 4.1 Analytical Framework As already noted, agency cost arises if there is conflict of interest between shareholders and their agents. Such conflicts are expected when managers have too much cash at their disposal and decide to use the excess cash for boost personal gains at the expense of creating wealth for shareholders and increasing firm's value (Weston & Brigham, 1990). Conversely, managers with restricted "excess cash flow" due to their firms' debt commitments are less able to make such extravagant expenditures (Jensen, 1986). This means that the use of debt capital decreases the agency cost as payment of debts reduces the surplus cash. Therefore, the position of the agency cost theory is that debt capital in the form of short term loans or long term loans or both can reduce the excess cash at the hands of managers, reduce agency costs and consequently, improve corporate performance. Flowing from the extant literature and theoretical review above, we expect a functional relationship between debt financing and corporate performance as represented in the following schema: Explanatory variable Figure 1: Research Analytical Framework, 2018) (Conceptualised by Researchers) 4.2 Model Specification The model of this study is built on Maina & Ishmail (2014) on the effect of capital structure on financial performance. However, the model for the study is modified not only to incorporate the effect of total debt on corporate performance, but also the effects of long term and short term debts on corporate performance, hence three (3) models were used with each testing the effect of the three scenarios (total, short-term and long-term debts) on corporate performance (return on asset). Each model took into cognizance, size of the firms. On the basis of the above, the relationship between debt financing and corporate performance is thus estimated in the following regression models: Yit= α0 + β1TATSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 1. Equation 1 above measures the effect of total debts on return on assets taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1LTDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 2. Equation 2 above measures the effect of long term debt on return on assets taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1STDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 3. Equation 3 above measures the effect of short term debt on return on assets taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Where: Y
4.1 Analytical Framework As already noted, agency cost arises if there be battle of interest between shareholders and their agents. Such conflict are expected when managers hold too much cash at their disposal and decide to practice the excess cash for hike personal gains at the expense of create wealth for shareholders and increasing firm's value (Weston & Brigham, 1990). Conversely, coach with restricted " excess cash menstruation " due to their firms' debt commitments are less able to make such extravagant expenditures (Jensen, 1986). This mean that the use of debt capital decreases the means cost as payment of debts reduces the excess cash. Therefore, the situation of the agency cost theory is that debt das kapital in the form of short term loans or long term loan or both can reduce the excess cash at the hands of managers, reduce agency costs and consequently, improve corporate performance. Flowing from the extant literature and theoretical reappraisal above, we expect a functional kinship between debt financing and bodied performance as represented in the following schema: Explanatory variable star Figure 1: Research Analytical Framework, 2018) (gestate by Researchers) 4.2 Model Specification The model of this study is build on Maina & Ishmail (2014) on the effect of capital structure on financial performance. However, the model for the study is modified not only to incorporate the effect of entire debt on corporate operation, but besides the consequence of long term and short term debts on corporate performance, therefore three (3) models were use with each testing the effect of the three scenario (total, short - condition and long - condition debts) on bodied performance (return on asset). Each exemplar took into cognizance, size of the firm. On the basis of the above, the relationship between debt financing and corporate performance is thus estimated in the following regression models: Yit= α0 + β1TATSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 1. Equation 1 above measures the effect of entire debts on return on asset taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1LTDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 2. Equation 2 above measures the effect of long term debt on recurrence on assets taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1STDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 3. Equation 3 above measures the effect of short condition debt on return key on assets taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Where: Y
 4.1 Ajalytical Framework As auready noted, aggnxy cosv arisea if thefe is conflict of interest bxtwewn shqreholders and their aeents. Sucj conflixts ere expected whei managevf habc too nuch cash at tmeir disposdl and decide do ude the excess cash for boost personwl gainx wt the expense of brqatihg wealth for shareholders and incdeasing firm's value (Eeston & Brigham, 1990). Converselj, majagers with restrifted "excess casr flow" due to their firms' debt commjtments are less able to make sjch ertravagant grpenfhtures (Jensxn, 1986). Thps means that the use of deby capital decrcases thw agency cost as paymxnt of debts reduces the surpnua cash. Therefore, rhw poshtiot of rhe agtncb ckst thforb is that dsbt capital in the form of shott nrrm loans or long eewm loans or both can reduce the excess bash at the hands of managees, reduce agency costd and confequently, improve corporate performance. Flowing fsom tie exuakb ligwrwture and theoretical review above, we expect w finbtional relationsmip between debt fonwnvyng and corpotate pexrodmance as represenhed in jhe foolowing sshems: Explanatory variable Figuee 1: Research Qnalytical Framewoxk, 2018) (Conceptuclised by Rrsearchers) 4.2 Model Speciyicatikn The modep of this rtudy is built ov Msita & Ishmail (2014) on the effect of capitel stxucture un fonanciwl performwnce. Mmwever, the model flr thg studf is modifled not only to incorporate the effect of totsl dett on coxporatc performance, btt also the efyects of long term and ahort txrm debts on corporate pesvormance, henre three (3) modwls qere usda with each texting the effect of the three scenarips (jofal, short-term aub oong-term debts) pn zor[ogatx persmrmance (retusn ov arxet). Exch modtj booy inyo cognizance, size ox ths firms. On the basos of the qbove, thq relationshil between debt finwncinj and rorporste performance is thus estimated in the fllljwing regresfion models: Yit= α0 + β1TATSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 1. Equation 1 above measures the effgct of total debts on veturn on asxets eaking indo cognizance the size of the firm. Yiu= α0 + β1LTDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit es. 2. Equdtion 2 above measures the effect of long term debt on return on assets taking unto cognizance ths siae of tke yirm. Yie= α0 + β1DVDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit vq. 3. Equation 3 above measures the effect mf short term debt on return om xssets taking into cognizance the sizs of the firm. Where: Y
4.1 Analytical Framework As already noted, agency if is conflict interest between shareholders are when managers have much cash at disposal and decide to use the cash for boost personal gains at the expense of creating wealth for shareholders increasing firm's value (Weston & Brigham, 1990). Conversely, managers with restricted "excess cash due their debt are less able to make such extravagant expenditures (Jensen, 1986). This means that the use of capital decreases the agency cost as payment of reduces the surplus cash. the position of the agency theory that debt in form short term loans long term loans or both can reduce the excess cash at the hands of managers, reduce agency and consequently, performance. Flowing the literature theoretical review above, a functional relationship between debt financing as represented in the following schema: Explanatory variable 1: Research Framework, 2018) (Conceptualised by Researchers) 4.2 Specification The model of this study is built Maina & Ishmail (2014) on the effect of capital structure on financial performance. However, the the study is modified only to incorporate effect total on performance, but the effects of long term and short term debts on corporate hence three (3) models were used with each testing the the scenarios (total, short-term long-term debts) on corporate (return asset). Each model took size the basis the the relationship between debt and corporate performance is thus in the following regression β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 1. Equation 1 above measures effect of total debts on return on taking into cognizance the size of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1LTDSit+ eit eq. 2 above measures the effect of long term on return on assets into cognizance the size of the firm. Yit= α0 β1STDSit+ eit eq. Equation 3 above the effect of term debt on assets taking cognizance size Where: Y
 4.1 Analytical Framework As alreAdy noted, agEncy cOst AriSeS if tHere Is conflict of inTEresT between shareholders anD theiR aGEnts. sUcH confLicts arE ExPECteD wHeN maNaGErS have Too Much casH at their diSpoSaL and decide to USe The excess cAsh For boost persOnaL gains At The EXpensE of CreatIng weaLTh for sHareholdeRs ANd incrEAsing fiRM'S vAlue (weston & Brigham, 1990). ConvERsELy, managers with RestriCtED "eXCEss CasH flow" due to ThEir fiRMs' debt cOMmITMEntS Are less able to Make such extRAvaGant exPeNdiTUres (JeNsen, 1986). THiS MeaNs that the usE of dEbt capitaL decreASes the aGEncy cosT as payMenT of DebtS ReDuCes ThE SurPLuS caSH. ThErefore, tHe PoSitioN of tHE AGEncy CosT theOry is That debt capitAl iN the FOrm Of shoRt terM loaNs Or lonG term lOans oR bOth can reduce the ExceSs cash at tHe hAnDs oF mAnageRS, reducE agEncY costs aNd conseQUenTlY, IMPrOve corporate perforMaNCE. FLowing frOm the eXTaNt LIteraturE aNd tHeorETIcal rEvieW AbOve, we expEct a fuNCtIoNal relaTiOnship BeTweEn dEbt fiNAnciNg and cOrporate PerfoRMance as represeNTed in the folloWInG SChEMa: ExPlaNatory variaBle FIGure 1: reseARcH AnALyticAl FraMeWOrK, 2018) (conceptualised by ResEaRchers) 4.2 model specification the model of THIS study is BuilT On mAina & Ishmail (2014) on tHe effEct of capitAL structuRe on fInancial PerformanCE. however, tHe mOdeL foR thE STuDy is modified nOT Only To IncorpoRatE the effEct Of tOtaL deBt On corporaTe perforMaNcE, bUt AlsO the eFFects of lOnG teRm And Short TErm debTs on cOrpoRaTe PErfOrmance, HEnCE ThreE (3) mOdEls wEre UsEd witH eacH TesTing the Effect of tHe tHRee sCeNaRios (totAl, short-term anD lOng-term debTs) On cOrporaTE PerformaNce (return on asset). Each modEL took inTo cOgnizAnce, Size of the FirMs. On thE baSIs of thE above, The reLaTioNSHip beTWEeN deBt Financing aND CorPoratE pErfoRmance iS thus estimated in thE FolLowing regressIon ModeLS: yiT= α0 + β1taTsIt+ β2sIzeit+ EIT eq. 1. Equation 1 abovE measures tHe EFfEct of total DEbtS oN return On assetS takiNG into coGnizance tHe size of tHe Firm. yIT= α0 + β1lTDSit+ β2SIZeit+ eit eq. 2. equation 2 aBOve meASuRes thE efFect of LoNg tErm deBt on reTUrn On assEts takInG into cOgnizAnCe the sizE of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1STDSit+ β2SiZEit+ eIt eq. 3. EQuaTion 3 above MeaSUreS the effecT of sHort term deBt oN reTurn oN asSEts taKing INtO coGNizanCe thE Size of the FIrM. WhERE: Y
 4.1 Analytical FrameworkAs already  note d,age nc y co st a rises if there is c onflict of interest be tween  s h areh o ld ers a nd thei r  a g e nts .Su chco n fl ictsare  expect ed when ma nag er s have too m u ch  cash at t hei r disposal a nddecide  t o u s e the  ex cesscash f o r boos t persona lg ains a t  the ex p e ns e of  creating wealthf or shareholders a nd inc re a si n g  fi rm' s value (W es ton & Brigham ,  1 9 9 0 ).C onversely, ma nagers with res tricte d"ex c ess ca sh fl ow "  du e to theirfirm s' debt c ommitm e nts are less ab le tomak e s uche xt ra vag an t  ex p en dit u res  (Jensen ,19 86).This m e a ns t hat  the  useof debt capit aldecr e ase s the  agen cy c os t aspaymen t ofde bts reduces the  sur plus cash . T he ref or e, th e  posit ion  of  the ag ency co s t t he o r y  i s that debt capita li n  t he formof sho r tte r m loansor  lo ng t e r m loa ns o r  b oth canreduce th eexcessca sh atth e h and s ofm anag ers, r educe ag encyc osts and conse q uently, impro v ec o rp o rate  pe rformance.Flow i ng f romt he  ex t ant l itera tu r ea nd theoretical revi ew  above , weexpect a func tional rel a t i onship b etwe e nd ebt financingand c orporate p e rformanc e asrepresen ted in th e followin g s che ma:  Ex p l an atory variabl e Figu re  1: Res ear ch Anal yti cal  Fr ame wo rk, 2018)  (Concep tu al is ed  by  Rese a rchers)4. 2 M od elSpeci f icatio n The  mod el  o f  th is stud y  i s buil ton  Mai na&Ishma il ( 2 014 ) on th e effectofc apit al  s tructur e on financia lperformanc e.  Ho wever, t he model  for the study is modif i ed notonl y toinco rporate t heeffect  of totaldebt o n cor po rat e perfo r m an ce,  b ut also th e eff ectsof  lon g termand short term deb t s o n corporate p erf orma n c e,  he n ce thr ee (3) m odels were used  with each  t e st ing the ef f ect  o f the t hree sc enari o s (tota l, short- term andlo ng-t e r m d ebts) on c orporate  performa n ce (r e tu rn on  as set).Ea chmodel  tooki nto  cogn izance ,size o f the  f irms. On  the basis of the above , therelat ion ship betw een deb t financi ng a nd corpora teper forma nce is th us e s ti mat e d inthef ollowingr eg res s i on  models: Yi t = α0+ β1T ATS i t+ β2S IZEi t+ eit eq. 1. Equ a tion 1 above m easu r e s t hee ffec tof total debts  on  r e t urn on a ss ets takinginto cog ni z ancethe si ze ofthe fir m .  Y i t= α0+ β1 LTD Sit+ β2SI ZEi t+ eit eq.  2 .E quatio n 2ab ove me asures thee f fect of long ter m deb t on re t urn  on a ss ets tak i ng i nto cogniz ance the si ze ofthefirm.  Yit= α 0+ β1ST DSi t+  β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 3 . Equ ation 3  a bove  me asures  the e ffect  ofsh ort  term deb t on re tu r n o n as setsta king  into cog n izance t hes ize ofth e f i r m. Whe r e: Y 
 4.1_Analytical Framework_As already noted, agency_cost arises_if_there is_conflict_of interest between_shareholders and their_agents. Such conflicts are_expected when managers_have_too much cash at their disposal and decide to use the excess cash for_boost_personal gains_at_the_expense of creating wealth for_shareholders and increasing firm's value_(Weston &_Brigham, 1990). Conversely, managers with restricted "excess cash_flow"_due to their_firms' debt commitments are less able to make such_extravagant expenditures (Jensen, 1986). This means_that the use_of_debt_capital decreases the agency_cost as payment of debts reduces_the surplus cash. Therefore, the position_of the agency cost theory is that_debt capital in the form of_short term loans or long_term loans_or both can reduce the_excess cash at_the hands_of managers, reduce_agency costs and consequently, improve corporate_performance. Flowing from_the extant literature and theoretical review_above,_we expect a_functional_relationship_between debt_financing and corporate_performance_as represented_in_the following schema: Explanatory variable Figure_1:_Research Analytical Framework, 2018) (Conceptualised by Researchers)_4.2 Model Specification The_model_of this study is_built on Maina & Ishmail_(2014) on the effect of capital_structure on_financial performance._However, the model for the study is modified not only to_incorporate the effect of total debt_on corporate performance, but_also the_effects_of long term_and_short term_debts on corporate performance, hence three (3)_models were_used with each testing the effect_of the three scenarios_(total,_short-term and long-term debts) on corporate_performance (return on asset). Each model_took into cognizance, size of_the_firms._On the basis of the_above, the relationship between debt financing_and corporate performance_is thus estimated in the following regression_models:_Yit= α0 + β1TATSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit_eq._1. Equation 1 above measures the_effect_of_total debts on return on_assets taking into cognizance the size_of the firm. Yit= α0 + β1LTDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit_eq. 2. Equation_2 above measures the effect_of_long_term debt on return on assets taking into cognizance the_size of_the firm. Yit=_α0 + β1STDSit+ β2SIZEit+ eit eq. 3. Equation 3 above_measures the effect of short term debt_on return on assets taking into cognizance the size of the_firm. Where: Y