Building financially sustainable MSMEs: Sequenced capability bundles that cut APR, lift liquidity, and truncate downside risk
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55942/ccdj.v4i2.810Keywords:
MSMEs, cash-flow discipline, budgeting rigor, technology embeddedness, cost of capital, financial resilienceAbstract
MSME survival and growth hinge on routine financial discipline rather than one-off financing. Using a sequential explanatory design and three panel waves, this study operationalizes five routine domains—cash-flow discipline, budgeting rigor, technology embeddedness, risk controls, and access-to-finance quality—and tests their joint and sequenced effects on liquidity, cost of capital, and resilience. Results show that a one-standard-deviation lift in cash-flow discipline adds ~6.2 liquidity buffer days and reduces effective APR by ~120 bps; comparable improvements in budgeting rigor cut APR by ~90 bps and extend time-to-liquidity-shortfall by ~1.8 weeks. Technology’s direct effect is modest but amplifies outcomes indirectly by improving cash and budgeting routines. Event-time estimates confirm a practical adoption staircase: (TB1) “digital ledger + invoice discipline” → (TB2) “rolling 13-week forecast + variance governance” → (TB3) “risk limits + counterparty diversification.” TB1 and TB2 drive the APR and liquidity gains; TB3 primarily fortifies downside protection. Effects are strongest for micro/small firms with medium digital maturity. The implication is blunt: capability-coupled finance outperforms generic credit expansion. Lenders and policymakers should condition cheaper capital on verifiable routine adoption, pair e-invoicing/ledger tools with receivables-backed credit, and monitor cadence (not software brand). Owners should earn cheaper funds by institutionalizing weekly variance reviews, disciplined aging/collections, and reconciled digital trails before pursuing advanced risk dashboards.
References
Allen, F., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., & Martínez Pería, M. S. (2016). The foundations of financial inclusion: Understanding ownership and use of formal accounts. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 27, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2015.12.003
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2005). Financial and legal constraints to growth: Does firm size matter? The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 137–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00727.x
Deloof, M. (2003). Does working capital management affect profitability of Belgian firms? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(3-4), 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00008
García-Teruel, P. J., & Martínez-Solano, P. (2007). Effects of working capital management on SME profitability. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 3(2), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/17439130710738718
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0
Ramli, A., & Yekini, L. S. (2022). Cash flow management among micro-traders: Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 14(17), 10931. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710931
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Cecep Bryan Firdaus

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.











