跨国企业和国际财务管理[文献翻译].doc

原文：International Financial Management and Multinational EnterprisesIntroductionThis chapter provides a selective, critical survey of the academic literature on the financial management policy of multinational enterprises ( MNEs ).The focus of much current research interest can be captured in two major themes which also dominate this analysis. The first is financial management policy in relationship to the increasing volatility of real and financial asset prices in the international financial environment within which MNEs operate. This dictates one theme of this chapter: the impact of financial risk, in particular market risk, on MNEs and an appraisal of evolving financial risk management practices.The second theme is international market segmentation (Choi and Rajan1997).The globalization of international business activity has evolved along with increasing financial market integration, particularly in capital markets. To a limited extent this has been accompanied by increased harmonization and standardization of both international regulatory and accounting practices (Roberts et al.1998).Despite such trends, the asymmetric incidence of accounting standards regulations, and taxation has had significant tactical and strategic financial management implications for MNEs (Choi and Levich1990, 1997; Gray et al.1995;Meek et al.1995;Oxelheim et al.1998).We evaluate the nature, incidence, and implications of such market segmentation for selected aspects of MNE financial management activity.It is clear from the context of our analysis that we believe financial factors to have important implications for the comparative advantage of MNEs located in different jurisdictions, and also that financial management plays a critical role in deciding an MNEs competitive prosperity. This belief is supported by surveys of MNEs (Rawls and Smithson 1990;Marshall 2000).Marshall(2000) reports the results of a survey of the 200 largest MNEs which reveal that 87 per cent of Asian Pacific-based MNEs state that foreign exchange risk management is at least as important as business risk management. Nonetheless, to date no generally accepted theoretical underpinning has yet been provided demonstrating that financial factors alone are both necessary and sufficient to rationalize the existence of MNEs,. We further discuss this issue in the context of modes of market entry and participation in a later section.The remainder of the chapter is easily summarized. Section 2 discusses the enhanced importance of recent increases in asset price volatility, relating it to country risk and international investment appraisal. The classification and measurement of risk exposure is considered in section 3. Particular attention is given to recently developed techniques such as value-at-risk and cash-flow-at-risk. Section 4 is concerned with the management of financial risk by MNEs. In particular, a distinction is made between management policies designed primarily to hedge risk, and those intending to exploit its potential to create competitive advantage. This section also evaluates empirical studies of MNE risk management. Section 5 addresses issues relating to the effective implementation of a risk management system within the governance structure of an MNE. Brife concluding remarks follow together with some suggestions for future research.THE NATURE OF FINANCIAL RISKOur emphasis on financial risk and the evolution of MNE risk management practices has been motivated by a number of factors, the most important being the trend toward increasing global financial market integration ( Lessard 1997) and the enhanced volatility in the financial environment within which MNEs operate. We later evaluate studies which argue that these factors can confer certain advantages to internationalization of a firms activities. In preparation for this analysis we chronicle certain major recent developments in the global financial environment, which indicate the increasing importance of market risk in global financial markets.Exchange rate variabilityFollowing the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in the early 1970s, exchange rate fluctuations have become increasingly volatile, punctuated by occasional episodes of exchange rate crises. Between 1970 andmid-2000, the Yen/US dollar exchange rate has moved from 361 to 107 and the Deutschmark/US dollar rate has fallen from 4.2 to 1.9. However, the dollar has appreciated by about two-thirds against sterling over the same period. The crisis in the European Monetary System (ERM) in September 1992 led to significant falls in the value of sterling and the Italian Lira, while the currencies of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Korea lost between one-third and three-quarters of their value in the second half of 1997. There have also been major movements in exchange rates following shifits in the monetary policy stance of certain governments, such as the tighter monetary policy followed in the early days of the Thatcher administration in the UK. Indeed, the average volatility of exchange rates, which is in the region of 10-15 per ent per year, is sufficient to eliminate the average profit margin for the typical multinational corporation.Interest rate variabilityInterest rate volatility has similarly affected corporate funding costs, cash flows, and net asset values since the early 1970s in the US, and although they subsequently declined, a change in policy by the Federal Reserve caused a sharp increase in both the level and volatility of rates in 1979.Interest rates peaked in 1981, and then fell slowly. Since 1983, there have been four more US interest rate cycles. According to Jorion (1996 ), the increase in 1994 eliminated over $1.5trillion dollar from fixed income portfolios. Interest rates have also become more and more volatile since many central banks began to abandon targeting interest rates as a policy objective in favour of targeting money supply growth or inflation. In the UK, interest rates shot up in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to inflationary pressures caused by a relaxation in monetary policy, but then fell substantially with sterlings withdrawal from the ERM in September 1992.Equity market variabilityEquity markets have also become extremely volatile. During the inflationary periods of the early 1970s, prices increased significantly only to fall sharply during the bear market of 1974-5 following a 300 per cent hike in the price of oil. A global recovery then ensued, with minor price reversals in 1982-3, and the market peaked in 1987. On Black Monday, 19 October 1987, prices plunged. US equities lost 23 per cent of their value, equivalent to over US $1 trillion in equity capital. This was followed by another recovery over the next ten years, sustained worldwide with the exception of Japan, where the Nikkei index fell from 39000 in 1989 to 17000 in 1992, a capital loss of US $2.7 trillion. Finally from mid-to end 1997, the stock markets of Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Manila lost US $370 billion, or 63 per cent of the four countryes combined GDP, while the Seoul stock market declined 60 per cent.Commodity price variability and other sources of increased riskCommodity prices, particularly those in primary product markets, have also been subject to large fluctuations since the 1970s,a trend established subsequent to the oil price rises of 1973-4. This variability also had spollover effects in other financial markets, particularly equity markets, thereby corroborating the view that it is fundamentally incorrect to treat financial markets in isolation from one anthor. Significant regulatory and legal changes, the globalization of the financial services industry, and legal changes, the globalization of the financial services industry, and the emergence of offshore financial activity have also increased financial risks. Finally, risk associated with the enhanced global risk has resulted from increased levels of world trade, major changes in trade policy, the economic and political transition of the former Soviet bloc, the growth of the EU, and the emergence of the Asian tiger economies as economic power.Country riskThis increasing financial market volatility has potentially important consequences for both the issue of international investment appraisal, and also the appropriate measure of country risk. Before we consider methodological issues relating to the measurement of country risk, there are some commentators who argue that country risk is diversifiable(unsystematic) and that there should be no corrections. Recent asset pricing behaviour in international financial markets provides substantial evidence of cross-market correlation(systematic risk) suggesting country risk is non-diversifiable even in a global portfolio, and hence should be incorporated. On the measurement aspects, Damodoran (2000) has argued that the risk premium in any equity market can be conceptualized as:Equity Market Risk Premium in Country A = Base Premium for Mature Equity Market (US) +Country Premium for Country A.In calculating the base premium for the US market, an approach based upon historical premium remains standard. Here, actual equity returns are estimated over a sufficiently long time frame and compared to the actual returns earned on default-free (usually government) securities. The annualized difference is then calculated and represents the historical premium. This method yields substantial differences in the premiums we observe being used in practice: even for the case of the USA estimates range from 4 per cent to 12 percent. This is all the more surprising given that most calculations use identical data, the Ibbotson Associates database of historical returns.We conjecture several reasons exist for this divergence. First: differences in time periods used. Proponents of the use of shorter time periods argue that such estimates are more relevant, as the average risk aversion of investors changes over time. This consideration is likely overwhelmed by the fact that to obtain reasonable standard errors one requires very long time periods (at least twenty-five years). Indeed, the standard errors from ten-year estimates often exceed the risk premium estimates, making the estimates redundant. Second, the risk-free rate chosen in calculating expected returns, in other words the method must match up the duration of the cash flows being discounted (Damodoran 2000). If the yield curve is upward sloping, the risk premium will be larger when estimated relative to short-term government securities. Consistency is required and given the previous comments, the use of equity premium calculated relative to long-dated government bonds seems appropriate for most cases. Third, a debate exists over how to compute the average returns on stocks and bonds, in particular whether to use arithmetic or geometric averages. While conventional wisdom argues for use of arithmetic averages, strong arguments can be made in favor of the geometric alternative. Specifically, empirical studies indicate equity returns are negatively correlated over time, implying the use of arithmetic averages (which assume zero correlation) will exaggerate the premium. Moreover, while assets pricing models are typically single period models, their use to generate expected returns over long periods (say ten year) suggests the single period is much longer than the data period used in their estimation (typically one year). In such a case the argument for geometric premiums is enhanced.A further issue questions whether one should incorporate a country premium, and if so how it is to be estimated. The first question has already been answered in the affirmative. The second issue requires an ability to: ()measure country risk, () convert the estimate into a risk premium, and then () evaluate individual MNEs exposure. On measurement, country sovereign bond ratings provided by rating agencies incorporate current market risk perceptions, and have the advantage of being measured as spreads relative to US treasuries. However, they only measure default risk, not equity risk. A crude method of converting them to the latter involves adjusting the default spread of the country converting for the volatility of its equity market in relation to its bond market (（equity）/(bond). The countrys equity premium is set equal to the country default spread multiplied by (（equity）/(bond). This equity premium will increase if either the countrys rating drops or its equity market volatility increases. Finally, on evaluating MNEs individual exposure, one has to identify the MNEs exposure to country risk in relation to all other marker risks it faces. This requires detailed analysis of the process used to estimate beta. Not only is this beyond the scope of this paper, but it also represents an ongoing research activity over which a concensus has yet to emerge.Finally, we contend that further research attention should be given to alternative methods of estimating country risk premium that do not require corrections for country risk in the manner indicated above. Damodoran(2000) suggests use of implied equity premiums derived from the following equity market valuation model, which essentially measures the present value of dividends growing at a constant rate:Value of Corporation = Expected Dividends next period/(required rate of return of equity expected growth rate in dividends).The only unobservable input in this model is the required rate of return on equity. This relation can therefore be solved to generate an implied expected return on equity, which in turn will generate an equity risk premium once a correction is incorporated for the risk free rate. This approach has two main advantages. It does not require historical data and it reflects current market perceptions. The drawback is that it assumes the market overall is accurately priced, which is problematic in the case of emerging markets. More analysis in this important area would be most welcome.Source: Michael Bowe and James W.Dean,2007. “ International Financial Management and Multinational Enterprises” Oxford Handbook of International Business，PP.558-565. 译文：跨国企业和国际财务管理介绍本章提供了一种高选择性,主要是重点调查学术文献对金融管理政策的跨国企业(跨国公司)的影响。当前研究的重点方向主要在两个主题，并且这两个主题主导着这一分析。第一个是财务管理政策在多个国际企业经营的国际金融环境中和金融资产价格的真正的不断波动的关系。主宰这一个章的主题的是:金融风险的碰撞，特别是市场风险，在跨国公司发展的评估金融风险的管理实践。第二个主题是国际市场细分(彩蔡和瑞娟1997)。随着金融市场一体化的提高，国际的全球化企业活动发展了，尤其在资本市场。国际监督管理和会计实务在一定程度上一直伴随着协调和标准化在增加(艾尔罗伯茨1998)。尽管这些趋势,但会计准则中的不对称法规发生率的税收对跨国企业财务管理有着重要的战略和方针的意义 (彩蔡，里维持1990，1997;艾尔格利特1995;艾尔麦克1995;艾尔奥克斯姆1998)。我们评估的性质、 发生率和这种市场在某些方面的分割方法受到跨国公司财务管理活动的影响。从上下文的分析的中我们可以很明显看出,金融因素位于不同管辖区的跨国公司有着重要影响并且在财务管理中起着至关重要的作用，同时也决定一个跨国公司的竞争与繁荣。正是这种信念支持着多国企业调查 （罗尔斯和史密森 1990年；马歇尔 2000年）。马歇尔(2000) 对200 的最大跨国公司做出了报告，显示 87%的基于亚太多个国家企业的国家外汇风险管理是重要业务风险管理的一项调查结果。然而，迄今为止尚未有普遍接受的理论基础，证明经济因素是跨国公司存在的充分必要条件。我们进一步讨论这一问题的市场进入模式方面和参与部分。很容易对本章的余下部分进行总结。第二节论述了提高最新的资产价格增加的重要性,还有对国家风险、国际化的投资经营方式评价。在第3节讲述了分类和测量的风险。特别需要的注意事最新的技术发展,如风险价值和现金流量风险。第4节是关于跨国公司的金融风险管理。特别是,在区分经营方针与对冲风险时,有意利用其潜力创造竞争优势的管理政策。这节也对国际企业的风险管理做出了评估实证研究。第5节对是对国际企业的地域问题进行风险管理的有效实施的治理结构问题讨论。最后对全文进行总结对未来研究提出一些建议。自然的金融风险我们强调的财务风险与多国企业风险管理做法的演变动机因素有多种，最重要的是日益增长的全球金融市场一体化 (丽萨德 1997 年) 的趋势和增强多国企业内的金融环境中不稳定的操作。我们后面所做的评估研究，认为这些因素可以在国际化的公司活动中被赋予某些优势。在准备这一分析时我们把某些主要的最新的事态发展写进历史记录，全球的金融环境表明在全球金融市场中的市场风险日益重要。汇率变化在七十年代初期布雷顿森林体系瓦解后，固定汇率越来越不稳定，还偶尔发生汇率危机。在1970年到2000年中,日元对美元汇率已经变动为316/ 107并且马克/美元汇率已经下降变为4.2 /1.9。然而, 在同一个时期美元兑英镑大约变为三比二。1992年9月的欧洲货币体系的危机(ERM)导致英镑贬值和意大利货币里拉价值大幅下降,而仅在九七年下半年，泰国、印尼、马来西亚、菲律宾、和韩国失去了三分之一到四分之三的货币价值。也有汇率发生重大变动后，某些政府实行紧缩货币政策，如在英国撒切尔政府初期所遵循得政策，货币政策立场就发生了转变。事实上，汇率在每人每年10-%15%之间的不稳定波动，足以消除对典型的跨国公司平均利润率。利率变化20世纪70年代初利率波动也同样影响着美国企业的资金成本、现金流量，净资产价值，虽然他们随后下降，但在1929年美联储政策变化引起了双方储蓄水平的波动性急剧增加。利率在1981年达到最高峰,后来就开始逐渐下降。1983年以来,美国的利率周期变化已经有四次以上了。根据吉瑞琳（1996年），1994年增加了$1.5万亿，淘汰了美元固定收益的投资组合。利率也已成为更多和更不稳定，因为很多中央银行开始放弃针对利率为目标这一项政策，转而赞成针对货币供应增长或通胀。80年代末到90年代英国的利率猛增是由于通货膨胀的压力致使货币政策放松引起的,但后来在1992年9月又持续下滑并退出欧洲汇率机制。股票市场变化股票市场也变得非常不稳定的。在二十世纪七十年代早期的通货膨胀时期, 价格大幅增加只在 1974年5月的熊市期间，大幅下降后 只有中石油价格上调300%。全球性的经济复苏后,继而在1982年3月有小价格的反转,市场也就在1987年达到顶峰了。在1987年10月19日,黑色星期一,价格大幅下降。美国股市的市值损失了23%，相当于1万亿美元以上的股本。其次是在未来十年内的另一个复苏，全球持续着但不包括日本，日经指数1989年到1992年从39000变为17000，资本损失的2.7万亿美元。最后,从1997年中期到年底,吉隆坡、雅加达、曼谷,马尼拉证券市场中我们损失了370亿美元, 占四个国家国内生产总值合计的63%，而韩国首尔的股市则下跌了60%。物价变异性以及其它增强的风险的来源商品价格,特别是那些在初级产品市场, 自20世纪70年代以来就受到大的波动，它是建立在1973-4的石油价格上涨的基础上的。这种差异也有其他金融市场，特别是股市的溢出效应，从而佐证认为， 它这样对待一个砸碎分