自由现金流量创造力与违约风险——来自A股公司的经验证据

本文基于我国A股上市公司数据,研究了企业自由现金流量创造力与违约风险之间的关系。研究发现:(1)企业自由现金流量创造力越强,其违约风险越低。经过一系列稳健性检验后,该结论依旧成立。(2)自由现金流量创造力越强的企业往往有更低的债务规模、更高的资产收益率和更低的股票波动,因而其违约风险更低。(3)自由现金流量创造力与违约风险的负相关关系,主要存在于货币政策紧缩时期以及外部信息环境较差的企业。本文发现意味着,监管部门和投资者应重视上市公司自由现金流量创造力不足所带来的潜在债务违约风险,通过不断提高公司自由现金流量创造力,助力我国宏观经济与微观企业高质量发展。     

The conditional nature of the value of corporate governance

Agency theory suggests that governance matters more among firms with greater potential agency costs. Rational investors are unlikely to value safeguards against unlikely events. Yet, few studies of the relation between governance and firm value control for investor perceptions of the likelihood of agency conflicts. Shleifer and Vishny [Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W., 1997. A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance 52, 737–783] identify investment-related agency conflicts as the more severe type of agency conflicts in the US. We measure the perceived likelihood of this type of agency conflict using free cash flow (Jensen, M.C., 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review 76, 323–329). We find that firm value is an increasing function of improved governance quality among firms with high free cash flow. In contrast, governance benefits are lower or insignificant among firms with low free cash flow. We show that not controlling for this conditional relation between governance and firm value could lead to erroneous conclusions that governance and firm value are unrelated.     

What Do FAS 157 “Fair Values” Really Measure: Value Or Risk?

FAS 157, the U.S. accounting standard that prescribes how fair values of assets and liabilities are to be measured when other U.S. GAAP standards require fair valuation, stipulates that fair values be measured as the exit values of assets and liabilities—the proceeds for assets hypothetically sold on the date of the financial report, and, correspondingly, the amount required to settle liabilities on the date of the financial report. This conceptual article argues that exit values do not reflect the value of the net assets of the firm to shareholders, which is best reflected by discounted cash flows to maturity. Moreover, exit values—biasing fair values downward when markets are illiquid—have a pernicious, systemic risk effect; specifically, they give rise to write‐downs that in turn cause contagion: prices of equities and other financial instruments of peers react negatively, leading to further write‐downs by those peers. This may have aggravated the recent financial crisis. However, while exit values are not proper measures of value to shareholders, they are useful measures of downside risk when prospects turn sour for a firm. Thus, both exit values and discounted cash flows should be presented in financial statements.     

An Ohlson valuation framework for valuing corporate governance: The case of Taiwan

We examine the relation between a firm's market value, financial performance, and corporate governance as a cointegrated system in the Ohlson (1995) valuation framework. Using a comprehensive set of 29 governance measures in 4 categories for Taiwanese firms, we find that governance related to ownership structure and divergence between cash flow rights and control rights are important for a firm's market valuation. In particular, information about shareholdings of board directors and supervisors, shareholdings of controlling family, and voting rights are influential for firm value. Controlling for book value and residual incomes in the model, these governance measures track much of the remaining firm valuation that is unrelated to a firm's financial performance. Our findings provide some insight into the intrinsic value of corporate governance and the types of corporate governance mechanisms that are especially important for firms with similar ownership structure and controls.     

FREE CASH FLOW AND PUBLIC GOVERNANCE: THE CASE OF ALASKA

In a widely cited 1986 article in the American Economic Review, Michael Jensen gave the concept of free cash flow (FCF) a new twist by redefining it as cash flow in excess of that required to fund all projects with positive net present values. Put another way, FCF represents funds available in the firm that managers may choose to hold as idle cash, return to shareholders, or invest in projects with returns below the firm's cost of capital. In redefining FCF in this way, Jensen converted FCF from a measure of economic income and value into a measure of corporate assets available for discretionary, and potentially value‐destroying, use by firm managers. And, as he argued in his important article, managers in mature businesses with substantial free cash flow have a tendency to destroy value by plowing too much capital back into those businesses or, often worse, making ill‐advised acquisitions in unrelated businesses. Several methods have been developed in financial markets and internal corporate governance systems to discourage managers from wasting FCF. Better monitoring by boards of directors, large ownership blocks, and properly aligned management compensation contracts are all parts of the solution. And the extraordinary increase in stock repurchases in recent years, invariably applauded by investors, is another illustration of the market's success in encouraging companies to address their free cash flow problems. But if the “FCF problem” of the private sector has attracted considerable attention from finance scholars, the problem is even more acute in the public sector, where FCF can be thought of as tax revenue in excess of what is required to finance well‐defined and generally accepted levels of public services. Unlike the private sector, in the public sector there are neither measures nor mechanisms by which to monitor and constrain wasteful spending by elected officials. In this article, the authors attempt to measure the costs to taxpayers of government FCF using the case of Alaska, which since 1969 has received a huge windfall of tax revenue from North Slope oil leases. After examining the state's public finances from 1968 through 1993, the authors offer $25 billion as a conservative estimate of the social losses from Alaska's waste of free cash flow during that 25‐year period.     

Information asymmetry and the value of cash

This study investigates the market value of corporate cash holdings in connection with firm-specific and time-varying information asymmetry. Analyzing a large international sample, we test two opposing hypotheses. According to the pecking order theory, adverse selection problems make external financing costly and imply a higher market value of a marginal dollar of cash in states with higher information asymmetry. In contrast, the free cash flow theory predicts that excessive cash holdings bundled with higher information asymmetry generate moral hazard problems and lead to a lower market value of a marginal dollar of cash. We use the dispersion of analysts’ earnings per share forecasts as our main measure of firm-specific and time-varying information asymmetry. Extending the valuation regressions of Fama and French [Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 1998. Taxes, financing decisions, and firm value. Journal of Finance 53, 819–843], our results support the free cash flow theory and indicate that the value of corporate cash holdings is lower in states with a higher degree of information asymmetry.     

Corporate Cash Policy and How to Manage it with Stock Repurchases

At the end of 2004 total U.S. corporate cash holdings reached an all‐time high of just under $2 trillion—an amount equal to roughly 15% of the total U.S. GDP. And during the past 25 years, average cash holdings have jumped from 10% to 23% of total corporate assets. But at the same time their levels of cash have risen, U.S. companies have paid out dramatically increasing amounts of cash to buy back shares. This article addresses the following questions: What accounts for the dramatic increase in the average level of corporate cash holdings since 1980? And why do some companies keep so much cash (with one fourth of U.S. firms holding cash amounting to at least 36% of total assets) while others have so little (with another quarter having less than 3%)? Why do companies pay out excess cash in the form of stock repurchases (rather than, say, dividends), and what explains the significant increase in repurchases (both in absolute terms and relative to dividends) over time? The author begins by arguing that cash reserves provide companies with a buffer against possible shortfalls in operating profits—one that, especially during periods of financial trouble, can be used to avoid financial distress or provide funding for promising projects that might otherwise have to be put off. Such buffers are particularly valuable in the case of smaller, riskier companies with lots of growth opportunities and limited access to capital markets. And the dramatic increase in corporate cash holdings between 1980 and the present can be attributed mainly to an increase in the risk of publicly traded companies—an increase in risk that reflects in part a general increase in competition, but also a notable change over time in the kinds of companies (smaller, newer, less profitable, non‐dividend paying firms) that have chosen to go public. At the other end of the corporate spectrum are large, relatively mature companies with limited growth opportunities. Although such companies tend to produce considerable free cash flow, they also tend to retain relatively small amounts of cash (as a percentage of total assets), in part because of shareholder concern about the corporate “free cash flow problem”—the well‐documented tendency of such companies to destroy value through overpriced (often diversifying) acquisitions and other misguided attempts to pursue growth at the expense of profitability. For companies with highly predictable earnings and investment plans, dividends provide one means of addressing the free cash flow problem. But for companies with more variable earnings and less predictable reinvestment, open‐market stock repurchases provide a more flexible means of distributing cash to shareholders. Unlike the corporate “commitment” implied by dividend payments, an open market stock repurchase program creates what amounts to an option but not an obligation to distribute funds. The value of such flexibility, which increases during periods of increased risk and uncertainty, explains much of the apparent substitution of repurchases for dividends in recent years.     

The effect of financial constraints,investment policy,product market competition and corporate governance on the value of cash holdings

This study empirically investigates the value shareholders place on excess cash holdings and how shareholders’ valuation of cash holdings is associated with financial constraints, firm growth, cash‐flow uncertainty and product market competition for Australian firms from 1990 to 2007. Our results indicate that the marginal value of cash holdings to shareholders declines with larger cash holdings and higher leverage. However, firms that are more financially constrained, that have higher growth rates and that face greater uncertainty exhibit a higher marginal value of cash holdings. These findings are consistent with the explanation that excess cash holdings are not necessarily detrimental to firm value. Firms with costly external financing and that also save more cash for current operating and future investing needs find that the market values these cash hoarding policies favourably. Finally, there is limited evidence of an association between various corporate governance measures and the value of cash holdings for a shorter sample period.     

What determines the composition of a firm's cash reserves?

We investigate what determines variation in the composition of the financial assets that constitute corporate cash reserves and how this variation relates to other key liquidity management practices. The degree to which a firm invests its cash reserves in less liquid, longer-maturity financial assets that earn a higher yield is explained by financial constraints, the ability to accurately forecast short-term liquidity needs, and the firm's likelihood of defaulting on its debt. During years when a firm's cash reserves are required to fund increases in investment or operating expenses the firm transfers funds from less liquid to more liquid financial assets. A firm's decisions relating to the composition of its cash reserves interacts with other key liquidity management practices, such as relying on credit lines for liquidity, extending trade credit or using it as a source of financing, and holding large amounts of inventories. Our findings provide insights on an important component of corporate liquidity management decisions.     

基于自由现金流管理视角的创值动因解析模型研究

以创值为目标、(自由)现金流为对象的现金流创值财务学要解决的主要问题是企业如何从(自由)现金流的角度进行财务管理从而实现价值最大化的目标。本文借鉴拉巴波特模型和杜邦分析系统的思想构建自由现金流管理视角的创值动因解析模型,为企业精细化地进行现金流管理提供一个有价值的分析工具。依据创值动因解析模型的分析结果,企业可以有针对性的采取相应的财务管理措施,实现价值创造。     

How Do Firm Characteristics Influence the Relationship between R&D and Firm Value?

This paper focuses on how a firm's characteristics affect the market valuation of its research and development (R&D) spending. We derive a valuation model based on the capital market arbitrage condition. Using the generalized method of moments and data from the Eurozone countries to estimate this model yields interesting results. Several firm characteristics (size, firm growth, and market share) positively affect the relationship between firm value and R&D spending, while others (free cash flow, dependence on external finance, labor intensity, and capital intensity) exert a negative effect. Therefore, we conclude that the effectiveness of R&D spending depends on firm characteristics.     

Brealey,Myers, and Allen on Real Options

Real options are valuable sources of flexibility that are either inherent in, or can be built into, corporate assets. The value of such options are generally not captured by the standard discounted cash flow (DCF) approach, but can be estimated using a variant of financial option pricing techniques. This article provides an overview of the basics of real option valuation by examining four important kinds of real options:

• 1 The option to make follow‐on investments. Companies often cite “strategic” value when taking on negative‐NPV projects. A close look at the payoffs from such projects reveals call options on follow‐on projects in addition to the immediate cash flows from the projects. Today's investments can generate tomorrow's opportunities.
• 2 The option to wait (and learn) before investing. This is equivalent to owning a call option on the investment project. The call is exercised when the firm commits to the project. But often it's better to defer a positive‐NPV project in order to keep the call alive. Deferral is most attractive when uncertainty is great and immediate project cash flows—which are lost or postponed by waiting—are small.
• 3 The option to abandon. The option to abandon a project provides partial insurance against failure. This is a put option; the put's exercise price is the value of the project's assets if sold or shifted to a more valuable use.
• 4 The option to vary the firm's output or its production methods. Companies often build flexibility into their production facilities so that they can use the cheapest raw materials or produce the most valuable set of outputs. In this case they effectively acquire the option to exchange one asset for another.

The authors also make the point that, in most applications, real‐option valuation methods are a complement to, not a substitute for, the DCF method. Indeed DCF, which is best suited to and usually sufficient for safe investments and “cash cow” assets, is typically the starting point for real‐option analyses. In such cases, DCF is used to generate the values of the “underlying assets”—that is, the projects when viewed without their options or sources of flexibility.     

Estimating the Cost of Capital Using Stock Prices and Near‐term Earnings Forecasts

Earnings‐based valuation models, although long used by finance practitioners, have become increasingly popular among finance academics as well. Among the most important reasons for academics' increased acceptance of earnings‐based valuation is the well‐documented claim that earnings over a short (three‐ to four‐year) forecast horizon tend to capture a large fraction—as much as 80%—of today's value, much more than is captured by near‐term forecasts of free cash flow, the measure long advocated by finance theorists as the basis for DCF valuation. But most important for the purposes of this article, the recognition that such a large percentage of the current values of many public companies is captured within a short forecast horizon has led to a large academic literature that uses earnings‐based valuation models together with current stock prices to “back out” estimates of the companies' implied expected rates of return and costs of equity capital. The effectiveness and precision of such reverse engineering depend on the reliability of the forecasts both within a finite forecast horizon and beyond. And although the models tested in academic work, which are based on large samples of forecasts and hard‐to‐verify assumptions about earnings beyond the forecast horizon, often do not appear to provide useful estimates, the author argues that such reverse engineering of the valuation models should become straightforward and workable once reliable forecasts of earnings are obtained—say, from the corporate (or investment) analysts who are familiar with the operations of the companies they work for (or cover).     

The Gap between the Theory and Practice of Corporate Valuation: Survey of European Experts

The valuation of companies or their assets is at the heart of most financing and investment decisions. Over the last five decades, academics have developed several simple and sophisticated models for corporate valuation. Yet valuation estimates of a firm or its assets appear to vary widely among practitioners. It is unclear whether these differences arise from practitioners' use of different valuation models or from differences in their assumptions about the inputs used in those models. To provide some insights into this issue, the authors recently surveyed 365 European finance practitioners with CFAs or equivalent professional degrees. They find that almost all survey respondents use the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model (along with some version of Relative Valuation that relies on the use of “comparables”). But the estimation methods of such practitioners for almost all inputs in the DCF model, including beta, the equity market risk premium, leverage, cost of debt, and terminal value, vary widely. This can be a serious problem because even small differences in inputs can cause huge variations in valuations. Such differences arise primarily because theory provides little guidance on how to estimate parameters, leaving practitioners to make their own assumptions and judgments. In sum, the authors' findings suggest that the process of estimating valuation parameters can be as important as the choice of the valuation model itself, and requires the serious attention of academics and practitioners. The authors recommend that key valuation parameter estimates be disclosed in financial and valuation reports. Their findings are also relevant to policy makers because the concept of “fair value” plays such a central role in post‐crisis regulation.     

Exposure-Based Cash-Flow-at-Risk: An Alternative to VaR for Industrial Companies

Cash-Flow-at-Risk (CFaR) is the cash flow equivalent of Value-at-Risk (VaR), a measure widely used as the basis for risk management in financial institutions. Whereas VaR-based systems specify the maximum amount of total value a firm is expected to lose under most foreseeable conditions (for example, with a 99% confidence level), CFaR-based systems determine the maximum shortfall of cash the firm is willing to tolerate. CFaR is gaining in popularity among industrial companies for much the same reasons VaR has succeeded with financial firms: it sums up all the company's risk exposures in a single number that can be used to guide corporate risk management decisions.
The authors describe a six-step process for calculating a measure they call "exposure-based CFaR" and then demonstrate its application to Norsk Hydro, the Norwegian industrial conglomerate. Exposure-based CFaR involves the estimation of a set of exposure coefficients that provide information about how various macroeconomic and market variables are expected to affect the company's cash flow, while also accounting for interdependencies among such effects. The resulting model enables management to estimate the variability in corporate cash flow as a function of various risks, and to predict how a hedging contract or a change in financial structure will alter the company's risk profile.     

What Are Assets and Liabilities? Where Is True North? (Accounting That my Sister Would Understand)

This is an article about what I think financial accounting and reporting ought to look like—about my vision that the singular focus of financial accounting and reporting should be on cash, that is, cash itself, contractual claims to cash, things (assets) that can be converted into cash, and obligations to pay cash, and that assets and liabilities should be stated at fair value in corporate balance sheets. I call this formulationTrue North. I previously have written about how we should keep financial accounting and reporting simple (‘Keep It Simple’, Accounting Horizons, June 1991, pp. 113–17). I also have written about how assets should be defined for accounting purposes (‘What Is an Asset?’, Accounting Horizons, Septem‐ber 1993, pp. 66–70). This article builds on those two earlier ones. It deals with definitions of assets and liabilities that should be recognized (that is, displayed, shown, or reported) in corporate balance sheets and how the recognized assets and liabilities should be measured when reported in those balance sheets.     

CORPORATE CASH HOLDINGS

There have been several cases in recent years—most notably, Chrysler—in which shareholders have objected to the level of companies' holdings of cash and other liquid assets. This paper describes the authors' study of the determinants of liquid asset holdings by publicly traded U.S. firms and how these holdings change over time. For those companies that appear to hold excess cash, the study also attempts to investigate whether such companies have a tendency to reduce value by "overinvesting"—a tendency described in the academic finance literature as the "free cash flow problem."
According to the study, the most important determinants of corporate cash holdings are size, risk, and the extent of the firm's investment opportunities, with smaller, riskier, and high-growth firms holding larger amounts of cash as a percentage of total (noncash) assets. These results are consistent with corporate decisions to hold liquid assets in order to preserve the firm's ability to make strategic investments when operating cash flow turns down and outside funds are expensive.
The authors also report that most companies with large amounts of excess cash tend to acquire it mainly by accumulating internally generated cash flows, and not by issuing securities. Perhaps surprising, the study also finds that spending on new projects and acquisitions is only slightly higher for firms with excess cash—and that such firms also tend to have higher payouts to shareholders in the form of dividends or stock repurchases. Thus, there is little evidence in this study of a free cash flow problem, as well as some indication that managers are aware of and attempt to address the problem.     

A Structured Financial Statement Analysis and the Direct Prediction of Stock Prices in Korea

Using a large sample of firms listed on the Korea Stock Exchange, this paper evaluates the usefulness of a structured, programmable financial statement analysis for investment decisions. In doing so, we develop a firm valuation model which links a firm's market value with fundamental variables such as the ability of a firm to generate cash flows, growth potentials, and risk. We predict a firm's intrinsic value directly from an extensive set of financial statement variables which proxy for the theoretical variables implied by the model. We then construct a series of trading strategies with zero net investment (called D-strategies) on the basis of D-values which measure percentage differences between predicted intrinsic values and observed market values. We observe that the market-adjusted and size-adjusted (hedge-portfolio) returns to the most conservative D-strategy turn out to be in the order of 16.92% and 11.44%, respectively,for the 12-month holding period. When our sample is stratified into two sub-samples based on firm size, the D-strategy yields higher excess return for the small-firm sub-sample than for the large-firm sub-sample. The above evidence, taken as a whole, strongly indicates that one can construct a profitable trading strategy by directly predicting intrinsic values through a structured financial statement analysis such as ours.     

Valuation of Corporate Innovation and the Pricing of Risk in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Case of Gilead

Much of a firm's market value derives from expected future growth value rather than from the value of current operations or assets in place. Pharmaceutical companies are good examples of firms where much market value comes from expectations about drugs still in the development “pipeline.” Using a new osteoporosis drug being developed by Gilead Sciences, Inc., the author combines discounted cash flow methods values and real option models to value it. Alone, discounted cash flow (DCF) calculations are vulnerable to the assumptions of growth, cost of capital, and cash flows. But by integrating the real options approach with the DCF technique, one can value a new product in the highly regulated, risky and research‐intensive Biopharmaceutical industry. This article shows how to value a Biopharmaceutical product, tracked from discovery to market launch in a step‐by‐step manner. Improving over early real option models, this framework explicitly captures competition, speed of innovation, risk, financing need, the size of the market potential in valuing corporate innovation using a firm‐specific measure of risk and the industry‐wide value of growth operating cash flows. This framework shows how the risk of corporate innovation, which is not fully captured by the standard valuation models, is priced into the value of a firm's growth opportunity. The DCF approach permits top‐down estimation of the size of the industry‐wide growth opportunity that competing firms must race to capture, while the contingency‐claims technique allows bottom‐up incorporation of the firm's successful R&D investment and the timing of introduction of the new product to market. It also specifically prices the risk of innovation by modeling its two components: the consumer validation of technology and the expert validation of technology. Overall, it estimates the value contribution per share of a new product for the firm.     

The value relevance of cash flows, current accruals, and non-current accruals in the UK

Cash flow statements have a longstanding history as mandated financial statement disclosures, having replaced funds flow statements. The usefulness of such disclosures with respect to one of the main purposes of financial statements—providing information relevant to the assessment of future cash flows and their uncertainty, and the market value of firms—is still subject to debate. This study investigates whether various partitions of earnings involving combinations of a cash flow measure of performance and measures of current accruals and non-current accruals improve the ability to explain market values in the UK relative to using earnings alone. Using a valuation model-based methodology, and employing a UK sample of non-financial firms for the years 1993 to 2007, our results suggest strong support for the assertion that cash flows can have incremental value relevance relative to either earnings or funds flows. By implication, cash flows can have separate value relevance from total and, in particular, current accruals. There is slightly less consistent evidence that current and non-current accruals can have separate value relevance but, nonetheless, the results are still strongly in favour in this respect. Generally, the main source of increase in explanatory power for market values is the separate inclusion of our cash flow measure in the estimated regressions. As a consequence, we conclude that the statement of cash flows in the UK provides information useful to UK investors in valuing firms. Further, requiring a cash flow statement, as opposed to a funds flow statement, improves the information content of financial statements in the UK.