When is cash good or bad for firm performance?

Abstract

Research summary: Cash can create shareholder value when used for adaptation to unfolding contingencies, but can also reduce value when appropriated by other stakeholders. We synthesize arguments from the behavioral theory of the firm, economic perspectives like agency theory, and the value‐creation versus value‐appropriation literatures to argue that the implications of cash for firm performance are context‐specific. Cash is more beneficial for firms operating in highly competitive, research‐intensive, or growth‐focused industries that are typical of contexts requiring adaptation in the face of uncertainties. Conversely, cash is more detrimental to performance in firms that are poorly governed, diversified, or opaque, as are typical of contexts where stakeholder conflicts, information asymmetries, or power imbalances can encourage value appropriation by other stakeholders. Managerial summary: Cash can create shareholder value when used for adaptation to unfolding contingencies, but can also reduce value when appropriated by other stakeholders. While cash‐rich firms have higher performance on average, with those in the 75th percentile having a market‐to‐book value 15 percent higher than those in the 25th percentile, we find that the performance benefits of cash depend on the context. Cash is more beneficial for firms operating in highly competitive, research‐intensive, or growth‐focused industries that are typical of contexts requiring adaptation in the face of uncertainties. Conversely, cash is more detrimental to performance in firms that are poorly governed, diversified, or opaque, as are typical of contexts where stakeholder conflicts, information asymmetries, or power imbalances can encourage value appropriation by other stakeholders. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Levels of Liquid Assets in Full Operating Cycle Firms: Polish Firms Case

“…Boileau [5] investigates the factors driving the unprecedented rise in corporate liquidities. Boileau [5] finds that an economy-wide reduction in the cost of holding liquidities and an increase in risk best explain the rise in cash holdings and the widespread use of credit lines [8]- [11]. Bates [2] finds that the average cash-to-assets ratio for U.S. full operating cycle firms more than doubles from 1980 to 2006 and that findings are in agreement with CLFOC model presented in that paper.…”

What Do We Know About Corporate Cash Holdings? A Systematic Analysis

“…A growing body of literature has highlighted the relevance of firm‐level characteristics in determining corporate cash holdings behavior, including size (Bigelli & Sánchez‐Vidal, ; Colquitt, Sommer, & Godwin, ; Orens & Reheul, ), performance (Deb et al, ; Simutin, ), profitability (Mun & Jang, ), leverage (Anderson & Carverhill, ), research & development (Brown & Petersen, ; Dittmar et al, ; He & Wintoki, ), and risk (Acharya et al, ; Harford et al, ; Palazzo, ).…”

Supplier Innovation Strategy and Performance: A Matter of Supply Chain Market Positioning

“…As product life cycles shorten and suppliers' competitive pressures increase, investments required to reach higher degrees of value creation also must increase; however, the associated economic returns of innovation-driven value creation is often appropriated or captured by the buyer rather than the supplier (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989). This drawback is further exacerbated if the industry served by the supplier is highly innovative (Chandler, 1994) because of the inherent instability and rapid pace of technological change that characterize such competitive environments (D'Aveni, 1994;Fine, 1998), and the higher likelihood of potential losses (Deb, David, & O'Brien, 2017).…”