Author
Listed:
- Daniel Hoang
(Department of Corporate Finance, Institute for Financial Management, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)
- Sebastian Gatzer
(Institute for Finance, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany)
- Martin Ruckes
(Institute for Finance, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany)
Abstract
We analyze a unique chief financial officer (CFO) survey data set to examine capital allocation in firms. Top management is aware of agency and information problems at the divisional level and organizes the budgeting process to counteract managerial opportunism, employing systems of interconnected measures, including layers of approval, divisional budgets, reporting requirements, and compensation schemes. When making funding decisions, top management relies heavily on top-level nonfinancial information, such as the assessment of divisional managers’ abilities. However, substantial parts of the capital budget do not require top management approval as firms trade off the benefits and costs of decentralization, thereby deviating from the traditional paradigm of decentralized project initiation but centralized project approval. Even firms with active internal capital markets tilt capital allocation toward relatively even distributions, reflecting the use of capital allocation as a credible communication device. We also find that within-firm agency problems may result in capital rationing, that is, divisions’ restricted access to internal capital. CFOs also believe that integrating multiple businesses into an internal capital market results in tangible financial benefits, predominantly lower costs of capital and higher debt capacities. Thus, our findings also support coinsurance arguments suggesting that internal capital markets may improve access to external financing.
Suggested Citation
Daniel Hoang & Sebastian Gatzer & Martin Ruckes, 2025.
"The Economics of Capital Allocation in Firms: Evidence from Internal Capital Markets,"
Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(8), pages 6392-6425, August.
Handle:
RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:71:y:2025:i:8:p:6392-6425
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.02755
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:71:y:2025:i:8:p:6392-6425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.