05937oam 22013334 450 991077964320332120230802010357.01-58906-174-81-4755-1540-5(CKB)2550000001041554(EBL)1607102(SSID)ssj0000943581(PQKBManifestationID)11985109(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000943581(PQKBWorkID)10977222(PQKB)10937266(MiAaPQ)EBC1607102(Au-PeEL)EBL1607102(CaPaEBR)ebr10661245(OCoLC)821931528(IMF)WPIEE2012292(IMF)WPIEA2012292(EXLCZ)99255000000104155420020129d2012 uf 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrSpring Forward or Fall Back? The Post-Crisis Recovery of Firms /Leandro MedinaWashington, D.C. :International Monetary Fund,2012.1 online resource (32 p.)IMF Working PapersDescription based upon print version of record.1-61635-498-4 1-4755-2473-0 Includes bibliographical references.Cover; Contents; I. Introduction; II. Empirical Strategy; A. Explanatory Variables; III. Data Description; IV. Descriptive Statistics; V. Empirical Findings; A. Nonlinear Effects of Leverage; B. Robustness Tests: Trade Sensitivity and Real Depreciation Effects; VI. Conclusion; References; Tables; 1. Country and Region Coverage; 2. Sample Coverage; 3. Summary Statistics; 4. Baseline Regression: All Countries; 5. Baseline Regression: Emerging Economies; 6. Baseline Regression: Advanced Economies; 7. Nonlinear Effects of Leverage; 8. Depreciation and Trade Effects; Figures1. Density Distribution of Corporate Performance: 2007, 2009, and 20102. Density Distribution of Corporate Performance by Levels of Leverage: 2010; 3. Corporate Performance: 2007-2010; Appendix: Data Sources and Definitions of VariablesThis paper studies corporate performance in the aftermath of the global crisis by examining 6,581 manufacturing firms in 48 developed and developing countries in 2010, identifying factors of resilience as well as vulnerability. Based on a cross-sectional analysis, the results show that pre-crisis leverage and short-term debt have had negative effects on the speed of the recovery, while asset tangibility has had positive effects. The negative effect of leverage is non-linear, being particularly strong in firms with high pre-crisis leverage. Furthermore, the effects are different for advanced and emerging market economies. The paper also shows that the macroeconomic framework critically matters for firm growth. In particular, in countries that have allowed the exchange rate to depreciate, firms have had a faster recovery in sectors highly dependent on trade.IMF Working Papers; Working Paper ;No. 2012/292Global Financial Crisis, 2008-2009Financial crisesFinancial Risk ManagementimfForeign ExchangeimfInvestments: GeneralimfIndustries: ManufacturingimfFirm Behavior: Empirical AnalysisimfFinancial CrisesimfCorporate Finance and Governance: GeneralimfFinancing PolicyimfFinancial Risk and Risk ManagementimfCapital and Ownership StructureimfValue of FirmsimfGoodwillimfInternational Finance: GeneralimfIndustry Studies: Manufacturing: GeneralimfInvestmentimfCapitalimfIntangible CapitalimfCapacityimfCurrencyimfForeign exchangeimfEconomic & financial crises & disastersimfManufacturing industriesimfMacroeconomicsimfFinancial crisesimfManufacturingimfDepreciationimfExchange rate arrangementsimfExchange ratesimfEconomic sectorsimfNational accountsimfSaving and investmentimfUnited StatesimfGlobal Financial Crisis, 2008-2009.Financial crises.Financial Risk ManagementForeign ExchangeInvestments: GeneralIndustries: ManufacturingFirm Behavior: Empirical AnalysisFinancial CrisesCorporate Finance and Governance: GeneralFinancing PolicyFinancial Risk and Risk ManagementCapital and Ownership StructureValue of FirmsGoodwillInternational Finance: GeneralIndustry Studies: Manufacturing: GeneralInvestmentCapitalIntangible CapitalCapacityCurrencyForeign exchangeEconomic & financial crises & disastersManufacturing industriesMacroeconomicsFinancial crisesManufacturingDepreciationExchange rate arrangementsExchange ratesEconomic sectorsNational accountsSaving and investmentMedina Leandro1476625DcWaIMFBOOK9910779643203321Spring Forward or Fall Back? The Post-Crisis Recovery of Firms3691363UNINA