财务管理中的杠杆效应与风险探析

财务管理学中的经营杠杆、财务杠杆和复合杠杆相关理论是企业优化资本结构、获取经营杠杆收益、控制经营风险、实现股东收益最大化与控制企业财务风险的重要理论,涉及筹资活动、投资活动与经营活动多个方面,是筹资决策、投资决策和经营决策的重要依据。本论从经营杠杆、财务杠杆相关理论依据与内涵入手,在分析经营杠杆、财务杠杆和复合杠杆计算及公式的基础上,重点对其三项指标的性质与作用进行分析与评价。以达到全面的、正确的理解杠杆效应与风险程度的相互关系,明晰经营风险和财务风险之间的联系,以实现经营(投资)决策与筹资决策的相互配合,共同控制与降低企业复合风险。     

金融服务实体经济的效率及影响因素研究 ——基于商业银行资产负债的实证分析

本文首先深入分析了商业银行的资产负债管理行为,构建商业银行追求利润的资产负债管理模型,从理论上分析出商业银行将资产配置到实体经济领域的影响因素。在此基础上,从金融监管的角度出发,将商业银行的资产负债项目进一步分类为杠杆类、通道类,利用25家商业银行2009到2018年的面板数据,实证分析针对商业银行的杠杆类、通道类资产负债的监管,对金融支持实体经济力度、价格的影响效果。结果显示：银行支持实体经济力度方面,银行的杠杆率对银行支持实体经济力度有显著正向效果,但是资金通道长度对银行支持实体经济力度的影响并不显著;银行支持实体经济的资金价格方面,杠杆率对银行资金价格的影响并不显著,但是通道长度则会显著增加资金成本;商业银行的国有、股份制、城商行性质对银行支持实体经济力度的影响也不显著,但是同等条件下,商业银行的国有性质会显著降低资金价格水平。     

Ownership, institutions, and capital structure: Evidence from China

We employ a unique data set to explore the role of ownership structure and institutional development in debt financing of non-publicly traded Chinese firms. We show that state ownership is positively associated with leverage and firms’ access to long-term debt, while foreign ownership is negatively associated with all measures of leverage. Surprisingly, firms in better developed regions are associated with reduced access to long-term debt, suggesting the availability of alternative financing channels and the tightening of the lending standards under the on-going banking reform. The combination of ownership structures and institutions explains up to 6% of the total variation in firms’ leverage decisions, while firm characteristics alone explain no more than 8% of the variation. Further, we show that non-state-owned firms tend to have lower total and short-term debt than their state-owned counterparts in less developed regions. Finally, we show that state-owned firms’ easy access to long-term debt is positively associated with long-term investment and negatively associated with firm performance.     

金融体系杠杆形成机制和管控建议

2008年国际金融危机的一个深刻教训是金融杠杆的过犹不及。本文在金融杠杆概 念及相关文献综述的基础上,对我国金融部门杠杆率进行了多角度的测算,并分析金融过度杠 杆化的形成机制,梳理当前已采取的金融去杠杆措施,总结值得关注的问题,为下一步管控金 融杠杆、稳住宏观杠杆提供参考。     

Estimation methods for stochastic volatility models: a survey

Abstract.  Although stochastic volatility (SV) models have an intuitive appeal, their empirical application has been limited mainly due to difficulties involved in their estimation. The main problem is that the likelihood function is hard to evaluate. However, recently, several new estimation methods have been introduced and the literature on SV models has grown substantially. In this article, we review this literature. We describe the main estimators of the parameters and the underlying volatilities focusing on their advantages and limitations both from the theoretical and empirical point of view. We complete the survey with an application of the most important procedures to the S&P 500 stock price index.     

Scaledt分布、杠杆效应和上证综指的VaR风险

与正态分布相比，上证指数收益率的经验分布具有尖峰厚尾特征，但用Scaled t-分布比正态分布可以更好地拟合上证指数收益率的经验分布。本文以Scaled t-分布假设下的GJR模型为基础，测量了上证指数收益率波动性的杠杆效应，即信息对波动性的不对称影响：并根据GJR模型应用Monte Carlo模拟方法，测定上证指数日收益率和持有期收益率的风险价值（VaR）。根据GJR模型提供的结果，上证指数30天、60天和90天持有期收益率的风险值分别为12．1％、17．8％、22．0％。用GJR模型比均值-方差模型和历史模拟方法计算的5％显著性水平VaR值更接近实际收益率。     

Asymmetric volatility in the foreign exchange markets

We examine the presence or absence of asymmetric volatility in the exchange rates of Australian dollar (AUD), Euro (EUR), British pound (GBP) and Japanese yen (JPY), all against US dollar. Our investigation is based on a variant of the heterogeneous autoregressive realized volatility model, using daily realized variance and return series from 1996 to 2004. We find that a depreciation against USD leads to significantly greater volatility than an appreciation for AUD and GBP, whereas the opposite is true for JPY. Relative to volatility on days following a positive one-standard-deviation return, volatility on days following a negative one-standard-deviation return is higher by 6.6% for AUD, 6.1% for GBP, and 21.2% for JPY. The realized volatility of EUR appears to be symmetric. These results are robust to the removal of jump component from realized volatility and the sub-samplings defined by structural-changes. The asymmetry in AUD, GBP and JPY appears to be embedded in the continuous component of realized volatility rather than the jump component.     

On the relation between the market-to-book ratio, growth opportunity, and leverage ratio

The negative relation between the market-to-book ratio and leverage ratio is one of the most widely documented empirical regularities in the capital structure literature. Most related studies take this negative relation as given and debate about its economic interpretation. We show that firms with higher market-to-book ratios face lower debt financing costs and borrow more. The relation between the market-to-book ratio and leverage ratio is not monotonic and is positive for most firms (more than 88% of COMPUSTAT firms and more than 95% of total market capitalization). The previously documented negative relation is driven by a subset of firms with high market-to-book ratios.     

The effect of management incentives and cross-listing status on the accounting treatment of R&D spending

This paper investigates the effect of management incentives and cross-listing status on the accounting treatment of research and development (R&D) spending for a sample of Canadian hi-tech and biopharmaceutical firms. U.S. GAAP adopts an immediate expensing rule for all R&D spending except for software development costs for which technological feasibility has been established. Contrary to the U.S., Canadian and international standard setters recommend capitalization if development costs meet certain criteria. Because those criteria are largely based on management judgment, capitalization of R&D spending is an accounting choice that can be used for income manipulation or signaling.Using a logit model, we examine how the decision to capitalize R&D spending is influenced by the cross-listing status and several other key firm characteristics that are well documented in the accounting literature. We find that the probability of capitalizing R&D spending increases for cross-listed and non-cross-listed firms in the software industry. The probability of capitalizing R&D spending also increases for firms that are more leveraged, more mature, and have higher level of cash flows from operations. However, the probability of capitalizing R&D spending decreases for larger corporations, firms with more concentrated ownership and highly profitable firms. Overall our results indicate a preference for Canadian firms in the software industry to emulate U.S. accounting practices for R&D spending. They also suggest that firms use the decision to capitalize or expense R&D spending as an earning management tool to either meet debt covenants or to smooth income.     

The Effect of Business Risk on Capital Structure of Indian Corporate Firms: Business Groups vs. Stand-alone Firms

Abstract

This study estimates the relationship between leverage and business risk for Indian corporate firms by applying semi-parametric regression method for three time points, namely 2001, 2007 and 2012. We observe that the relationship is non-linear for all the three measures of RISK in 2001 and 2012. Since we get different results for different measures of risk, we lay more emphasis on RISK2 as the better measure of risk here. From the graphical plots, we find that the relationship between leverage and RISK2 appears to be a polynomial of degree 5 or more. Thus, it invalidates the previous argument of a quadratic relationship between leverage and risk. We then check if the quadratic specification between leverage and risk, as proposed in the existing studies, is appropriate by applying Hardle and Mammen's test. We observe that the relationship varies over the measures of risks and it differs between group-affiliated firms and stand-alone firms. Moreover, the relationship changes over time. Thus, our findings raise questions about the predictions of Castanias, Kale et al. and others on the relationship between capital structure and business risk as a U-shaped one. We conclude that the generalization of a U-shaped relationship between capital structure and business risk is not true.