(管理知识)跨国企业和国际财务管理文献翻译

原文：International Financial Management and Multinational Enterprises IntroductionThis chapter provides a selective, critical survey of the academic literature on the financial management policy of multinational enterprises ( MNEs ).The focus of much current research interest can be captured in two major themes which also dominate this analysis. The first is financial management policy in relationship to the increasing volatility of real and financial asset prices in the international financial environment within which MNEs operate. This dictates one theme of this chapter: the impact of financial risk, in particular market risk, on MNEs and an appraisal of evolving financial risk management practices.The second theme is international market segmentation (Choi and Rajan1997).The globalization of international business activity has evolved along with increasing financial market integration, particularly in capital markets. To a limited extent this has been accompanied by increased harmonization and standardization of both international regulatory and accounting practices (Roberts et al.1998).Despite such trends, the asymmetric incidence of accounting standards regulations, and taxation has had significant tactical and strategic financial management implications for MNEs (Choi and Levich1990, 1997; Gray et al.1995;Meek et al.1995;Oxelheim et al.1998).We evaluate the nature, incidence, and implications of such market segmentation for selected aspects of MNE financial management activity.It is clear from the context of our analysis that we believe financial factors to have important implications for the comparative advantage of MNEs located in different jurisdictions, and also that financial management plays a critical role in deciding an MNE’s competitive prosperi ty. This belief is supported by surveys of MNEs (Rawls and Smithson 1990;Marshall 2000).Marshall(2000) reports the results of a survey of the 200 largest MNEs which reveal that 87 per cent of Asian Pacific-based MNEs state that foreign exchange risk management is at least asimportant as business risk management. Nonetheless, to date no generally accepted theoretical underpinning has yet been provided demonstrating that financial factors alone are both necessary and sufficient to rationalize the existence of MNEs,. We further discuss this issue in the context of modes of market entry and participation in a later section.The remainder of the chapter is easily summarized. Section 2 discusses the enhanced importance of recent increases in asset price volatility, relating it to country risk and international investment appraisal. The classification and measurement of risk exposure is considered in section 3. Particular attention is given to recently developed techniques such as value-at-risk and cash-flow-at-risk. Section 4 is concerned with the management of financial risk by MNEs. In particular, a distinction is made between management policies designed primarily to hedge risk, and those intending to exploit its potential to create competitive advantage. This section also evaluates empirical studies of MNE risk management. Section 5 addresses issues relating to the effective implementation of a risk management system within the governance structure of an MNE. Brife concluding remarks follow together with some suggestions for future research..THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL RISKOur emphasis on financial risk and the evolution of MNE risk management practices has been motivated by a number of factors, the most important being the trend toward increasing global financial market integration ( Lessard 1997) and the enhanced volatility in the financial environment within which MNEs operate. We later evaluate studies which argue that these factors can confer certain advantages to internationalization of a firm’s activi ties. In preparation for this analysis we chronicle certain major recent developments in the global financial environment, which indicate the increasing importance of market risk in global financial markets.Exchange rate variabilityFollowing the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970s, exchange rate fluctuations have become increasingly volatile, punctuated by occasional episodes of exchange rate crises. Between 1970andmid-2000, the Yen/US dollar exchange rate has moved from 361 to 107 and the Deutschmark/US dollar rate has fallen from 4.2 to 1.9. However, the dollar has appreciated by about two-thirds against sterling over the same period. The crisis in the European Monetary System (ERM) in September 1992 led to significant falls in the value of sterling and the Italian Lira, while the currencies of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Korea lost between one-third and three-quarters of their value in the second half of 1997. There have also been major movements in exchange rates following shifits in the monetary policy stance of certain governments, such as the tighter monetary policy followed in the early days of the Thatcher administration in the UK. Indeed, the average volatility of exchange rates, which is in the region of 10-15 per ent per year, is sufficient to eliminate the average profit margin for the typical multinational corporation.Interest rate variabilityInterest rate volatility has similarly affected corporate funding costs, cash flows, and net asset values since the early 1970s in the US, and although they subsequently declined, a change in policy by the Federal Reserve caused a sharp increase in both the level and volatility of rates in 1979.Interest rates peaked in 1981, and then fell slowly. Since 1983, there have been four more US interest rate cycles. According to Jorion (1996 ), the increase in 1994 eliminated over $1.5trillion dollar from fixed income portfolios. Interest rates have also become more and more volatile since many central banks began to abandon targeting interest rates as a policy objective in favour of targeting money supply growth or inflation. In the UK, interest rates shot up in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to inflationary pressures caused by a relaxation in monetary policy, but then fell substantially with sterling’s withdrawal from the ERM in September 1992.Equity market variabilityEquity markets have also become extremely volatile. During the inflationary periods of the early 1970s, prices increased significantly only to fall sharply during the bear market of 1974-5 following a 300 per cent hike in the price of oil. A global recovery then ensued, with minor price reversals in 1982-3, and the market peaked in1987. On Black Monday, 19 October 1987, prices plunged. US equities lost 23 per cent of their value, equivalent to over US $1 trillion in equity capital. This was followed by another recovery over the next ten years, sustained worldwide with the exception of Japan, where the Nikkei index fell from 39000 in 1989 to 17000 in 1992, a capital loss of US $2.7 trillion. Finally from mid-to end 1997, the stock markets of Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Manila lost US $370 billion, or 63 per cent of the four countryes’ combined GDP, while the Seoul st ock market declined 60 per cent. Commodity price variability and other sources of increased riskCommodity prices, particularly those in primary product markets, have also been subject to large fluctuations since the 1970s,a trend established subsequent to the oil price rises of 1973-4. This variability also had spollover effects in other financial markets, particularly equity markets, thereby corroborating the view that it is fundamentally incorrect to treat financial markets in isolation from one anthor. Significant regulatory and legal changes, the globalization of the financial services industry, and legal changes, the globalization of the financial services industry, and the emergence of offshore financial activity have also increased financial risks. Finally, risk associated with the enhanced global risk has resulted from increased levels of world trade, major changes in trade policy, the economic and political transition of the former Soviet bloc, the growth of the EU, and the emergence of the Asian tiger economies as economic power.Country riskThis increasing financial market volatility has potentially important consequences for both the issue of international investment appraisal, and also the appropriate measure of country risk. Before we consider methodological issues relating to the measurement of country risk, there are some commentators who argue that country risk is diversifiable(unsystematic) and that there should be no corrections. Recent asset pricing behaviour in international financial markets provides substantial evidence of cross-market correlation(systematic risk) suggesting country risk is non-diversifiable even in a global portfolio, and hence should be incorporated. On the measurement aspects, Damodoran (2000) has argued that the risk premium in anyequity market can be conceptualized as:Equity Market Risk Premium in Country A = Base Premium for Mature Equity Market (US) +Country Premium for Country A.In calculating the base premium for the US market, an approach based upon historical premium remains standard. Here, actual equity returns are estimated over a sufficiently long time frame and compared to the actual returns earned on default-free (usually government) securities. The annualized difference is then calculated and represents the historical premium. This method yields substantial differences in the premiums we observe being used in practice: even for the case of the USA estimates range from 4 per cent to 12 percent. This is all the more surprising given that most calculations use identical data, the Ibbotson Associates database of historical returns.We conjecture several reasons exist for this divergence. First: differences in time periods used. Proponents of the use of shorter time periods argue that such estimates are more relevant, as the average risk aversion of investors changes over time. This consideration is likely overwhelmed by the fact that to obtain reasonable standard errors one requires very long time periods (at least twenty-five years). Indeed, the standard errors from ten-year estimates often exceed the risk premium estimates, making the estimates redundant. Second, the risk-free rate chosen in calculating expected returns, in other words the method must match up the duration of the cash flows being discounted (Damodoran 2000). If the yield curve is upward sloping, the risk premium will be larger when estimated relative to short-term government securities. Consistency is required and given the previous comments, the use of equity premium calculated relative to long-dated government bonds seems appropriate for most cases. Third, a debate exists over how to compute the average returns on stocks and bonds, in particular whether to use arithmetic or geometric averages. While conventional wisdom argues for use of arithmetic averages, strong arguments can be made in favor of the geometric alternative. Specifically, empirical studies indicate equity returns are negatively correlated over time, implying the use of arithmetic averages (which assume zero correlation) will exaggerate the premium. Moreover, while assets pricing models are typically single period models, their use to generateexpected returns over long periods (say ten year) suggests the single period’ is much longer than the data period used in their estimation (typically one year). In such a case the argument for geometric premiums is enhanced.A further issue questions whether one should incorporate a country premium, and if so how it is to be estimated. The first question has already been answered in the affirmative. The second issue requires an ability to: (ⅰ)measure country risk, (ⅱ) convert the estimate into a risk premium, and then (ⅲ) evaluate individual MNE’s exposure. On measurement, country sovereign bond ratings provided by rating agencies incorporate current market risk perceptions, and have the advantage of being measured as spreads relative to US treasuries. However, they only measure default risk, not equity risk. A crude method of converting them to the latter involves adjusting the default spread of the country converting for the volatility of its equity market in relation to its bond market (σ（equity）/σ(bond)). The country’s equity premium is set equal to the country default spread multiplied by (σ（equity）/σ(bond)). This equity premium will increase if either the country’s rating drops or its equity market volatility increases. Finally, on eva luating MNEs’ individual exposure, one has to identify the MNE’s exposure to country risk in relation to all other marker risks it faces. This requires detailed analysis of the process used to estimate beta. Not only is this beyond the scope of this paper, but it also represents an ongoing research activity over which a concensus has yet to emerge.Finally, we contend that further research attention should be given to alternative methods of estimating country risk premium that do not require corrections for country risk in the manner indicated above. Damodoran(2000) suggests use of implied equity premiums derived from the following equity market valuation model, which essentially measures the present value of dividends growing at a constant rate: Value of Corporation = Expected Dividends next period/(required rate of return of equity – expected growth rate in dividends).The only unobservable input in this model is the required rate of return on equity. This relation can therefore be solved to generate an implied expected return on equity, which in turn will generate an equity risk premium once a correction is incorporatedfor the risk free rate. This approach has two main advantages. It does not require historical data and it reflects current market perceptions. The drawback is that it assumes the market overall is accurately priced, which is problematic in the case of emerging markets. More analysis in this important area would be most welcome.Source: Michael Bowe and James W.Dean,2007. “ International Financial Management and Multinational Enterprises”Oxford Handbook of International Business，PP.558-565.译文：跨国企业和国际财务管理介绍本章提供了一种高选择性,主要是重点调查学术文献对金融管理政策的跨国企业(跨国公司)的影响。