Franco Modigliani of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Merton Miller of the University of Chicago demonstrated that capital structure in a frictionless market does not affect firm value, a theoretical benchmark that clarifies why balancing debt and equity matters in practice. The topic influences the cost of capital, investment capacity, employment stability, and territorial economic resilience, since financing choices shape the ability of firms to withstand sectoral shocks and support local suppliers. Empirical and theoretical work therefore situates capital structure as a central determinant of long-term shareholder value and broader social outcomes.
Debt, Tax Shields, and Financial Distress
Trade-off theory explains that the tax advantages of interest payments encourage borrowing while increasing leverage raises the probability and cost of financial distress. Stewart C. Myers of MIT Sloan articulated the informational dynamics that give rise to a pecking order in financing choices, showing why retained earnings and debt can precede equity issuance. The balance between tax benefits and expected bankruptcy costs varies across industries and regions, producing observable differences where manufacturing firms with tangible assets tolerate higher leverage than knowledge-intensive enterprises.
Agency Conflicts and Market Conditions
Agency theory developed by Michael C. Jensen of Harvard Business School and William H. Meckling of the University of Rochester highlights conflicts between managers and shareholders that influence leverage decisions through monitoring incentives and agency costs. Institutional quality and legal protections shape these relationships, a phenomenon examined in comparative research by Andrei Shleifer of Harvard University, which links stronger creditor rights and investor protections to different leverage patterns across countries. Cultural norms about risk, local banking practices, and market depth further determine acceptable capital mixes and the cost of substituting equity for debt.
Practical trade-offs translate into consequences for corporate strategy and communities. Excessive leverage can force asset sales, reduce R&D spending, and increase unemployment in regions dependent on single employers, while excessively conservative equity financing may dilute returns and constrain growth. Firms that align debt maturities with cash flow profiles, preserve financing flexibility, and account for legal and market contexts tend to manage the trade-off in a way that supports sustained shareholder value without externalizing undue social costs.
