This study explains the relationship between the risk-adjusted profitability and leverage ratio for

The banking industry has undergone major upheaval in recent years, largely due to the lingering recessionary environment and increased regulatory environment. Many banks have failed in the face of such tough environmental conditions. These conditions

In addition, as we are comparing the profit margin and operating profit margin, we notice that interest expense, from 2006 to 2010, consumed a relative small portion of sales proceeds comparing to 2011. In 2011, the profit margin for HH is -1.46% and the operating profit margin for HH is -0.74%. Since profit margin includes interest expense in the calculation while operating profit margin does not, we can conclude that HH has about the same amount in interest expense as the amount of operating loss before interest. This finally doubles the amount of company’s loss at the end of the cycle. This big amount of interest expense leads us to study HH’s leverage ratios.

* We compared our past and projected ratios to the industry benchmarks to analyze the effects of taking on different levels of debt.

Since the onset of the financial crisis 2008, the sovereign debt crisis in western economies and the new financial regulation with Basel III coming up, the financial industry faces the challenge of reinventing itself. The ring-fence for Commercial and Investment Banking, and new economic and regulatory capital requirements will determine the kinds of products banks will be able to distribute. It will have a huge impact in the Investment Banking business, which will suffer tough regulation and supervisory procedures. At the same time, credit risk models will be reviewed because they have failed to predict the crisis of 2008. The current financial and economic crisis doesn’t have any precedent in the past.

We all know from our course that leverage and liquidity risks of financial institutions are vulnerable to the crisis. The financial crisis that emerged in 2007 had many and varied causes, but one of its most

Recent studies have investigated the impact of the 2007-2009 financial crises on banks’ capital. Berger and Bouwman (2011) emphasised the importance of capital during financial crisis. Their empirical study concludes that banks with solid capital base have some benefits during the crisis than those that are poorly capitalised. Well capitalised banks are more able to withstand the shocks due to liquidity squeeze, and therefore had higher chances of surviving the crisis period. Other benefits accrued to well capitalised banks include increase in their market share and profitability, as customers withdrew their funds from less capitalised to a well-capitalised banks. This conclusion was also reinforced by a recent empirical study conducted Olivier de Bandt et al (2014) on a sample of large French banks over a period of 1993 – 2012. Similarly, Gambacorta and Marques-Ibanez (2011) demonstrate the existence of structural changes during the period of financial crisis. They conclude that banks with weaker core capital positions, greater dependence on market funding and on non-interest sources of income restricted the loan supply more strongly during the crisis period. Using a multi-country panel of banks, Demirgüç-Kunt, Detragiache and Merrouche (2010) find among others results, that during

From 2002 to 2007 the bank had an 83% annual growth rate, but those increased profits did not come from productive assets, but simply just a result of increased leverage as seen when comparing Deutsche Bank’s ROA v. ROE. The bank consistently had an exponentially high ROE when the economy was doing well and led to a significant loss when the economy was in a recession in 2008. ROA stayed below .5% and above -.18% during those 10 years even when ROE reached a high of 26.72% and a low of -12.91%. ROA did not rise the way ROE did because increased debt has the potential to lower revenues as more money is spent servicing that enormous debt and if net income falls due to increased expense ROA declines but ROE can still rise as it does not effect shareholder equity. The leverage did allow for large financial gains but did cause

The primary measure used by regulators and analysts to measure a bank’s capital strength is the Tier 1 capital ratio. Analyzing this ratio indicates the strength and the bank’s ability to

It seems then that companies should fully leverage the company or a least come close to doing so but there is a probability that the company enters financial distress as its leverage (D/E) increases. Financial distress can be very costly for companies, and the cost for this scenario is shown in the current market value of the levered firm's securities. Investors factor the potential for future distress into their assessment of the present value (this is where PV of distress costs is subtracted from un-levered company value and the PV of the tax-shield.) The value for the costs

Stephanie has to explain the concept of ethical boundaries to the mother. If the mother calls the bank's manager and wife asking for a favorable bank loan, it may challenge the professional relationship between two friends and be a conflict of interest. It will lead to unethical behavior of the bank manager, which may cost the manager his job, and ruin the personal relationship due to the position the mother placed the two families in.

From this set of problems, we can see that leverage is good for the firm. Leverage has increased the value of the firm as a whole and increased the price per share. Although the cost of debt increases the firm's risk because it increases the probability of default and bankruptcy, therefore shareholders will require higher rates of return on the equity they provide, debt also provides tax savings. And we can see that in table 4, where we calculated the total value of the firm as the pure business cash flows plus the tax savings. Another reason why debt increases firm value is the fact that it reduces WACC, because the cost of debt is generally lower than the cost of equity. Another option that shareholders can do is using homemade leverage. Shareholders should pay a premium for the shares of a levered firm when the addition of debt increases value.

Already in 1958, Modigliani and Miller have pointed the discussion of capital structure towards the cost of debt and equity. According to their first proposition, in a world of no corporate taxes and with perfect markets, financial leverage has no effect on a firm’s value. In their second proposition, they state that the cost of equity equals a linear function defined by the required return on assets and the cost of debt (Modigliani and Miller, 1958).

The objective of this study is to check whether the changes in structure of capital has impact on the overall value of the firms, and specifically in leverage ratio of firms listed in Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE).

The pecking order theory ( Donaldson 1961) of capital structure is among the most influential theories of corporate leverage. The pecking order theory is based on different of information between corporate insiders and the market. According to Myers (1984), due to adverse selection, firm prefer internal to external finance. If internal finance proves insufficient, bank borrowings and corporate bonds are the preferred source of external source of finance. After exhausting both of these possibilities, the final and least preferred source of finance is

While conducting the proposed research work, I, being a hard-working, innovative and conscientious researcher, come up with the factual severity of consequences allied with an act of plagiarising content from others’ work. Moreover, I do comprehend the rules and regulations my university encompasses against submitting a plagiarised document. Adhering to all these strict and restricted rules and regulations against plagiarism, I have made all possible endeavours to keep my research report under the level of allowed percentage of plagiarism. Before presenting my research report to