Research Article
Factors
Influencing
Capital
Structure
of
Shariah-Compliant
Malaysian
Telecommunications and Media Companies
Mohd Faizal Basri1*, Izatul Shima Mohd Noor2, Surianor Kamaralzaman3
1*Faculty of Management and Economics,
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, 35900 Perak, Malaysia
2,3Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia 1*mfaizal.basri@fpe.upsi.edu.my
Article History: Received: 10 November 2020; Revised: 12 January 2021; Accepted: 27 January 2021; Published online: 05 April 2021
Abstract: This paper explores the firm-specific factors,which are assets tangibility, sales growth, profitability, and firm size
in ascertaining the capital structure of Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies in Malaysia. Panel data regression model based on ordinary least square (OLS) method was employed in the research. The sample of research comprisesof nine Shariah-compliant companies listed in telecommunications and media sector in the Main Market and Ace Market ofBursa Malaysiafrom 2009to 2018, with a 90firms-years of total number of observations. The dependent variable selected was debt to equity ratio. Meanwhile, the independent variables chosen were assets tangibility, sales growth, profitability, and firm size. Thefindings revealed thatassets tangibilityhas a positive relationship, while profitability is negatively related to the dependent variable. Conversely, sales growth and firm size were insignificant to debt to equity ratio.The pecking order and trade-off theories of capital structure is very much applicable to the Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media in Malaysia sinceassets tangibility and profitability have significant relationship with leverage.
Keywords: Telecommunications, Media, Capital Structure, Shariah-Compliant,Debt To Equity, Assets Tangibility, Sales
Growth, Profitability, Firm Size, Malaysia
1. Introduction
As of 2018, the telecommunications and media industry’s market capitalisation valued at RM135.7 billion in Bursa Malaysia. This is equivalent to 8preceptor the total market capitalisation amounting to RM1,700.37 billion(Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, 2019). The financial performance of the industry was supported by continuous demand for data and high-speed Internet services. 69preceptor the revenue share controlled by telecommunications sector, followed by broadcasting at 12 percent, the ACE market and non-public listed licensees commanded 14 percent, and the balance 5 percent by postal sector.In spite of moderately flat revenue and greater costs of operation, the telecommunications sector margin remained stable, with Earnings Before Interest, Tax,Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) margin and operating profit margin averaged 38 percent and21 percentrespectively. Moving forward, service providers are exploring new approaches for growth anddesigningcost reduction strategies to enhance the performance(Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, 2019).
There are many variables affecting telecommunications and media companies’ capital structure including assets tangibility, sales growth, profitability, and firm size. This study seeks to close the gap and developing new knowledge on the matter as very few studies have been conducted on the factors influencing the structure of capital, in particular the Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies in Malaysia.Moreover, Getahun (2014) underlined that since the generalisation of the nature of the relationship between the
Factors Influencing Capital Structure of Shariah-Compliant Malaysian Telecommunications and Media Companies
performance of the organisation and the capital structure is not possible, there is always a continuous demand for a fresh analysis, especially in different settings, in order to gain a broader understanding of the importance of the capital structure towards the output of the company. Companiesrequire capital to run their day-to-day operations, invest, and grow faster. Such operations, along with required investment, where adequate internal and external funding is available. The capital structure shows how the assets are funded via a mix of debt and equity. Debt and equity funding costs and advantages will typically decide the option of capital structure. The optimumstructure of capital representsto the decision of the company to choose the best balance of debt and equity that maximises the worth of the business.
Organisations are still dealing with decisions on capital structure because of its importance. Theories such as the pecking order theory, agency theory, and asymmetric information theory have been designed to explain the assets of organisations (Getahun, 2014).Attempts have been made in this paper to provide more recent proof of factors influencing the structure of finance. The purpose of this article is also to explore four main factors in the capital structure of Malaysian Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies with a view to generating new understanding and information. The paper intends to investigate assets tangibility, sales growth, profitability, and firm size influence the capital structure of Malaysian Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies.
2. Literature Review
Relevant theories
The basis of the modern capital structure was found in 1958 by Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller in the form of Modigliani-Miller (M&M) theorem. The theory implies that, when the capital market is productive or ideal, the selection of a firm's capital structure does not affect the valuation of the firm with the notion that tax is not levied, the cost of issuing capital by debt or equity, and therefore the zero cost of the business. However, this is contrary to the actual experience that essentially applies to a several other theories that have similarly been found contradicting these results and to describe the ideal businesses’ structure of capital from a number of viewpoints, such as the pecking order theory (Barclay & Smith, 2005; Myers & Majluf, 1984), the agency theory (Frangouli, 2002; Pinegar & Wilbricht, 1989), and asymmetric information (Myers & Majluf, 1984).
Dependent variable
The capital structure is the most important element in establishing a business according to Veni & Kinfe (2015). This refers to a corporation's combination of debt and equity capital utilised to finance its long-term operation. Capital structure is a combination of debt, equity, or other hybrid securities utilised to routinely fund businesses (Coelho, 2019).Based on Anande-Kur & Agbo (2018), the structure of capital determinants are the possible factors that may affect a firm in selecting its capital structure. The possible factors deliberatedcomprisethe assets tangibility, the level of competitiveness, the company's growth opportunities, size of business, and, among other items, corporate revenue variability.
Independent variables
Tangible assets apply to products, buildings, equipment and vehicles that usually served to increase sales revenue while trademarks, patents, goodwill, and inventions are pointed to intangible assets used to sustain
assets to improve the role of the business. Iqbal et al. (2016) claimed that a firm's tangible assets can be used as leverage to protect its debt, reducing the agency's debt expenditures in the process. Due to the issuance of secured debt, the sale price of securities will decrease, hence, it is beneficial for the business. Vijayakumaran & Vijayakumaran (2018) clarified that businesses with more fixed assets can access secured debt simply because tangible assets can be utilised as debt collateral and the relationship between the two tend to be positive. The static theory of trade-off suggests that the larger the fixed assets of the company, the lower the risk of financial distress and bankruptcy. In accordance with the clarification of both theories, assets tangibility and debt to equity is expected to be positively related. Basri et al. (2019), Skoogh & Sward (2015) and Karadeniz et al. (2009) found that the overall relationship between assets tangibility and the capital structure was significantly positive. However, Chukwu and Egbuhuzor (2017) discovered that assets tangibility was not significantly related with the capital structure.
Growth applies to companies being able to spend and expand their industry with the use of fresh investment. The pecking order principle, according to Nguyen (2015), states that the projected growth and debt is positively related since the businesses with higher growth prospects need more capital to fund their improvements. These businesses would need more external funding, particularly in a form of debt if the internal funding cannot meet the capital needs. The company's revenue growth is reflected in changes in the ratio of revenues to changes in total assets. According to Purwohandoko (2017), the company's revenue growth is an indication of how business grows in a given timeframe. It stated that independent debt has a negative influence, and domestic debt has positive impact on the company growth. It is suggested that the independent debt must be to the burden of debt service (Al-Masaeed and Tsaregorodtsev, 2019).According to Iqbal et al. (2012), companies having higher leverage should lower their debt portion to increase maintain the growth of their assets in market as it is attached with debt portion of the company.Mahnazmahdavi et al. (2013) indicated that there is a substantial positive relationship between revenue growth and the capital structure. At the other hand, Ando et al. (2017) and Saberi and Asadipour (2016) found that revenue growth and capital structure were not related.
Kumar et al. (2017) have discovered that one of the important factors in the literature of structure of capital is profitability. In the majority of research, earnings before interests and taxes is determined by total assets or total revenues. Furthermore, Sofat & Singh (2017) noted that profitability plays an important part in maximising options, that successful firms will need more debt financing to try and gain cash-free revenue sources, and that large-profit companies can comfortably obtain debt financing and thus be able to achieve high debt efficiency. Profitability is assessed as earnings before interests and taxes divided by total assets. In addition, the more efficient businesses are, the greater the usage of debt, the greater the advantages of the tax shield and decreased financial pressure (Vajayakumaran & Vijayakumaran, 2018).. In contrast, Masor (2017) and Sadalia et al. (2017) suggested that based on pecking order theory, managers prefer to use financing of retained earnings as the first option followed by debt and issuing new shares.
According to Sheikh and Wang (2011), the larger the firms, the more the debt to borrow to secure the firm from financial concerns. The size of the firm is concluded to be more positive effect on the capital structure. Big companies faced less risk to the bankruptcy which contribute to utilise more debt of financing because of easier access to obtain funds as compared than small firms.Hallajian and Hashemi (2016) also discovered a positive effect of firm size is on leverage. Basically, large firm is more profitable and less of volatility of the income without substantially increasing the probability of financial concerns. These firms might be expected to have more leverage ratio because they have lesser direct bankruptcy costs. Generally, higher tax rates will be imposed to a larger firm which encourage the firms to increase leverage diversified with higher total assets and are less
Factors Influencing Capital Structure of Shariah-Compliant Malaysian Telecommunications and Media Companies
bankruptcy. It will contribute to larger firms to use more debt. Conversely, Hidayati (2001) and Nugroho (2009) in their researches state that the firm size of a firm has a negative impact on the company's capital structure. Meanwhile, Sari et al. (2018) and Rambe and Putry (2017) found that the firm size does not have any impact on capital structure.
3. Method
This paper’s primary goal was to examine the variables or indices that had an impact on the capital structure in Malaysia forShariah-complianttelecommunications and media companies. The methodology discussed in this section addresses the factors of the analysis and the statistical tools and methods used in the study process. The method defined the model description, the source of data, the variables identification, and the calculation together with the econometric model. The sample comprises of nine randomly selected Shariah-compliant companies based on market capitalisation listed on Bursa Malaysia between 2009 and 2018. Table 1 indicates the companies listed on the basis of those parameters. For the measurement of dependent and independent variables, annual reports of the selected companies have been used.
Table 1. List of theSelected Shariah-compliant Telecommunications and Media Companies in Malaysia
No. Name of Company Market Capitalisation (RM)
1. Digi.Com Berhad 34.754 billion
2. Axiata Group Berhad 32.624 billion
3. Telekom Malaysia Berhad 14.197 billion
4. Time Dotcom Berhad 5.44 billion
5. Star Media Group Berhad 192.03 million
6. Binasat Communications Berhad 89.88 million
7. M3 Technologies (Asia) Berhad 25.81 million
8. Seni Jaya Corporation Berhad 21.89 million
9. Nexgram Holdings Berhad 20.71 million
Research on the Shariah-compliant telecommunications and the financial structure of media firms has been summarised in this paper. A brief description of the summary statistics on the dependent and independent variables will be presented. The coefficient, probability and other related data will be shown on the basis of the estimation in EViews version 10.Study of the information panel models normally used to capture sample-wide heterogeneity. Studies use panel data to analyse the determinants of capital structure.
In panel data modelling, commonly the random effect or the fixed effect models can be used. The individual effect is a random variable in the fixed effect model that can be compared with the explanatory variables. Thejustification for the random effect model is that, unlike the fixed effect model, the individual particular effect is a random variable unrelated to the independent variables of the model. The fixed effect model is an acceptable specification if we emphasis on a particular group of N companies and our inference is restricted to the behaviour of such companies. In addition, to determine the most suitable models, the Hausman test can be conducted. This study employed the fixed effect model after doing the recommended test.The panel data refers to the collected information comprising of both time series and cross-section elements. In panel data models, the data collection consists of n cross-section units, denotedi= 1,…,N, observed at each of T time periods, t = 1, ….,T. In data set, the total observation is nxT. The fundamental framework for panel data is defined on the
basis of the following regression model:
yit = α + 'β xit + uit (1)
where yit is the dependent variable, α is the intercept term, β is a kx1 vector of parameters to be estimated on the explanatory variables, and x it is a 1 x k vector of observations on the explanatory variables, t = 1, …,T; i = 1, …,N.
Based on the above model, the following model was employed for the analysis:
DEit = α + ATit + GROWTHit + ROAit + FSit + εit(2) Where:
DEit = debt to equity ratio of firm i at time t. ATit = assets tangibilityof firm i at time t. GROWTHit = growth of sales of firm i at time t. ROAit = return on equity of firm i at time t. FSit = size of firm i at time t.
α = common y-intercept.
εit = stochastic error term of firm i at time t.
Proxy for dependent variable is debt to equity (DE)that changes on theindependent variables namely assetstangibility (AT), which is the measurement the assets tangibility of the company as it relates with the degree of debt. Next, sales growth (GROWTH) as it evaluates theincrease of revenues of the company in relation to the amount of leverage. Return on assets (ROA) calculates the relationship between the company's profits and its debt.Whereasthe total assets and their relationship to the amount of the debt are determined by the size of the company (FS).
4. Results
Table 2. Descriptive Analysis
DE AT GROWTH ROA FS Mean 0.281347 0.685471 3.667210 2.023968 15.03870 Median 0.177600 0.723550 0.000250 0.110600 14.51200 Maximum 1.411700 1.722300 192.0591 25.80520 17.87193 Minimum 0.001000 0.047800 -0.990400 -1.255500 9.871171 Std Deviation 0.344149 0.287820 21.98120 6.087175 2.398991 Skewness 1.602515 0.200105 7.481934 3.002300 -0.701040 Kurtosis 4.939156 4.281995 62.25987 10.38472 2.714605 Jarque-Bera 52.62202 6.763800 14008.69 339.7099 7.677289 Probability 0.000000*** 0.033983** 0.000000*** 0.000000*** 0.021523** Observations 90 90 90 90 90
Note:***, ** and * are significant at 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent respectively.
Factors Influencing Capital Structure of Shariah-Compliant Malaysian Telecommunications and Media Companies
has a total of 90 for the number of observations. The mean for AT, GROWTH, ROA, and FS are 0.685, 3.667, 2.024, and 15.039respectively. Table 2 also shows that for the skewness in DE (1.603), AT (0.200), GROWTH (7.482),and ROA (3.002) is skewed to the right but FS (-0.701) is skewed to the left. In the meantime, kurtosis for FS is 2.714 and has a value of less than three mean Platykurtic with a lower mean peak and a lower than average distribution. In contrast, DE (4.939), AT (4.282), GROWTH (62.260), and ROA (10.385) are more thanthree, suggesting that the data have heavier tails than a normal distribution.
Table 3. Normality Test on Error Term Normality Test
Jarque-Bera 15.57246
Probability 0.000415***
Conclusion Error term is not normally distributed.
The result in Table 3 shown that Jacque-Bera is 15.57246, with the p-value is 0.000415. When the p-value is less than 5 percent of significance level, the null hypothesis is rejected as it shows the error term is not normally distributed.
Table 4. Serial Correlation Test Autocorrelation
R-squared 6.729695
Prob (Chi-Square) 0.1536
Conclusion There is no autocorrelation problem
The result in Table 4exhibited thatthe R-squared is 6.729695 with the p-value of 0.1536. Therefore, the null hypotheses failed to reject at 5 percentsignificance level and it shown the error term is serially independent
Table 5. Multicollinearity Test
Variables Centered VIF
AT 1.111528
GROWTH 1.111528
ROA 1.125445
FS 1.059114
Conclusion There is no serious multicollinearity
As for multicollinearity test in Table 5, the centered VIF values are all below 10 where AT is 1.111528, GROWTH is 1.111528, ROA is 1.125445, and FS is 1.059114. This indicates that none of the independent variables show a serious multicollinearity issue. Hence, the t-test and the f-test can be used without any doubt to make inferences on the regression coefficients.
Table 6. Variance of Error Term Test Heteroscedasticity
Obs*R-squared 23.14544
Conclusion Error term is heteroscedastic
Table 6 shows that the R-squared is 23.14544 with the p-value of 0.0579. This concluded that the null hypotheses could be rejected with the error term of heteroscedasticity at 10 percent significance level.
Table 7. RegressionAnalysis (Fixed Effect Model)
Variable Coefficient Prob.
Constant 1.467939 0.2938 AT 0.183060 0.0262** GROWTH 0.000909 0.2069 ROA -0.015359 0.0035*** FS -0.085401 0.3492 R-Squared 0.871109 Adj-R-squared 0.851022 F-Statistic 43.36688 Prob(F-Stat) 0.000000*** Durbin-Watson Stat 0.632349
Note:***, ** and * are significant at 1 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent respectively.
In determining the right model, Wald and Hausman tests were conducted. Based on the Wald test, the p-value is 0.0000 which implies that fixed effect model is better as compared to pooled model. Next, the Hausman test was performed in determining between random effect and fixed effect model. The p-value is 0.0011 which indicates that the fixed effect model is better than random effect model. Therefore, based on Table 7 above, the regression analysis used is based on the fixed effect model. The selection of model for capital structure study is supported by Daud et al. (2017). The determination coefficient or R-square for Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies in Malaysia is 0.8711 which indicates that 87.11 per cent of the increase in equity debt can be explained by changes in asset size, revenue rise, asset returns and firm size. Furthermore, the remaining 18.89 percent of the variations cannot be explained by the selected independent variables due to other factors not incorporated in the current equation.
The modification for the number of independent variables in the model has produced the adjusted R-Squared value of 0.8510. Probability F-Statistics is 0.0000, which is a small sum of less than 1 percent, and there is ample evidence to suggest that dependent variables can be explained by at least one independent variable.
The first coefficient value, 0.1831 (AT), indicates that the leverage will increase by MYR0.1831 for one Malaysian Ringgit (MYR) increased in AT. In addition, the P-value of AT is 0.0002, which is less than 1percent of a significant level. The result is consistent with Basri et al. (2019), Skoogh & Sward (2015) and Karadeniz et al. (2009).Meanwhile, profitability (ROA) and Debt to Equity (DE) have a significant negative relationship, which is confirmed by Masor (2017) and Sadalia et al. (2017).
As for sales growth (GROWTH), the p-values 0.2069 more than 10 percent significant level. GROWTH and Debt to Equity (DE) shows no significant relationship and this finding is supported by Vijayakumaran &Vijayakumaran, (2018) and Saberi and Asadipour (2016). Lastly, as for firm size (FS), the p-value is 0.3492, which is more than 10 percent significant level. This suggests that FS has no association with DE in the case of
Factors Influencing Capital Structure of Shariah-Compliant Malaysian Telecommunications and Media Companies
Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media firms in Malaysia. The findings are consistent with those of Sari et al. (2018) and Rambe and Putry (2017).
5. Discussion
This paper established that the ratio of DE as a dependent variable and asset tangibility, sales growth, profitability and firm size as independent variables to determine the capital structure for Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies in Malaysia.
Firstly,the study found that the AT and DE ratio had a positive significant relationship for Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies in Malaysia. The increase in the amount of leverage with the tangibility of assets is due to the need for corporate debt funding so that companies can boost overall assets. Furthermore, firms that intend to acquire high-priced assets would find that debt financing is the appropriate option.Next, the results showed that the ROA and DE ratios have a negatively significant relationship for Malaysian Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies. Research has shown that businesses continue to prefer retained earnings over the use of debt as a source of financing. This indicates that the pecking order principle extends to Malaysian Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies.Third, there was no relationship between the two variables in sales growth and the DE ratio. This is consistent with the theory of optimal capital structure, where the capital structure is unrelated to the development of the company's revenues.
Finally, the relationship between the firm size and the DE ratio was also found to be irrelevant. The unrelated relationship between liquidity and debt suggests that large corporations can be easily diversified and appear to have lower bankruptcy rates.With large corporations with a large number of assets, it would be more expensive to use funds from lending to buy all assets relative to smaller businesses. All businesses, irrespective of size, should use a more secure source of funding first (internal funding) instead of using external sources of funding.In addition, due to uncertain economic conditions, each organisation has its own strategy to assess its capital structure in the short or long term.
Further research may consider exploring additional variables that can decide the capital structure of Shariah-compliant telecommunications and media companies in Malaysia to complement the results of this report.
References
1. Al-Masaeed, A.A. &Tsaregorodtsev, E. (2019). The effect of public debt on the economic growth of Jordan. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 10(1), 100-107.
2. Anande-Kur, F. & Agbo, A. (2018). Determinants of capital structure in the Nigerian manufacturing sector. AE-Funai Journal of Accounting, Business and Finance, 3(1), 178-185.
3. Ando, K., Matsumoto, K., & Matsumoto, Y. (2017). Business Performance of Firms Using Debt. Public Policy Review, 13(2), 167-182.
4. Barclay, M. J., & Smith, C. W. (2005). The capital structure puzzle: The evidence revisited. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 17(1), 8-17.
5. Basri, M.F., Shoib, F.S., &Kamaralzaman, S. (2019). Determinantsof Capital Structure Evidence fromMalaysian Food and Beverage Firms. Research in World Economy, 10(5), 45-52.
the manufacturing industry in Nigeria. Research Journal of Financial Sustainability Reporting, 2(1), 271-277.
7. Coelho, M. D. S. (2019). The determinants of capital structure in Latin America: new evidence using firm and country variables (Doctoral dissertation).
8. Daud, W. M. N. W., Yahaya, R., Norwani, N. M., & Nawi, F. A. M. (2017). Does corporate diversification induce financing choice?. International Business Education Journal (IBEJ), 10, 31-42. 9. Frangouli, Z. (2002). Capital structure, product differentiation and monopoly power: A panel method
approach. Managerial finance, 28(5), 59-65.
10. Getahun, M. (2014). Determinants of capital structure and its impact on the performance of Ethiopian insurance industry (Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University).
11. Hallajian, E., & Hashemi, M. (2016). Impact of Firm Size on Leverage: An Empirical Study of Companies Listed on NSE of India. Management, 5(5).
12. Iqbal, A., Ahsan, T., & Zhang, X. (2016). Credit supply and corporate capital structure: evidence from Pakistan. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 5(2), 250-267.
13. Iqbal, A., Hameed, I., & Ramzan, N. (2012). The impact of debt capacity on firm’s growth. American Journal of Scientific Research, 59, 109-115.
14. Karadeniz, E., Kandir, S. Y., Balcilar, M., & Onal, Y. B. (2009). Determinants of capital structure: evidence from Turkish lodging companies. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(5), 594-609.
15. Kumar, S., Colombage, S., & Rao, P. (2017). Research on capital structure determinants: a review and future directions. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 13(2), 106-132.
16. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. (2019). Industry Performance Report 2018. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
17. Masor, N. (2017). Determinants of capital structure: evidence from Malaysian SMEs (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia).
18. 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.
19. Nguyen, D. (2013). Determinants of Capital Structure in Vietnam. Available at SSRN 2481417.
20. Nugroho, M. T. (2009). Analisis Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Struktur Modal Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di bursa Efek Indonesia (periode2005-2007). Available: http://etd. eprints. ums. ac. id/5861.
21. Pinegar, J. M., & Wilbricht, L. (1989). What managers think of capital structure theory: a survey. Financial Management, 82-91.
22. Purwohandoko, K. (2017). The influence of firm's size, growth, and profitability on firm value with capital structure as the mediator: A study on the agricultural firms listed in the Indonesian Stock Exchange. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 9(8), 103-110.
23. Rambe, M.F., & Putry, Y. (2017). Pengaruh Return On Assets, return On Equity, Current Ratio, Firm Size, dan Struktur Aktiva pada Struktur Modal Perusahaan Pertambangan yang terdaftar di 117 Bursa Efek Indonesia. Jurnal Internasional Ilmu dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial , 5(9), 3918- 3927.
24. Sadalia, I., Simanjuntak, S., &Butar-Butar, N. A. (2017). An Analysis of the Determinants of Capital Structure and their Influence on Firm Value (A Case Study on Manufacturing Companies Investors in Southeast Asia).International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research 15(19), 165-177. 25. Saberi, S., & Asadipour, E. (2016). Investigating the Relationship between Financial Growth and
Strength with Leverage Ratios of Companies Listed inTehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 1994-2006.
Factors Influencing Capital Structure of Shariah-Compliant Malaysian Telecommunications and Media Companies
26. Sari, N. I. K., Titisari, K. H., &Nurlaela, S. (2018). The Effect Structure of Assets, Liquidity, Firm Size and Profitability of Capital Structure (Empirical Study on Manufacturing Companies Listed on Indonesia Stock Exchange). In PROCEEDING ICTESS (Internasional Conference on Technology, Education and Social Sciences).
27. Sheikh, N. A., & Wang, Z. (2011). Determinants of capital structure. Managerial Finance, 37(2), 117-133.
28. Skoogh, J., &Swärd, P. (2015). The Impact of Tangible Assets on Capital Structure-An analysis of Swedish listed companies. (Dissertation).
29. Sofat, R., & Singh, S. (2017). Determinants of capital structure: an empirical study of manufacturing firms in India. International Journal of Law and Management, 59(6), 1029-1045.
30. Veni, P., & Kinfe, S. (2015). Determinants of capital structure in Ethiopian private manufacturing sector. International Journal of Academic Research and Development. 3(2), 1231-1240.
31. Vijayakumaran, S., & Vijayakumaran, R. (2018). The determinants of capital structure decisions: Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Asian Journal of Finance &Accounting.10(2), 63-81.
