1. "DETERMINANTS OF THE CAPITALSTRUCTURE OF THECOMPANIES OF THE
FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRYOF THE LIMABURKET OF VALUES"
Road Arribasplata, Erick Edgardo
Erick.estrada.arribasplata@gmail.com
Machuca Marín, Heily Noelia
Heily.machuca.marín@gmail.com
SUMMARY
This paper examines the determinants of the capital structure of companies in the food and
beverage industry of the Lima Stock Exchange for the years 2012 to 2015. An investigation was
conducted taking into consideration a database of seriesOfa cross-section made up of 18 Peruvian
companies that are listed in the food and beverage index, analyzing the cost of debt, the marginal
tax rate,liquidity measured by cash flow over the firm's value, The annual dividend rate and the
size of the company as measured by net annual sales, using ratios that help analyze terms of
increasing or reducing financing. Ordinary least squaresmodels were used in termsof elasticities.
Keywords: Capital Structure, Cost of Debt, Food and Beverages.
JEK codes G2; G23; G24.
ABSTRACT
In this document we identify the determinants of the firm's capital structure in the food and
beverage industry of the Lima Stock Exchange, for the years 2012 to 2015. The investigation was
conducted considering the analysis of a cross-section database, consisted of 18 Peruvian
companies Listed on the index of food and beverages. We analyze the cost of debt, the marginal
tax rate, the liquidity measured by the cash flow to the value of the firm ratio, the lifetime of
companies, the annual dividend rate and the size of the company measured by annual net sales,
using ratios That help analyze terms of increasing or reducing funding. Models based on ordinary
least squares in terms of elasticities were used.
Keywords: Optimal Capital Structure, Cost of Debt, Food and Beverage.
JEL Codes: G2; G23; G24; M1.

2. I.INTRODUCTION
The present study is a descriptive-causal cross-sectional series research, located within the
research line of Business Management, which develops a study on the determinants of the
financial structure of firms; Based on the application of a theoretical framework of scientific
knowledge to a concrete reality, as is the case of companies in the food and beverage sector of
the Stock Exchange of Lima.
In Peru,the Peruvian industry or manufacturing industry accounts for about 15% of Peru's gross
domestic product (GDP),which in dollars amounts to 8,586 million dollars for 2002. The sector
has grown at an annual rate of 3% since The year 1992, a slow but positive growth. The Peruvian
market is characterized by small companies, all of which are not publicly traded, so that
companies in the food and beverage sector are few, the most representative being the Alicorp
Group, the Gloria Group (with operations in Bolivia, Central America and other countries), the
Embotelladora Latinoamericana group is now part of the Brazilian Ambev Group, Lindley Coca
Cola partner company, the Kraft Foods Group, the Sipesa Group, one of the largest exporters of
processed fish food in the country And the smaller ones are Maize Derivatives and Sea Products.
But at the same time, the companies in this area are being much more competitive because all of
them maintain investment decisions as well as financing decisions, which contribute to the
increase of the companies' performance Who seek to lead in the market; So in our research we
will identify the companies belonging to the food and beverages sector, so that the managers of
this item have a culture that allows them to appreciate the impact of their decisions from the
economic and financial point of view; Taking into account a betteruse of resourcesand achieving
better results with less costs, which can be achieved with an effective capital optimization
structure.
The question that guides the research is: What are the determinants that influence the capital
structure of companies in the food and beverage industry of the Lima Stock Exchange for the
years 2012 to 2015?
The work is organized in the following way: in section I is the introduction, background,
theoretical bases, the objective of our investigation and finally the hypothesis, in section II the

3. methods usedin the project are detailed in section III is interpreted the results obtained, and finally
in section IV the conclusions are presented.
In relation to this investigation the following international antecedents were found:
 As a starting point it is considered l n Myers assertion or when
quoted Goyal (2004) - Do notíis a universaltheoryof capitalstructure,nora reason orn
to wait there - It is interpreted as ay h í conditional theory as they are useful. Each factor
can be dominant for some firms or in some circumstances even as í, unimportant in
another context.
 The assessment or n of the theory í as the capital structure directly leads
to the plane emp rich í, particularly the conduction or n
test QUEUEANDSTATISTICSMANsticas and econom é metric that can validate or
reject predictions that eachtheory ay Suggests with respectto the factorsor variables that
explain the level of this structure. As for an nalysis of these evaluations is to I prefaced
with the precision or the notion n or n or optimal structure of capital.
 Myers (1984) plant or the question of the existence of different debt ratios in
cross - sectional evidence is because firms have different coefficients or ptimos or
because temporarily diverged from those observed. In this context the literature, from the
perspective of a structure or optimal capital, how to estimate the structure and the
importance of adjustment costs that can generate discrepancies or deviations mentioned
above is analyzed falls. Together these approaches din to monkeys there
alsoAppen volume u n greater than studies that address the issue in the form is to tica,
by evidence of the predictions of the theory í to the structure or ptima from coefficients
observed indebtedness.
 Titman (2005) found evidence indicating that firms have a target capital
structure, determined by considerations of cost and benefit of the debt, but whose
coefficients observed var debt í an according to the degree of flexibility following this
objective . These authors mention that the market imperfections, asymmetries í ace of

4. information or ny costs of transaction or n take it the story of signatures in t é terms of
variations in cash flows, investment expenditure or ny capital costs stock, which is the
main determinant of the structure or capital ptima observed at a given time. For
an analysis to emp rich í the authors address the construction or n the level of proxies
target company debt.
 Barbosa (2011) ays that among the various factors related to indebtedness four
factors to be analyzed í emp is richly by the model of capital structure, which
are:Profitability, T loves ñ or the company nor, T angibilidad and R isk are selected and
analyzed four factors. The level of debt (leverage), which is the dependent variable of the
model is analyzed in two ways: TD (total debt / total assets) and TL (Total liabilities /
total assets). The works have studied in various ountries pa over time the effects of these
variables with n relationship or the level of indebtedness. The results indicate that
profitability variable, s u n t to most of the studies and the
theory ay peckingorder, presents a negative relationship or n with debt. The variable
size ñ or the company nor, sec u n t to most studies and í a tradeoff theory presents
a positiverelationship or n. S u n t to most studies, tangibility presents a
relationship or positive n, and on the other hand, risk a relationship or negative n. Given
the consensuspresented, the hip or thesis analyzed by this work for the Brazilian
market ñ or are variables return and risk are negatively related to the level of
indebtedness, while thesize variables ñ oy tangibility is positively related to the level
of indebtedness.
 The study on determinants of capital structure in the small ñ ay median family
business M é xico, Berumen Gonz lez, Garc í Soto
and Domengue Mu ñ oz (2012),examines n internal determinants that influence capital
structure ñ the small and medium - sized family businesses in M exico (SMEs). The
results indicate significant relationships between size ñ oy debt, based on a series of
internal factors involving character í individual sticas of due ñ os - directors, age of the
director, his experience, his financial expectations, aversion or n to risk and attitude

5. Control to ace í as between capital and retained earnings. However, there are also é n
elements outside the company and the entrepreneur / due ñ or that directly affect their
funding decisions; some of them are macro - or - economic factors, product and financial
mechanisms, the social, technological or logical and cultural, legal and fiscal
environment, and the international environment.
 Pozzo (2005) analyzes the determinants of the capital structure of companies in
Latinoam merica using information or quarterly accounting
n non - financial or company as with quotation or n in the markets for 1993-
2004 per í odo ... the results econometric estimates show that the determination of the
capital structure of non - s signatures orit depends on the character í particular sticas of
the same, but the level of volatility macro- or mica, size ñ oy level of development local
financial markets and institutional quality of the country ountries have a significant
influence on the decision or n finance companies, which have a tendency to decide its
capital structure the way predicted by theory IA to í to the hierarchy of sources of
financing, which postulates that, given the existence of information asymmetry í as the
source of resources m to s cheaper for firms are equity, which represent the main element
for corporate financing.
Within the national background the following is highlighted:
 Mendoza Barrezueta (2012) analyzes the speed with which Peruvian companies
converge toward the optimal ratio or debt for the period 2005 to 2011. Finding that
Peruvian companies listed on the Lima Stock Exchange are adjusted to
an optimal or borrowing at a rate of 28 percent and 38 percent in the long and short term,
respectively. The results support the theory í to balance capital structure provides an
appropriate framework for evaluating the capital structure of Peruvian companies.These
control variables, tangibility and growth opportunities have high explanatory power as
proxies for the theory í to the hierarchy ay for long - term debt, while the behavior
of tangibility and profitability inconclusive to define í to any theory of capital structure
relative to borrowing short and long term, in addition to s the size ñ or is not significant

6. for ning u n type of debt. Finally, we have only found differences in the level of
indebtedness betweenthe servicessectorand agrarian comparedto other sectorsforshort-
term debt. They conclude that Peruvian companies use their internally generated funds to
finance their short and long term investments. This is mainly because it has been used to
large publicly traded companies that are solvent and in its composition or n of the capital
structure is more dominant to s equity than debt.Finally this research or n analyzes the
impact of differences between sectors of the economy í to Peru. Showing that the
short - term services and agriculture have different behavior on the level of debt, but in
the long run, this behavior is corrected and all sectors of the
economy ú í to an act similarly.
 It rescues the character í sticas and current conditions of the economy í to
make it very dif í easy permanence of businesses small ñ as they remain alone, without
contact with other companies (whether m to s larger or the same size ñ o), with support
institutions, universities, technological centers or logical, etc. Therefore promotional
strategy or n must end the traditional isolation of SMEs. For this purpose measures and
instruments spec í tists ranging from dinamizaci or n to exit markets its products tothe
consolidation or n markets services necessary to meet the conditions of market
competitiveness are required where ON or to .
 G or mez Jacinto (2014) determin or the factors that explain the capital structure
in non - financial companies listed on the Lima Stock Exchange. Seven explanatory
variables such as profitability, collateral value of assets, tax PROTECTING n different
debt, growth, size lis, risk and liquidity were studied. The results show that the size ñ or,
the collateral value of assets and liquidity are the factors that explain the structure of
capital companies Per u. These results lead to mixed results on that theoryholds í to the
capital structure in these companies. The size ñ or company is explained by the theory to
the trade -off í while the collateral value of assets and liquidity are explained under the
focus of the theory to the pecking í order.
Finally, we highlight the following local background:

7.  Chic what you Quispe and Tello Rodr í guez (2015), identified the companies
within the food and beverage sector in Cajamarca who have information or financial n to
determine the financing structure, which affects the collection or n data with in order to
obtain results using models QUEUEANDSTATISTICSMAN appliances such as the
VERIFYING or n data and finally we can get to identify the relationship or existing n
between the capital structure and behavior strat e cal companies in the food sector and
drinks in terms of their investment policies pol í or n. Reaching the conclusion or n that
for satisfactory model must have a greater n umber of observations, ie, a greater number
of firms in the food sector and beverage Cajamarca.
The determinants ofthe choice ofcapital structure
In this section, we present a brief discussion of the attributes that different theories of the capital
structure suggest may affect the choice of debt by stock of the company. These attributes are the
structure of assets denoted, fiscal shields do not generate debt, growth, uniqueness, industry
classification, size, earnings volatility, and profitability. The attributes, their relation to the
optimal capital structure choice and their observable indicators are discussed below.
A. RRANTY value as assets
Most capital structure theories argue that the type of assets owned by a company in some way
affects its capital structure choice. It suggests that, by selling secured debt, companies increase
the value of their equity by expropriating the wealth of their existing unsecured creditors.
The arguments put forward by Myers (1984), suggest that companies can find advantages to sell
secured debt. Their model shows that there may be costs associated with issuing securities on
which company executives have better information than overseas shareholders. Issuance of debt
securedby assetswith known securities avoids these costs. For this reason,companies with assets
that can be used as collateral can be expected to issue more debt to take advantage of this
opportunity. It also suggests that the shareholders of leveraged companies have an incentive to
invest their optimum to expropriate the wealth of the bondholders of the firm. This can incentive
also induce a positive relationship between debt ratios and the ability of companies to back up

8. their debt. If the debt can be secured, the borrower is restricted from using the funds for a
particular project. Since such collateral can be used for projects that can not be counted on
collateral, creditors may demand more favorable terms, which in turn may cause these companies
to use equity rather than debt financing.
B. Debt as fiscal shield.
Masulis (1980) present an optimal capital structure model that incorporates the impact of
corporate taxes, personal taxes,and non-debt related corporate tax savings. They argue that tax
deductions for depreciation and investment tax credits are substitutes for the tax benefits of debt
financing. As a result, companies with large taxes do not protect the debt in relation to their
expected cash flow include less debt in their capital structures.
C. Agency costs
As mentioned earlier, controlled capital firms have a tendency to invest their optimum to
expropriate the wealth of the bondholders of the firm. The cost associated with this agency
relationship is likely to be greaterfor growing business industries, which have greaterflexibility
in choosing future investments. The expected future growth should therefore be negatively
related to long-term debt levels. Brealy and Myers (1993) point out that this agency problem is
mitigated if firm short-term problems rather than long-term debt. This suggests that short-term
debt ratios could actually be a positive relationship with growth rates if growing companies
substitute short-term financing for long-term financing.
D. Singularity
Titman (2005) presents a model in which the decision to liquidate a company is causally linked
to its bankruptcy. As a result, the costs that companies can potentially impose on their
customers, suppliers and workers through settlement is relevant to their capital structure
decisions. Clients, workers and suppliers of single-product or specialized products are likely to
suffer relatively high costs in the event of liquidation. Your workers and suppliers probably

9. have specific skills and capital objectives, and your customers may have difficulty finding
alternative service for their relatively unique products. For these reasons,it is expected that the
uniqueness of being a negative relationship with debt ratios.
E. Or n Industrial Classification
Titman (2005) also suggests that companies that manufacture products that require the
availability maintenance and specialized liquidation spares will find it especially costly.This
indicates that machinery and manufacturing equipment companies will be financed with
relatively less debt. To measure this, we include a dummy variable equal to one for companies
with SIC codes between 3400 and 4000 (the companies producing machines and equipment)
and zero in another case that affects an independent attribute debt ratios.
F. The profitability
Brealy and Myers (1993) suggests that firms prefer capital increase, first to cumulative results,
second to debt, and third of the issuance of new shares. He suggests that this behavior may be
due to the costs of issuing new shares. These may be the costs discussed in which they arise due
to asymmetric information, or they may be transaction costs.In any case,the past profitability
of a company, and therefore the amount of disposable income to be withheld, must be an
important determinant of its current capital structure.We use the proportions of operating
income over sales (OI / S) and operating income over total assets (OIITA) as indicators of
profitability (SHERIDAN & WESSELS, 1988)
Modern literature on capital structure began in 1958 with Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller
(M & M) and their strong assumptions about the perfect market. After M & M, other important
theories emerge, such as tradeoff and pecking order. (Rangel Barbosa, 2011).
Optimal Capital Structure
Every realinvestment opportunity is accompanied by financing decisions; These in turn
determine the composition of capital between debt and equity.

10. Two modern theoretical approaches attempt to explain this composition of capital, and hence to
the financial structure: on the one hand, the theory of the equilibrium of the capital structure or
the theory of static (trade-off theory) which considers the capital structure Of the company as the
result of the balance between the benefits and costs derived from the debt, keeping constant the
assets and the investment plans. On the other hand, the Theory of the Financial Hierarchy
(Pecking Order Theory) exposes the company's preference for internal and external financing,
and debt to equity using stock issuance (Myers, 1984)
Theorem of Modigliani and Miller.
These authors were the first to develop a theoretical analysis of the financial structure of
companies whose central objective is to study their effects on the value of the same.
The traditional theory proposes that the optimal financial structure will be one that
maximizes the market value of the company and minimizes the cost of capital.
This structure of not being appropriate can represent a restriction to the decisions of investment
and therefore, to the growth of the company.
Income, variable costs,fixed costs,depreciation, financial interests, taxes, debt costs,capital costs
are used. All these interrelated variables allow us to define the financial profitability of the
organization.
M & M explain that the value of the company will only depend on the income generating capacity
of its assets regardless of where the financial resources that have financed them have come
from; That is, both the total market value of a company and its cost of capital are independent of
its financial structure, therefore, the company's borrowing policy has no effect on shareholders
(Brealy & Myers, 1993)
 M & M say the expected return of the common shares of a company grows
equally indebted to its level of indebtedness; that is, the likely returns that shareholders
expect from the shares of a company that belongs to a particular
class, or linear function of n or n raz debt (Brealy & Myers, 1993)
 M & M found that the rate of return of an investment project or n must be
completely independent of how the company is financed, and must at least be equal to

11. the rate ofcapitalization or n the marketapplies to companies without leverage and Which
belongs to the same kind of risk as the investment company; ie the rate of return required
in the assessment or investment n is independent of the way in which each company
is funded é (Fern ndez to 2003).
Static Balance Theory (TRADE-OFF)
When facedwith a problem, there is usually a conflict betweenobjectives or qualities versus costs
or defects; That is why in a decision-making process it is necessary to have a holistic view of the
fact, in order to consider all the elements that involve the decision (Soto Ibáñez)
This theory suggests that the optimal financial structure of firms is determined by the interaction
of competitive forces that press on financing decisions. These forces are the tax advantages of
debt financing and bankruptcy costs.
On the one hand, since interest paid on debt is generally deductible from the tax base of corporate
income tax, the optimal solution would be to contract the maximum possible debt. However, on
the other hand, the more the company is in debt, the more likely it is to face financial problems,
the most serious of which is bankruptcy.
It is important to mention that the theory of the trade-off does not have a specific author, since
this theory groups to all those theories or models that sustain that there is a mixture of optimal
debt-capital, that maximizes the value of the company, that occurs Once the benefits and costs of
debt are balanced.
The theory of the trade-off can not explain why companies with high financial returns within the
same sector choose to finance themselves and do not use their debt capacity, or why in countries
where taxes have been reduced or Tax rate for debt companies opt for high
indebtedness. Therefore, there is not yet a model that can determine the optimum indebtedness
for the company and thus improve the financial profitability from the perspective of the financial
structure.
The Theory of Financial Hierarchy (PECKING ORDER THEORY)
The theory of hierarchical capital structure is among the most influential when it comes to
explaining the financing decision regarding corporate leverage. This theory rests on the existence

12. of asymmetric information (with respect to investment opportunities and assets currently held)
between firms and capital markets. That is, the directors of the organization often have better
information about the state of the company than the external investors.
The Pecking Order financing theory states that there is an order of choice for funding
sources. What determines the financial structure of the companies is the intention to finance new
investments, first internally with own funds, then with low exposure debt such as banking, then
with public debt in the case thatofferslower its valuation than Actions and lastly with newactions.
To summarize the operation of Theory of the Financial Hierarchy, Myers (1984), formulates four
statements that support it:
 The pre ferred the financing companies or internal n.
 The estimated rate of dividend distribution adapts to investment
opportunities or n.
 Although the pol í tica dividend is fixed, fluctuations in profitability and
investment opportunities or n are unpredictable, which the cash flows generated
internally can be higher or lower capital expenditures.
 If you require external financing or n, the company issues first titles
m t t s insurance.
Our main objective is Identify the determinants of capital structure of companies in the food and
beverage industry of the Lima Stock Exchange for the years 2012 to 2015.
II.M É ALL
It has been decided to use the design type of our research is non-experimental, to identify
correlations and determinants since it is done without deliberately manipulating variables and it
is about observing phenomena as they occur in their natural context, and then analyze them. The
database used is a cross-sectional series that collects financial information from 18 companies
listed on the Lima Stock Exchange.

13. It was used as a unit of study to active Peruvian companies, where our population is only based
on the Peruvian business sector, arriving at a sample of 18 active Peruvian companies, whose
balance sheets are in the Super Intendance of Market and Securities, since 2012, By 2015.
Table 1: Companies studied.
BUSINESS
AGRICOLA CERRO PRIETO SA
AGROINDUSTRIAS SAN JACINTO SAA
AGROINDUSTRIAL LAREDO SAA
AGR Icola AND LIVESTOCK Chavin SA
ALICORP SAA
AUSTRAL GROUP SAA
About us
GLORIA SA
LAIVE SA
CARTAVIO SOCIEDAD ANONIMA ABIERTA (CARTAVIO SAA)
CASA GRANDE SOCIEDAD ANONIMA ABIERTA (CASA GRANDE SAA)
CENTRAL AZUCARERA CHUCARAPI PAMPA BLANCA SA
COMPANY AGROINDUSTRIAL POMALCA SAA
CAYALTI SAA AGROINDUSTRIAL COMPANY
COMPANY AZUCARERA "EL INGENIO" SA
FISHING EXALMAR SAA
UNION OF PERUVIAN BREWERIES BACKUS AND JOHNSTON SAA
AGROINDUSTRIAS AIB SA
Source: Prepared
The independent variable is the capital structure of 18 Peruvian companies that are listed in the
Food and Beverage index of the Lima Stock Exchange. The dependent variable is the debt ratio
of the firm, with respect to which the degree of determination of a set of financial variables is
identified:
Table 2: Variable Considered.
Cost of Debt:
It measures financial expenses
between debt.
Marginal tax rate (TASIMAR):
Measures the income tax between
the Profit Before Taxes and shares.
Liquidity measured by the Cash
Flow on the Value of the Firm
(UAI):
Measure the cash between the Value
of the Firm.

14. Business Life Time (TVIEM):
A Actual measures not among Year
of constitution.
Annual Dividend Rate (TAD):
Measures Dividends distributed
among the shareholders' equity.
Tama not of the measure Annual Net
Sales (TEVNA) Company: Measured by annual sales.
Source: Prepared
To collect data we obtain basic information of Peruvian companies through public pages as the
Lima Stock Exchange, the Superintendency of Securities Market. We use a table in the Excel
program to systematize and organize data, relevant statistical processes following models based
on ordinary least squares based on elasticities between variables.
We use the following equations, with which we can test our hypothesis:
RE = f (C, LIQCORR, TAD, TVIEM ^ 2, INA) (1)
In which, RE, debt ratio is based on C, which becomes the elasticity of debt heritage LIQCORR,
which is the current liquidity, TAD, annual dividend rate, TVIEM ^ 2, lifetime businesses, and
INA, adjusted net investment.
Ln (RE) = α + β. Ln (C) + Ln (LIQCORR) + Ln (TAD) + Ln (TVIEM ^ 2) + Ln
(INA) (2)
III.RESULTS
At the individual level the relationship between different variables is as follows:
 The elasticity of the capital structure compared to current liquidity ratio is -0.38,
still significant this relationship or n to 1%,with a degree of determination or n of 11.0%
(Table 3)
 The elasticity of the capital structure from the annual dividend rate is 0.55, with
significant this relationship or n to 1%, with a degree of determination or n 23.3%
(Table 4.)

15.  The elasticity of the capital structure regarding the lifetime of the company is
0.25, not being significant (Table 5)
 The elasticity of the capital structure with respecttothe investment or net adjusted
n is 0.29, with significant this relationship or n to 1%, with a degree of determination orn
15.9% (Table 6)
 The elasticity of the capital structure regarding the cost of debt is -0.15, although
the sign is correct, this variable is not significant (Table 7)
 The elasticity of the capital structure regarding the marginal tax rate is 0.003,
although the sign is correct, it is not significant (Table 8)
Table 3: Elasticity ofEndeudameinto Heritage regarding Current Liquidity Ratio

16. Table 4: Elasticity Endeudameinto Heritage regarding the Annual Dividend Rate
Table 5: Elasticity Heritage Endeudameinto respect to Time Life Company

17. Table 6: Elasticity Heritage Endeudameinto regarding Adjusted Net Investment Company
Table 7: Elasticity Endeudameinto Heritage regarding the cost of debt Company

18. Table 8: Elasticity Heritage Endeudameinto regarding Marginal Tax Rate
Specification change
From individual regressions of the optimal capital structure determinants identified, it is
considered a change in the model specification testing, by the following:
Ln (RE) = α + β. Ln (C) + Ln (LIQCORR) + Ln (TAD) + Ln (TVIEM ^ 2) + Ln
(INA) (3)
From the above highlights the following:
 Elasticities of the capital structure of companies in the food and beverage industry
are: -0.22 respect to the current liquidity ratio, 0.52 regarding the annual dividend rate,
compared to -0.14 square lifetime of the company and 0.33 respect to the investment or n
net adjusted signature. In all cases significant 10% or less.
 The model, with the change of specification or n introduced, has a significance
level of 1%, as measured by the probability cadastre í stico F Fisher.
 The degree of determination or n the set of variables explains at least 42.9% of
changes in the capital structure of companies in the food and beverage industry.
Table 9: Elasticity Heritage Endeudameinto about their Determinants

19. IV.CONCLUSIONS
It has been found sufficient to say that the capital structure of the industry companies Food and
Drinks Lima Stock Exchange is based on evidence: (1) the ratio of current liquidity, there is a
negative correlation, ie a higher degree of liquidity, lower debt ratio of equity; (2) the annual
dividend rate of the company, where the higher dividend rate,the higher level of indebtedness of
heritage; (3) the square of the lifetime of the company, which to a certain level of sales the
relationship is negative (less access to debt), then after a certain scale, longer life greater the
degree of indebtedness; and (4) the adjusted net investment in a positive, which implies that more
investment increased indebtedness ratio of heritage experience.

20. References
Apaza Meza, M. (2013). Practical Guide to Corporate Finance. Lima: Pacific.
Berumen González, J., Garcia Soto, P.,& Domenge Muñoz, R. (2012). Determinants of capital
structure in small and mediumfamily business in Mexico. Mexico.
Brigham, SB (2009). Fundamentals of Financial Management. Mexico: 14th Edition Cenegage
SA de CV Learning editors.
Costas,AP (2009). Corporate Finance of Peru. Lima: Instituto Pacifico SAC
Court Monteverde, E. (2012). Corporate Finance. 2nd edition, Buenos Aires: Argentina
Cengage Learning.
Demirguc Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (1999). Bank-based and market-based financial systems:
cross-country comparisons.
Bodie, M. (2003). Finance. Mexico:Pearson.
Brealy, & Myers. (1993).
Chiclote Quispe, M., & Tello Rodriguez, MS (2015). Financing structure of companies in the
food and beverage sector in the city of Cajamarca in 2014. Cajamarca:Northern Private
University.
Demirguc Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (1999). Bank-based and market-based financial systems:
cross-country comparisons.
Jacinto Gómez, L. (nd). DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE: EVIDENCE FROM
PERUVIAN MARKET. Retrieved from
http://congreso.investiga.fca.unam.mx/docs/xix/docs/12.04.pdf
Goyal, F. (2004). CS Decisions.
Theories on Optimal Financial Structure. (sf). Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mp7UOnjSXhWSntF2iz4T5YOLD0plum84em
WeKJkau4/edit?hl=en
Masulis, D. &. (1980). Capital Structure Decision.
Mendoza Barrezueta,M. (October 2012). DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE
OF LISTED COMPANIES IN SECURITIES VOLSA LIMA: A partial adjustment

21. model. Retrieved from
http://pirhua.udep.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/123456789/1787/ECO_039.pdf?sequence=
Jensen,M., & Mecking, M. (1976). theory of the firm: Managerial behavior agency. United
States.
Mecking, J. and. (1976). Agency problems.
Modigliant, F., & Miller, M. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of
investment.
Myers. (1984). Financial Structure.
Pozzo, H. (2005). Analysis of Capital Structure of Firms and its determinants in Latin
America. La Plata - Argentina.
Pozzo, H. (sf). Analysis of Capital Structure of Firms and its determinants in Latin America. La
Plata - Argentina.
Press,HB (2009). Understanding Finance. Boston:Impact Media comercila SA
Rangel Barbosa, J. (2011). WHAT ARE THE DETERMINANTS OF CAPITAL
STRUCTURE. Retrieved from
http://www.econ.uba.ar/www/institutos/cma/publicaciones/Libros/4%20Doc%20de%20
Trab%20N%BA%2010%20Barbosa.pdf
Raviv, H. &. (1991). The Theory of Capital Structure.
SHERIDAN,T.,& Wessels,R. (1988). The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice.
Soto Ibáñez, M. (nd). FINANCE.
(Nd). The Theory of Capital Structure.
Titman, K. and. (2005). Firm` Histories and the Capital Structures.
Ross, S., Westerfiel, R., & Jaffe,J. (2005). Corporate Finance. USA:McGraw-Hill.
Ross, W. &. (2005). Financial appeceament.
Tirole, D. and. (1994). Optimal amount of debt.
Zutter, LJ (2012). Principles of Financial Management. Mexico:12th edition Person Education,
Mexico.