外文翻译--加纳上市公司资本结构对盈利能力的实证研究(节选)

合集下载

《2024年上市公司资本结构主要影响因素之实证研究》范文

《上市公司资本结构主要影响因素之实证研究》篇一一、引言上市公司资本结构，指的是公司债务和股权之间的比例关系，对于公司的经营稳定性、财务安全以及市场竞争力具有深远影响。

本文旨在探讨上市公司资本结构的主要影响因素，通过实证研究的方式，分析这些因素如何影响公司的资本结构，并为企业决策者提供有价值的参考。

二、研究背景与意义随着中国资本市场的日益成熟，上市公司资本结构的问题越来越受到关注。

合理的资本结构有助于公司降低融资成本、提高经营效率，对公司的长期发展具有重要影响。

因此，研究上市公司资本结构的主要影响因素，对于理解公司财务行为、优化公司治理结构、提高市场效率具有重要意义。

三、文献综述前人关于上市公司资本结构的研究主要集中在公司规模、盈利能力、成长机会、资产结构、行业特征以及宏观经济环境等方面。

这些研究为本文提供了理论依据和研究方向。

四、研究方法与数据来源本文采用实证研究方法，以我国A股上市公司为研究对象，收集相关财务数据和市场数据，运用统计分析软件进行数据处理和模型构建。

五、实证分析1. 变量选择与定义本文选取公司规模、盈利能力、成长机会、资产结构等作为解释变量，以资本结构（债务股权比例）为被解释变量。

同时，考虑行业特征和宏观经济环境等控制变量。

2. 模型构建采用多元线性回归模型，构建资本结构与各影响因素之间的数学关系。

3. 实证结果通过实证分析，我们发现：（1）公司规模与资本结构呈正相关关系，即公司规模越大，其债务股权比例越高。

（2）盈利能力与资本结构呈负相关关系，即公司盈利能力越强，其债务股权比例越低。

（3）成长机会对资本结构有显著影响，成长机会较大的公司更倾向于采用较高的债务股权比例。

（4）资产结构、行业特征和宏观经济环境等因素也对资本结构产生影响。

六、讨论与解释1. 公司规模的影响：大公司通常具有更高的信誉度和更强的还款能力，因此更容易获得债务融资。

同时，大公司通常具有更多的投资机会和更大的资金需求，因此需要更高的债务股权比例来满足其资金需求。

雅典证交所营运资金管理和上市公司盈利能力之间的关系【外文翻译】

本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译原文：The relationship between working capital management andprofitability of listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange AbstractIn this paper we investigate the relationship of corporate profitability and working capital management. We used a sample of 131 companies listed in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) for the period of 2001-2004. The purpose of this paper is to establish a relationship that is statistical significant between profitability, the cash conversion cycle and its components for listed firms in the ASE. The results of our research showed that there is statistical significance between profitability, measured through gross operating profit, and the cash conversion cycle. Moreover managers can create profits for their companies by handling correctly the cash conversion cycle and keeping each different component (accounts receivables, accounts payables, inventory) to an optimum level.IntroductionCapital structure and working capital management are two areas widely revisited by academia in order to postulate firms’ profitability. Working capital management has been approached in numerous ways. Other researchers studied the impact of optimum inventory management while other authors studied the management of accounts receivables in an optimum way that leads to profit maximization. According to Deloof (2003) the way that working capital is managed has a significant impact on profitability of firms. This result indicates that there is a certain level of working capital requirements which potentially maximizes returns.Other work on the field of working capital management focuses on the routines employed by firms. This research showed that firms which focus on cash management were larger, with fewer cash sales, more seasonality and possibly more cash flowproblems. While smaller firms focused more on stock management and less profitable firms were focused on credit management routines. It is suggested that high growth firms follow a more reluctant credit policy towards their customers, while they tie up more capital in the form of inventory. Meanwhile accounts payables will increase due to better relations of suppliers with financial institutions which divert this advantage of financial cost to their clients.According to Wilner (2000) most firms extensively use trade credit despite its apparent greater cost, and trade credit interest rates commonly exceed 18 percent. In addition to that he states that in 1993 American firms extended their credit towards customers by 1.5 trillion dollars. Similarly Deloof (2003) found out through statistics from the National Bank of Belgium that in 1997 accounts payable were 13% of their total assets while accounts receivables and inventory accounted for 17% and 10% respectively. Summers and Wilson (2000) report that in the UK corporate sector more than 80% of daily business transactions are on credit terms.There seems to be a strong relation between the cash conversion cycle of a firm and its profitability. The three different components of cash conversion cycle (accounts payables, accounts receivables and inventory) can be managed in different ways in order to maximize profitability or to enhance the growth of a company. Sometimes trade credit is a vehicle to attract new customers. Many firms are prepared to change their standard credit terms in order to win new customers and to gain large orders. In addition to that credit can stimulate sales because it allows customers to assess product quality before paying. Therefore it is up to the individual company whether a ‘marketing’ approach should be followed when managing the working capital through credit extension. However the financial department of such a company will face cash flow and liquidity problems since capital will be invested in customers and inventory respectively. In order to have maximum value, equilibrium should be maintained in receivables-payables and inventory. According to Pike & Cheng (2001) credit management seeks to create, safeguard and realize a portfolio of high quality accounts receivable. Given the significant investment in accounts receivable by most large firms, credit management policy choices and practices could have importantimplications for corporate value. Successful management of resources will lead to corporate profitability, but how can we measure management success since a period of ‘credit granting’ might lead to increased sales and market share whilst accompanied by decreased profitability or the opposite? Since working capital management is best described by the cash conversion cycle we will try to establish a link between profitability and management of the cash conversion cycle. This simple equation encompasses all three very important aspects of working capital management. It is an indication of how long a firm can carry on if it was to stop its operation or it indicates the time gap between purchase of goods and collection of sales. The optimum level of inventories will have a direct effect on profitability since it will release working capital resources which in turn will be invested in the business cycle, or will increase inventory levels in order to respond to higher product demand. Similarly both credit policy from suppliers and credit period granted to customers will have an impact on profitability. In order to understand the way working capital is managed cash conversion cycle and its components will be statistically analyzed. In this paper we investigate the relationship between working capital management and firms’ profitability for 131 listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange for the period 2001-2004. The purpose of this paper is to establish a relationship that is statistical significant between profitability, the cash conversion cycle and its components for listed firms in the ASE (Athens Stock Exchange). The paper is structured as follows. In the next section we present the variables used as well as the chosen sample of firms. Results of the descriptive statistics accompanied with regression modeling relating profitability (the dependent variable) against other independent variables including components of the cash conversion cycle, in order to test statistical significance. Finally the last section discusses the findings of this paper and comes up with conclusions related with working capital management policies and profitability.Data Collection and Variables(i) Data CollectionThe data collected were from listed firms in the Athens Stock Exchange Market. The reason we chose this market is primarily due to the reliability of the financialstatements. Companies listed in the stock market have an incentive to present profits if those exist in order to make their shares more attractive. Contrary to listed firms, non listed firms in Greece have less of an incentive to present true operational results and usually their financial statements do not reflect real operational and financial activity. Hiding profits in order to avoid corporate tax is a common tactic for non listed firms in Greece which makes them less of a suitable sample for analysis where one can draw inference, based on financial data, for working capital practices.For the purpose of this research certain industries have been omitted due to their type of activity. We followed the classification of NACE(Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community) industries from which electricity and water, banking and financial institutions, insurance, rental and other services firms have been omitted. The original sample consisted of about 300 firms which narrowed down to 131 companies. The most recent period for which we had complete data was 2001-2004. Some of the firms were not included in the data due to lack of information for the certain period. Finally the financial statements were obtained from the ICAP SA(International Capital SA) database. Our analysis uses stacked data for the period 2001-2004 which results to 524 total observations.(ii) VariablesAs mentioned earlier in the introduction the cash conversion cycle is used as a measure in order to gauge profitability. This measure is described by the following equation:Cash Conversion Cycle = No of Days A/R(Accounts Receivables)+ No of Days Inventory – No of Days A/P(Accounts Payables) (1) In turn the components of cash conversion cycle are given below:No of Days A/R = Accounts Receivables/Sales*365 (2) No of Days Inventory = Inventory/Cost of Goods Sold*365 (3) No of Days A/P = Accounts Payables/Cost of Goods Sold*365 (4) Another variable chosen for the model specification is that of company size measured through the natural logarithm of sales. Shares and participation to other firm are considered as fixed financial assets. The variable I we use which is related tofinancial assets is the following:Fixed Financial Assets Ratio = Fixed Financial Assets/Total Assets (5) This variable is used since for many listed companies financial assets comprise a significant part of their total assets. This variable will be used later on in order to obtain an indication how the relationship and participation of one firm to others affects its profitability. Another variable used in order to perform regression analysis later on, includes financial debt measured through the following equation: Financial Debt Ratio = (Short Term Loans + Long Term Loans)/Total Assets (6) This is used in order to establish relation between the external financing of the firm and its total assets.Finally the dependent variable used is that of gross operating profit. In order to obtain this variable we subtract cost of goods sold from total sales and divide the result with total assets minus financial assets.Gross Operating Profit = (Sales – COGS)/(Total Assets – Financial Assets (7) The reason for using this variable instead of earnings before interest tax depreciation amortization (EBITDA) or profits before or after taxes is because we want to associate operating ‘success’ or ‘failure’ with an operating ratio and relate this variable with other operating variables (i.e cash conversion cycle). Moreover we want to exclude the participation of any financial activity from operational activity that might affect overall profitability, thus financial assets are subtracted from total assets. Regression AnalysisSo far we established a framework of literature and data analysis in order to investigate the impact of working capital management on profitability. In order to shed more light on the relationship of working capital management on firms’ profitability we use regression analysis. In the following proposed models we examine the endogenous variable which is profitability (measured through operational profitability as mentioned in section 2 (ii) by equation (7)) against six exogenous variables and industry dummy variables. The independent variables are fixed financial assets (measured by equation (5)), the natural logarithm of sales, financial debt ratio (measured through equation (6)) and cash conversion cycle. We included in thepreceding models industry dummy variables according to NACE coding. However, in order to have the minimum degrees of freedom necessary we used general sectors of NACE categories instead of having a more detailed 4 digit codes (the 4 digit coding gave 77 different categories). Hence the total number of NACE sectors was nine, which resulted to eight industry dummy variables (in order not to fall to what is called the dummy variable trap, which is the situation of perfect collinearity or multicollinearity).ConclusionThis paper adds to existing literature such as Shin and Soenen (1998) who found a strong negative relationship between the cash conversion cycle and corporate profitability for listed American firms for the 1975- 1994 period and Deloof (2003) who found negative relationship between profitability and number of days accounts receivable, inventories and accounts payable of Belgian firms for the period 1992-1996.So far we observed a negative relationship between profitability (measured through gross operating profit) and the cash conversion cycle which was used as a measure of working capital management efficacy. Therefore it seems that operational profitability dictates how managers or owners will act in terms of managing the working capital of the firm. We observed that lower gross operating profit is associated with an increase in the number days of accounts payables. The above could lead to the conclusion that less profitable firms wait longer to pay their bills taking advantage of credit period granted by their suppliers. The negative relationship between accounts receivables and firms’ profitability suggests that less profitable firms will pursue a decrease of their accounts receivables in an attempt to reduce their cash gap in the cash conversion cycle. Likewise the negative relationship between number of days in inventory and corporate profitability suggests that in the case of a sudden drop in sales accompanied with a mismanagement of inventory will lead to tying up excess capital at the expense of profitable operations. Therefore managers can create profits for their companies by handling correctly the cash conversion cycle and keeping each different component (accounts receivables, accounts payables,inventory) to an optimum level.So urce: Ioannis Lazaridis and Dimitrios Tryfonidis ,2006 “The relationship between working capital management and profitability of listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange”. Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, vol.19, no.1, January-June. pp. 150-159.译文：雅典证交所营运资金管理和上市公司盈利能力之间的关系摘要在本文中我们调查营运资金管理与公司盈利能力的关系。

中国上市公司盈利能力研究英文

Profitability of Chinese listed companies1 Profitability study: Significance and key conclusions1.1 Significance of profitability studyProfits are the core of business operations in a modern economy. Drive for profits keep producers producing and retailers selling. As companies expand, capacity expansion starts to grow beyond its own means. Fund raising becomes a necessity. This can be achieved through loans, bonds or stocks. The key for bank loans or bond issuance is credit worthiness, or borr owers’ ability to pay back debt. For the stock market, the focus is on present and future profitability, in terms of earnings, earnings growth, cash flows, margins and market shares. In the direct capital market, capital investment destinations are determined through comparing return on equity (ROE). Companies that can deliver earnings and create maximum return on investment deserve the top picks.Unlike the original capitalist or entrepreneur, money at the stock market level has many choices of investment. It is much less attached to the original investment plan and typically less picky about which industry or management (smart investors do care about sector and management, but mainly from an investment perspective, not from a personal one) it will invest in. Money is committed to make money. The higher and the stronger profits are, the bigger the returns the investment will reap.While ROE profitability is at the centre of equity markets worldwide, less emphasis to it has been given in China. The short life span of China’ s stock exchange, excessive domestic liquidity in the past years and restrictions on capital flow all appear to have directed attention away from profitability. Management of some listed Chinese companies may also not to be focusing on this issue.In overseas markets, Chinese companies’ lack of profitability is probably the most frequently cited concern amongst equity investors. Less anxiety is expressed in 4 the domestic A-shares markets, but a rising awareness of earnings and other fundamentals has been evident recently. As Chinese equity markets develop and mature, we believe that domestic investors will place a stronger emphasis on profitability and demand higher returns on equity.The profitability i ssue goes beyond capital markets and investors’ interests. It is also a central pillar of a country’ s sustainable growth path, because profits represent wealth accumulation. Improvement in profitability is a proxy of productivity gains. One key lesson to be learnt from the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s is that economic growth must be associated with improvement in productivity and profitability. The old Asian model of pursuing high growththrough continued capital and labour inputs delivered impressive results for years or even decades, but ultimately failed. There is an abundant amount of economics literature detailing the “ Asian model” and its flaws, so we shall not extend the discussion further in this paper.Nonetheless, it is clear that shifting away from “ quantitative expansion” or a market share driven development pattern to “ qualitative expansion” or a productivity driven development pattern is crucial for Chin a’ s long term development strategy. This is about the sustainability of on-going rapid economic development. This is about the long-term prospects of China.Research articles focusing on the profitability and corporate governance of Chinese listed companies from a macro perspective from China or international financial institutions have been few and far between until recent years. Moreover, we took our study a little further by comparing profitability on a global scale as well as on an industry basis. To our knowledge, this has never been done before, but is significant in order to understand the strength and weakness of the listed companies. We also surveyed institutional investors, domestic and aboard, taking advantage of the unique combination of this project. Again, we believe this to bea new attempt at such work. 51.2 Basic conclusionsThe key findings and conclusions from this project are listed below.1) The Chinese listed companies in our survey generally recorded respectable profitability, in comparison to listed companies in US, Europeand Japan. A-shares companies seem to have higher ROE and marginsthan those listed in Hong Kong, though a bad macro environment in HongKong in the past few years probably lowered the profitability of Chinese companies, which receive a large source of their revenue flow from theSAR. Most overseas investors do not seem to be aware of the fact that theA-shares have a higher profitability than the Hong Kong listed Chinese companies.2) There is a clear trend of declining R OE and net income margins amongst companies listed in Shanghai and Shenzhen. While average margins inthe mid-1990s are in line with world standards; by the end of the 1990s,they had fallen significantly. This may be related to the deflationary environment at the macro level; this downward momentum in profitability is worrying. Hong Kong listed Chinese companies do not seem to be afflictedwith this problem.3) The falling margins of the Chinese manufacturing and consumer product sectors are particularly alarming, because these of the key sectors ofChina’ s economy. Profitability of some industries may be tied to the global cycle, such as petrochemicals and aviation sectors, where pricemovements and demand/supply balances are determined by globalmarkets. Utility companies have the steadiest ROE amongst the surveyed companies, and enjoy higher margins and returns than their international peers.4) Both ROE and net income margins of the China listed companies tend to fall once the listing process is completed. We divided companies by theiryear of listing. From 1994 to 2000, each and every category saw their 6ROE peak in either the year immediately before listing or in the listing year. Most classes recorded consecutive falls in profitability since then. There isno clear evidence that the Hong Kong listed Chinese companies follow the same pattern.5) In a poll we conducted amongst overseas and domestic institutional investors, all the fund mangers surveyed marked profitability high on their priority list. Most of them also think the margins of Chinese companies are probably below the world average. While domestic investors areenthusiastic to invest in the Hong Kong market through the QDII scheme,only one third of the surveyed international fund managers indicated they would invest in the A-shares market once QFII is introduced.Our basic conclusion from this study is: listed companies, investors and stock exchange authorities all need to place more emphasis on profitability and ROE because they are the cornerstones of modern capitalism and capital markets. It is a particularly challenging task, as China is set to liberalise its capital markets in the next decade. This means both domestic and international capital would have more options on what, or even whether, to invest in Chinese companies in the future. Chinese companies will have to compete against their global peers for capital. Profitability and return on equity are key valuation tools to attract investors. Improving profita bility is also crucial for China’ s long-term prospects, as the economy needs to raise productivity.。

国外有关资本结构的文献综述

国外有关资本结构的文献综述以下是一些国外关于资本结构的文献综述：1. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. The American economic review, 48(3), 261-297.这篇经典的文献提出了“Modigliani-Miller定理”，论证了资本结构对公司价值的影响，并认为公司的价值不受资本结构的影响。

2. Myers, S. C. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. The Journal of finance, 39(3), 575-592.这篇文章提出了“资本结构之谜”，探讨了为什么不同公司的资本结构存在差异，并提出了相关的理论解释。

3. Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1995). What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. The journal of finance, 50(5), 1421-1460.这篇文章通过国际数据的分析，探讨了不同国家和行业的公司资本结构的差异，并提出了一些相关的解释和结论。

4. Frank, M. Z., & Goyal, V. K. (2009). Capital structure decisions: Which factors are reliably important? Financial Management, 38(1), 1-37.这篇文章综述了过去的研究，讨论了影响公司资本结构决策的各种因素，并提出了一些可靠的结论。

5. Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of financial economics, 60(2-3), 187-243.这篇文章通过对大量实证研究的综述，总结了公司资本结构的理论和实践，并提出了一些建议和结论。

外文翻译--资本结构影响因素的分析研究

中文3160字1 外文翻译原文Capital structure influencing factor analysis research Material Source:Theory of Optimal Capital StructureAuthor : R. BareaSince the Modigliani and Miller (1958) since the academic structure of the capital a large number of theoretical and empirical research, trying to identify the potential impact of capital structure choice factors. A lot of literature suggests that the choice of capital structure by the asset structure, firm size, non-debt tax shields, growth, volatility, product uniqueness, profitability and other firm characteristics factors. In addition, the choice of capital structure is also affected by industry characteristics, macroeconomic and institutional environment factors. Harris and Raviv (1991) from the experience of many U.S. companies to sum up: "leverage ratio of fixed assets, non-debt tax shields, growth and company size increases, with the volatility, advertising costs, bankruptcy the possibility of profitability and product uniqueness increases less. "Chinese listed companies due to the particularity of the system, what factors determine the choice of capital structure? Characteristics of institutional factors influenced how the company capital structure choice? Experiences and things like that to be the model and empirical test. In recent years, researchers began to affect the capital structure of listed companies in an empirical study of factors, such as Lu Zhengfei, and Xin Yu (1998), Lishan Min and Su Yun (1999), Xiaozuo Ping and Wu Shinong (2002), and achieved certain results, However, most studies are using a simple regression technique factors on capital structure for empirical analysis. Titman and Wessels (1988) pointed out the shortcomings of this approach: First, there is no wish to measure the sole representative of the property; Second, it is difficult to find and other relevant property is not related to the measurement of a particular property; third, As can be observed variable is not perfectly representative of its properties should be measured, they are used in the regression analysis will lead to errors in variable problem; fourth, the agent variables and measurement error 2 may be explained by variables related to measurement error will produce false (Spurious) related. In this paper, two-stage multiple procedures, application of factor analysis-based model to reduce measurement error, to expand the capital structure of Chinese listed companies Empirical Study.Capital StructureTo build the empirical model, the author according to the capital structure theory and relevant empirical research on factors affecting capital structure analysis, and gives a proxy variable to capture these factors.I, the asset structure Agency theory, balance theory and the theory of asymmetric information are considered assets for capital structure choice. According to agency theory, high-leverage the company's shareholders tend to sub-optimal investment (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Myers, 1977). The assets of the company secured an opportunity to limit such behavior. Therefore, the value of assets and leverage are related to security. Another problem comes from a proxy service managers tend to consumption. Assets can be secured with fewer companies more vulnerable to such agency costs, because these companies on the capital expenditure monitoring more difficult (Grossman and Hart, 1982). Companies can increase the level of debt as a monitoring tool to mitigate this problem. Therefore, security assets and leverage can be negative. Theory from the balance with debt secured creditors to reduce the potential loss of the debtor's insolvency and, therefore, limit the amount of shareholder wealth, occupation of the debtor. Meanwhile, in bankruptcy the value of tangible assets higher than the value of intangible assets. Therefore, the value of assets and leverage are related to security. Under asymmetric information theory, tangible assets, more businesses will face less information asymmetry, therefore, should issue equity rather than debt. And the existence of asymmetric information, to the sale of secured debt had a negative because it reduces information premium. For asset structure, we use stock / total assets (INV) and fixed assets / total assets (FIX) two proxy variables.II, firm size Many studies suggest that large companies tend to diversify, with more stable cash flow, so low probability of bankruptcy. Warner (1997), Angclua and Meconnel (1982) study found that direct costs of financial distress and negatively related to firm size. Fama and Jensen (1983) that large corporations to smaller companies tend to provide more information on lenders. Therefore, less monitoring costs of large 3 companies, large companies than small companies with high borrowing capacity. Therefore, firm size should be positively correlated with leverage. And Rajan and Zingales (1995) that the large companies than small companies tend to provide more information to the public, may be related to internal investment company size and level of external investment in human negative correlation of asymmetric information. Under asymmetric information theory, large companies should be inclined to equity financing and therefore havelower leverage. The size of the company, we use the natural logarithm of total assets (LN (TA)) and the main business income of the natural logarithm (LN (S)) of two proxy variables.III, the tax That the use of tax-based model of the main benefits of debt financing is tax credits. According to tax-based theory, companies with higher marginal tax rates should use more debt to get the tax shield benefits. Therefore, the effective marginal tax rates should be positively correlated with leverage. Unable to obtain relevant data to calculate the marginal tax rate, we use the average tax rate (TAX) to analyze the tax impact of capital structure choice.IV, non-debt tax shield DeAngelo and Masulis (1980) that non-debt tax shield can be used as an alternative to debt financing, tax benefits, the same as in other cases, the non-debt tax shields have more companies should use less debt. Barton et al (1989), Prowse (1990), Wald (1999), Kim and Sorensen (1986) research shows that non-debt tax shields and leverage negative. In this paper, depreciation / total assets as non-debt tax shield (DEP) of the proxy variables.V. Growth According to agency theory, equity-controlled companies tend to sub-optimal investment will be deprived of their wealth came from the hands of creditors. For high growth companies, because of its future investment opportunities in the choice of greater flexibility, these companies may be more serious agency problems. Myers (1977) that high growth companies lower the future investment in growth companies have more options. If the high-growth companies need external equity financing options to implement in the future, then the company has a large debt may give up this opportunity, because such investment will transfer wealth from shareholders to creditors of the body, which produces the problem of insufficient investment. Therefore, growth should be negatively correlated with leverage. For growth, this growth rate with total assets (GRTA) and the equity value-added rate (GREQ) two 4 proxy variables.VI, volatility Regular payment of debt obligations involved, the highly leveraged company is more vulnerable to financial distress costs. Finance theory suggests that the risk of the company or bankrupt companies should not have a high probability of higher leverage. Therefore, the main business income volatility or commercial risk as the possibility of occurrence of financial distress proxy variables, which should be negatively correlated with leverage. Bradley et al (1984), Titman and Wesssels (1988), Wald (1999) and Booth et al (2001) and other studies have shown that volatility negatively correlated with leverage. In this paper, the main business of the standards slip ((VOL) as a proxy for volatility.VII ability to generate internal resources Trade-off theory is that ability to generate internal resources to leverage a positive correlation, because a strong ability to generate internal resources, companies choose higher leverage to get more debt tax shield. Jensen (1986) pointed out that instead of borrowing to pay dividends to ensure that the management discipline empire method. The benefits of debt "can improve the efficiency of managers and their organizations", which act as a "control effect" role. Therefore, the company has a large free cash flow should have higher debt to limit management's discretion. According to the Theory of Optimal Financing (Pecking order theory), because the existence of asymmetric information, the company follows the financial pecking order model: companies prefer internal resources, internal resources have been exhausted if the company was to issue debt, and finally the issue of equity. Therefore, the ability to generate internal resources, negatively correlated with leverage. The ability to generate internal resources, this paper, the cash rate of sale (NOCFS) and total assets of cash recovery rate (NOCFA) two proxy variables, but to test the Jensen (1986) free cash flow hypothesis proposed in this paper with a cash rate of sales / total Asset growth rate (FCFS) and total assets of cash recovery rate / total assets growth rate (FCFA), as free cash flow (Note: free cash flow is difficult to quantify, can not be obtained directly from the financial data, must be used in other empirical research cash flow concept, and in line with the growth of the company (such as Tobin'Q, growth rate of total assets), investment opportunities, free cash flow and other indicators in order to explain the problem.) proxy variables.VIII, product uniqueness 5 From the stakeholder theory of capital structure and product / factor market theory perspective, the company has a unique product should have less leverage. Titman and Wessels (1988) that, in liquidation, the production of unique or specialized products company, its customers, suppliers, workers will suffer from higher costs. Their workers and suppliers may have the skills and capital, job characteristics, and the customer service more difficult to find a replacement phase. From the agency cost perspective, the expected cost of employees looking for work products and services depends on whether there is unique. Employees working on the implementation of mass-specific work with respect to employees engaged in the former expected to find lower cost. Therefore, when other conditions being equal, and human-related costs for the agency to provide specialized products and services relative to the companies higher. Due to higher leverage will have higher agency costs and bankruptcy costs, sothe uniqueness of products and services will affect the degree of capital structure choice. These companies promote their unique products will suffer more sales costs and advertising costs. In this paper, operating expenses / Income from principal operations (SEXP) as a proxy for product uniqueness.IX liquidity Current ratio of capital structure choice is mixed. On the one hand, high flow rate paid by the company short-term debt due ability. Therefore, liquidity should be positively correlated with leverage. On the other hand, companies with more liquid assets may use these assets to finance its investments. Therefore, the flow of state assets would negatively affect leverage. And, as Prowse (1990) points out, can be used to indicate the liquidity of the assets to creditors, the interests of shareholders to manipulate the expense of the extent of these assets. In this paper, the current ratio (CR) and the quick ratio (QR) as a proxy for liquidity.Ten, industry characteristics The asset risk, asset type, and the demand for external funds vary by industry, the average leverage will vary with the industry. Industry characteristics and capital structure characteristics of the fact that the leverage within the same industry in different sectors of the lever more than the similar, leverage levels to remain relatively the same industry (Bowen et al, 1982; Bradley et al 1984). Bradley et al (1984) studies have shown that regulated industries (telecommunications, electronics, utilities and aviation industry) with higher leverage. This article uses the industry dummy variables to control the impact of industry factors on the lever.2、译文资本结构影响因素的分析研究资料来源: 最优资本结构原理作者: 巴里亚自Modigliani 和Miller(1958) 以来，学术界对资本结构进行了大量的理论和实证研究，试图辨别影响资本结构选择的潜在因素。

上市企业偿债能力外文翻译文献编辑

文献信息文献标题：Firm’s Size and Solvency Performance: Evidence from the Malaysian Public Listed Firms（公司规模和偿债能力：来自马来西亚上市公司的证据）文献作者：AK Ramin等文献出处：《Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences》,2017, 12(5): 1240-1244字数统计：英文3045单词，15732字符；中文4929汉字外文文献Firm’s Size and Solvency Performance: Evidence from theMalaysian Public Listed FirmsAbstract Firm solvency is one of the important indicators in measuring firm’s performance. Firm ability to grow and sustaining their business in the highly competitive business environment depends significantly on its cash flow management capacity that subsequently results to a business stay solvent at every phase of business life cycle. Early detection of financial distress is important for every firm of various sizes. Previous findings on firm’s size and solvency performance varies which tendency on agreeing to the assumption that larger firms have the advantages to avoid insolvency as compare to smaller firms. However, previous studies have also revealed that larger firms such as public listed company were not escape from facing financial distress which eventually lead to insolvency. Therefore, the study was aimed to mdentify the influence of firm’s size and solvency performance of public listed firms in Malaysia. A total of 149 firms were used to measure their financial data performance for a period between 2011 and 2014. Firm total assets and paid capital were used as a proxy to firm size. The current ratio and debt ratio were used as a proxy to measure the solvency performance. The study found that firm size measuredby total assets has moderately influence the solvency performance of firms indicated by the debt ratio and current ratio. However the firm size measured by paid-up capital has lesser influence on solvency performance measured by debt ratio and no influence on current ratio.Kev words: Current ratio, debt ratio, firm size. Insolvency, liquidity, SolvencyINTRODUCTIONIn any situation, firms should be able to meet short and long term obligation to achieve operational sustainability. In this situation, firms with operational sustainability were regarded as in the position of solvency. Insolvency occurs when a firm’s total liabilities exceeded a fair valuation of its total assets. Previous study by Brigham and Houston (2012) described technical insolvency as the position whereby firms were unable to meet their current obligations as they fall due (that is the firm’s current assets are lower than its current liabilities) despite having higher total assets than the total liabilities. Early detection of financial distress is important in avoiding insolvency. Public listed firms were relatively capable in managing liquidity to ensure that they remain in solvency position sustainably. Previous findings on the relation ship between firm’s size and solvency performance shows mixed result which tendency on agreeing to the assumption that large firms have the advantages over small firm to remain solvent. However, prior studies have also revealed that larger firms such as public listed companies were not immune from having financial distress which eventually leads to insolvency. Firm ability in servicing and repaying debts was the main indicator of the solvency position measurement of any firms (Zhang and Zhang, 2010). Earlier empirical studies by Coleman (2002), Obert and Olawale (2010) that focus on larger firm in various developed countries suggest that large firms showed that size have significant impact on the ability in serving debts lead to greater chances in sustaining their solvency position. This finding consistent with a study by Sahudin et al. (2011 ) in which larger firms allows a greater level of debt management towards their ability to sustain the solvency position. Despite many findings revealed that larger firms have an advantages over the smaller firms in managing their liquidity,there were cases particularly in which Practice Note (PN 17) was served to considerably large firms listed in Bursa Malaysia as a result of liquidity issues. PN 17 is the control procedure specifically for public listed companies which are facing financial distress and to be delisted from the stock exchange. There were 21 firms subjected to PN 17 as at first half of 2015 bringing the total listing of financial distress firms to 2.32% of the total listed firms on the stock exchange. Shareholders and investors continue to demand for healthy firms to ensure their investments. Solvency and liquidity of firms would remains significant elements for managers to manage for sustainability of the firms. It is pertinent for managers to understand about business failures, its causes and its possible remedies (Sulub, 2014). Therefore, the study was aimed to mdentify the influence of firm’s size on solvency performance of public listed firms on the Bursa Malaysia (BM).LITERIATURE REVIEWPast researchLun and Quaddus (2011 ) in their study among Hong Kong electronic industry propagated that firm size does influence the performance of business. In other findings suggested that smaller firms were more likely to issue equity while larger firms are more likely to issue debt rather than equity which influence the liquidity. Past study done by Cassar and Holmes (2003) and Esperanca et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between firm size and long-term debt but a negative relationship with short-term debt which eventually influence the liquidity. Other study suggested that firm size and capital structure strategy may influence firm’s solvency performances. Other finding by Beck et al. (2008) indicated that firms size influence the firm’s performance which includes the solvency and liquidity operation. Findings from Rajeev indicated that small firms were much faced higher risks of liquidity as compared to those larger firms. Therefore, these two findings show a risk versus return trade-off that exists at the firm performance level in relation to firm’s size. Justification of this findings propagated that larger firms have the advantages to access for better resources and skill competencies to better manage the firm. Otherproponent to this hypothesis added that economies of scale only can only be found at larger firms (Nguyen and Reznek, 1991). Despite many findings propagated that larger firms have better performance in term of solvency, there were findings which argued that smaller firms may also performance better in term of efficiency, growth and liquidity. Recent finding by Vithessonthi and Tongurai (2015), firm size does not influence the firm performances during the 2000-2009 Thailand financial crisis.Other finding by Campos and Sanchis (2015) firm’s size among agricultural industry in Spam does not influence the performance of liquidity and solvency of the industry. In general, performance of firms such as the productivity, firm size to be found in mix ed contribution towards firm’s productivity which could influence the financial health of the operation (Pompe and Bilderbeek, 2005). Earlier finding by Michaelas et al. (1999) also supported that a debt ratio and firm’s size could correlate depending on the other factors within the firms.Other findings by Bourlakis et al. (2014) suggest different small firm performed better in case of agriculture industry in Greek. Small firms preferred to opt for short-term finance as compared to larger firms and better performed as opposed to larger firms. It may caused small firms highly sensitive to short term economic environment as oppose to larger firms. It is concluded that the relationship between firm’s size and firms performance findings varies as many other fac tors may influence the both variables. It is therefore, continuous study on this issues remain relevant as economic factors continue to influence firms operation.Firm sizeFirm size has been widely used as a control variable in empirical research specifically to corporate finance. Firm size matter for many reasons, it is said that larger firms are better in managing their cash flow, therefore difficult to fail and liquidate (Shumway, 2001 ). Size can also be the proxy for the volatility of firm’s assets. Additionally, measurement of firm size varies according to the research perspective. Rajeev suggested that firm size is defined according to the value of a firm’s assets. In addition, Sahudin et al. (2011 ) propagated that the size of firm is defines as the logarithm of total assets of the firms used in business; Firm s= log e,Total asset. Previous scholar such as Kato and Honho and Sun preferred to use total assets value to represent firm’s size to measure liquidity and predictor for bankruptcy. While some researchers used asset value as the proxy to firm’s size, others have suggested alternative measurement such as paid up capital as a proxy for firm’s size. According to Allen paid-up capital for a firms company is the number of shares outstanding multiplies the face value of the shares. Kidanu defined paid-up capital as the amount of capital which is contributed/paid by owner(s) during the establishment of a firm adopting measurement of firm’s size using paid-up capital is a more stable measure of firm size (Ponnu and Okoth, 2009). Other researcher suggested that total assets as a proxy for firm size indicated the influence of firm’s size and solvency performance (Vithessonthi and Tongurai, 2015). In view of the widely adopted by other researcher, this stud y employed this variable as the proxy for firm’s size.SolvencyThe importance of knowing solvency through the optimal debt ratio could help policymakers and financial managers to formulate an appropriate financing policy that could prevent companies from going into financially distressed situation due to excessive level of debt (Ahmad and Abdullah, 2011). Previous researches works widely suggested that ‘Debt Ratio’ (DR) and ‘Debt to Equity Ratio’ (DER) be used as a proxy to solvency (Khidmat and Rehman, 2014). DR was widely used as its reflecting the company’ liability situation and has the best protection degree for borrower’s benefit and it is the basic ratio in translatmg financing structure as well as easy to define and calculate (Li and Jian, 2008). Other proponent on the use of DR was finding by Ahmad and Abdullah (2011) in which DR was consistent with trade-off theory which hypothesize that high debt ratio will lead to financial distress and thus deteriorate the firm value. Other measurement on solvency was based on performance of Current Ratio (CR). The CR measure a firm’s ability to pay current obligations on business such as operating and financial expenses is current ratio. Current ratio consists of cash and near-cash assets (together called “current” assets) of a business on one side and immediate payment obligations (current liabilities) on the other side. Using the CR to measure solvency enable firms to monitor paymentobligations include dues to suppliers, operating and financial expenses that must be paid shortly and maturing installments under long-term debt (Saleem and Rehman, 2011; Altman, 1968). It is therefore, CR and DR were adopted in this study as a proxy for solvency performance.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis study employs quantitative methodology involving collection of secondary audited financial data from 149 firms for a period between 2011 and 2014 representing a sample size of 16% from a total of 934 firms listed on Bursa Malaysia. Quantitative method based on secondary data was employed as simple random sampling technique was employed to select a sample representing type of sector and firm size. Table 1 shows industrial product accounts the largest number of the samples which were 47 firms (31 .5%) and followed by trade and service sector of 35 firms (23.5%). There were 25 firms or 16.8% representing consumer sector. Property sector accounts for 12.1 % or 18 sample firms. The remaining samples came from construction, plantation and technology and hotel industry. Detail breakdown of samples firms is depicted in Table 1 (Dhawan, 2001).Table I : Samples firms by sectorsSector Frequency PercentageIndustrial product 47 31.5Trade and service 35 23.5Consumer 25 16.8Property 18 12.1Construction 9 6.0Plantation 7 4.7Technology 5 3.4Finance 3 2.0Total 149 100.0Data observations covers annual reports from 149 firms for 4 years period were analysis using excel prior to further analysis using SPSS. Firm size was measure by total assets of the firms and paid up capital. Total assets were derived as:Fixed assets + Current assets (1) Debt ratios were calculated as:Total debt/total asset (2)Current ratios were calculated as:Total current assets/Total current liabilities (3)RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONDescriptive analysis on debt ratios and current ratio resulted in their respective mean scores of each firm’s size category as depicted in Table 2 mean score for DR varies according to firm’s size in which small f irms scored mean of 0. 259, medium size; 0.378 and larger firm scored mean of 0. 452. For the CR, small firm scored mean of 6.605, medium firm; 2.534 and larger firm scored 2.562. Correlation test on the relationship between firm size (total assets) and DR yielded p<0. 005 and r-value of 0.313 indicated that there was a moderate positive correlation between two variables as depicted in Table 3. Firm size (total assets) value correlate with the performance firm’s debt ratio indicating that as the asset value increase it will also resulted to moderate and significant increase in the firm’s DR.Table 2: Mean score of DR and CR for various firm’s sizeFrim size (total assets) Mean Debt Ratio (DR) Mean Current Ratio (CR) Small frim (TA<RM 100mil) 0.259 6.605 Medium frim (RM 100mil<TA<RM 499 mil) 0.378 2.534Large frim (TA>RM 499 mil) 0.452 2.562 Table 3: Correlation between total assets and debt ratio from year 2011 -2014 spearman's rho DR TADRCorrelation coefficient 1.000 0.313**Sig. (2-tailed)- 0.000N 149 149TACorrelation coefficient0.313** 1.000Sig. (2-tailed)0.000 -N 149 149* *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)Further, test on the correlation between firm sizes (total assets) on CR yielded r-value of 0.194 and p-value of 0.018, p<0. 005 indicated that was a weak and significant positive correlation between the two variables as highlighted in Table 4.Table 4: Correlation between total assets and current ratio from years 2011-2014spearman's rho CR TACRCorrelation coefficient 1.000 0.194*Sig. (2-tailed)- 0.018N 149 149TACorrelation coefficient0.194* 1.000Sig. (2-tailed)0.018 -N 149 149* *Correlation is significant at the 0. 05 level (2-tailed)A test was also conducted on the relationship between firm size measures by paid-up capital against the DR. The finding indicated that there was a weak and significant positive correlationbetween paid-up capital and debt ratio, r = 0.299, p<0. 005 (Table 5 and 6).Table 5: Correlation between paid-up capital and debt ratio from years 2011-2014 spearman's rho DR Paid-up capitalDRCorrelation coefficient 1.000 0.299**Sig. (2-tailed)- 0.000N 149 149Paid-up capitalCorrelation coefficient0.299** 1.000Sig. (2-tailed)0.000 -N 149 149Table 6: Correlation between paid-up capital and current ratio from years 2011-2014 spearman's rho CR Paid-up capitalCRCorrelation coefficient 1.000 0.214**Sig. (2-tailed)- 0.009N 149 149Paid-up capitalCorrelation coefficient0.214** 1.000Sig. (2-tailed)0.009 -N 149 149The final test on the relationship between paid-up capital and current ratio yielded r = 0. 214, p<0. 009. The result indicated that there was a weak and significant positive correlation between the two variables. All in all, the correlation analysis indicates that there exist significant positive correlation between measure of firm sizeand solvency performance. Nevertheless, it is important to note the correlations are rather weak. With highest linear correlation at 0.313 it does suggest that firm size has quite minimum impact on firm’s solvency performance. The findings also support prior studies that the relationship between firm size and solvency performance is mixed.CONCLUSIONSummary of the findings can be concluded that firm’s size measured by total assets does influence the firm’s solvency performance for both measurement of debt ratio and current ratio. The ability to optimize higher assets value may help firm improve their liquidity. This findings was consistence with previous studies by Michaelas et al. (1999), Hall et al. (2000) and Sogorb-Mira (2005) in which a positive relationship between firm size (assets) and leverage and solvency measured in the ratio of total debt (long-term debt).As for the relationship between paid-up capital and solvency performance, the debt ratio found to be influence by the paid-up capital while current ratio showed no relationship with the size of paid-up capital. It was nature of paid-up capital which used as initial resources to start the business operation. Over the time paid up capital relatively experience fewer changes despite the need for additional resources. Firms are preferred to sources external funding as compare to equity financing. However, the use of debt can also increase the financial risk of a firm and lead to the insolvency. According to Coleman and Cohn (2002) and Coleman (2002), debt is one of the variables that can cause insolvency for most of firms. Failure rates in the range of 50-75% were commonly cited for smaller firms, making it difficult for smaller firms to raise external capital from either debt or equity providers. The weak of financial structure as reflected by the gearing (debt-equity ratio) has been found to be the key source of insolvency. Many firms were unable to keep up this high debt ratio and, later become insolvent. A high debt ratio in itself, does not make a firm insolvent as long as the firm is earning enough to cover interest and principal payments when it they come due. However, the more leveraged a firm is the more vulnerable it is tobankruptcy. Therefore, the flow of earnings and the ability of the firm to make interest and principal payments will determine whether the firm will actually become insolvent or otherwise (Kim and Lee, 2002). The prediction and prevention of financial distress is one of the major factors that should be analyzed in advance as an early warning signal and to avoid bankruptcy. In addition to the awareness that can make a company successful, it is also useful for managers to have an understanding of business failures and bankruptcy, its causes and its possible remedies. In conclusion, firm size does matter, although the impact is quite small in term of their influence towards solvency performance. However, equally important is the ability of the managers to leverage available resources within the firms to strive for healthy financial position and remain solvent all the time.中文译文公司规模和偿债能力：来自马来西亚上市公司的证据摘要企业偿债能力是衡量企业绩效的重要指标之一。

营运资金的管理对上市公司盈利能力的影响【外文翻译】

外文翻译The relationship between working capital management and profitability of listed companiesMaterial Source: Electronic copy available athttp://ss / Author: Ioannis LazaridisAbstractIn this paper we investigate the relationship of corporate profitability and working capital management. We used a sample of 131 companies listed in the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE) for the period of 2001-2004. The purpose of this paper is to establish a relationship that is statistical significant between profitability, the cash conversion cycle and its components for listed firms in the ASE. The results of our research showed that there is statistical significance between profitability, measured through gross operating profit, and the cash conversion cycle. Moreover managers can create profits for their companies by handling correctly the cash conversion cycle and keeping each different component (accounts receivables, accounts payables, inventory) to an optimum level.IntroductionCapital structure and working capital management are two areas widely revisited by academia in order to postulate firms’ profitability. Working capital management have been approached in numerous ways. Other researchers studied the impact of optimum inventory management while other authors studied the management of accounts receivables in an optimum way that leads to profit maximisation1. According to Deloof 2 (2003) the way that working capital is managed has a significant impact on profitability of firms. This result indicates that there is a certain level of working capital requirements which potentially maximises returns.Other work on the field of working capital management focuses on the routines employed by firms. This research showed that firms which focus on cash management were larger, with fewer cash sales, more seasonality and possibly more cash flow problems. While smaller firms focused more on stock management and less profitable firms were focused on credit management routines. It is suggestedthat high growth firms follow a more reluctant credit policy towards their customers, while they tie up more capital in the form of inventory. Meanwhile accounts payables will increase due to better relations of suppliers with financial institutions which divert this advantage of financial cost to their clients.According to Wilner (2000) most firms extensively use trade credit despite its apparent greater cost, and trade credit interest rates commonly exceed 18 percent5. In addition to that he states that in 1993 American firms extended their credit towards customers by 1.5 trillion dollars. Similarly Deloof (2003) found out through statistics from the National Bank of Belgium that in 1997 accounts payable were 13% of their total assets while accounts receivables and inventory accounted for 17% and 10% respectively. Summers and Wilson (2000) report that in the UK corporate sector more than 80% of daily business transactions are on credit terms6.There seems to be a strong relation between the cash conversion cycle of a firm and its profitability. The three different components of cash conversion cycle (accounts payables, accounts receivables and inventory) can be managed in different ways in order to maximise profitability or to enhance the growth of a company. Sometimes trade credit is a vehicle to attract new customers. Many firms are prepared to change their standard credit terms in order to win new customers and to gain large orders.In addition to that credit can stimulate sales because it allows customers to assess product quality before paying8. Therefore it is up to the individual company whether a ‘marketing’ approach should be followed when managing the working capital through credit extension. However the financial department of such a company will face cash flow and liquidity problems since capital will be invested in customers and inventory respectively. In order to have maximum value, equilibrium should be maintained in receivables-payables and inventory. According to Pike & Cheng (2001) credit management seeks to create, safeguard and realise a portfolio of high quality accounts receivable. Given the significant investment in accounts receivable by most large firms, credit management policy choices and practices could have important implications for corporate value9. Successful management of resources will lead to corporate profitability, but how can we measure management success since a period of ‘credit granting’ might lead to increased sales and market share whilst accompanied by decreased profitability or the opposite? Since working capital management is best described by the cash conversion cycle we will try to establish a link between profitability and management of the cash conversion cycle. This simple equationencompasses all three very important aspects of working capital management. It is an indication of how long a firm can carry on if it was to stop its operation or it indicates the time gap between purchase of goods and collection of sales. The optimum level of inventories will have a direct effect on profitability since it will release working capital resources which in turn will be invested in the business cycle, or will increase inventory levels in order to respond to higher product demand. Similarly both credit policy from suppliers and credit period granted to customers will have an impact on profitability. In order to understand the way working capital is managed cash conversion cycle and its components will be statistically analysed. In this paper we investigate the relationship between working capital management and firms’ profitability for 131 listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange for the period 2001-2004. The purpose of this paper is to establish a relationship that is statistical significant between profitability, the cash conversion cycle and its components for listed firms in the ASE (Athens Stock Exchange). The paper is structured as follows. In the next section we present the variables used as well as the chosen sample of firms. Results of the descriptive statistics accompanied with regression modelling relating profitability (the dependent variable) against other independent variables including components of the cash conversion cycle, in order to test statistical significance. Finally the last section discusses the findings of this paper and comes up with conclusions related with working capital management policies and profitability.2. Data Collection and Variables(i) Data CollectionThe data collected were from listed firms in the Athens Stock Exchange Market. The reason we chose this market is primarily due to the reliability of the financial statements. Companies listed in the stock market have an incentive to present profits if those exist in order to make their shares more attractive. Contrary to listed firms, non listed firms in Greece have less of an incentive to present true operational results and usually their financial statements do not reflect real operational and financial activity. Hiding profits in order to avoid corporate tax is a common tactic for non listed firms in Greece which makes them less of a suitable sample for analysis where one can draw inference, based on financial data, for working capital practices.For the purpose of this research certain industries have been omitted due to their type of activity. We followed the classification of NACE10 industries fromwhich electricity and water, banking and financial institutions, insurance, rental and other services firms have been omitted. The original sample consisted of about 300 firms which narrowed down to 131 companies. The most recent period for which we had complete data was 2001-2004. Some of the firms were not included in the data due to lack of information for the certain period. Finally the financial statements were obtained from the ICAP SA11 database. Our analysis uses stacked data for the period 2001-2004 which results to 524 total observations.(ii) VariablesAs mentioned earlier in the introduction the cash conversion cycle is used as a measure in order to gauge profitability. This measure is described by the following equation:Cash Conversion Cycle = No of Days A/R12 + No of Days Inventory – No of Days A/P13 (1)In turn the components of cash conversion cycle are given below:No of Days A/R = Accounts Receivables/Sales*365 (2)No of Days Inventory = Inventory/Cost of Goods Sold*365 (3)No of Days A/P = Accounts Payables/Cost of Goods Sold*365 (4)Another variable chosen for the model specification is that of company size measured through the natural logarithm of sales. Shares and participation to other firm are considered as fixed financial assets. The variable I we use which is related to financial assets is the following:Fixed Financial Assets Ratio = Fixed Financial Assets/Total Assets (5) This variable is used since for many listed companies financial assets comprise a significant part of their total assets. This variable will be used later on in order to obtain an indication how the relationship and participation of one firm to others affects its profitability. Another variable used in order to perform regression analysis later on, includes financial debt measured through the following equation: Financial Debt Ratio = (Short Term Loans + Long Term Loans)/Total Assets (6) This is used in order to establish relation between the external financing of the firm and its total assets.Finally the dependent variable used is that of gross operating profit. In order to obtain this variable we subtract cost of goods sold from total sales and divide the result with total assets minus financial assets.Gross Operating Profit = (Sales –COGS14)/(Total Assets –Financial Assets(7)The reason for using this variable instead of earnings before interest tax depreciation amortization (EBITDA) or profits before or after taxes is because we wa nt to associate operating ‘success’ or ‘failure’ with an operating ratio and relate this variable with other operating variables (i.e cash conversion cycle). Moreover we want to exclude the participation of any financial activity from operational activity that might affect overall profitability, thus financial assets are subtracted from total assets.3. Descriptive StatisticsThe following table gives the descriptive statistics of the collected variables. The total of observations sums to n = 524. On average 16.8% of total assets are financial assets (including participation to other subsidiaries). Total sales have a mean of 118.9 million euros while the median is 31.9 million. The firms included in our sample had an average of 2.58% net operating profit. The credit period granted to their customers ranged at 148 days on average (median 130 days) while they paid their creditors in 96 days on average (median 73 days). Inventory takes on average 136 days to be sold (median 104 days). Overall the average cash conversion cycle ranged at 188 days (median 165 days).。

公司治理与资本结构对上市公司价值创造能力影响的实证研究

公司治理与资本结构对上市公司价值创造能力影响的实证研究公司治理与资本结构对上市公司价值创造能力影响的实证研究摘要：本文以公司治理和资本结构为研究对象，探讨其对上市公司价值创造能力的影响。

通过收集并分析大量的实证数据，研究发现，良好的公司治理结构和适当的资本结构对于上市公司的价值创造能力具有重要影响。

具体来说，有效的公司治理可以帮助提高公司的透明度、规范运作和减少潜在的代理成本，从而促进公司价值的提升。

而合理的资本结构可以平衡债务和权益之间的关系，提高公司的盈利能力和抵御外部风险的能力。

本研究为进一步探讨公司治理和资本结构对上市公司价值创造能力的影响提供了一定的理论基础。

关键词：公司治理，资本结构，上市公司，价值创造能力引言：公司治理是指在现代公司制度下，通过一系列的制度安排和规定，确保上市公司合法性、公正性和有效性的一种组织结构和运作方式。

而资本结构则是指公司融资的方式和组合，包括债务和权益之间的比例关系。

公司治理和资本结构都是影响上市公司绩效和价值创造能力的重要因素。

本文将对公司治理和资本结构对上市公司价值创造能力的影响进行实证研究。

一、公司治理对上市公司价值创造能力的影响1.1 公司治理规范性良好的公司治理结构能够提高上市公司的透明度和规范运作，并减少公司内部的权力滥用和不正当行为。

通过规范公司内部运作，有效的公司治理能够提高管理层的决策水平和执行力，促进公司价值的创造。

1.2 公司治理透明度公司治理透明度是指上市公司信息披露的完整性和及时性。

透明度是投资者评价上市公司价值创造能力的重要依据之一。

若公司治理结构不透明，信息披露不及时，则投资者难以了解公司经营情况和未来发展前景，从而影响投资决策和公司价值创造能力。

1.3 公司治理代理成本代理问题是公司治理中常见的难题之一，也是影响公司价值创造能力的重要因素。

合理有效的公司治理结构能够减少代理成本，降低潜在的道德风险和激励约束，从而提高公司绩效和价值创造能力。

《2024年上市公司资本结构主要影响因素之实证研究》范文

《上市公司资本结构主要影响因素之实证研究》篇一一、引言资本结构是公司财务管理的核心内容之一，它反映了公司的资产、负债和股东权益之间的比例关系。

对于上市公司而言，资本结构的合理性直接关系到公司的融资能力、运营效率和市场价值。

因此，研究上市公司资本结构的主要影响因素，对于优化公司治理结构、提高公司市场竞争力具有重要意义。

本文以实证研究的方法，探讨上市公司资本结构的主要影响因素。

二、研究背景及意义随着中国资本市场的不断发展，上市公司数量不断增加，资本结构问题逐渐成为公司财务管理的重点。

合理的资本结构有助于公司降低融资成本、提高运营效率，进而提升公司市场价值。

因此，研究上市公司资本结构的主要影响因素，对于指导公司财务管理实践、优化公司治理结构、提高公司市场竞争力具有重要现实意义。

三、研究方法与数据来源本研究采用实证研究方法，通过收集上市公司相关数据，运用统计分析软件进行数据处理和分析。

数据来源主要包括上市公司公开披露的财务报告、相关研究报告以及权威数据库。

四、实证研究结果1. 影响因素分析通过实证研究，我们发现上市公司资本结构的主要影响因素包括以下几个方面：（1）宏观经济环境：包括国内生产总值、利率、通货膨胀率等经济指标，以及政策法规等因素，对上市公司资本结构产生重要影响。

（2）公司自身特征：包括公司规模、盈利能力、成长能力、资产结构等公司自身特征，对资本结构产生影响。

（3）融资需求与融资成本：公司融资需求和融资成本是决定资本结构的重要因素。

当公司需要扩大规模或进行项目投资时，会通过调整资本结构来满足融资需求。

同时，融资成本也会影响公司的资本结构，当融资成本较高时，公司会更倾向于通过内部融资来满足资金需求。

（4）投资者偏好与市场环境：投资者的风险偏好、市场供需关系等因素也会对上市公司资本结构产生影响。

当投资者风险偏好较高时，公司更可能采用较高的负债比例；而市场供需关系则会影响公司的股价，进而影响公司的市值和资本结构。

2025年上市公司资本结构与融资行为实证研究可编辑修改精选全文完整版

可编辑修改精选全文完整版上市公司资本结构与融资行为实证研究长期以来，单一的融资体制和低效的内源融资能力导致国有企业过度负债，并成为困扰国有企业改革和发展的一个重要因素。近年来，随着证券市场的迅速发展和融资功能的增强，企业注重股票融资有其客观必然性，但过度依赖股票融资也将对公司本身和证券市场的发展带来许多负面影响。引言

不同资金来源的组合配置产生不同的资本结构，并导致不同的资金成本、利益冲突及财务风险，进而影响到公司的市场价值。如何通过融资行为使负债和股东权益保持合理比例，形成一个最优的资本结构，不但是股东和债权人的共同目标，也是长久以来金融理论研究的焦点。

1958年，莫迪利亚尼和米勒(Modigliani & Miller)发表了《资金成本、公司融资和投资理论》这一著名论文，指出在市场完全的前提下，当公司税和个人税不存在时，资本结构和公司价值无关(即MM定理)。此后，金融学家们纷纷放宽MM定理中过于简化的理论假设，尝试从破产成本、代理理论、信息不对称等不同的理论基础来研究影响资本结构的主要因素。与此同时，学术界对公司资本结构的实证研究也开始蓬勃兴起，相关研究结果表明：在现实世界中，公司规模、盈利能力以及经营风险等因素对于资本结构的决定有着重要影响。

而布罗姆(Browne,F.X,1994)和兰杰(Rajan,R.G,1995)等人对各国企业资本结构的比较研究更是极大地拓展了资本结构理论的内涵，人们逐渐认识到：资本结构不仅是公司自身的决策问题，而且与一国的经济发展阶段、金融体系以及公司治理机制等外部制度因素密切相关。

当前，我国国有企业改革正在向纵深推进，过度负债的不合理资本结构越来越成为深化国企改革的障碍，并因而成为许多国企改制上市和发展股票市场的最根本的政策动因。在上述背景下，研究我国上市公司资本结构的特点，以及政策环境和管理动机对融资行为的影响，对于促进上市公司健康发展、推动国企股份制改造均具有重要的现实意义和理论价值。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

中文3150字，2100单词，10800英文字符出处：Abor J. The effect of capital structure on profitability: an empirical analysis of listed firms in Ghana[J]. Journal of Risk Finance, 2005, 6(November):438-445.外文翻译The effect of capital structure on profitability : an empirical analysis of listed firms in GhanaAuthor:Joshua AborIntroductionThe capital structure decision is crucial for any business organization. The decision is important because of the need to maximize returns to various organizational constituencies, and also because of the impact such a decision has on a firm’s ability to deal with its competitive environment. The capital structure of a firm is actually a mix of different securities. In general, a firm can choose among many alternative capital structures. It can issue a large amount of debt or very little debt. It can arrange lease financing, use warrants, issue convertible bonds, sign forward contracts or trade bond swaps. It can issue dozens of distinct securities in countless combinations; however, it attempts to find the particular combination that maximizes its overall market value.A number of theories have been advanced in explaining the capital structure of firms. Despite the theoretical appeal of capital structure, researchers in financial management have not found the optimal capital structure. The best that academics and practitioners have been able to achieve are prescriptions that satisfy short-term goals. For example, the lack of a consensus about what would qualify as optimal capital structure has necessitated the need for this research. A better understanding of the issues at hand requires a look at the concept of capital structure and its effect on firm profitability. This paper examines the relationship between capital structure and profitability of companies listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange during the period 1998-2002. The effect of capital structure on the profitability of listed firms in Ghana is a scientific area that has not yet been explored in Ghanaian finance literature.The paper is organized as follows. The following section gives a review of the extant literature on the subject. The next section describes the data and justifies the choice of the variables used in the analysis. The model used in the analysis is then estimated. The subsequent section presents and discusses the results of the empirical analysis. Finally, the last section summarizes the findings of the research and also concludes the discussion.Literature on capital structureThe relationship between capital structure and firm value has been the subject of considerable debate. Throughout the literature, debate has centered on whether there is an optimal capital structure for an individual firm or whether the proportion of debt usage is irrelevant to the individual firm’s value. The capital structure of a firm concerns the mix of debt and equity the firm uses in its operation. Brealey and Myers (2003) contend that the choice of capital structure is fundamentally a marketing problem. They state that the firm can issue dozens of distinct securities in countless combinations, but it attempts to find the particular combination that maximizes market value. According to Weston and Brigham (1992), the optimal capital structure is the one that maximizes the market value of the firm’s outstanding shares.Fama and French (1998), analyzing the relationship among taxes, financing decisions, and the firm’s value, concluded that the debt does not concede tax benefits. Besides, the high leverage degree generates agency problems among shareholders and creditors that predict negative relationships between leverage and profitability. Therefore, negative information relating debt and profitability obscures the tax benefit of the debt. Booth et al. (2001) developed a study attempting to relate the capital structure of several companies in countries with extremely different financial markets. They concluded that the variables that affect the choice of the capital structure of the companies are similar, in spite of the great differences presented by the financial markets. Besides, they concluded that profitability has an inverse relationship with debt level and size of the firm. Graham (2000) concluded in his work that big and profitable companies present a low debt rate. Mesquita and Lara (2003) found in their study that the relationship between rates of return and debt indicates a negative relationship for long-term financing. However, they found a positiverelationship for short-term financing and equity.Hadlock and James (2002) concluded that companies prefer loan (debt) financing because they anticipate a higher return. Taub (1975) also found significant positive coefficients for four measures of profitability in a regression of these measures against debt ratio. Petersen and Rajan (1994) identified the same association, but for industries. Baker (1973), who worked with a simultaneous equations model, and Nerlove (1968) also found the same type of association for industries. Roden and Lewellen (1995) found a significant positive association between profitability and total debt as a percentage of the total buyout-financing package in their study on leveraged buyouts. Champion (1999) suggested that the use of leverage was one way to improve the performance of an organization.In summary, there is no universal theory of the debt-equity choice. Different views have been put forward regarding the financing choice. The present study investigates the effect of capital structure on profitability of listed firms on the GSE.MethodologyThis study sampled all firms that have been listed on the GSE over a five-year period (1998-2002). Twenty-two firms qualified to be included in the study sample. Variables used for the analysis include profitability and leverage ratios. Profitability is operationalized using a commonly used accounting-based measure: the ratio of earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) to equity. The leverage ratios used include:. short-term debt to the total capital;. long-term debt to total capital;. total debt to total capital.Firm size and sales growth are also included as control variables.The panel character of the data allows for the use of panel data methodology. Panel data involves the pooling of observations on a cross-section of units over several time periods and provides results that are simply not detectable in pure cross-sections or pure time-series studies.A general model for panel data that allows the researcher to estimate panel data with great flexibility and formulate the differences in the behavior of the cross-section elements is adopted. The relationship between debt and profitability is thus estimated in the following regression models:ROE i,t =β0 +β1SDA i,t +β2SIZE i,t +β3SG i,t + ëi,t (1)ROE i,t=β0 +β1LDA i,t +β2SIZE i,t +β3SG i,t + ëi,t (2)ROE i,t=β0 +β1DA i,t +β2SIZE i,t +β3SG i,t + ëi,t (3)where:. ROE i,t is EBIT divided by equity for firm i in time t;. SDA i,t is short-term debt divided by the total capital for firm i in time t;. LDA i,t is long-term debt divided by the total capital for firm i in time t;. DA i,t is total debt divided by the total capital for firm i in time t;. SIZEi ,tis the log of sales for firm i in time t;. SGi ,tis sales growth for firm i in time t; and. ëi ,tis the error term.Empirical resultsTable I provides a summary of the descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables for the sample of firms. This shows the average indicators of variables computed from the financial statements. The return rate measured by return on equity (ROE) reveals an average of 36.94 percent with median 28.4 percent. This picture suggests a good performance during the period under study. The ROE measures the contribution of net income per cedi (local currency) i nvested by the firms’ stockholders; a measure of the efficiency of the owners’ invested capital. The variable SDA measures the ratio of short-term debt to total capital. The average value of this variable is 0.4876 with median 0.4547. The value 0.4547 indicates that approximately 45 percent of total assets are represented by short-term debts, attesting to the fact that Ghanaian firms largely depend on short-term debt for financing their operations due to the difficulty in accessing long-term credit from financial institutions. Another reason is due to the under-developed nature of the Ghanaian long-term debt market. The ratio of total long-term debt to total assets (LDA) also stands on average at 0.0985. Total debt to total capital ratio(DA) presents a mean of 0.5861. This suggests that about 58 percent of total assets are financed by debt capital.The above position reveals that the companies are financially leveraged with a large percentage of total debt being short-term.Table I.Descriptive statisticsMean SD Minimum Median Maximum ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ROE 0.3694 0.5186 -1.0433 0.2836 3.8300SDA 0.4876 0.2296 0.0934 0.4547 1.1018LDA 0.0985 0.1803 0.0000 0.0186 0.7665DA 0.5861 0.2032 0.2054 0.5571 1.1018SIZE 18.2124 1.6495 14.1875 18.2361 22.0995SG 0.3288 0.3457 20.7500 0.2561 1.3597━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Regression analysis is used to investigate the relationship between capital structure and profitability measured by ROE. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results are presented in Table II. The results from the regression models (1), (2), and (3) denote that the independent variables explain the debt ratio determinations of the firms at 68.3, 39.7, and 86.4 percent, respectively. The F-statistics prove the validity of the estimated models. Also, the coefficients are statistically significant in level of confidence of 99 percent.The results in regression (1) reveal a significantly positive relationship between SDA and profitability. This suggests that short-term debt tends to be less expensive, and therefore increasing short-term debt with a relatively low interest rate will lead to an increase in profit levels. The results also show that profitability increases with the control variables (size and sales growth). Regression (2) shows a significantly negative association between LDA and profitability. This implies that an increase in the long-term debt position is associated with a decrease in profitability. This is explained by the fact that long-term debts arerelatively more expensive, and therefore employing high proportions of them could lead to low profitability. The results support earlier findings by Miller (1977), Fama and French (1998), Graham (2000) and Booth et al. (2001). Firm size and sales growth are again positively related to profitability.The results from regression (3) indicate a significantly positive association between DA and profitability. The significantly positive regression coefficient for total debt implies that an increase in the debt position is associated with an increase in profitability: thus, the higher the debt, the higher the profitability. Again, this suggests that profitable firms depend more on debt as their main financing option. This supports the findings of Hadlock and James (2002), Petersen and Rajan (1994) and Roden and Lewellen (1995) that profitable firms use more debt. In the Ghanaian case, a high proportion (85 percent) of debt is represented by short-term debt. The results also show positive relationships between the control variables (firm size and sale growth) and profitability.Table II.Regression model results━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Profitability (EBIT/equity)Ordinary least squares━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━Variable 1 2 3SIZE 0.0038 (0.0000) 0.0500 (0.0000) 0.0411 (0.0000)SG 0.1314 (0.0000) 0.1316 (0.0000) 0.1413 (0.0000)SDA 0.8025 (0.0000)LDA -0.3722(0.0000)DA -0.7609(0.0000)R² 0.6825 0.3968 0.8639SE 0.4365 0.4961 0.4735Prob. (F) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ConclusionsThe capital structure decision is crucial for any business organization. The decision is important because of the need to maximize returns to various organizational constituencies, and also because of the impact such a decision has on an organization’s ability to deal with its competitive environment. This present study evaluated the relationship between capital structure and profitability of listed firms on the GSE during a five-year period (1998-2002). The results revealed significantly positive relation between SDA and ROE, suggesting that profitable firms use more short-term debt to finance their operation. Short-term debt is an important component or source of financing for Ghanaian firms, representing 85 percent of total debt financing. However, the results showed a negative relationship between LDA and ROE. With regard to the relationship between total debt and profitability, the regression results showed a significantly positive association between DA and ROE. This suggests that profitable firms depend more on debt as their main financing option. In the Ghanaian case, a high proportion (85 percent) of the debt is represented in short-term debt.译文加纳上市公司资本结构对盈利能力的实证研究作者：乔舒亚阿博尔论文简介资本结构决策对于任何商业组织都是至关重要的。