. Application of three testes, that are the Chow F-test of the joint significance of group ef- fects, the Breusch-Pagan test and the Hausman test will allow for selecting the best model. The first of them tests that the pooled OLS is adequate, in favor of the fixed effects alternative, the second one tests that the pooled OLS is adequate, in favor of the random effects alternative. The null hypoth- esis of the last test states that the random effects estimator is consistent and more effective than the fixed effect estimator. 4. Empirical results 4.1. Performance of Companies Listed on WSE in 2000–2015 The fluctuations of ROE and ROA ratios in companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange in 2000–2015 were similar to each other through- out the period considered (Table 1). For this reason, the description focuses only on one of them, i.e. ROE. The value of the first quartile, calculated for ROE in companies listed on WSE, decreased systematically in 2000–2002. In 2002 it reached the lowest level in the whole period, i.e. –13,76%. It means that 25% of companies achieved a value of ROE not greater than – 13,76% in 2002. Starting from 2003, the ratio was increasing until 2007 when it reached 4,57%, i.e. the highest value in the whole period analysed. In subsequent years, the value of the ROE fluctuated. However, only in 2012–2013 it was negative (Table 1.). The value of ROE has been increasing since 2003 to 2007. Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 121 Table 1. Return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) in companies listed on WSE in 2000–2015 Years ROA(%) ROE(%) I quartile Median III quartile I quartile Median III quartile 2000 –2,76 2,71 5,67 –1,11 5,17 10,36 2001 –5,82 0,99 4,02 –9,12 2,07 6,09 2002 –4,29 1,76 3,99 –13,76 3,46 7,04 2003 0,61 3,24 6,11 0,97 5,85 12,64 2004 1,83 4,04 7,92 2,64 8,33 17,03 2005 1,03 4,22 9,39 0,54 7,92 16,11 2006 1,38 4,91 10,38 2,22 10,03 19,42 2007 2,69 5,49 10,69 4,75 9,50 17,72 2008 0,72 3,46 6,42 0,92 4,99 12,81 2009 0,60 3,42 6,91 0,80 4,84 10,39 2010 0,93 3,32 5,95 1,25 5,50 10,54 2011 1,05 4,62 6,39 1,61 6,68 10,89 2012 –0,73 2,43 5,14 –1,63 4,08 8,45 2013 0,01 2,71 6,88 –0,17 4,50 10,20 2014 1,33 3,78 6,71 1,25 6,06 11,63 2015 0,12 2,97 6,85 0,16 5,15 11,67 The median, calculated for ROE in the entities in 2000–2015, ranged from 2,07% in 2001 to 10,03% in 2006. A similar situation was noted for the third quartile of ROE. In 2001 and 2006, it was at the level of 6,09% and 19,42% respectively, which means that 25% of the companies achieved ROE not lower than the third quartile. The trends described above are related to the economic situation in Poland during the period considered. In the years when the companies achieved the highest profitability level, there was a prosperity in Polish economy. In turn, during the economic downturn prof- itability ratios ROE and ROA were relatively low (Table 1). In the next step the stationarity of the two selected ratios was tested. Sta- tistics of the tests for the panel data are given in the Table 2. In all cases the null hypothesis that the series is integrated in order of one or higher at the 0.05 level of significance need to be rejected. Consequently, it can be as- sumed that all series are stationary. Additionally, the correlations between analysed series were tested. Only one statistically significant correlation at the level of 0.05 appeared (see Table 3). That was between ROA and LEVERAGE which means that com- panies listed on WSE prefer to finance with internal founds what is in line with pecking order theory. Similar results could be found in most of previous studies for Poland (e.g. Hamrol, Sieczko 2006; Wilimowska, Wilimowski 2010; Jędrzejczak-Gas, 2014). Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 122 Table 2. Statistics of the stationarity tests of the indicators statistic test ROA ROE Im-Pesaran-Shin –2.5162 –2.7011 Choi meta-tests: Inverse chi-square 406.944 458.669 Inverse normal test –9.8127 –11.1538 Logit test –9.8738 –11.6641 Levin-Lin-Chu pooled ADF –3.6030 –35.2900 Table 3. Correlation coefficients of the indicators, 2000–2015 ROA ROE LEVERAGE GROWTH SIZE TANG ROA 1 –0.0017 –0.9997 0.0008 0.0039 0.0359 ROE 1 –0.0004 –0.0002 –0.0013 0.0355 LEVERAGE 1 –0.0010 –0.0041 –0.0360 GROWTH 1 –0.0008 0.0506 SIZE 1 –0.0399 TANG 1 4.2. Estimated Models The proposed model (1) was estimated for both ROA and ROE ratios. The 90 selected companies in years 2000–2015 constituted the panel data sample. Additionally, we propose to estimate the model dividing the sample into four subsamples. The first subsample holds large companies, included in the WIG20. There were only 4 of them. To the second one contains medium- size companies (included in the mWIG40). There were 14 of them. The group of 21 companies (included in the sWIG80 index) constituted the sub- sample of the small companies. The rest of companies (51) represents the last subsample. The models, for all companies and for subsamples, were estimated using three estimators: the pooled OLS, the fixed effects estimator and the random effects estimator. Application of such estimators for modelling the corporate performance could be found , for example, in Majumdar and Chhibber (1999), Berger, Bonaccorsi di Patti E. (2006) or King, Santor (2007). Then the selection of the most appropriate model was based on the basis of the three tests, mentioned above. Results are given below (Tables 4 and 5). It can be noticed that in almost all cases (in four out of five cases) the best model for the ROA was the one obtained with the fixed effects estima- tor, and for ROE the pooled OLS (also in four out of five cases). Also the values of the measure of goodness of fit (R-squared), the values of the Durbin-Watson statistic (DW) and the Akaike criterion are presented in the tables. Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 123 Table 4. Estimates of the model of ROA and statistics of the tests for companies listed on WSE in 2000–2015 Variable all companies large companies medium companies small companies rest of companies fixed effects fixed effects fixed effects random effects fixed effects constant 0.1279 0.2334 0.0221 0.1160 0.1139 LEVERAGE –0.2379*** –0.4011*** –0.0993** –0.1887*** –0.2379*** GROWTH 0.0000 0.1051* –0.0001 0.0013 0.0000 SIZE –0.0006 0.0456 0.1035*** 0.0425*** –0.0006 TANG –0.0159 –0.0788 0.2123*** –0.0745* –0.0140 Joint signifi- cance test 2.2854#) 3.6343#) 7.3432#) 2.7666#) 2.0205#) Breusch- Pagan test 56.2668#) 0.5627 85.3518#) 13.6845#) 19.8526#) Hausman test 14.0096#) na 24.2201#) 8.4723 11.1615#) R squared 0.9995 0.4203 0.4282 na 0.9996 DW 1.4859 1.7440 1.5033 na 1.4954 Akaike crit. –214.2246 –104.6516 –444.6726 –554.2151 265.8595 *) **) ***) statistically significant at the level of 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively; #) the null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 significance level If the ROA ratio is modelled, in all cases the LEVERAGE negatively influences its volatility. As it was mentioned such relationship is in line with pecking order theory. It is interesting that for large companies the GROWTH of the company positively affects the ROA ratio. It means that they are able to generate profit from investment, what is also in line with pecking order theory. GROWTH is not significant if the medium, small size companies and rest of companies are analysed. For the medium size companies the hypothe- sis of the negative relationship between asset structure (TANG) and their performance is not confirmed. In turn, it is confirmed in the case of small companies. There is a positive relationship between the size of the company (SIZE) and the company’s performance for medium and small size compa- nies. In the case of the rest of companies the size of the company and its tangibility do not affect their performances. Estimated models of ROE for all companies and small companies did not point out any statistically significant relationships between explanatory and explained variables. For the large, medium-size and the small-size compa- nies the ROE was negatively influenced by the LEVERAGE and positively by the TANG variable. Asset structure (TANG) refers to a company’s in- vestments in tangible assets. If these investments are effective, the com- pany’s performance improves. In contrary to previous relationships this one is in line with trade-off theory. Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 124 Table 5. Estimates of the model of ROE and statistics of the tests for companies listed on WSE in 2000–2015 Variable all companies large companies medium companies small companies rest of companies pooled pooled fixed effects pooled pooled constant –0.9658 0.1237* 0.0699 1.6421 –0.8189 LEVERAGE 0.0006 –0.5718*** –0.8700*** –7.0535*** 0.0005 GROWTH –0.0000 0.2200* 0.0001 0.0794 –0.0000 SIZE 0.0003 0.0685 0.1685* 0.8597 –0.0009 TANG 4.3894 0.4979*** 1.0623*** 2.0505 6.1764 Joint signifi- cance test 1.0420 2.3126 6.0486#) 1.3991 1.0197 Breusch- Pagan test 0.0322 0.0449 21.8961#) 1.1299 0.0023 Hausman test 0.7468 na 80.6125#) 0.3983 1.0782 R-squared 0.0012 0.2563 0.3272 0.0331 0.0016 DW 1.9694 1.7481 1.6607 1.4721 2.0026 Akaike crit. 13339.5 –24.705 231.6411 2616.291 7980.600 *) **) ***) statistically significant at the level of 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively; #) the null hypothesis is rejected at 0.05 significance level Finally, for those models, for which the fixed effects estimator was in use, the test for differing group intercept was applied. For all models the null hypothesis that the groups have the common intercept was rejected at the level of significance of 0.05. It means that there were specific differences among companies in the level of ROA and ROE. Conclusions On the basis of the empirical analysis in the case of ROA only the first hypothesis stated in the paper cannot be rejected. The company’s capital structure negatively affects its performance. The rest of the hypotheses need to be rejected, with some exceptions. Only for the large companies the se- cond one, that the growth opportunities lead to the increase of the company’s performance, cannot be rejected. Also for the medium size companies the third hypothesis cannot be rejected. It means the positive relationship be- tween the size and the performance of the company. In turn, the forth hy- pothesis, that a company’s asset structure affects its performance negatively need to be rejected. Generally, these results are rather consistent with as- sumptions of pecking order theory than with trade-off theory. Estimates of the model of ROE for the full panel data and for the sub- sample of the small companies point the necessity of rejection of all four hypotheses. In the case of the large, medium and the small size companies Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 125 separately the first one cannot be rejected, so the negative relationship be- tween the company’s capital structure and its performance is found. The last hypothesis need to be rejected in all cases, even if for the large companies and the medium ones the structural parameters were statistically significant at 0.05 significance level. It means no negative influence of tangibility on performance. The subsample, called the rest of companies, include the companies of different size. The results for this group are close to those for all companies, because they show similar volatilities of variables. Both subsample and the full sample include large companies. Changes in the size of these companies, expressed in total assets growth, are relatively small, so the variable SIZE is irrelevant. In other words, this growth is too small to influence the value of the explanatory variable. However, we have to remember that the sample size was relatively small, especially the number of large companies taken into account and the short time series. It is due to the short history of the capital market in Poland and lack of the data. It would be interesting to extend the analysis and to compare results with outputs from the other markets. One of the ways could be to create the non-balanced panel, so more companies would be included in the sample. References Addae, A.A., Nyarko-Baasi, M., Hughes, D. (2013), The Effects of Capital Structure on Profitability of Listed Firms in Ghana, European Journal of Business and Manage- ment, 5(31), 215–229. Bandyopadhyay, A., Barua, N.M. (2016), Factors determining capital structure and corporate performance in India: Studying the business cycle effects, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 61, 160–172, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2016.01.004. Benerje A., De A. (2014), Determinants of Corporate Financial Performance Relating to Capital Structure Decisions in Indian Iron and Steel Industry: An Empirical Study, Paradigm, 18(1), 35–50, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 0.1177/0971890714540365. Berger A.N., Bonaccorsi di Patti E. (2006), Capital Structure and Firm Performance: A New Approach to Testing Agency Theory and an Application to the Banking Industry, Journal of Banking and Finance, 30(4), 1065–1102. Cameron, K.S., Whetten, D.A. (1983), Organizational effectiveness: One model or several? In K. S. Cameron and D.A. Whetten (eds.), Organizational Effectiveness: A comparison of multiplie methods, New York, Academic Press, 1–24. Chakravarthy, B. S. (1986), Measuring Strategic Performance, Strategic Management Jour- nal, 7, 437–58. Chen J., Strange, R. (2005), The Determinants of Capital Structure: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies, Economic Change and Restructuring, 38, 11–35, Ewa Majerowska, Magdalena Gostkowska-Drzewicka DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 126 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10644-005-4521-7. Donaldson, G. (1961), Corporate Debt Capacity: A Study of Corporate Debt Policy and the Determinants of Corporate Debt Capacity, Division of Research, Boston, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Demsetz, H., Villalonga, B. (2001), Ownership structure and corporate performance, Journal of Corporate Finance, 7, 209–233. Fama, E. (1985), What’s different about banks?, Journal of Monetary Economics, 15(1), 29–39. Gosh, S. (2008), Leverage, foreign borrowing and corporate performance: firm-level evidence for India, Applied Economics Letters, 15, 607–616, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/13504850600722047. Gupta, P., (2015), An empirical study of relationship between capital structure and profitabil- ity of foreign promoters holding companies in India, Management Edge, 8(1), 80–91. Hadlock, C. J., James, C. M. (2002), Do Banks Provide Financial Slack? Journal of Finance, 57, 1383–420. Hamrol, M., Sieczko, J. (2006), Czynniki kształtujące strukturę kapitału polskich spółek giełdowych, Prace i Materiały Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 1, 127–142. Harvey, C. R., Lins, K. V. and Roper, A. H. (2001), The effect of capital structure when expected agency costs are extreme, NBER Working Article No. 8452, Cambridge, MA. Hax, A.C., Majluf, N.S. (1984), Strategic Management: An integrative perspective, New York, Prentice-Hall. Hoffer, C. W., Sandberg, W. R. (1987), Improving new venture performance: some guidelines for success, American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–25. Igbinosa, S. (2015), Another Look at Capital Structure and Corporate Performance in Emerg- ing Markets: The Case of Nigeria, Asian Journal of Business Management, 7(1), 1–12. Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. (1976), The Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. Jędrzejczak-Gas, J., (2014), Influence of the selected factors on the capital structure of enter- prises in the construction industry, Management, 18(1), 241–254. Kester, W. C. (1986), Capital and Ownership Structure: A Comparison of United States and Japanese Manufacturing Corporations, Financial Management, 15(1), 5–16. King M.R., Santor E. (2007), Family Values: Ownership Structure, Performance and Capital Structure of Canadian Firms, Working paper, Bank of Canada, 40. Lewellen, W. G., Roden, D. M. (1995), Corporate Capital Structure Decisions : Evidence from Leveraged Buyouts, Financial Management, 24(2), 76–87. Majumdar S.K., Chhibber P. (1999), Capital structure and performance: Evidence from a transition economy on an aspect of corporate governance, Public choice, 98, 287–305. Margaritis, D., Psillaki, P. (2010),Capital structure, equity ownership and firm performance, Journal of Banking & Finance, 34, 621– 632, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.08.023. Myers S.C. (1977), Determinants of Corporate Borrowing, Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175. Myers S.C. (1984), The Capital Structure Puzzle, Journal of Finance, vol. 39, no. 3, 575–592. 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), 187–222. Determinants of Corporate Performance: Modelling Approach DYNAMIC ECONOMETRIC MODELS 17 (2017) 115–127 127 Nawaz, A., Ali, R., Naseem M.A. (2011), Relationship between Capital Structure and Firms Performance: A Case of Textile Sector in Pakistan, Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 3(4), 270–275. Rajan, R.G., Zingales, L. (1995), What Do We Know about Capital Structure? Some Evi- dence from International Data, The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1421–1460. Ross, S. (1977), The determination of financial structures: an incentive signalling approach, Bell Journal of Economics, 8, 23–40. Santos, J. B., Brito, L.A.L. (2012), Toward a Subjective Measurement Model for Firm Per- formance, Brazilian Administration Review, 9, 95–117. Van Essen, M., Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E.R., Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. (2015), How does Family Control Influence Firm Strategy and Performance? A Meta-Analysis of US Publicly Listed Firms, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 23(1), 3–24. Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V. (1986), Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches, Academy of Management Review, 1(4), 801–814. Wagner, J. (1995), Exports, firm size, and firm dynamics, Small Business Economics,7(1), 29–39. Wilimowska, Z., Wilimowski, M. (2010), Wpływ czynników mikroekonomicznych na zarzą- dzanie strukturą kapitałową polskich przedsiębiorstw, In R. Knosala (Ed.), Kompute- rowo zintegrowane zarządzanie, t. 2, Opole: Oficyna Wydawnicza Polskiego Towa- rzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją. Wiwattanakantang, Y. (1999), An empirical study on the determinants of the capital structure of Thai firms, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 7(3–4), 371–403. Yinusa O.G., Somoye R.O.C., Alimi O.Y., Ilo B.M., (2016), Firm Performance and Capital Structure Choice of Firms: Evidence from Nigeria, Journal of Knowledge Globaliza- tion, 9(1), 1–16. Zeitun, R. and Tian, G. G. (2007), Capital structure and corporate performance: evidence from Jordan, Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 1(4), 1–24. Czynniki kształtujące wyniki finansowe firmy: ujęcie panelowe Z a r y s t r e ś c i. Celem artykułu jest zbadanie wpływu wybranych czynników struktury kapitału spółek notowanych na GPW na ich rentowność. Do badań zakwalifikowano 90 przedsiębiorstw z sektora niefinansowego notowanych na GPW w latach 2000–2015. Osza- cowano model panelowy dla dwóch miar rentowności, tj. ROA i ROE. Pomiędzy strukturą kapitału (dźwignią finansową) a rentownością występuje związek ujemny, co jest zgodne z teorią hierarchii źródeł finansowania i wynikami dotychczasowych badań w zakresie struk- tury kapitału polskich przedsiębiorstw. S ł o w a k l u c z o w e: struktura kapitału, efektywność, modelowanie panelowe, rentowność kapitału, rentowność aktywów.