财务报表分析外文文献及翻译

Review of accounting studies,2003,16(8):531-560 Financial Statement Analysis of Leverage and How It Informs About Protability and Price-to-Book Ratios

Doron Nissim, Stephen. Penman

Abstract

This paper presents a ?nancial statement analysis that distinguishes leverage that arises in ?nancing activities from leverage that arises in operations. The analysis yields two leveraging equations, one for borrowing to ?nance operations and one for borrowing in the course of operations. These leveraging equations describe how the two types of leverage affect book rates of return on equity. An empirical analysis shows that the ?nancial statement analysis explains cross-sectional differences in current and future rates of return as well as price-to-book ratios, which are based on expected rates of return on equity. The paper therefore concludes that balance sheet line items for operating liabilities are priced differently than those dealing with ?nancing liabilities. Accordingly, ?nancial statement analysis that distinguis hes the two types of liabilities informs on future pro?tability and aids in the evaluation of appropriate price-to-book ratios.

Keywords: financing leverage; operating liability leverage; rate of return on equity; price-to-book ratio

Leverage is traditiona lly viewed as arising from ?nancing activities: Firms borrow to raise cash for operations. This paper shows that, for the purposes of analyzing pro?tability and valuing ?rms, two types of leverage are relevant, one indeed arising from ?nancing activities b ut another from operating activities. The paper supplies a ?nancial statement analysis of the two types of leverage

that explains differences in shareholder pro?tability and price-to-book ratios.

The standard measure of leverage is total liabilities to equity. However, while some liabilities—like bank loans and bonds issued—are due to ?nancing, other liabilities—like trade payables, deferred revenues, and pension liabilities—result from transactions with suppliers, customers and employees in conducting operations. Financing liabilities are typically traded in well-functioning capital markets where issuers are price takers. In contrast, ?rms are able to add value in operations because operations involve trading in input and output markets that are less perfect than capital markets. So, with equity valuation in mind, there are a priori reasons for viewing operating liabilities differently from liabilities that arise in ?nancing.

Our research asks whether a dollar of operating liabilities on the balance sheet is priced differently from a dollar of ?nancing liabilities. As operating and ?nancing liabilities are components of the book value of equity, the question is equivalent to asking whether price-to-book ratios depend on the composition of book values. The price-to-book ratio is determined by the expected rate of return on the book value so, if components of book value command different price premiums, they must imply different expected rates of return on book value. Accordingly, the paper also investigates whether the two types of liabilities are associated with differences in future book rates of return.

Standard ?nancial statement analysis distinguishes shareholder pro?tability that arises from operations from that which arises from borrowing to ?nance opera tions. So, return on assets is distinguished from return on equity, with the difference attributed to leverage. However, in the standard analysis, operating liabilities are not distinguished from ?nancing liabilities. Therefore, to develop the speci?cation s for the empirical analysis, the paper presents a ?nancial statement analysis that identi?es the effects of operating and ?nancing liabilities on rates of return on book value—and

so on price-to-book ratios—with explicit leveraging equations that explain when leverage from each type of liability is favorable or unfavorable.

The empirical results in the paper show that ?nancial statement analysis that distinguishes leverage in operations from leverage in ?nancing also distinguishes differences in contemporaneous and future pro?tability among ?rms. Leverage from operating liabilities typically levers pro?tability more than ?nancing leverage and has a higher frequency of favorable effects.Accordingly, for a given total leverage from both sources, ?rms with hig her leverage from operations have higher price-to-book ratios, on average. Additionally, distinction between contractual and estimated operating liabilities explains further differences in ?rms’ pro?tability and their price-to-book ratios.

Our results are of consequence to an analyst who wishes to forecast earnings and book rates of return to value ?rms. Those forecasts—and valuations derived from them—depend, we show, on the composition of liabilities. The ?nancial statement analysis of the paper, supported by the empirical results, shows how to exploit information in the balance sheet for forecasting and valuation.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 1 outlines the ?nancial statements analysis that identi?es the two types of leverage and lays out expres sions that tie leverage measures to pro?tability. Section 2 links leverage to equity value and price-to-book ratios. The empirical analysis is in Section 3, with conclusions summarized in Section 4.

1. Financial Statement Analysis of Leverage

The following ?nancial statement analysis separates the effects of ?nancing liabilities and operating liabilities on the pro?tability of shareholders’ equity. The analysis yields explicit leveraging equations from which the speci?cations for the empirical analysis are developed.

Shareholder pro?tability, return on common equity, is measured as

Return on common equity (ROCE) = comprehensive net income ÷common equity (1) Leverage affects both the numerator and denominator of this pro?tability measure. Appropriate ?nancial statement analysis disentangles the effects of leverage. The analysis below, which elaborates on parts of Nissim and Penman (2001), begins by identifying components of the balance sheet and income statement that involve operating and ?nancing activities. The pro?tability due to each activity is then calculated and two types of leverage are introduced to explain both operating and ?nancing pro?tability and overall shareholder pro?tability.

1.1 Distinguishing the Protability of Operations from the Protability of Financing Activities

With a focus on common equity (so that preferred equity is viewed as a ?nancial liability), the balance sheet equation can be restated as follows:

Common equity =operating assets＋financial assets－operating liabilities－Financial liabilities (2)

The distinction here between operating assets (like trade receivables, inventory and property,plant and equipment) and ?nancial assets (the deposits and marketable securities that absorb excess cash) is made in other contexts. However, on the liability side, ?nancing liabilities are also distinguished here from operating liabilities. Rather than treating all liabilities as ?nancing debt, only liabilities that raise cash for operations—like bank loans, short-term commercial paper and bonds—are classi?ed as such. Other liabilities—such as accounts payable, accrued expenses, deferred revenue, restructuring liabilities and pension liabilities—arise from operations. The distinction is not as simple as current versus long-term liabilities; pension liabilities, for example, are usually long-term, and short-term borrowing is a current liability.

Rearranging terms in equation (2),

Common equity = (operating assets－operating liabilities)－(financial liabilities－financial assets)

Or,

Common equity = net operating assets－net financing debt (3) This equation regroups assets and liabilities into operating and ?nancing activities. Net operating assets are operating assets less operating liabilities. So a ?rm might invest in inventories, but to the extent to which the suppliers of those inventories grant credit, the net investment in inventories is reduced. Firms pay wages, but to the extent to which the payment of wages is deferred in pension liabilities, the net investment required to run the business is reduced. Net ?nancing debt is ?nancing debt (including preferred stock) minus?nancial assets. So, a ?rm may issue bonds to raise cash for operations but may also buy bonds with excess cash from operations. Its net indebtedness is its net position in bonds. Indeed a ?rm may be a net creditor (with more ?nancial assets than ?nancial liabilities) rather than a net debtor.

The income statement can be reformulated to distinguish income that comes from operating and ?nancing activities:

Comprehensive net income = operating income－net financing expense (4) Operating income is produced in operations and net ?nancial expense is incurred in the ?nancing of operations. Interest income on ?nancial assets is netted against interest expense on ?nancial liabilities (including preferred dividends) in net ?nancial expense. If interest i ncome is greater than interest expense, ?nancing activities produce net ?nancial income rather than net ?nancial expense. Both operating income and net ?nancial expense (or income) are after tax.3

Equations (3) and (4) produce clean measures of after-tax o perating pro?tability and the borrowing rate:

Return on net operating assets (RNOA) = operating income ÷net operating assets (5) and

Net borrowing rate (NBR) = net financing expense ÷net financing debt (6) RNOA recognizes that pro?tabilit y must be based on the net assets invested in operations. So ?rms can increase their operating pro?tability by convincing suppliers, in the course of business, to grant or extend credit terms; credit reduces the investment that shareholders would otherwise have to put in the business. Correspondingly, the net borrowing rate, by excluding non-interest bearing liabilities from the denominator, gives the appropriate borrowing rate for the ?nancing activities.

Note that RNOA differs from the more common return on assets (ROA), usually de?ned as income before after-tax interest expense to total assets. ROA does not distinguish operating and ?nancing activities appropriately. Unlike ROA, RNOA excludes ?nancial assets in the denominator and subtracts operating liabilities. Nissim and Penman (2001) report a median ROA for NYSE and AMEX ?rms from 1963–1999 of only 6.8%, but a median RNOA of 10.0%—much closer to what one would expect as a return to business operations.

1.2 Financial Leverage and its Effect on Shareholder Protability

From expressions (3) through (6), it is straightforward to demonstrate that ROCE is a weighted average of RNOA and the net borrowing rate, with weights derived from equation (3): ROCE= [net operating assets ÷common equity× RNOA]－[net financ ing debt÷

common equity ×net borrowing rate (7) Additional algebra leads to the following leveraging equation:

ROCE = RNOA＋[FLEV× ( RNOA－net borrowing rate )] (8) where FLEV, the measure of leverage from ?nancing activities, is

Financing leverage (FLEV) =net financing debt ÷common equity (9) The FLEV measure excludes operating liabilities but includes (as a net against ?nancing debt) ?nancial assets. If ?nancial assets are greater than ?nancial liabilities, FLEV is negative. The leveraging equation (8) works for negative FLEV (in which case the net borrowing rate is the return on net ?nancial assets).

This analysis breaks shareholder pro?tability, ROCE, down into that which i s due to operations and that which is due to ?nancing. Financial leverage levers the ROCE over RNOA, with the leverage effect determined by the amount of ?nancial leverage (FLEV) and the spread between RNOA and the borrowing rate. The spread can be positive (favorable) or negative (unfavorable). 1.3 Operating Liability Leverage and its Effect on Operating Protability

While ?nancing debt levers ROCE, operating liabilities lever the pro?tability of operations, RNOA. RNOA is operating income relative to net operating assets, and net operating assets are operating assets minus operating liabilities. So, the more operating liabilities a ?rm has relative to operating assets, the higher its RNOA, assuming no effect on operating income in the numerator. The intensity of the use of operating liabilities in the investment base is operating liability leverage: Operating liability leverage (OLLEV) =operating liabilities ÷net operating assets (10) Using operating liabilities to lever the rate of return from operations may not come for free, however; there may be a numerator effect on operating income. Suppliers provide what nominally may be interest-free credit, but presumably charge for that credit with higher prices for the goods and services supplied. This is the reason why operating liabilities are inextricably a part of operations

rather than the ?nancing of operations. The amount that suppliers actually charge for this credit is dif?cult to identify. But the market borrowing rate is observable. The amount that suppliers would implicitly charge in prices for the credit at this borrowing rate can be estimated as a benchmark: Market interest on operating liabilities= operating liabilities×market borrowing rate

where the market borrowing rate, given that most credit is short term, can be approximated by the after-tax short-term borrowing rate. This implicit cost is benchmark, for it is the cost that makes suppliers indifferent in supplying cred suppliers are fully compensated if they charge implicit interest at the cost borrowing to supply the credit. Or, alternatively, the ?rm buying the goods o r services is indifferent between trade credit and ?nancing purchases at the borrowin rate.

To analyze the effect of operating liability leverage on operating pro?tability, w e d e?ne:

Return on operating assets (ROOA) =(operating income＋market interest on operating liabilities)÷operating assets

(11)

The numerator of ROOA adjusts operating income for the full implicit cost of trad credit. If suppliers fully charge the implicit cost of credit, ROOA is the return of operating assets that would be earned had the ?rm no operating liability leverage. suppliers do not fully charge for the credit, ROOA measures the return fro operations that includes the favorable implicit credit terms from suppliers.

Similar to the leveraging equation (8) for ROCE, RNOA can be expressed as:

RNOA = ROOA＋[ OLLEV ×(ROOA－market borrowing rate )] (12) where the borrowing rate is the after-tax short-term interest rate.Given ROOA, the effect of

leverage on pro?tability is determined by the level of operating liability leverage and the spread between ROOA and the short-term after-tax interest rate. Like ?nancing l everage, the effect can be favorable or unfavorable: Firms can reduce their operating pro?tability through operating liability leverage if their ROOA is less than the market borrowing rate. However, ROOA will also be affected if the implicit borrowing cost on operating liabilities is different from the market borrowing rate.

1.4 Total Leverage and its Effect on Shareholder Protability

Operating liabilities and net ?nancing debt combine into a total leverage measure:

Total leverage (TLEV) = ( net financing debt＋operating liabilities)÷common equity

The borrowing rate for total liabilities is:

Total borrowing rate = (net financing expense＋market interest on operating liabilities) ÷

net financing debt＋operating liabilities

ROCE equals the weighted average of ROOA and the total borrowing rate, where the weights are proportional to the amount of total operating assets and the sum of net ?nancing debt and operating liabilities (with a negative sign), respectively. So, similar to the leveraging equations (8) and (12):

ROCE = ROOA ＋[TLEV×(ROOA －total borrowing rate)]

(13)

In summary, ?nancial statement analysis of operating and ?nancing activities yields three leveraging equations, (8), (12), and (13). These equations are based on ?xed accounting re lations and are therefore deterministic: They must hold for a given ?rm at a given point in time. The only requirement in identifying the sources of pro?tability appropriately is a clean separation between

operating and ?nancing components in the ?nancial statements.

2. Leverage, Equity Value and Price-to-Book Ratios

The leverage effects above are described as effects on shareholder pro?tability. Our interest is not only in the effects on shareholder pro?tability, ROCE, but also in the effects on shareholder value, which is tied to ROCE in a straightforward way by the residual income valuation model. As a restatement of the dividend discount model, the residual income model expresses the value of equity at date 0 (P0) as:

B is the book value of common shar eholders’ equity, X is comprehensive income to common shareholders, and r is the required return for equity investment. The price premium over book value is determined by forecasting residual income, Xt –rBt-1. Residual income is determined in part by income relative to book value, that is, by the forecasted ROCE. Accordingly, leverage effects on forecasted ROCE (net of effects on the required equity return) affect equity value relative to book value: The price paid for the book value depends on the expect ed pro?tability of the book value, and leverage affects pro?tability.

So our empirical analysis investigates the effect of leverage on both pro?tability and price-to-book ratios. Or, stated differently, ?nancing and operating liabilities are distinguishable components of book value, so the question is whether the pricing of book values depends on the composition of book values. If this is the case, the different components of book value must imply different pro?tability. Indeed, the two analyses (of pro?tab ility and price-to-book ratios) are complementary.

Financing liabilities are contractual obligations for repayment of funds loaned. Operating

liabilities include contractual obligations (such as accounts payable), but also include accrual liabilities (such as deferred revenues and accrued expenses). Accrual liabilities may be based on contractual terms, but typically involve estimates. We consider the real effects of contracting and the effects of accounting estimates in turn. Appendix A provides some examples of contractual and estimated liabilities and their effect on pro?tability and value.

2.1 Effects of Contractual liabilities

The ex post effects of ?nancing and operating liabilities on pro?tability are clear from leveraging equations (8), (12) and (13). These expressions always hold ex post, so there is no issue regarding ex post effects. But valuation concerns ex ante effects. The extensive research on the effects of ?nancial leverage takes, as its point of departure, the Modigliani and Miller (M&M) (1958) ?nancing irrelevance proposition: With perfect capital markets and no taxes or information asymmetry, debt ?nancing has no effect on value. In terms of the residual income valuation model, an increase in ?nancial leverage due to a substitution of debt for equity may increase expected ROCE according to expression (8), but that increase is offset in the valuation (14) by the reduction in the book value of equity that earns the excess pro?tability and the increase in the required equity return, leaving total value (i.e., the value of equity and debt) unaffected. The required equity return increases because of increased ?nancing risk: Leverage may be expected to be favorable but, the higher the leverage, the greater the loss to shareholders should the leverage turn unfavorable ex post, with RNOA less than the borrowing rate.

In the face of the M&M proposition, research on the value effects of ?nancial leverage has proceeded to relax the conditions for the proposition to hold. Modigliani and Miller (1963) hyp othesized that the tax bene?ts of debt increase after-tax returns to equity and so increase equity

value. Recent empirical evidence provides support for the hypothesis (e.g., Kemsley and Nissim, 2002), although the issue remains controversial. In any case, since the implicit cost of operating liabilities, like interest on ?nancing debt, is tax deductible, the composition of leverage should have no tax implications.

Debt has been depicted in many studies as affecting value by reducing transaction and contracting costs. While debt increases expected bankruptcy costs and introduces agency costs between shareholders and debtholders, it reduces the costs that shareholders must bear in monitoring management, and may have lower issuing costs relative to equity. One might expect these considerations to apply to operating debt as well as ?nancing debt, with the effects differing only by degree. Indeed papers have explained the use of trade debt rather than ?nancing debt by transaction costs (Ferris, 1981), differentia l access of suppliers and buyers to ?nancing (Schwartz,1974), and informational advantages and comparative costs of monitoring (Smith, 1987; Mian and Smith, 1992; Biais and Gollier, 1997). Petersen and Rajan (1997) provide some tests of these explanations.

In addition to tax, transaction costs and agency costs explanations for leverage, research has also conjectured an informational role. Ross (1977) and Leland and Pyle (1977) characterized ?nancing choice as a signal of pro?tability and value, and subseque nt papers (for example, Myers and Majluf, 1984) have carried the idea further. Other studies have ascribed an informational role also for operating liabilities. Biais and Gollier (1997) and Petersen and Rajan (1997), for example, see suppliers as having mo re information about ?rms than banks and the bond market, so more operating debt might indicate higher value. Alternatively, high trade payables might indicate dif?culti es in paying suppliers and declining fortunes.

Additional insights come from further relaxing the perfect frictionless capital markets assumptions underlying the original M&M ?nancing irrelevance proposition. When it comes to operations, the product and input markets in which ?rms trade are typically less competitive than capital markets. In deed, ?rms are viewed as adding value primarily in operations rather than in ?nancing activities because of less than purely competitive product and input markets. So, whereas it is difficult to ‘‘make money off the debtholders,’’ ?rms can be seen as ‘‘mak ing money off the trade creditors.’’ In operations, ?rms can exert monopsony power, extracting value from suppliers and employees. Suppliers may provide cheap implicit ?nancing in exchange for information about products and markets in which the ?rm operates. They may also bene?t from ef?ciencies in the ?rm’s supply and distribution chain, and may grant credit to capture future business.

2.2 Effects of Accrual Accounting Estimates

Accrual liabilities may be based on contractual terms, but typically involve estimates. Pension liabilities, for example, are based on employment contracts but involve actuarial estimates. Deferred revenues may involve obligations to service customers, but also involve estimates that allocate revenues to periods. While contractual liabilities are typically carried on the balance sheet as an unbiased indication of the cash to be paid, accrual accounting estimates are not necessarily unbiased. Conservative accounting, for example, might overstate pension liabilities or defer more revenue than required by contracts with customers.

Such biases presumably do not affect value, but they affect accounting rates of return and the pricing of the liabilities relative to their carrying value (the price-to-book ratio). The effect of accounting estimates on operating liability leverage is clear: Higher carrying values for operating

liabilities result in higher leverage for a given level of operating assets. But the effect on pro?tability is also clear from leveraging equation (12): While conservative accounting for operating assets increases the ROOA, as modeled in Feltham and Ohlson (1995) and Zhang (2000), higher book values of operating liabilities lever up RNOA over ROOA. Indeed, conservative accounting for operating liabilities amounts to leverage of book rates of return. By leveraging equation (13), that leverage effect ?ows through to shareholder pro?tability, ROCE.

And higher anticipated ROCE implies a higher price-to-book ratio.

The potential bias in estimated operating liabilities has opposite effects on current and future pro?tability. For example, if a ?rm books higher deferred revenues, accrued expenses or other operating liabilities, and so increases its operating liability leverage, it reduces its current pro?tability: Current revenues must be lower or expenses higher. And, if a ?rm reports lower operating assets (by a write down of receivables, inventories or other assets, for example), and so increases operating liability leverage, it also reduces current pro?tability: Current expense s must be higher. But this application of accrual accounting affects future operating income: All else constant, lower current income implies higher future income. Moreover, higher operating liabilities and lower operating assets amount to lower book value of equity. The lower book value is the base for the rate of return for the higher future income. So the analysis of operating liabilities potentially identi?es part of the accrual reversal phenomenon documented by Sloan (1996) and interprets it as affecting leverage, forecasts of pro?tability, and price-to-book ratios.

3. Empirical Analysis

The analysis covers all ?rm-year observations on the combined COMPUSTAT (Industry and Research) ?les for any of the 39 years from 1963 to 2001 that satisfy the following requirements: (1)

the company was listed on the NYSE or AMEX; (2) the company was not a ?nancial institution (SIC codes 6000–6999), thereby omitting ?rms where most ?nancial assets and liabilities are used in operations; (3) the book value of common equity is at least $10 million in 2001 dollars; and (4) the averages of the beginning and ending balance of operating assets, net operating assets and common equity are positive (as balance sheet variables are measured in the analysis using annual averages). T hese criteria resulted in a sample of 63,527 ?rm-year observations.

Appendix B describes how variables used in the analysis are measured. One measurement issue that deserves discussion is the estimation of the borrowing cost for operating liabilities. As most operating liabilities are short term, we approximate the borrowing rate by the after-tax risk-free one-year interest rate. This measure may understate the borrowing cost if the risk associated with operating liabilities is not trivial. The effect of such measurement error is to induce a negative correlation between ROOA and OLLEV. As we show below, however, even with this potential negative bias we document a strong positive relation between OLLEV and ROOA.

4. Conclusion

To ?nance operations, ?rms borrow in the ?nancial markets, creating ?nancing leverage. In running their operations, ?rms also borrow, but from customers, employees and suppliers, creating operating liability leverage. Because they involve trading in different types of markets, the two types of leverage may have different value implications. In particular, operating liabilities may re?ect contractual terms that add value in different ways than ?nancing liabilities, and so they may be priced differently. Operating liabilities also involve accrual accounting estimates that may further affect their pricing. This study has investigated the implications of the two types of leverage for pro?tability and equity value.

The paper has laid out explicit leveraging equations that show how shareholder p ro?tability is related to ?nancing leverage and operating liability leverage. For operating liability leverage, the leveraging equation incorporates both real contractual effects and accounting effects. As price-to-book ratios are based on expected pro?tab ility, this analysis also explains how price-to-book ratios are affected by the two types of leverage. The empirical analysis in the paper demonstrates that operating and ?nancing liabilities imply different pro?tability and are priced differently in the stock market.

Further analysis shows that operating liability leverage not only explains differences in pro?tability in the cross-section but also informs on changes in future pro?tability from current pro?tability. Operating liability leverage and changes in operating liability leverage are indicators of the quality of current reported pro?tability as a predictor of future pro?tability.

Our analysis distinguishes contractual operating liabilities from estimated liabilities, but further research might examine operating liabilities in more detail, focusing on line items such as accrued expenses and deferred revenues. Further research might also investigate the pricing of operating liabilities under differing circumstances; for example, where ?rms have ‘‘market power’’ over their suppliers.

会计研究综述，2003,16(8):531-560

财务报表分析的杠杆左右以及如何体现盈利性和值比率

摘要

本文提供了区分金融活动和业务运营中杠杆作用的财务报表分析。这些分析得出了两个杠杆作用等式。一个用于金融业务中的借贷，一个用于运营过程的借贷。这些等式描述了两种杠杆效应如何影响股本收益率。实证分析表明，财务报表分析解释了当前和未来的回报率以及股价与账面价值比率具有代表性的差异。因此文章得出如下结论，资产负债表项目的运营负债定价不同于融资负债。因此，财务报表的分析能够区分两种类型的负债对未来盈利能力和提升适当的股价与账面价值比率的影响。

关键词：财政杠杆；运营债务杠杆；股本回报率；值比率

前言

传统观点认为，杠杆效应是从金融活动中产生的：公司通过借贷来增加运营的资金。本文表明，在分析企业盈利和价值中，有两种相关杠杆起作用，一个的确是从金融活动产生的，另一种是是从运营过程中产生的。本文提供了两种类型杠杆的财务分析报表来解释股东盈利能力和价格与账面比率的差异。

杠杆作用的衡量标准是负债总额与股东权益。然而，一些负债——如银行贷款和发行的债券，是由于资金筹措，其他一些负债——如贸易应付账款，预收收入和退休金负债，是由于在运营过程中与供应商的贸易，与顾客和雇佣者在结算过程中产生的负债。融资负债通常交易运作良好的资本市场其中的发行者是随行就市的商人。与此相反，在运营中公司能够实现高增值。因为业务涉及的是与资本市场相比，不太完善的贸易的输入和输出的市场。

因此，考虑到股票估值，运营负债和融资负债的区别的产生有一些先验的原因。我们研究在资产负债表上，运营负债中的一美元是否与融资中的一美元等值这个问题。因为运营负债和融资负债是股票价值的组成部分，这个问题就相当于问是否股价与账面价值比率是否取决于账面净值的组成。价格与账面比率是由预期回报率的账面价值决定的。所以，

如果部分的账面价值要求不同的溢价，他们必须显示出不同的账面价值的预期回报率。因此，本文还研究了是否两类负债与将来的账面收益率的区别有关。

标准的财务报表分析的能够区分股东从运营中和借贷的融资业务中产生的利润。因此，资产回报有别于股本回报率，这种差异是由于杠杆作用。然而，在标准的分析中，经营负债不区别于融资负债。因此，为了制定用于实证分析的规范，本文提出了一份财务报表的分析来明确运营债务和融资债务对账面价值回报率的影响以及价格与账面比率，利用方程精确解释各种类型的债务中的杠杆作用何时起到有利作用，何时起到不利的作用。

本文的实证结果表明，能够区分运营中的杠杆作用和融资中的杠杆作用的财务报表分析也能够区分公司当前和未来的盈利情况。运营债务与融资债务相比，通常能在杠杆作用中使企业获得更大的利益，并且获得有利结果的频率更高。因此，在运营方面杠杆更高的公司有更高的股价与账面价值比率。此外，合同和预期经营负债的区别进一步说明不同企业的盈利能力和他们的价格账面价值的比率。

我们的研究结果是用于愿意分析预期公司的收益和账面收益率。这些预测和估值依赖于负债的组成。本文从实证结果得出的财务报表分析文件显示，如何利用资产负债表中的信息进行预测和估价。

这篇文章结构如下。第一部分概述并指出了了能够判别两种杠杆作用类型，连接杠杆作用和盈利的财务报表分析第二节将杠杆作用，股票价值和价格与账面比率联系在一起。第三节中进行实证分析，第四节进行了概述与结论。

一、杠杆作用的财务报表分析

以下财务报表分析将融资债务和运营债务对股东权益的影响区别开。这个分析从实证的详细分析中得出了精确的杠杆效应等式

普通股产权资本收益率=综合所得÷普通股本（1）

杠杆影响到这个盈利等式的分子和分母。适当的财务报表分析解析了杠杆作用的影响。以下分析是通过确定经营和融资活动中的资产负债表和损益表的组成开始分析。计算每一项活动所获得的利润，然后引入两种类型的杠杆作用来解释运营和融资的盈利以及股东的总体盈利。

（一）区分运营和融资过程中的盈利

普通股权=经营资产＋金融负债－经营负债－金融负债（2）侧重于普通股（以便优先股被视为融资债务），资产负债表方程可重申如下：经营性资产的区别（如贸易应收款，库存和物业，厂房及设备）和金融资产（存款及可出售证券吸收多余现金）在其他方面。然而，债务方面，融资负债也区别于经营负债。不应该把所有负债都当作融资负债来处理，相反，只有从运营中得到的现金，就像银行贷款，短期商业票据和债券属于这种类型。其他负债，如应付账款，累计费用，预收收入，重组债务和养老金负债，产生于业务。这种区别并不像当前与长远负债那么简单;养老金负债，例如，通常是长期，短期的借款是一种当前的负债。

等式的重排（2）

普通股权=（经营资产－经营负债）－（金融资产－金融负债）

或者，

普通股权=净经营资产－净金融负债（3）这个等式的重排将资产和负债纳入经营和融资活动。净经营资产等于经营性资产减去经营负债。因此，一个公司可能在投资清单上的投资，但是投资清单上的投资者可以一定程度上给予信贷，投资清单上的投资就会减少。

企业支付工资，但在多大程度上工资的支付在退休金负债中递延，公司运营净投资就会减少。净融资债务是融资债务（包括优先股）减去金融资产。因此，一个公司可能会发

基于哈佛分析框架的财务报表分析的文献综述

本科生毕业设计（论文）文献综述评价表

文献综述： 基于哈佛分析框架的财务报表分析的 文献综述 财务分析的重要性日益凸显，它不仅代表着企业的经营成果，还为企业以后的发展和管理提供决策依据。财务分析是通过一系列分析技术与方法，对企业的各种能力进行综合分析与评价，及时发现企业经营中出现的问题和不足，为企业的管理者管理和决策的信息。这是一个逻辑性很强的分析过程，需要从各种复杂的信息中把握分析逻辑，形成分析框架，才能获取有价值的信息。另一方面，财务分析对于投资者和股东的未来投资活动具有重要意义，它有助于利益相关者了解企业的经营现状和未来发展。本文对哈佛分析框架的国内外研究成果进行述评，为进一步的研究奠定基础。 1 国外关于财务分析方法的研究 伴随着西方资本市场的发展，其财务分析方法日益完善，财务分析体系快速发展。学者们开始建立财务分析框架，以更好地对企业的财务状况经行分析。少数学者提出从筹资活动、经营活动和投资活进行财务分析。而绝大部分学者则是在财务分析的基础上逐步引进战略分析、会计分析和前景分析三个维度。一部分学者是从三个维度来构建财务分析框架的。以Salmi（1997）为代表的学者提出从概论、会计分析和财务分析三个维度进行财务报表分析。而以Stickney（1999）为代表的学者则是从环境分析、会计分析和财务分析这三个维度展开。相比较而言，Stickney的尝试在原来两维度的基础上增加了环境分析，使得财务分析结果更为可靠。 还有一部分学者是从四个维度来构建财务分析框架的。最具有代表性的是哈佛大学佩普（K.G.Palepu）、希利（P.M.healy) 和伯纳德（V.L.Bemard)（2000）在《运用财务报表进行企业分析与评估》一书中提出了哈佛分析框架。其提出了一种集战略与财务报表分析为一体的、更具实际应用效果的财务分析框架，即哈佛分析框架。该框架由战略分析、会计分析、财务分析、前景分析共四个部分组成。哈佛分析框架的战略分析模块对企业所面临的外部环境进行了全面分析，不仅能发现企业发展中面临的机会和威胁，更能从战略高度为企业发展指出方向。哈佛分析框架做到了结合企业外部经济环境与企业个体特征、行业经济发展状况、生合周期和获利能力等因素对企业进行综合评判，对于投资者

某股份有限公司财务报表分析报告

摘要 正确组织和有效开展经济分析，对于企业正确制定经营方针，选择最佳方案，编制经营计划，合理评价企业经济活动，以及不断提高经济效益具有重要意义。经济分析具有判断性、情报性、预防性和建设性。企业是社会经济的细胞，股份制企业是社会经济细胞中较活跃的群体。 本文依据全面分析与重点分析相结合，经济分析与技术分析相结合，定性分析与定量分析相结合，利用核算数据与搞好调查研究相结合原则，对省哈飞汽车股份自2007 年至2009 年的财务状况从资本结构分析、偿债能力分析、营运能力分析、盈利能力分析、综合分析以及趋势分析等方面进行由外到地剖析和评价，对2009 年经营中存在的问题进行分析，最后提出建议。 关键词：财务报表分析；盈利能力；偿债能力

Abstract It is very important to organize and do economic analysis efficiently for an enterprise. The analysis plays key point in making business plan，evaluating the economic activities reasonably，and improving economic benefits. Economic analysis has the features of judging，information，predicting and constructing. The enterprises are the cell of social leconomy. The corporations，which are on the stock market，are the most active colony in them. In this report，by combination of whole analysis and emphasis analysis ，economic analysis and technical analysis，feature analysis and value analysis，and based on the rules of combination calculated data and research，the author tries to do an analysis and evaluation to Hafei Automobile Works Car company, the key enterprise of Heilongjiang Province. Based on the adjustment of financial statements，the analysis of capital structure，the analysis of assets operation efficiency，the analysis of profitability，the analysis of debt redemption and the synthetic analysis of the corporation from 2007 to 2009. The author also submits some suggestions to the problems in 2009 of the company. KeyWords：Financial Analysis; Profitability; Debt redemption

财务管理外文文献及翻译--跨国公司财务

附录A：外文文献（译文） 跨国公司财务 有重大国外经营业务的公司经常被称作跨国公司或多国企业。跨国公司必须考虑许多并不会对纯粹的国内企业产生直接影响的财务因素，其中包括外币汇率、各国不同的利率、国外经营所用的复杂会计方法、外国税率和外国政府的干涉等。 公司财务的基本原理仍然适用于跨国企业。与国内企业一样，它们进行的投资项目也必须为股东提供比成本更多的收益，也必须进行财务安排，用尽可能低的成本进行融资。净现值法则同时适用于国内经营和国外经营，但是，国外经营应用净现值法则时通常更加复杂。也许跨国财务中最复杂的是外汇问题。当跨国公司进行资本预算决策或融资决策时，外汇市场能为其提供信息和机会。外汇、利率和通货膨胀三者的相互关系构成了汇率基本理论。即：购买力平价理论、利率平价理论和预测理论。 跨国公司融资决策通常要在以下三种基本方法中加以选择，我们将讨论每种方法的优缺点。 (1) 把现金由国内输出用于国外经营业务； (2) 向投资所在国借贷； (3) 向第三国借贷。 1专业术语 学习财务的学生通常会听到一个单词总在耳边嗡嗡作响：全球化( g l o b a l i z a t i o n )。学习资金市场的全球化必须首先掌握一些新的术语，以下便是在跨国财务中，还有本章中最常用到的一些术语： (1) 美国存托证（American Depository Receipt,ADR）。它是在美国发行的一种代表外国股权的证券，它使得外国股票可在美国上市交易。外国公司运用以美元发行的ADR，来扩大潜在美国投资者群体。ADR以两种形式代表大约690家外国公司：一是在某个交易所挂牌交易的ADR，称为公司保荐形式；另一种是非保荐形式，这些ADR通常由投资银行持有并为其做市。这两种形式的ADR均可由个人投资和买卖，但报纸每天只报告保荐形式

零售企业营销策略中英文对照外文翻译文献

零售企业营销策略中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)

译文： 零售企业的营销策略 Philip Kotlor 今天的零售商为了招徕和挽留顾客，急欲寻找新的营销策略。过去，他们挽留顾客的方法是销售特别的或独特的花色品种，提供比竞争对手更多更好的服务提供商店信用卡是顾客能赊购商品。可是，现在这一切都已变得面目全非了。现在，诸如卡尔文·克连，依佐和李维等全国性品牌，不仅在大多数百货公司及其专营店可以看到，并且也可以在大型综合商场和折扣商店可以买到。全国性品牌的生产商为全力扩大销售量，它们将贴有品牌的商品到处销售。结果是零售商店的面貌越来越相似。 在服务项目上的分工差异在逐渐缩小。许多百货公司削减了服务项目，而许多折扣商店却增加了服务项目。顾客变成了精明的采购员，对价格更加敏感。他们看不出有什么道理要为相同的品牌付出更多的钱，特别是当服务的差别不大或微不足道时。由于银行信用卡越来越被所有的商家接受，他们觉得不必从每个商店赊购商品。 百货商店面对着日益增加的价格的折扣店和专业商店的竞争，准备东山再起。历史上居于市中心的许多商店在郊区购物中心开设分店，那里有宽敞的停车场，购买者来自人口增长较快并且有较高收入的地区。其他一些则对其商店形式进行改变，有些则试用邮购盒电话订货的方法。超级市场面对的是超级商店的竞争，它们开始扩大店面，经营大量的品种繁多的商品和提高设备等级，超级市场还增加了它们的促销预算，大量转向私人品牌，从而增加盈利。 现在，我们讨论零售商在目标市场、产品品种和采办、服务以及商店气氛、定价、促销和销售地点等方面的营销策略。 一、目标市场 零售商最重要的决策时确定目标市场。当确定目标市场并且勾勒出轮廓时，零售商才能对产品分配、商店装饰、广告词和广告媒体、价格水平等作出一致的决定。如沃尔玛的目标市场相当明确：

财务报表分析外文文献及翻译

财务报表分析外文文献及翻译 LNTU---Acc 附录A 财务报表分析的杠杆左右以及如何体现盈利性和值比率 摘要 关键词:财政杠杆;运营债务杠杆;股本回报率;值比率 传统观点认为，杠杆效应是从金融活动中产生的:公司通过借贷来增加运营的资金。 杠杆作用的衡量标准是负债总额与股东权益。然而，一些负债——如银行贷款和发行的债券，是由于资金筹措，其他一些负债——如贸易应付账款，预收收入和退休金负债，是由于在运营过程中与供应商的贸易，与顾客和雇佣者在结算过程中产生的负债。融资负债通常交易运作良好的资本市场其中的发行者是随行就市的商人。与此相反，在运营中公司能够实现高增值。因为业务涉及的是与资本市场相比，不太完善的贸易的输入和输出的市场。 因此，考虑到股票估值，运营负债和融资负债的区别的产生有一些先验的原因。我们研究在资产负债表上，运营负债中的一美元是否与融资中的一美元等值这个问题。因为运营负债和融资负债是股票价值的组成部分，这个问题就相当于问是否股价与账面价值比率是否取决于账面净值的组成。价格与账面比率是由预期回报率的账面价值决定的。所以，如果部分的账面价值要求不同的溢价，他们必须显示出不同的账面价值的预期回报率。因此， 标准的财务报表分析的能够区分股东从运营中和借贷的融资业务中产生的利润。因此，资产回报有别于股本回报率，这种差异是由于杠杆作用。然而，在标准的分析中，经营负债不区别于融资负债。因此，为了制定用于实证分析的规范，

我们的研究结果是用于愿意分析预期公司的收益和账面收益率。这些预测和估值依赖于负债的组成。 这篇文章结构如下。第一部分概述并指出了了能够判别两种杠杆作用类型，连接杠杆作用和盈利的财务报表分析第二节将杠杆作用，股票价值和价格与账面比率联系在一起。 第三节中进行实证分析，第四节进行了概述与结论。 1 杠杆作用的财务报表分析 以下财务报表分析将融资债务和运营债务对股东权益的影响区别开。这个分析从实证的详细分析中得出了精确的杠杆效应等式 普通股产权资本收益率=综合所得?普通股本 (1) 杠杆影响到这个盈利等式的分子和分母。适当的财务报表分析解析了杠杆作用的影响。以下分析是通过确定经营和融资活动中的资产负债表和损益表的组成开始分析。计算每一项活动所获得的利润，然后引入两种类型的杠杆作用来解释运营和融资的盈利以及股东的总体盈利。 1.1 区分运营和融资过程中的盈利 普通股权=经营资产，金融负债,经营负债,金融负债 (2) 侧重于普通股(以便优先股被视为融资债务)，资产负债表方程可重申如下:经营性资产的区别(如贸易应收款，库存和物业，厂房及设备)和金融资产(存款及可出售证券吸收多余现金)在其他方面。然而，债务方面，融资负债也区别于经营负债。不应该把所 有负债都当作融资负债来处理，相反，只有从运营中得到的现金，就像银行贷款，短期商业票据和债券属于这种类型。其他负债，如应付账款，累计费用，预收收入，重组债务和养老金负债，产生于业务。这种区别并不像当前与长远负债那么简单;养老金负债，例如，通常是长期，短期的借款是一种当前的负债。

财务管理外文翻译

财务风险管理 尽管近年来金融风险大大增加，但风险和风险管理不是当代的主要问题。全球市场越来越多的问题是，风险可能来自几千英里以外的与这些事件无关的国外市场。意味着需要的信息可以在瞬间得到，而其后的市场反应，很快就发生了。经济气候和市场可能会快速影响外汇汇率变化、利率及大宗商品价格，交易对手会迅速成为一个问题。因此，重要的一点是要确保金融风险是可以被识别并且管理得当的。准备是风险管理工作的一个关键组成部分。 什么是风险？ 风险给机会提供了基础。风险和暴露的条款让它们在含义上有了细微的差别。风险是指有损失的可能性，而暴露是可能的损失，尽管他们通常可以互换。风险起因是由于暴露。金融市场的暴露影响大多数机构，包括直接或间接的影响。当一个组织的金融市场暴露，有损失的可能性，但也是一个获利或利润的机会。金融市场的暴露可以提供战略性或竞争性的利益。 风险损失的可能性事件来自如市场价格的变化。事件发生的可能性很小，但这可能导致损失率很高，特别麻烦，因为他们往往比预想的要严重得多。换句话说，可能就是变异的风险回报。由于它并不总是可能的，或者能满意地把风险消除，在决定如何管理它中了解它是很重要的一步。识别暴露和风险形式的基础需要相应的财务风险管理策略。 财务风险是如何产生的呢？ 无数金融性质的交易包括销售和采购，投资和贷款，以及其他各种业务活动，产生了财务风险。它可以出现在合法的交易中，新项目中，兼并和收购中，债务融资中，能源部分的成本中，或通过管理的活动，利益相关者，竞争者，外国政府，或天气出现。当金融的价格变化很大，它可以增加成本，降低财政收入，或影响其他有不利影响的盈利能力的组织。金融波动可能使人们难以规划和预算商品和服务的价格，并分配资金。 有三种金融风险的主要来源： 1、金融风险起因于组织所暴露出来的市场价格的变化，如利率、汇率、和大宗商品价格。 2、引起金融风险的行为有与其他组织的交易如供应商、客户，和对方在金融衍生产品中的交易。 3、由于内部行动或失败的组织，特别是人、过程和系统所造成的金融风险。 什么是财务风险管理？ 财务风险管理是用来处理金融市场中不确定的事情的。它涉及到一个组织所面临的评估和组织的发展战略、内部管理的优先事项和当政策一致时的财务风险。企业积极应对金融风险可以使企业成为一个具有竞争优势的组织。它还确保管理，业务人员，利益相关者，董事会董事在对风险的关键问题达成协议。金融风险管理组织就必须作出那些不被接受的有关风险的决定。那些被动不采取行动的战略是在默认情况下接受所有的风险，组织使用各种策略和产品来管理金融风险。重要的是要了解这些产品和战略方面，通过工作来减少该组织内的风险承受能力和目标范围内的风险。 风险管理的策略往往涉及衍生工具。在金融机构和有组织的交易所，衍生物广泛地进行

市场营销_外文翻译_外文文献_英文文献_顾客满意策略与顾客满意

顾客满意策略与顾客满意营销 原文来源：《Marketing Customer Satisfaction 》自20世纪八十年代末以来, 顾客满意战略已日益成为各国企业占有更多的顾客份额, 获得竞争优势的整体经营手段。 一、顾客满意策略是现代企业获得顾客“货币选票”的法宝随着时代的变迁, 社会物质财富的极大充裕, 顾客中的主体———消费者的需求也先后跨越了物质缺乏的时代、追求数量的时代、追求品质的时代, 到了20世纪八十年代末进入了情感消费时代。在我国, 随着经济的高速发展,我们也已迅速跨越了物质缺乏时代、追求数量的时代乃至追求品质的时代, 到今天也逐步迈进情感消费时代。在情感消费时代, 各企业的同类产品早已达到同时、同质、同能、同价, 消费者追求的已不再是质量、功能和价格, 而是舒适、便利、安全、安心、速度、跃动、环保、清洁、愉快、有趣等,消费者日益关注的是产品能否为自己的生活带来活力、充实、舒适、美感和精神文化品位, 以及超越消费者期望值的售前、售中、售后服务和咨询。也就是说, 今天人们所追求的是具有“心的满足感和充实感”的商品, 是高附加值的商品和服务,追求价值观和意识多元化、个性化和无形的满足感的时代已经来临。 与消费者价值追求变化相适应的企业间的竞争, 也由产品竞争、价格竞争、技术竞争、广告竞争、品牌竞争发展到现今的形象竞争、信誉竞争、文化竞争和服务竞争, 即顾客满意竞争。这种竞争是企业在广角度、宽领域的时空范围内展开的高层次、体现综合实力的竞争。它包括组织创新力、技术创新力、管理创新力、产业预见力、产品研发力、员工向心力、服务顾客力、顾客亲和力、同行认同力、社会贡献力、公关传播沟通力、企业文化推动力、环境适应力等等。这些综合形象力和如何合成综合持久的竞争力, 这就是CSft略所要解决的问题。CS寸代,企业不再以“自己为中心”,而是以“顾客为中心”；“顾客为尊”、“顾客满意”不再是流于形式的口号, 而是以实实在在的行动为基础的企业经营的一门新哲学。企业不再以质量达标, 自己满意为经营理念, 而是以顾客满意, 赢得顾客高忠诚度为经营理念。企业经营策略的焦点不再以争取或保持市场占有率为主, 而是以争取顾客满意为经营理念。因此, 营销策略的重心不再放在竞争对手身上而是放在顾客身上, 放在顾客现实的、潜在的需求上。当企业提供的产品和服务达到了顾客事先的期望值, 顾客就基本满意；如果远远超越顾客的期望值, 且远远高于其他同行, 顾客才真正满意；如果企业能不断地或长久地令顾客满意, 顾客就会忠诚。忠诚的顾客不仅会经常性地重复购买, 还会购买企业其它相关的产品或服务；忠诚的顾客不仅会积极向别人推荐他所买的产品, 而且对企业竞争者的促销活动具有免疫能力一个不满意的顾客会将不满意告诉16-20个人, 而每一个被告知者会再传播给12-15个人。这样, 一个不满意者会影响到二、三百人。在互联网普及的今天, 其影响则更大。据美国汽车业的调查, 一个满意者会引发8笔潜在的生意, 其中至少有一笔会成交。而另一项调查表明, 企业每增加5%的忠诚顾客, 利润就会增长25%-95%。一个企业的80%的利润来自20%的忠诚顾客；而获取一个新顾客的成本是维持一个老顾客成本的6倍。所以,美国著名学者唐?佩 珀斯指出: 决定一个企业成功与否的关键不是市场份额, 而是在于顾客份额。 于是, 企业纷纷通过广泛细致的市场调研、与消费者直接接触、顾客信息反馈等方式来了解顾客在各方面的现实需求和潜在需求。依靠对企业满意忠诚的销售、服务人员, 定期、定量地对顾客满意度进行综合测定, 以便准确地把握企业经营中与“顾客满意” 目标的差距及其重点领域, 从而进一步改善企业的经营活动。依靠高亲和力的企业文化、高效率的人文管理和全员共同努力, 不断地向顾客提供高附加值的产品, 高水准的亲情般的服

财务报表分析研究外文翻译

本科毕业设计（论文） 外文翻译 题目双汇企业财务报表分析研究 姓名宋孟姣 专业 2010级财务管理本科1班 学号 201040016 指导教师董玥玥 郑州科技学院工商管理学院 二〇一四年三月

FINANCIAL STA TEMENT ANALYSIS OF EVERAGE AND HOW IT INFORMS ABOUT PORABLIITY AND PRICE-TO-BOOK RA TIOS 1 FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS OF EVERAGE The following inimical statement analysis separates the effects of enhancing liabilities and operating liabilities on the portability o f shareholders’ equity. The analysis yields explicit leveraging equations from which the speci?cations for the empirical analysis are developed. Shareholder portability, return on common equity, is measured as Return on common equity (ROCE) = comprehensive net income ÷common equity (1) Appropriate inimical statement analysis disentangles the effects of leverage. The analysis below, which elaborates on parts of Nazism and Penman (2001), begins by identifying components of the balance sheet and income statement that involve operating and enhancing activities. The portability due to each activity is then calculated and two types of leverage are introduced to explain both operating and enhancing portability and overall shareholder portability. 1.1 Distinguishing the Portability of Operations from the Portability of Financing Activities Common equity =operating assets＋financial assets－operating liabilities－Financial liabilities （2）The distinction here between operating assets (like trade receivables, inventory and property, plant and equipment) and inimical assets (the deposits and marketable securities that absorb excess cash) is made in other contexts. However, on the liability side, enhancing liabilities are also distinguished here from operating liabilities. Rather than treating all liabilities as enhancing debt, only liabilities that raise cash for operations—like bank loans, short-term commercial paper and bonds—are classier as such. Other liabilities—such as accounts payable, accrued expenses, deferred revenue, restructuring liabilities and pension liabilities—arise from operations. The distinction is not as simple as current versus long-term

中色股份公司财务报表分析

一、中色股份有限公司概况 中国有色金属建设股份有限公司（英文缩写NFC，简称：中色股份）1983年经国务院批准成立，主要从事国际工程承包和有色金属矿产资源开发。目前，中色股份旗下控股多个公司，涉及矿业、冶炼、稀土、能源电力等领域；同时，通过入股民生人寿等稳健的实业投资，增强企业的抗风险能力，实现稳定发展。 二、资产负债比较分析 资产负债增减变动趋势表 （一）增减变动分析 从上表可以清楚看到，中色股份有限公司的资产规模是呈逐年上升趋势的。从负债率及股东权益的变化可以看出虽然所有者权益的绝对数额每年都在增长，但是其增长幅度明显 该公司07年的速动比率为0.89，08年为0.81，09年为0.86，相对来说，没有大的波动，只是略呈下降趋势。每1元的流动负债只有0.86元的资产作保障，是绝对不够的，这表明该企业的短期偿债能力较弱。 （3）现金比率 该公司07年的现金比率为0.35，08年为0.33，09年为0.38，从这些数据可以看出，该公司的现金即付能力较强，并且呈逐年上升趋势的，但是相对数还是较低，说明了一元的流动负债有0.38元的现金资产作为偿还保障，其短期偿债能力还是可以的。 （三）资本结构分析 （1）资产负债率 该企业的资产负债率07年为58.92%，08年为61.14%?09年为59.42%。从这些数据可

以看出，该企业的资产负债率呈现逐年上升趋势的，但是是稳中有降的，说明该企业开始调节自身的资本结构，以降低负债带来的企业风险，资产负债率越高，说明企业的长期偿债能力就越弱，债权人的保证程度就越弱。该企业的长期偿债能力虽然不强，但是该企业的风险系数却较低，对债权人的保证程度较高。 （2）产权比率 该企业的产权比率07年为138.46%，08年为157.37%，09年为146.39%。从这些数据可以看出，该企业的产权比率呈现逐年上升趋势的，但是稳中有降的，从该比率可以看出，该企业对负债的依赖度还是比较高的，相应企业的风险也较高。该企业的长期偿债能力还是较低的。不过，该企业已经意识到企业的风险不能过大，一旦过大将带来重大经营风险，所以，该企业试图从高风险、高回报的财务结构向较为保守的财务结构过渡，逐渐增大所有者权益比例。 。 逐年下降趋势的。尤其是08年下降幅度最大，充分看出金融危机对该公司的影响很大。之所以下降，是因为该公司近三年的主营业务收入都在下降，虽然主营业务成本也在同时下降，但是下降的幅度没有收入下降的幅度大，这说明企业的全部资产经营效率降低，偿债能力也就有所下降了。总体来看，该企业的主营收入是呈现负增长状态的。 （2）流动资产周转率 该企业的总资产周转率07年为1.64，08年为1.18，09年为1.02。从这些数据可以看出，该企业的流动资产周转率是呈现逐年下降趋势的。尤其也是08年下降幅度最大，说明08年的金融危机对该公司的影响很大。总的来说，企业流动资产周转率越快，周转次数越多，周转天数越少，表明企业以占用相同流动资产获得的销售收入越多，说明企业的流动资产使用效率越好。以上数据看出，该企业比较注重盘活资产，较好的控制资产运用率。

外文文献翻译---中小型企业财务管理中存在的问题及其对策

广东工业大学华立学院 本科毕业设计（论文） 外文参考文献译文及原文 系部会计学系 专业会计学 年级 08级 班级名称 2008级会计（7）班 学号 14010807030 学生姓名吴智聪 2012年 2 月 9 日

目录 1. 外文译文 (1) 2. 外文原文 (5)

中小型企业财务管理中存在的问题及其对策中小型企业在中国经济发展中发挥着重要的作用。统计数据表明，在工商行政管理局登记在册的企业中，中小型企业占了99%，产值和利润分别占总额的60%和40%。此外，中小型企业所提供了75％的城镇就业机会。可见其为中国的稳定和经济繁荣作出了重要贡献。 虽然中小型企业在国民经济中占有重要地位，对中国经济发展与社会稳定具有很重大的意义。但是，中小型企业发展的主要障碍是缺乏有效的财务管理。本文分析了当前中小型企业财务管理中存在的问题，并就改善中小型企业财务管理提出了相应对策。 1.1 中小型企业的财务管理现状 自从21世纪以来，中国的中小型企业的蓬勃发展，在经济增长和社会发展中发挥着非常重要的作用。据财政部统计数据，直到2005年底，中小型企业总数已超过1000万，占中国企业总数的99%。中小型企业提供了75％的城镇就业机会，工业企业的总产值、销售收入、实现的利得税和出口额分别占总数的60%、57%、40%和60%，上缴的税收已经接近了国家税收总额的一半。中小型企业承载着超过75%的技术革新和超过65％的专利发明，他们以其灵活的经营机制和积极创新活动，为经济发展提供了增长的最根本动力。近年来，中国中小企业的消亡率将近70%，大约有30%的中小型企业存在赤字。中小型企业应该如何建立现代企业制度，加强财务管理，并科学地进行资本运作以谋求自身的健康发展，是我们密切关注的一个问题。 1.2 中小型企业财务管理中存在的问题 ⑴财务管理理念滞后，而且方法保守 中小型企业由于管理者自身知识水平的限制，使得企业的管理能力和管理质量较低。他们的管理思想已经不适合现代企业，并且大多数企业领导人缺乏财务管理的理论和方法，忽视了企业资本运作的作用。管理者既不重视财务事，也不参与企业政策的制定和相关管理活动。因此，财务管理无法发挥其应有职能，从而导致企业缺乏现代财务管理的理念，也无从去培训合格的财务人员。 ⑵财务管理工作基础薄弱，缺乏财务监督

最新财务管理外文文献

景德镇陶瓷学院科技艺术学院法商系 外文文献 学号： 200930333145 姓名：留芳名 院（系）：科技艺术学院法商系 专业：财务管理 指导老师：鄢涛 二0一三年五月

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Abstract： The primary goal of this study is to provide a theoretical model that shows explicit solutions for equilibrium prices and derives the equilibrium required return for the firm’s stock price. In other words, this theoretical study provides a direct link between accounting information, related to the firm’s reports, and the cost of capital within an equilibrium setting. Accounting information is judged to be of high value because it affects the market’s ability to direct firms’ capital allocation choices. The findings showed that an increase in ex-pected cash flows, coming from improvements in the quality of accounting information, leads to a reduction in the firm’s cost of capital. Keywords:theoretical Model, Accounting Information, Cost of Capital, Stock Returns 1. Introduction and Literature One of the key decisions a firm has to reach is the fundamental determination of its cost of capital. This has asubstantial impact on both the composition of the firm’s operations and its profitability, since shocks onto an ticipated cash flows are reflected in the firm’s cost of capital. Many studies have spent tons of ink coming up with proposals leading to a lower cost of capital. [1] argue that it is the environment of a firm, which is described by many parameters, such as accounting s tandards, market microstructure and information coming from the firm’s reports, that really influences the accounting type of in- formation that determines the firm’s cost of capital and, consequently, its stock price. Accounting information reduces information asymmetries, which lead to adverse selection in transaction ac-tivities in the stock market ([2]) as well as to enhanced liquidity, which lowers the discounts at which firms must issue capital ([3]). [4] argue that accounting information tends to compensate shareholders through stock returns by reducing their exposure to investment risks. Research in asset-pricing models has not, so far, modelled explicitly the accounting information environment in determining the firm’s required return, though [5] a rgue that more

差异化营销策略外文文献翻译

文献出处: Dalman, M. Deniz, and Junhong Min. "Marketing Strategy for Unusual Brand Differentiation: Trivial Attribute Effect." International Journal of Marketing Studies 6.5 (2014): 63-72. 原文 Marketing Strategy for Unusual Brand Differentiation: Trivial Attribute Effect Dalman, M. Deniz & Junhong Min Abstract This research investigates that brand differentiation creating superior values can be achieved not only by adding meaningful attributes but also meaningless attributes, which is called "trivial attribute effect." Two studies provided empirical evidences as following; first, trivial attribute effect creates a strong brand differentiation even after subjects realize that trivial attribute has no value. Second, trivial attribute effect is more pronounced in hedonic service category compared to the utilitarian category. Last, the amount of willingness to pay is higher when trivial attribute is presented and evaluated in joint evaluation mode than separate evaluation mode. Finally, we conclude with discussion and provide suggestions for further research. Keywords: brand differentiation, evaluation mode, service industry, trivial attribute Introduction Problem Definition Perhaps the most important factor for new product success is to create the meaningful brand differentiation that provides customers with superior values beyond what the competitors can offer in the same industry (Porter, 1985). Not surprisingly, more than 50 percent of annual sales in consumer product industries including automobiles, biotechnology, computer software, and pharmaceuticals are attributed to such meaningful brand differentiation by including new or noble attributes (Schilling &Hill, 1998). However, the brand differentiation that increases consumer preference is not only by introducing meaningful attributes but also meaningless attributes. For

财务外文翻译--基于财务报表分析企业价值

中文4400字 Babic Z, Plazibat N. Enterprise Value Based On The Analysis Of Financial Statements [J]. International journal of production economics, 2008, 56: 29-35 Enterprise Value Based On The Analysis Of Financial Statements Z Babic, N Plazibat ABSTRACT Analysis of data on the financial statements, the use of discounted cash flow method, the relative value of other methods to analyze financial statements and financial data to find useful data on the enterprise value analysis, with its inherent value is the closest a value to facilitate management by better management decisions and investment decisions of enterprises. Now, under the conditions of market economy, the enterprise itself can be traded in the market of goods, by the profits to maximize the conversion to maximize the value of. Therefore, the enterprise value based on financial statement analysis is particularly important. Financial statements as a reflection of the financial positio n and operating conditions of enterprises, statutory information of listed companies, the real financial statements data can reveal the enterprise's past operating results, the pros and cons of the identification of business, to forecast the future of the enterprise. The article first describes the limitations of the traditional statements and how to improve, then the enterprise value is based on the improved report. KEYWORD: Financial statements, corporate value, Enterprise value evaluation 1 Introduction 1 The meaning of enterprise value The enterprise value is accompanied by the emergence of property rights trading market in the 1960s, a concept first proposed by the U.S. regulators. Under market economy conditions, the goods of the enterprise itself is a transaction in the equity market as the commodity stakeholders, including investors, creditors, managers must understand the value of the business. Enterprise value as a commodity currency performance. 1.2 Analysis of the significance of enterprise value Enterprises maximize the value of thinking helps to improve the company. Each listed