中美交叉上市与权益资本成本研究--基于美国股票交易所上市的A股公司数据北大核心CSSCISSCI

本文基于约束理论研究了中美交叉上市是否会降低A股公司的权益资本成本,通过构建包含立法水平和执法水平的投资者法律保护指数,检验赴美上市对我国A股公司权益资本成本的作用效果。结果表明,中美交叉上市部分降低了权益资本成本,以投资者法律保护指数所代表的约束理论具备一定的解释力,但是由于融资规模等因素的干扰,交叉上市对权益资本成本的降低作用受到某种程度的不利影响。尽管如此,交叉上市对改善公司治理机制具有积极的作用,AN股公司的治理结构有所优化。     

中国上市企业投资的资本成本敏感性估计

企业投资对资本成本的敏感性是识别货币政策利率传导渠道是否畅通以及IS曲线斜率的重要参数。本文基于新古典投资模型框架,使用2004-2017年中国上市公司非平衡面板数据,估计了中国上市企业投资的资本成本敏感性,并侧重检验了融资约束对企业投资资本成本敏感性的影响。估计结果显示:(1)上市企业投资的加权资本成本弹性显著为负,且已具有较强敏感性(长期弹性系数为-0.16～-0.27),价格型货币政策工具的传导条件在上市公司投资环节正逐渐具备 ;(2)对加权资本成本的结构性估计显示,企业投资主要对债务资本成本的变动较为敏感且系数显著为负,而对股权资本成本的变动敏感程度较低且不稳定;(3)与传统观点相反的是,非国有控股上市企业投资的资本成本敏感性显著低于国有控股上市企业;较强的融资约束是导致非国有控股上市企业投资的资本成本敏感性较低的重要原因,应重视民营经济面临较强的融资约束对价格型货币政策工具传导机制的负面影响。本文的研究为中国货币政策框架的转型以及价格型货币政策传导机制的有效性提供了微观经验证据的支持。     

融资约束、代理成本与企业绩效——基于中小板上市企业面板数据的实证分析

随着国际市场萎缩、国内市场变数加大,中国中小企业如何发展壮大是目前亟待解决的重要问题,也是国家政府及有关学者关注的重点问题.基于固定效应模型研究融资约束、代理成本对企业绩效的影响及其机制,结果发现:中小企业融资约束会显著阻碍企业绩效提升,而代理成本则会对企业绩效产生显著负面影响;基于股权性质和地区制度环境的差异效应,进一步探索发现,融资约束对中西部及国有中小企业绩效并无显著性影响.     

我国上市公司的资本结构与代理成本问题分析

本文分析了我国上市公司股东与经理、股东与债权人之间利益冲突的特点 ,提出了代理成本的资本结构解决方案 :扩大债务融资比重 ,控制配股融资比重 ,建立我国企业债券市场体系 ,完善公司治理机制     

我国煤炭上市企业资本结构存在的问题及优化

煤炭产业对我们国家发展十分重要,这不仅仅因为煤炭是最重要的基础性能源之一,也因为它深刻影响着国家能源的管理以及整个国民经济的走向。如今在整个社会发展进步的过程中,我们都强调可持续性,在产业的变革和转型中,这一点也被当作指导思想之一。     

“江苏琼花”事件凸显家族控股上市公司的治理结构缺陷

对股票市场有点绝望的投资者期待着中小企业板块和保荐人制度能够给他们带来好运，然而，“新八股”刚刚登场，“江苏琼花”丑闻就呈现在光天化日之下。江苏琼花在上市10天后，有媒体揭露其在上市过程中隐瞒了委托理财事项，而且，委托理财的机构是新疆德隆旗下的恒信证券、德恒证券；江苏琼花的承销商是闵发证券，保荐机构也是闵发     

企业金融债务重组面临的法律约束与改进路径——兼论“僵尸企业”债务重组问题

出清"僵尸企业"是促进我国产业提质增效、推进供给侧结构性改革的重要举措。在清理处置僵尸企业过程中,如何运用法律手段有效开展金融债务重组,是当前国内银行业风险管理的热点和焦点问题。实践中,企业金融债务重组中出现的重组模式受限、法律风险防控难度大、债权人委员会缺乏上位法支持、相关主体职责不清等问题,其症结均在于相关法律制度存在空白。本文对上述问题进行深入分析,提出完善企业金融债务重组法律制度的具体思路,建议从四个层面入手填补制度空白,包括借鉴现行规定研究制定破产预防法律制度、出台行政法规细化各方权利义务、出台司法解释赋予债权人委员会民事主体资格、放宽金融债务重组模式的监管政策限制等,为破解企业金融债务重组的瓶颈问题、加快出清"僵尸企业"进程创造制度条件。     

不确定形势下企业面临的风险挑战和成本变化趋势——2022年“企业成本”调研总报告

在风险社会中,企业成本不只是生产要素的函数,而是越来越成为了风险的函数,且函数的复杂性、多变性陡增。微观企业成本负担变化又是观察宏观政策效果及宏观经济运行状况的重要窗口。2022年9—12月,中国财政科学研究院调研组基于全国13764份有效企业问卷及大量访谈调研发现,我国2022年“组合式”税费支持政策的成效持续显现,有效释放了市场主体活力。但与此同时,外部环境的不确定性和公共风险相互叠加,在一定程度上对冲了降成本政策的效果。鉴于减税降费等政策的加力空间及边际效用递减,下阶段,应注重从“风险-成本”分析框架深化对企业成本的认识,通过完善制度安排、强化预期管理和提高治理效能等策略来对冲公共风险,进而降低企业的风险成本。     

成分股调整改变企业权益资本成本了吗——兼论产权性质的影响

成分股调整是否具有信息含量是长久以来争议的话题.本文探究了成分股调整对权益资本成本的影响及其信息中介机制,并考察了不同产权性质企业成分股调整的信息含量差异.本文首先通过公司融资选择模型(Tirole,2010)刻画了成分股调整对权益资本成本的影响,并拓展论证了产权性质调节效应和投资者异质信念中介效应.其次,本文经双重差分模型实证研究发现:(1)调入(调出)股票的权益资本成本下降(上升);(2)由于信息披露质量差异导致认证成本的不同,国有企业权益资本成本改变更为明显;(3)投资者异质信念发挥了部分中介作用,佐证了信息含量假说.本文结合中国独特的产权制度验证了成分股调整具有信息含量,为进一步完善成分股调整制度提供了理论依据.     

Estimation of global systematic risk for securities listed in multiple markets

In this era of rapid globalization of financial markets there has been a substantial increase in cross-listings of stocks in foreign and regional capital markets. As many as a third to a half of the stocks in some major exchanges are foreign listed. The multiple listings of stocks has major implications for the concept of systematic risk. This paper demonstrates that the estimator for systematic risk and the methodology itself changes when stocks are listed in multiple markets. The paper suggests general procedures, using maximum information from the multiple markets, to obtain the estimator of beta under a variety of assumptions about the error terms of the market models in the different capital markets. The assumptions pertain both to the volatilities of the abnormal returns in each market, and to the relationship between the markets.     

企业上市得花多少钱？

企业上市究竟要花多少钱？企业在创业板上市,费用会不会比中小板便宜呢？费用是不是越低越好？企业为什么既要算小账更要算大账？     

On the relation between expected returns and implied cost of capital

We examine the relation between implied cost of capital and expected returns under an assumption that expected returns are stochastic, a property supported by theory and empirical evidence. We demonstrate that implied cost of capital differs from expected return, on average, by a function encompassing volatilities of, as well as correlation between, expected returns and cash flows, growth in cash flows, and leverage. These results provide alternative explanations for findings from empirical studies employing implied cost of capital on the magnitude of the market risk premium; predictability of future returns; and the relations between cost of capital and a host of firm characteristics, such as growth, leverage, idiosyncratic risk and the firm’s information environment.     

Practitioners' perspectives on the UK cost of capital

The aims of this study were to determine how UK finance practitioners derive and review the cost of capital, and to ascertain whether the final figure varied with the choice of method. To investigate behaviour in the real world a survey questionnaire was employed, eliciting responses from the finance directors of 193 UK quoted firms. The results suggest that the cost of capital calculation is subject to wide variation across firms, both with regard to the overall figure and the precise computation of its components. The intuitive appeal of the WACC and CAPM approaches appears to ensure their continued popularity in the real world. However, firms tend not to make all of the adjustments to the overall figure which academics might expect, only making simple adjustments for risk and the tax advantage to debt. The after-tax money cost of capital which is approximately 10%, is influenced by the choice of method, and firms do not appear to revise their overall cost figure rapidly in response to the environment. The cost of capital decision is of such strategic importance for the longer-term maintenance and expansion of firm value that it is nearly always made within the domain of the board of directors.     

Evaluating cross-sectional forecasting models for implied cost of capital

The computation of implied cost of capital (ICC) is constrained by the lack of analyst forecasts for half of all firms. Hou et al. (J Account Econ 53:504–526, 2012, HVZ) present a cross-sectional model to generate forecasts in order to compute ICC. However, the forecasts from the HVZ model perform worse than those from a naïve random walk model and the ICCs show anomalous correlations with risk factors. We present two parsimonious alternatives to the HVZ model: the EP model based on persistence in earnings and the RI model based on the residual income model from Feltham and Ohlson (Contemp Account Res 11:689–732, 1996). Both models outperform the HVZ model in terms of forecast bias, accuracy, earnings response coefficients, and correlations of the ICCs with future returns and risk factors. We recommend that future research use the RI model or the EP model to generate earnings forecasts.     

New estimates of the cost of capital for pharmaceutical firms

Academic researchers, as well as pharmaceutical firms themselves, often use the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to estimate a firm's cost of capital. But the CAPM implicitly assumes that cash flows follow a random walk. This assumption is inconsistent with our finding that large U.S.-based pharmaceutical firms' cash flow growth rates display either momentum or mean-reversion. We show that growth rate momentum implies: (1) the systematic risk of a project increases monotonically with time to maturity of the cash flows; and (2) longer duration projects require a higher cost of capital. One of the practical implications of our results is that the traditional CAPM underestimates the cost of capital for some pharmaceutical firms by as much as 2.8%. These findings are quite relevant for the policy debate about the high rates of return earned by pharmaceutical companies, which some claim are pure rents and are not necessary to attract investors. Our theoretical and empirical analysis shows that high returns are often required to compensate for the higher systematic risk of long-duration pharmaceutical cash flows.     

Modeling RBRT adoption and its effects on cost of capital

In the capital market, firms compete to obtain capital at a lower cost than their rivals. In order to do so, firms may try to increase their information disclosure by adopting new information technologies, such as a real-time business reporting technology (RBRT). The financial accounting literature has empirically provided positive evidence of increased transparency (e.g., resulting from RBRT adoption). We attempt to link the transparency and cost of capital literatures and extend organizational innovation adoption theory.We adapt some constructs from existing innovation adoption theory, as well as contribute some that apply to a RBRT context, to develop a mathematical model on the relationship between RBRT adoption and the cost of capital. The model considers both micro-(firm) level factors and macro-level factors that affect the adoption decision. We argue that cost of capital savings, uncertainty, risk aversion, transaction and transformation costs, and governmental policy affect a firm's decision of whether and when to adopt a RBRT. A number of propositions are derived, based on our model, which may help firms formulate their adoption strategy. Our model also provides a basis for further empirical study on this new issue.     

Industry cost of equity capital: European evidence for multifactor models

We estimate the costs of equity capital for 117 industries from 16 European countries employing the CAPM and 8 multifactor asset pricing models as well as a variety of different econometric techniques. In doing so, we extend previous research on cost of equity estimation in mainly two ways. First, our study involves European instead of US or UK industries, which are investigated in previous research, and we find that cost of equity estimates obtained from the CAPM or multifactor asset pricing models are as imprecise for European industries as for US and UK industries. Second, in addition to the CAPM, the Fama and French [1993 Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. 1993. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds.” Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3–56. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(93)90023-5[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds.” Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3–56] three-factor model, and the Carhart [1997 Carhart, Mark M. 1997. “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance.” The Journal of Finance 52 (1): 57–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance.” The Journal of Finance 52 (1): 57–82] four-factor model, which are usually employed, our study includes six multifactor models that have not yet been examined on their ability to provide precise estimates of the costs of equity: the five-factor model of Fama and French [1993 Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. 1993. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds.” Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3–56. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(93)90023-5[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds.” Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3–56] as well as the multifactor models of Pástor and Stambaugh [2003 Pástor, Lubos, and Robert F. Stambaugh. 2003. “Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Political Economy 111 (3): 642–685. doi: 10.1086/374184[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Political Economy 111 (3): 642–685]; Campbell and Vuolteenaho [2004 Campbell, John Y., and Tuomo Vuolteenaho. 2004. “Bad Beta, Good Beta.” American Economic Review 94 (5): 1249–1275. doi: 10.1257/0002828043052240[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Bad Beta, Good Beta.” American Economic Review 94 (5): 1249–1275]; Hahn and Lee [2006 Hahn, Jaehoon, and Hangyong Lee. 2006. “Yield Spreads as Alternative Risk Factors for Size and Book-To-Market.” Journal of Financial &; Quantitative Analysis 41 (2): 245–269. doi: 10.1017/S0022109000002052[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Yield Spreads as Alternative Risk Factors for Size and Book-To-Market.” Journal of Financial &; Quantitative Analysis 41 (2): 245–269]; Petkova [2006 Petkova, Ralitsa. 2006. “Do the Fama–French Factors Proxy for Innovations in Predictive Variables?” The Journal of Finance 61 (2): 581–612. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00849.x[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]. “Do the Fama–French Factors Proxy for Innovations in Predictive Variables?” The Journal of Finance 61 (2): 581–612]; and Koijen, Lustig, and van Nieuwerburgh [2010 Koijen, Ralph S., Hanno N. Lustig, and Stijn G. van Nieuwerburgh. 2010. “The Cross-Section and Time-Series of Stock and Bond Returns.” Working Paper, University of Chicago, University of California at Los Angeles, New York University. [Google Scholar]. “The Cross-Section and Time-Series of Stock and Bond Returns.” Working Paper, University of Chicago, University of California at Los Angeles, New York University]. Our results suggest that these models provide even more imprecise cost of equity estimates. One main reason for these inaccurate estimates is the large temporal variation of the risk loadings on the non-traded factors in these models.     

The effect of leverage on the cost of capital of US buyouts

This paper addresses the problem to assess the effect of leverage on the cost of capital for buyout performance analyses. It draws on a unique and proprietary set of data on 133 US buyouts between 1984 and 2004. For each of them, we determine a public market equivalent that matches it with respect to its timing and its systematic risk. We show that under realistic mimicking conditions, the average cost of capital is below the commonly used benchmark S&P 500. Thereby, we control for two important aspects: for the risks taken by lenders in the buyout transactions (which affects the sponsors’ risks), and for the corresponding cost of debt (which lowers the return of the public market equivalent). Only with borrowing and lending at the risk-free rate is the average cost of capital close to the average index return. This finding is particularly important as existing literature on that topic tends to rely on benchmarks without a proper risk-adjustment.     

The effect of management earnings forecast characteristics on cost of equity capital

This study uses a framework presented in Hirst, Koonce, and Venkataraman (2008) to assess how differences in management earnings forecast characteristics influence a firm's cost of equity capital. I find that less specific forecasts, pessimistic forecasts, and forecasts that predict a loss for the period are associated with higher cost of equity capital levels and more timely forecasts and forecasts with more information content are associated with lower cost of equity capital levels. Analysis interacting control variables and forecast antecedents with forecast characteristics indicates that the effects forecast characteristics have on cost of equity capital are either enhanced or moderated depending on firm beta, firm size, firm book-to-market ratios, analyst following, prior forecast bias, and earnings quality. The results highlight the importance of interacting key variables when interpreting the market effect of management earnings forecasts.