Maturity matching in unlisted firms: The within-firm evidence
Using a comprehensive dataset of Italian unlisted firms, this paper provides within-firm evidence that asset tangibility significantly influences debt maturity composition, revealing that maturity matching holds across different firm regimes and that regulatory certification primarily selects firms with specific balance sheet characteristics rather than shaping them.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Every business that borrows money faces a fundamental choice about time. It can take out a loan that must be paid back quickly, perhaps within a year, or it can secure a loan that stretches out over many years. The theory of how companies manage this is built on a simple, logical idea called maturity matching. This concept suggests that a company should try to align the length of its debts with the length of the assets it buys. If a business invests in a factory or a large machine that will last for decades, it makes sense to borrow money for a long time to pay for it. If the company instead uses short-term loans to buy those long-lasting items, it faces a risky situation where it must constantly find new money to pay off old debts before the assets have finished earning their value. For large, publicly traded companies, researchers have long known that this matching happens. But for the millions of smaller, private businesses that do not sell shares on the stock market, the picture has remained blurry. We did not know if these smaller firms could actually choose their loan terms, or if they were simply forced to take whatever short-term credit was available.
A team of researchers from Italy set out to clear up this uncertainty by looking directly at the financial records of over eleven thousand unlisted firms. They focused on a specific question: does the amount of physical property a company owns, such as buildings and machinery, determine how much of its debt is short-term versus long-term? The team gathered a massive dataset covering nearly seventy-four thousand snapshots of these companies' finances between 2016 and 2024. This period included a mix of ordinary small businesses, innovative small firms, and brand-new start-ups that had received official government certification for their innovation. Because all these groups filed their accounts in the same way, the researchers could compare them fairly without the data being skewed by different reporting rules. They wanted to see if the rule of matching assets to debt held true inside individual companies as they changed over time, not just when comparing one company to another.
The study confirmed that the rule of maturity matching is real, even for small, private firms, but it is not as strong as it is for large corporations. When the researchers looked at how a single company changed its debt structure as it bought more physical assets, they found a clear pattern. As a firm increased its share of fixed assets, it did indeed shift some of its borrowing toward longer-term loans. However, this adjustment was incomplete. The data showed that companies did not instantly restructure their entire debt portfolio the moment they bought a new machine. Instead, the change happened gradually over time. The researchers calculated that the full effect of buying a new asset on the length of a company's debt takes time to play out, with the final adjustment being nearly twice as large as the immediate change seen in a single year. This finding challenges the common assumption in many financial studies that companies adjust their debt instantly within a single year.
Perhaps the most revealing discovery concerned the different types of firms in the sample. The researchers found that the strength of this matching rule depended heavily on the company's status. Ordinary small businesses showed a strong tendency to match their long-term assets with long-term debt. Innovative small firms showed a weaker tendency, and brand-new innovative start-ups showed the weakest link of all. For these start-ups, owning physical assets did very little to help them secure long-term loans. The researchers suspected this was not because the start-ups were bad at planning, but because the market simply would not lend to them for the long term, regardless of what they owned. To test this, they created a new way of grouping the companies based purely on the shape of their balance sheets, ignoring their official labels entirely. This method naturally separated the firms into groups that matched the official categories. The groups that looked like start-ups had the weakest link between assets and debt, while the groups that looked like ordinary businesses had the strongest. This proved that the difference was not created by the government certificates themselves, but rather that the certificates selected companies that already had balance sheets that were difficult to match with long-term loans.
The study also addressed a common concern in financial research: whether the mathematical formulas used to analyze the data were too simple to capture the complex reality of business. The researchers tested their linear equations against sophisticated computer models that can detect subtle, curved relationships in data. They found that the simple, straight-line model worked remarkably well. The complex computer models did not find hidden patterns that the simple model missed, and in some cases, the complex models actually performed worse when tested on new data. This suggests that the relationship between a company's physical assets and its debt structure is indeed straightforward and proportional, rather than a tangled web of hidden interactions. The researchers concluded that for these firms, the rule of matching assets to debt is a real, measurable force, but it is heavily constrained by the firm's ability to convince a lender to wait. For many innovative start-ups, that ability is missing, leaving them with a pile of long-term assets funded by a stream of short-term loans, a precarious position that policy makers should consider when designing support programs.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.