动态不完全市场中不流动资产的定价

流动性对资产收益有重大影响,流动性好坏与资产能否流动是不同层面的问题,前者属于完全市场,后者属于不完全市场,但经典的金融经济学主要研究完全市场上的资产定价和最优组合策略。本文基于中国的现实制度背景,考察流动性受限对资产定价的影响,构建了动态不完全市场中不流动资产的定价模型及最优组合策略;证明了不流动性资产从根本上影响了最优组合策略,不流动资产折价率受到流动约束的时间长短、不流动资产收益的波动率等诸多参数的显著影响。     

信息可靠性、企业成长性与会计盈余持续性

本文以我国2001至2006年期间上市公司为研究对象,延续FWY和RSST的方法,考察信息可靠性和企业成长性对应计利润持续性较差现象的解释力。我们采用经营资产利润率与经营资产现金获取率的均方差计量信息可靠性。研究发现,企业成长性越好,信息失真值越高;会计扭曲越严重,应计利润的持续性越差;信息可靠性越高(低),会计盈余持续性越高(低);应计利润和现金收益整体对下一期的会计盈余预测能力越强(弱),会计盈余持续性检验模型的解释力越高(低);应计利润较现金收益的持续性差,且这种现象不因信息可靠性高或低而改变。     

会计稳健性对盈余价值相关性的影响研究——基于公允价值计量的视角

以2001～2008年我国A股上市公司为研究样本,基于公允价值计量全面引入的视角,考察了会计稳健性对盈余价值相关性的影响,实证发现:会计稳健性显著降低了会计盈余的价值相关性,而公允价值计量显著弱化了会计稳健性对于盈余价值相关性的负向影响.研究结果表明,对于我国上市公司而言,稳健的会计政策并不意味着高质量的财务报告信息.公允价值与会计稳健性适度藕合,可以弥补会计稳健性的不足,有利于提高会计信息质量.     

系统性定价偏误:中国A股盈余公告后的价格漂移研究

行为金融学的研究表明,投资者情绪引起的定价偏误在各支股票之间具有相关性,从而构成市场上的系统性定价偏误。基于2003年6月至2009年6月中国A股月度交易数据,本文考察了系统性定价偏误与盈余公告后漂移(PEAD)之间的关系。研究结果显示,中国股票市场上的PEAD现象可能由系统性定价偏误引致,因此,将捕捉系统性定价偏误的偏误定价因子引入定价模型能够提升模型对于PEAD的解释力。经过对定价模型调整,季度盈余公告后6个月买人持有异常收益在经济及统计意义上不显著。这一方面表明中国股票市场上存在由投资者情绪造成的系统性定价偏误,另一方面也为盈余公告后漂移的产生原因提供了新的解释。     

融资需求、投资者情绪与盈余管理

本文基于2012-2018年A股上市非金融企业数据实证考察了融资需求与盈余管理的关系,在此基础上引入外部市场环境因素-投资者情绪作为调节变量。研究发现:融资需求对企业的盈余管理具有显著的正向影响,融资需求越强烈的企业,其应计盈余管理和真实盈余管理的程度越高;此外,投资者情绪作为一种市场非理性因素,一方面会通过迎合效应对融资规模产生影响,另一方面也会引起股票的错误定价从而改变企业融资成本;实证结果表明相比低迷的投资者情绪,高涨的投资者情绪会显著促进融资需求与盈余管理的正向关系。     

分割资本市场下的会计信息价值研究

本文采用事件研究和面板数据回归方法对我国A股～H股双重上市公司境内外报表披露的会计盈余和帐面净值与股票超额收益的相关性进行了研究。分析表明,在A股市场上,境内报表披露的会计盈余等信息与A股超额收益之间没有显著的价值相关性;境内外报表关于会计盈余和账面净值的调整值对A股价格也没有影响;在H股市场,会计信息与股价之间的相关性较强,不仅境外报表披露的主要会计指标能够有效解释年报披露期间H股超额收益,而且境内外报表的会计盈余和账面净值调整值还具有增量信息价值。由此我们认为中国内地资本市场与香港资本市场的分割效应较为明显。     

现金流量操纵手法案例分析

现金流量表以现金收付制为编制原则,不受权责发生制会计的应计、递延、摊销和分配程序的影响,因此通常认为经营活动现金流量(以下简称经营活动现金流或者经营现金流)与权责发生制的会计盈余相比,不容易被操纵,是相对可靠的“硬”数字。然而,现金流量表并非远离“偏见”(bias)和     

营运资金评价体系构建——基于风险收益权衡原则

<正>营运资金属短期投融资范畴,从财务角度看,营运资金涵盖了流动资产和流动负债。流动资产是企业在一年内或超过一年的一个营业周期内变现或耗用的资产,具有周转快、易变现、盈利能力较低等特点。流动负债是指企业需要在一年或超过一年的一个营业周期内偿还的债务,具有融资成本低、融资弹性好、融资风险较大等特征。对于企业来说,持有较少的流动资产和保持较高的流动负债融资比率,资本成本较低,企业     

论流动比率指标评价财务状况的局限性及创新对策

所谓流动比率指标是企业流动资产合计与流动负债合计的比值;它是我国企业现行财务指标评价体系中用来评价企业短期偿债能力的一个重要指标.其计算公式如下:流动比率=流动资产/流动负债.流动资产主要包括货币资金、交易性金融资产、应收及预付款项、存货、待摊费用和一年内到期的非流动资产等,一般采用资产负债表中流动资产项目的期末数.流动负债主要包括短期借款、应付及预收款项、各种应交款项、应付职工薪酬、一年内到期的非流动资产等,通常也用资产负债表中流动负债项目的期末数.     

会计信息可靠性与盈余持续性——来自沪、深股市的经验证据

本文以2001--2004年沪深股市上市公司为样本，考察了会计信息可靠性与盈余持续性。研究发现．更可靠的会计信息具有更高的盈余自相关系数和股票回报，会计信息可靠性与盈余持续性正相关。从盈余自相关角度看，更可靠的会计信息具有更强的盈余持续性。从股票回报角度看，市场符合“幼稚投资者”假说，存在利润“功能锁定”现象，市场不能充分理解会计信息可靠性与盈余相关性的关系，对会计信息可靠性给出了异常定价。本结论有力地支持了新会计准则对真实性和可靠性的强调。     

基于佣金收入动机的机构投资者盈利预测偏离与股票交易量研究

本文基于信息反应模型研究了机构投资者盈利预测偏离与普通投资者交易需求之间的激励关系,并选取2006至2010年的相关盈利预测和股票交易数据进行实证分析。结果表明,机构投资者的盈利预测存在显著偏离前期市场平均预测值的倾向,而且这种偏离倾向会进一步诱发股票交易增量,从而增加机构投资者的佣金收入。这意味着普通投资者在参考机构投资者的盈利预测报告时,需要考虑其基于刺激交易量的自利因素。     

资产负债项目可靠性、盈余持续性及其市场反应

本文将资产负债项目的可靠性和盈余的持续性相联系,并探讨资本市场能否解读这种联系。首先,理论分析表明可靠性更差的资产负债项目导致盈余的持续性更低。其次对应计项目进行分类并评价其可靠性。最后,证据表明,更不可靠的应计项目导致盈余的持续性更低,并且资本市场没有充分预期到这种联系从而作出错误反应。这些结果说明,在财务报表中确认可靠性更低的应计项目会导致更大的成本,相关性的获得不应以牺牲可靠性为代价。     

Accounting-based downside risk and expected stock returns: Evidence from China

We document that earnings downside risk contains information on firms' future operating performance and is positively associated with expected stock returns in Chinese stock markets, and the return predictability of earning downside risk mainly comes from its accrual downside risk component. The pricing of earnings downside risk is especially evident among firms with more transparent information environment and stronger governance efficacy, such as large firms, non-high-tech firms, old firms, and firms with high analyst coverage. Lastly, we show that aggregated earnings downside risk and its components at the market level are all significantly and positively associated with subsequent stock market returns, which is consistent with the notion that the accounting-based downside risk measures contain information about future macroeconomic conditions.     

Product market power,industry structure,and corporate earnings management

This is the first study to establish a link between product market power of firms and the degree of earnings management. We hypothesize and document a significant and robust association between (a) a firm’s product market pricing power and its degree of earnings management, and (b) industry competitiveness and the degree of earnings management in the industry. Our study reveals that firms with inferior product market pricing power engage in greater discretionary earnings accruals, adding a new dimension to our understanding of the transparency and informativeness of firms’ financial statements. These findings are mirrored at the industry level where we document that more competitive industries are associated with greater earnings manipulation. The empirical evidence has direct implication on the informativeness and earnings quality of firms based on their product market power and competitiveness.     

Financial Management Association Roundtable on Stock Market Pricing and Value‐Based Management

A group of academics and practitioners addresses a number of questions about the workings of the stock market and its implications for corporate decision‐making. The discussion begins by asking what the market wants from companies: Is it mainly just steady increases in earnings per share, which are then “capitalized” by the market at the current industry P/E multiple to produce a higher stock price? Or does the market pay attention to the “quality,” or sustainability, of earnings? And are there more revealing measures of annual corporate performance than GAAP earnings—measures that would provide investors with a better sense of companies' future cash‐generating capacity and returns on capital? The consensus was that although many investors respond uncritically to earnings numbers, the most sophisticated and influential investors consider far more than current earnings when pricing stocks. And although the stock market is far from omniscient, the heightened scrutiny of companies resulting from the growth of hedge funds, private equity, and investor activism of all kinds appears to be making the market “more efficient” in building information into stock prices. The second part of the discussion explored the implications of this view of the market pricing process for corporate strategy and the evaluation of major investment opportunities. For example, do acquisitions have to be “EPS‐accretive” to be value‐adding, or is there a more reliable means of assessing an investment's value added than pro forma EPS effects? Does the DCF valuation method always offer a better guide to value than the method of comparables used by many Wall Street dealmakers? And under what circumstances are the relatively new real options valuation approaches likely to provide a significant advantage over conventional methods? The main message offered to corporate practitioners is to avoid letting cosmetic accounting effects get in the way of value‐adding investment and operating decisions. As the corporate record on acquisitions makes painfully clear, there is no guarantee that an accretive deal will turn out to be value‐increasing (in fact, the odds are that it will not). As for choosing a valuation method, there appears to be a time and place for each of the major methods—comparables, DCF, and real options—and the key to success is understanding which method is best suited to the circumstances.     

基于投资者有限注意的“应计异象”研究——来自中国A股市场的经验证据

本文在应计定价被高估的"应计异象"研究基础上,从投资者有限注意角度出发,将投资者分为高关注和低关注两类,实证检验两类投资者对应计定价的不同影响。实证研究发现,高关注投资者由于能够充分关注到包括应计和现金流在内的盈余组成部分,因而能够对应计作出较为合理的定价;相反,低关注投资者则对应计作出过高的定价。进一步的研究发现,在不同的市场态势下,高、低关注投资者对应计定价具有不同的表现:当市场处于牛市时,高关注投资者对应计进行了合理定价,而低关注投资者则存在对应计的高估;而熊市时,高关注投资者对应计作出偏低的定价,而低关注投资者则对应计作出了较为合理的定价。     

Does Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift in Stock Prices Reflect A Market Inefficiency? A Stochastic Dominance Approach

This paper uses a stochastic dominance approach to test for market efficiency following earnings announcements. We find that the stocks that recently announced good earnings news stochastically dominate those that recently announced bad news. The results cast serious doubt on any belief that asset pricing model misspecifications might explain post-earnings-announcement drift.     

On the systematic volatility of unpriced earnings

Some important puzzles in macro finance can be resolved in a model featuring systematically varying volatility of unpriced shocks to firms? earnings. In the data, the correlation between corporate debt and stock market valuations is low. The model accounts for this via the opposing effect of unpriced earnings risk on levered debt and equity prices. The model also explains the low (or nonexistent) risk-reward relation for the market portfolio of levered equity via the opposing effects of unpriced and priced uncertainty (both components of stock volatility) on the levered equity risk premium. Versions of the model calibrated to empirical measures of both types of fundamental risk can quantitatively substantiate these explanations. Variation in residual earning dispersion accounts for a significant fraction of observed disagreement between debt and equity valuations and of realized stock volatility. The implication that the two components of risk should forecast the levered equity risk premium with opposite signs is also supported in the data. The results are a notable advance for risk-based asset pricing.     

Financially Constrained Stock Returns

We study the effect of financial constraints on risk and expected returns by extending the investment-based asset pricing framework to incorporate retained earnings, debt, costly equity, and collateral constraints on debt capacity. Quantitative results show that more financially constrained firms are riskier and earn higher expected stock returns than less financially constrained firms. Intuitively, by preventing firms from financing all desired investments, collateral constraints restrict the flexibility of firms in smoothing dividend streams in the face of aggregate shocks. The inflexibility mechanism also gives rise to a convex relation between market leverage and expected stock returns.