Accounts Receivable Management Policy: Theory and Evidence
AbstractThis paper develops and tests hypotheses that explain the choice of accounts receivable management policies. The tests focus on both cross-sectional explanations of policy-choice determinants, as well as incentives to establish captives. The authors find size, concentration, and credit standing of the firm's traded debt and commercial paper are each important in explaining the use of factoring, accounts receivable secured debt, captive finance subsidiaries, and general corporate credit. They also offer evidence that captive formation allows more flexible financial contracting. However, the authors find no evidence that captive formation expropriates bondholder wealth. Copyright 1992 by American Finance Association.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by American Finance Association in its journal Journal of Finance.
Volume (Year): 47 (1992)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.