Sources Of Finance For Marks & Spencer

Short-term and medium-term sources of finance

The sources of finance are both medium term and short term and these are available to Marks & Spencer in the following:

Trade credit is the fund received from the suppliers over the period between the delivery of products and the successive account settlement made on the part of the recipient (Balaban, Župljanin and Ivanovi? 2017). One method through which Marks & Spencer could express the credit term is “2/10: net 30”. This denotes that 2% discount would be provided on the part of the supplier; in case, the amount is paid back. In opposition, the organisation needs to make the entire payment within 30 days. The trade credit length is reliant on various influential dynamics such as industrial practices and customers, kind of products and relative bargaining power.

The bank lending to the organisations is predominantly short-term; however, it is now available in the form of medium-term source of finance as well. On the other hand, overdrafts signify the amount that an organisation might withdraw as cash or cheques (Baños-Caballero, García-Teruel and Martínez-Solano 2014). The bank normally takes security in the form of fixed charge or floating charge. Fixed charge could be defined as the situation, in which there is security of overdraft against particular asset, while floating charge provides security on all the assets of the business. 

Hire purchase could be described as hiring with the alternative to buy. When the final instalment is paid, the asset ownership is transferred to the buyer. Thus, with the help of inland revenues, Marks & Spencer would be able to claim as well as retain capital allowances that the purchase fee option is lower in contrast to the market value after the expiry of the term contract.

In the words of Benedettini, Swink and Neely (2015), leasing transaction is a commercial contract, in which the owner of equipment has the right of using the same in exchange for payment on the part of the equipment user of a particular rental over a pre-agreed timeframe.

As assessed above, various sources of funding are available to Marks & Spencer. By listing each source of finance, the implications at the business cost could be evaluated. In the initial stage, all organisations need short-term funding for covering daily running cost. Short-term and medium-term sources of finance help in providing the primary working capital to Marks & Spencer. The implications of these sources of finance are discussed as follows:

Implications of sources of finance on business cost

Trade credit is the credit allowed in relation to the raw materials that the manufacturers use in producing the products purchased for resale on the part of the retailer. When Marks & Spencer purchases products from its suppliers, payment is not made instantly. In this period, the purchaser owes an outstanding debt to the supplier before the payment is due. This outstanding debt is reported in the liability side of the balance sheet statement of the organisation under accounts receivable.

As an organisation could pass through liquidity shortage, it might borrow funds for a short time span of six months from the banks having surplus liquidity. Based on the amount and period of the borrowed amount, there is variation in the rate of interest, which Marks & Spencer need to bear for continuing its business operations.

The organisation could acquire the asset on lease from the lessor rather than procuring funds in order to buy equipments. For hire purchase, the acquisition of asset is made on credit and the payment is made on the terms and conditions, which are laid out in the agreement of hire purchase.

The kind of finance selected relies on the size and nature of an organisation (Benson, Faff and Smith 2014). For selecting the kind of financing alternative, an effective source of finance is significant. The sources of finance could be internal as well as external sources. The internal sources of finance for the long-term project of Marks & Spencer include the following:

It denotes the amount that is generated from the personal savings of the owner (Biddle 2015). This is a long-term source of finance, which is used as start-up capital for investing in the desired project.

Profit could be generated from selling the unsold stock and it is ploughed back into the business for expansion projects. Hence, by selling a part of its stock, Marks & Spencer could raise funds for financing its long-term project.

Marks & Spencer has a number of debtors, who owe money to the organisation. Thus, in order to raise funds for funding long-term project, the organisation could minimise the debtor terms, which would help in increasing its working capital base. The amount collected could be used for funding a portion of its long-term project.

Marks & Spencer could raise funds from various external sources, which are depicted as follows:

In order to fund long-term project, Marks & Spencer could obtain long-term loan from the banks at a certain rate of interest. In this case, the organisation needs to pay a certain amount in the form of interest, which would be reported in the cash flow statement as repayment of borrowings (Churet and Eccles 2014).

Appropriate sources of finance for long-term projects

Marks & Spencer could issue additional equity shares in the market for raising funds in order to finance its long-term project. This source of funding is less risky for the organisation, since the liability burden of the organisation would not increase.         

Hence, the appropriate sources of finance for Marks & Spencer include retained earnings, bank loans and issuance of equity shares and these could be used for funding its long-term project. 

Marks & Spencer could use retained earnings, bank loans and issuance of equity shares in order to undertake its long-term project. Hence, these sources of finance would impose financial and opportunity cost on the organisation. Both these costs have significant effects on the profitability and growth of the organisation and these are described briefly as follows:

Various financial institutions and banks might impose greater financial cost in front of Marks & Spencer. These institutions and banks charge increased rate of interest against the loans provided (Clark, Feiner and Viehs 2015). In addition, the organisation is needed to repay the loan amount in instalments, which would have direct influence on its profitability and liquidity aspects. The interest expense would rise for the organisation and hence, this would result in minimised profit before tax and net income. On the other hand, Marks & Spencer might have to use its cash base for repaying interest loans and as a result, the current asset base would fall. As the debt burden of Marks & Spencer increases, the organisation would have to use its asset base for discharging such obligations.  

Opportunity cost is the loss that a business incurs while selecting any other option. If Marks & Spencer is involved in using the retained earnings, it might hinder its ability to pay dividends to the shareholders or grabbing future opportunities. As a result, an unstable position would be formed in the eyes of the shareholders (DeFusco et al. 2015). Furthermore, it would become difficult for the organisation to combat with the sudden contingencies that might happen in future.

Financial planning could be defined as a procedure, which helps a firm to make different profitable and sensible decisions. Marks & Spencer could be able to distribute funds effectively in all the departments by planning the financial activities. As a result, the organisation would be steered towards growth and development. The importance of financial planning to Marks & Spencer is represented as follows:

• With the help of financial planning, all the business activities could be controlled that happen within an organisation (Finkler et al. 2016). Thus, Marks & Spencer would be able to obtain deeper knowledge regarding funds, which is available within the organisation for fulfilling its daily needs.
• Financial planning helps the organisation in using the available resources fully through which it could be able to minimise the wastage of resources.
• Financial planning assists Marks & Spencer in relation to the fund, which the organisation raises against the sources of funds.
• If the financial activities are planned, they could help Marks & Spencer to fulfil the future needs. Along with this, the organisation would be able to overcome the different contingencies, which could occur when sales are anticipated.

Internal and external sources of finance

Various decision makers or stakeholders need various kinds of information for making useful decisions. Hence, some of the information that the various stakeholders needs is described as follows:

The managers review the income statement and the cash flow statement of Marks & Spencer for assessing its liquidity position. The managers of the organisation prefer the balance sheet statement as well for obtaining wider insights about its financial performance in a specific period (Fullerton, Kennedy and Widener 2014).

The investors primarily prefer the income statement and balance sheet statement of the organisation for determining whether Marks & Spencer is in a position to provide them with increased rate of return. Along with this, the investors prefer these statements for evaluating the financial position of the organisation for making investment-related decisions.

Staffs are the persons involved in working for the betterment of the organisation (Gitman, Juchau and Flanagan 2015). The staffs of Marks & Spencer desire for fair salary, incentives and bonus, in lieu of which they want to assess the income statement of the organisation, in lieu of which the staffs are required to view the income statement of the organisation. In addition, this statement is preferred for determining the profitability aspects of the organisation.

In the words of Kajola, Adewumi and Oworu (2015), suppliers are those that provide raw materials to the organisation for manufacturing finished products. These decision-makers would be interested in the income statement and cash flow statement of Marks & Spencer for ascertaining whether the organisation is in a position to pay them timely for the materials supplied.

Since the intention of the UK government is to ensure the welfare of the society, it wants each organisation to grow while generating additional employment opportunities. In addition, the government wants Marks & Spencer to pay its corporate tax within time. Hence, it prefers the income statement and balance sheet statement of the organisation. 

It has been observed that various sources of finance have different effects on the financial statements of an organisation (Karadag 2015). Each source that the organisation uses has direct impact on the financial statements. Thus, in lieu of which the organisation is needed to choose the sources of funding by keeping in mind the influence of these sources on the financial statements. Marks & Spencer prefer retained earnings, bank loan and issuance of equity shares for raising funds for its long-term project. For instance, it is assumed that Marks & Spencer has obtained bank loan of £400,000 at 10% interest rate per annum. In this scenario, the bank loan has effect on both income statement and balance sheet statement of the organisation. 

Importance of financial planning

Profit and Loss Account:-

Particulars	Amount (in £)	Particulars	Amount (in £)
To Interest Account	40,000 (400,000 x 10%)

The above table denotes that Marks & Spencer is needed to incur £40,000 in the form of interest to the bank against the loan taken. In this case, the interest paid would be deducted from operating income to arrive at the profit before tax. As a result, this would have direct impact on the profitability aspects of the organisation.

Balance Sheet:-

Liabilities	Amount (in £)	Assets	Amount (in £)
Bank loan	400,000	Bank	400,000

This table depicts that the liabilities of the organisation would rise by £400,000, since bank loan is taken into account as debt for the organisation (Loughran and McDonald 2016). Along with this, the assets of Marks & Spencer are expected to increase as well. Payment of dividends, on the other hand, do not impact Profit and Loss account or balance sheet.

In this case, the cash budget is formulated based on the provided information, which is depicted in the form of a table as follows: 

According to the above table, it could be found that the closing cash balance of Croydon M&S Store is expected to increase from August 2017 and the trend is inherent until July 2018. A positive cash balance is always desirable, as it would help an organisation to combat with the unforeseen threats in future (Martínez?Ferrero and Frías?Aceituno 2015). However, the major problem that Croydon M&S Store might face with the cash inflows in the upcoming period is the deferred interest payment on the loan undertaken. This is because the organisation is planning to obtain a loan from bank in January for installing a security system, which would cost £50,000. The bank loan is treated as receipt in January 2018, which has helped in raising the cash base of the organisation largely.

However, when the organisation starts to make interest payments, it would have direct impact on the cash balance of the organisation. This is because the interest payment on bank loan would start after July 2018 and this would lead to rise in overall payment of the store. In addition, there would be fall in overall receipt and the net payments are expected to rise in tandem as well. In such situation, the store manager might experience fall in working capital and cash base, which would hinder its ability to repay short-term debts and obligations (McKinney 2015).

Cash budget is extremely important for Croydon M&S Store, since it would enable in establishing the credit amount that could be extended to the customers without facing liquidity problems. In addition, it would help the organisation to avoid cash shortage during times where it encounters various expenses (Minton, Taillard and Williamson 2014). In case of Croydon M&S Store, the following measures could be adopted to eliminate the identified problems:

• Making cash flow forecast timely
• Access of credit
• Maintaining healthy relationships with the creditors
• Anticipation of future problems
• Staying on top of stock management (Nimtrakoon 2015)

Information needed by decision makers

Unit cost is the cost, which is obtained by adding the overall fixed cost and overall variable cost per unit of production. There are variations in unit costs with the variations in production volumes, as any change in variable costs would have direct impact on the production units. In accordance with the above two tables, it could be found that the overall selling price on 33.33% mark-up is obtained as £46,665.50, while the selling price based on return on capital employed is obtained as £60,000. As commented by O’Brien, Liao and Campagna (2017), the organisation prefers the selling price that yields maximum profit. In addition, the profit per unit would be more for the case of return on capital employed. Thus, the directors of the organisation are advised to choose the above-stated costing method for earning maximum profit. On the other hand, since the mark-up pricing is dependent on the production volume, there would be no limitation on the overall cost incurred. Therefore, following this pricing strategy might minimise the overall profit level of the organisation.

In order to evaluate the feasibility of the two projects in the context of Marks & Spencer, the investment appraisal techniques that are used include accounting rate of return (ARR), payback period (PBP) and net present value (NPV). PBP is the time where the initial cash outflow of a project is projected to be recovered from the cash inflows generated out of investment (O’Neill, Sohal and Teng 2016). If the period is lower than the economic life of the project, it could be accepted. In this case, the payback period for project A is 3.88 years, while the same for project B is 4 years and it is equal to the economic life of the project. Thus, in terms of PBP, project A could be considered as a better option for Marks & Spencer.

ARR is the amount of return or profit, which a firm could expect depending on the investment made. However, time value of money is not considered in this technique (Przychodzen and Przychodzen 2015). The higher the ARR, the better it is for the organisation. In this case, the ARR of project A is obtained as 42.19%, while the ARR for project B is obtained as 50%. Thus, in terms of ARR, project B is feasible for the company to undertake in order to improve its profitability position.

NPV is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and present value of cash outflows over a particular timeframe. This is used in capital budgeting for dissecting the profitability of a particular project or investment (Scholes 2015). The higher the NPV, the better it is for a firm and it considered as the superior measure of capital budgeting because it takes into account the time value of money and cost of capital. In this case, the NPV for project A is obtained as £23,046, while the NPV for project B is obtained as £73,263; thus, denoting the superiority of this project. Hence, based on the above evaluation, it is recommended to Marks & Spencer to undertake project B for maximising its profit margin.

The organisations prepare the financial statements for recording all the financial activities that they perform in a particular financial year (Smallbone and Mitsui 2016). The major financial statements that Marks & Spencer use in carrying out its business operations are demonstrated as follows: 

This statement is prepared for ascertaining the income generated and expense incurred in a financial year. In this statement, revenues and expenses are classified differently. In the revenue section, the income generated like sale of products and interest received are presented, while in the expense section, salaries and electricity expenses are represented (Su and Tsang 2015).  

The organisation prepares this statement for evaluating the overall growth and financial performance. This statement is divided into two sections, which include asset side and liability side. The asset side comprises of cash, debtors and furniture, while the liability side takes into account reserves, share capital and creditors (Titman, Keown and Martin 2017).

Marks & Spencer prepares this financial statement for ascertaining the overall cash inflows and outflows. In addition, this statement is divided into operating, investing and financial activities’ sections.

A sole trader is an individual running the business on an individual level. The sole traders aim to generate higher profitability. Hence, these organisations are needed to develop income statements for evaluating the income and expense made.

Public limited company is needed to develop all the financial statements for assessing its overall financial performance and status (Valickova, Havranek and Horvath 2015). In addition to this, the public limited companies are needed to issue these statements to the stakeholders.

The financial position and performance of Marks & Spencer is conducted by evaluating the following computed ratios:

Liquidity ratios:

Liquidity ratios:-
Particulars	Details	Marks & Spencer	Tesco Plc
2016	2017	2016	2017
Current assets	A	1,461.40	1,723.30	14,828	15,417
Inventories	B	799.90	758.50	2,430	2,301
Current liabilities	C	2,104.80	2,368.00	19,714	19,405
Current ratio	A/C	0.69	0.73	0.75	0.79
Quick ratio	(A-B)/C	0.31	0.41	0.63	0.68

According to the above table, it could be found that the current ratio of the organisation has increased slightly from 0.69 in 2016 to 0.73 in 2017 (Annualreport.marksandspencer.com 2018). On the other hand, the ratio for Tesco Plc has increased from 0.75 in 2016 to 0.79 in 2017. The possible reasons identified behind such lower ratio are the rise in current liabilities and lower availability of cash. The identical trend is observed in case of quick ratio as well and it is well below that of Tesco Plc. One of the significant advantages of quick ratio is that it excludes the inventory amount while assessing the liquidity position of the business (Vernimmen et al. 2014). Thus, it could be inferred that Marks & Spencer is going through poor liquidity position in comparison to Tesco Plc in the UK retail industry. 

Profitability ratios:-
Particulars	Details	Marks & Spencer	Tesco Plc
2016	2017	2016	2017
Revenue	A	10,555.40	10,622.00	54,433	55,917
Operating profit	B	584.10	253.20	1,002	933
Net profit	C	573.20	237.10	138	(40)
Total assets	D	8,476.40	8,292.50	43,904	45,853
Current liabilities	E	2,104.80	2,368.00	19,714	19,405
Net margin	C/A	5.43%	2.23%	0.25%	-0.07%
Return on capital employed (ROCE)	B/(D-E)	9.17%	4.27%	4.14%	3.53%

In accordance with the above table, it could be cited that the net margin of Marks & Spencer has fallen from 5.43% in 2016 to 2.23% in 2017. On the other hand, the net margin of Tesco Plc has declined from 0.25% in 2016 to -0.07% in 2017. This denotes that Tesco Plc has incurred more operating expenses in contrast to Marks & Spencer in order to carry out its business operations. The return on capital employed of Marks & Spencer has fallen from 9.17% in 2016 to 4.27% in 2017, while in case of Tesco Plc; the trend is inherent as well. In this context, Wagner et al. (2015) advocated that the return on capital employed denotes the amount of profit each pound of capital employed generates. A higher ratio is always favourable for an organisation, since it could generate additional profits from the employed capital. In case of Marks & Spencer, the ratio has declined over the year; however, it is above Tesco Plc (Marksandspencer.com 2018). Hence, from the profitability point of view, the organisation is not in a favourable position in the UK retail sector.

Efficiency ratios:-
Particulars	Details	Marks & Spencer	Tesco Plc
2016	2017	2016	2017
Net profit	A	573.20	237.10	138	(40)
Total assets	B	8,476.40	8,292.50	43,904	45,853
Net sales	C	10,555.40	10,622.00	54,433	55,917
Return on investment	A/B	6.76%	2.86%	0.31%	-0.09%
Total asset turnover ratio	C/B	1.25	1.28	1.24	1.22

As per the above table, it could be evaluated that the return on investment of Marks & Spencer has declined to 2.86% in 2017 from 6.76% in 2016. On the other hand, the ratio for Tesco Plc has fallen to 0.31% in 2017 from -0.09% in 2016. As pointed out by Warren and Jones (2018), it is a performance measure used in assessing the efficiency of an investment or in comparing the efficacy of a number of various investments. It gauges the amount of return on an investment relative to the cost of investment. The higher the return, the better is the ability of the organisation in increasing its operational efficiency. Even though Marks & Spencer fails to generate adequate return on investment due to falling demand in the market, it is in a better position than Tesco Plc.

The total asset turnover ratio of the organisation has increased from 1.25 in 2016 to 1.28 in 2017, which denotes that the capital generated from employing its asset base has increased over the year. In other words, this ratio helps in denoting the efficiency of an organisation in using its assets for generating sales. In order to clear the debt burden, Marks & Spencer uses most of the returns generated from its asset base in contrast to Tesco Plc. Hence, in terms of efficiency, it could be stated that the organisation is in a favourable position to compete with Tesco Plc in the retail industry of UK.

Solvency ratios:-
Particulars	Details	Marks & Spencer	Tesco Plc
2016	2017	2016	2017
Non-current  liabilities	A	2,928.20	2,774.10	15,574	20,034
Total equity	B	3,443.40	3,150.40	8,626	6,438
Operating profit	C	584.10	253.20	1,002	933
Interest expense	D	116.40	113.00	653	630
Debt-to-equity ratio	A/B	0.85	0.88	1.81	3.11
Interest coverage ratio	C/D	5.02	2.24	1.53	1.48

The above table clearly signifies that the debt-to-equity ratio of Marks & Spencer has increased from 0.85 in 2016 to 0.88 in 2017. In case of Tesco Plc, the ratio has increased significantly to 3.11 in 2017 compared to 1.81 in 2016. The lower the ratio, the better it is for the organisation, as it has lower debt burden (Zeitun and Tian 2014). In this case, the ratio is well above the stated standard of 0.5, which denotes that Marks & Spencer is relying heavily on debt to raise funds. On the other hand, the interest coverage ratio signifies the capability of an organisation to meet its interest expense with the operating profit made. In this case, the ratio has declined massively from 5.02 in 2016 to 2.24 in 2017 and it is below the industrial average of 3.50. Hence, it could be inferred that in terms of solvency position, Marks & Spencer is not in a good position to compete in the UK retail industry. However, it is enjoying competitive advantage over Tesco Plc. 

References:

Annualreport.marksandspencer.com. (2018).  [online] Available at: https://annualreport.marksandspencer.com/M&S_AR2017_FinancialStatements.pdf [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].

Balaban, M., Župljanin, S. and Ivanovi?, P., 2017. Sources of Finance for Entrepreneurship Development. Economic Analysis, 49(1-2), pp.48-58.

Baños-Caballero, S., García-Teruel, P.J. and Martínez-Solano, P., 2014. Working capital management, corporate performance, and financial constraints. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), pp.332-338.

Benedettini, O., Swink, M. and Neely, A., 2015. Service offering and financial performance: the role of company characteristics. In 26th Annual POMS Conference. Anais… Washington.

Benson, K., Faff, R. and Smith, T., 2014. Fifty years of finance research in the Asia Pacific Basin. Accounting & Finance, 54(2), pp.335-363.

Biddle, G.C., 2015. The Role of Financial Statements in Reporting Financial Performance. In Accounting & Finance/IASB Research Forum.

Churet, C. and Eccles, R.G., 2014. Integrated reporting, quality of management, and financial performance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 26(1), pp.56-64.

Clark, G.L., Feiner, A. and Viehs, M., 2015. From the stockholder to the stakeholder: How sustainability can drive financial outperformance.

DeFusco, R.A., McLeavey, D.W., Pinto, J.E., Anson, M.J. and Runkle, D.E., 2015. Quantitative investment analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Finkler, S.A., Smith, D.L., Calabrese, T.D. and Purtell, R.M., 2016. Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations. CQ Press.

Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K., 2014. Lean manufacturing and firm performance: The incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices. Journal of Operations Management, 32(7-8), pp.414-428.

Gitman, L.J., Juchau, R. and Flanagan, J., 2015. Principles of managerial finance. Pearson Higher Education AU.

Kajola, S.O., Adewumi, A.A. and Oworu, O.O., 2015. Dividend pay-out policy and firm financial performance: Evidence from Nigerian listed non-financial firms. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 3(4), pp.1-12.

Karadag, H., 2015. Financial management challenges in small and medium-sized enterprises: A strategic management approach. Emerging Markets Journal, 5(1), p.26.

Loughran, T. and McDonald, B., 2016. Textual analysis in accounting and finance: A survey. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(4), pp.1187-1230.

Marksandspencer.com. (2018). Welcome to Marks & Spencer. [online] Available at: https://www.marksandspencer.com/ [Accessed 7 Feb. 2018].

Martínez?Ferrero, J. and Frías?Aceituno, J.V., 2015. Relationship between sustainable development and financial performance: international empirical research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(1), pp.20-39.

McKinney, J.B., 2015. Effective financial management in public and nonprofit agencies. ABC-CLIO.

Minton, B.A., Taillard, J.P. and Williamson, R., 2014. Financial expertise of the board, risk taking, and performance: Evidence from bank holding companies. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49(2), pp.351-380.

Nimtrakoon, S., 2015. The relationship between intellectual capital, firms’ market value and financial performance: Empirical evidence from the ASEAN. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(3), pp.587-618.

O’Brien, A., Liao, L. and Campagna, J., 2017. Responsible Investing: Delivering Competitive Performance. NUVEEN TIAA Investment.

O’Neill, P., Sohal, A. and Teng, C.W., 2016. Quality management approaches and their impact on firms? financial performance–An Australian study. International Journal of Production Economics, 171, pp.381-393

Przychodzen, J. and Przychodzen, W., 2015. Relationships between eco-innovation and financial performance–evidence from publicly traded companies in Poland and Hungary. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90, pp.253-263.

Scholes, M.S., 2015. Taxes and business strategy. Prentice Hall.

Smallbone, D. and Mitsui, I., 2016. An Assessment on the Sources of Finance and Business Support for EU SME’s Seeking to Internationalise in Japan.

Su, W. and Tsang, E.W., 2015. Product diversification and financial performance: The moderating role of secondary stakeholders. Academy of management journal, 58(4), pp.1128-1148.

Titman, S., Keown, A.J. and Martin, J.D., 2017. Financial management: Principles and applications. Pearson.

Valickova, P., Havranek, T. and Horvath, R., 2015. Financial development and economic growth: A meta?analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3), pp.506-526.

Vernimmen, P., Quiry, P., Dallocchio, M., Le Fur, Y. and Salvi, A., 2014. Corporate finance: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Wagner, D., Block, J.H., Miller, D., Schwens, C. and Xi, G., 2015. A meta-analysis of the financial performance of family firms: Another attempt. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(1), pp.3-13.

Warren, C.S. and Jones, J., 2018. Corporate financial accounting. Cengage Learning.

Zeitun, R. and Tian, G., 2014. Capital structure and corporate performance: evidence from Jordan.