Financial Ratios in Large Public and Small Private Firms
研究了大型上市公司与小型私营企业在多个细分行业中的财务比率差异，发现某些比率在不同规模企业间存在显著差异，提醒实务中使用行业平均比率时需考虑规模效应。
Financial ratios are widely used by academic researchers, financial analysts, lenders, and small business managers (see Barnes 1987 for a detailed discussion of uses of ratios). Most commonly, researchers use ratios as predictor variables in models that forecast business distress and failure (Altman 1968; Altman, Haldeman, and Narayanan 1977; Altman 1984). Other common applications include trend analysis studies of individual firm performance and cross-sectional studies that compare individual firm ratios against average industry ratios. These average industry ratios are usually reported for different size firms in each industry, under the assumption that ratios are different for firms of different sizes. (Robert Morris Associates' Annual Statement Studies and the Financial Research Associates' Financial Studies of the Small Business both use size categories in the reporting of financial ratios.) Past academic studies have found evidence that financial ratios differ across different size firms. This article presents results of a study that examines the differences between the financial ratios of large public and small private firms across a large number of narrowly defined industry groups. The results should be of interest to practitioners who use financial ratio analysis. If certain ratios are found to be constant across the different size groups, it would indicate that those ratios could be used for ratio comparison purposes, regardless of whether the ratios are from large or small firms. If the ratios are found to be different, the results will emphasize the importance of identifying the appropriate source of industry average ratio information for comparison purposes when examining a particular ratio; in this manner, control for any size effect is accomplished. LITERATURE REVIEW Several practitioner-oriented publications suggest that financial ratios do not vary with firm size within an industry (Westwick 1987 and Centre for Interfirm Comparison 1977). However, a number of authors provide evidence that ratios do vary across different size firms. Many of these studies have examined the relationship between size and the use of leverage. Pinches and Mingo (1973) examine the relationship between firm size and the ratings on outstanding debt issues of public firms and report a significant inverse relationship between bond ratings and size. Based on their results, they argue that larger firms have lower levels of risks and lower borrowing costs; consequently, they tend to rely more heavily on long-term debt financing than do smaller firms. Ferri and Jones (1979) examine the link between a total leverage ratio and four different size proxies, and they find significant positive relationships between total leverage and two of their size proxies: average sales and average total assets. They interpret these results as evidence that the diversified nature of larger firms allows them to employ greater leverage due to their lower level of operating risk. Ferri and Jones also examine the relationship between industry class and leverage, but they do not examine the differences in leverage between large and small firms while controlling for industry class. Marsh (1982) addresses the size issue and argues that larger firms face lower issuance cost for long-term debt, and will thus rely more heavily on long-term debt. Marsh examines the relationship between the issuance of long-term debt and total assets in a sample of British firms and finds a significant positive relationship. He does not address the impact of industry classification in his study. Titman and Wessels (1988) argue that smaller firms may rely more heavily on short-term bank debt due to the higher cost of issuing formal, long-term debt securities. They examine the relationship between a size proxy (sales) and different leverage measures and report negative relationships between size and both short-term and long-term leverage measures. …