利润率和资本结构：实证关系【外文翻译】.doc

本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译原文：Profit Margin And Capital Structure: An Empirical RelationshipThis study constitutes an attempt to investigate the relationship between debt-to equity ratio and firms profitability, taking into consideration the level of firms investment and the degree of market power. The study uses panel data for various industries, covering the period 1995-96. The main conclusions of our study are: a) firms which prefer to finance their investment activities through self-finance are more profitable than firms which finance investment through borrowed capital; b) firms prefer competing with each other than cooperating; c) firms use their investment in fixed assets as a strategic variable to affect profitability.1. IntroductionThe structure-conduct-performance paradigm has played a very important role in studying the determinants of firms performance (Bain, 1956). Most empirical studies on that area concentrated on the explanation of performance across industries by regressing profitability on structural and conduct variables at the industry level (Collins and Preston, 1969). Industry level data were used mainly because they are easily available. As the definition of industry is not satisfactory, there has been a shift of emphasis from industry to firm for the analysis of the structure-performance relationship (Shepherd, 1972). Nowadays, the structure-conduct-performance relationship is tested by the panel data method because its results take into consideration structural change as well as cyclical fluctuations (Domowitz et. al., 1986). Few studies have used financial indices as independent variables (Hall and Weiss 1967, Gale 1972, Hurdle 1974, Oustapassidis 1998), in order to explain differences in firms profit margins. Most of the studies have concentrated on issues such as R&D policies, advertising, economies of scale, e.t.c., to explain differences in price-cost margins ( Clarke1984, Connolly et. al 1984, Conyon et. al. 1991, Frangouli 1999, Gisser 1991, Martin 1979, Pagou-latos et. al. 1981). Financial factors may be considered as strategic conduct variables because they affect the cost of capital and thus the firms performance. To measure dimensions of capital structure and uncertainty the relevant studies have used the debt-to-equity ratio, equity capital to total assets ratio, own capital to fixed assets ratio or fixed capital to total capital ratio. The relationship of financial factors and firms, in not always clear-cut. This relationship has been proved either positive or negative (Hall and Weiss 1967, Gale 1972, Hurdle 1974, Shepherd 1994, Oustapassidis 1998.)The present study tries to investigate the relationship between debt-to-equity ratio and firms profitability by taking into consideration the level of firms investment and the degree of market power. The use of borrowed capital increases the level of investment undertaken by the firm without causing any additional cost for firms owners other than interest expenses. This increases the return of invested capital by owners. However, borrowed capital increases the risk for the firms as well as for owners, because borrowed capital creates fixed expenses (i.e. interest), thus a minimum profit level is necessary for financing the level of interest. The study uses panel data on firms from various industries (53 firms), and covers the period 1995-96.2. Analytical Framework and Variables The monopolists degree of market power is,Equation 1 (p mc) / p = 1 / e Where, p is the price for the product, mc is the marginal cost and e is the price elasticity of demand. In the case of constant returns to scale, marginal cost is equal to average cost (ac) where,Equation 2 ac = (wL + pk K) / q The term wL stands for labor cost, the term pk K is the rental cost of capital, is the rental cost per drachmas worth, of capital assets and includes the normal rate of return on investment. The term pk is the purchase price of capital and q is the level of output. From equation (1) and (2) the equation (3) is derivedEquation 3 (p q w L) / p q = 1 / e pk K / p q By assuming a linear relationship between market concentration and market power, then we have a version of equation (3), (Hay and Morris 1991, Martin, 1994), which can be estimated with firm level data. The linear version has the following form:Equation 4 PM it = a0 + a1 CRt + a2 Fit + a3 Iit +ut The term PM refers to firms profit margin, the term CR is the four-firm concentration ratio and is an index of the market power. The term F refers to the debt-to-equity ratio and is a measure of the financial structure of the firm. The term I stands for the firms investment level and controls for the effectiveness of capital. In this way the terms F and I are proxies for the term pkKThe data cover firms from various industries (i.e. capital goods industries and consumer goods industries). The term PM has been calculated as the profits to sales ratio and is a proxy for firms profitability. The relevant data were obtained from balance sheets (published information). The four-firm concentration ratio has been calculated as the ratio of four-firm sales to total industry sales. The relevant concentration ratio refers to the industry that each particular firm is operating. The term F refers to debt-to-equity ratio. The relevant data were obtained from balance sheets (published data). The firms included in our sample have debt-to equity ratios that range from low levels to very high levels, that is the sample is not biased as far as debt-to-equity ratio is concerned. The term I refers to investment level undertaken by each particular firm in the period covered by the study. The relevant data were obtained from the firms included in the sample. The level of investment undertaken refers to fixed assets. The intertemporal variation of profits measures uncertainty, as owners and shareholders are not able to forecast profit rates. Therefore, if a higher debt-to-equity ratio shows greater uncertainty then, higher risk may lead to high profit margin. However, the use of borrowed capital may increase the level of investment that a firm is able to undertake, without any additional cost for the owners. At the same time it increases firms and owners risk due to interest expenses. Therefore, a minimum profit is required to cover interest expenses.The sign of the coefficient a2 may not be expected a priori. Some empirical studies found a positive relationship whereas other studies found a negative one. A positive sign means an effective use of borrowed capital. A negative sign means either that the cost of borrowed capital is higher than its benefit from the investment, or that firms financed by retained profits are more profitable than those financed by borrowed capital. The sign of the coefficient a1 is expected either positive or negative. A positive sign means that firms pre-fer to cooperate whereas a negative sign means that firms prefer to compete with each other. The sign of the coefficient a3 is expected to be positive. Firms undertake various investment programs. Their investment programs may be classified in three main categories: i.e investment in fixed assets, investment in R&D and market investment. Industrial organization theory considers all these categories of investment as firms strategic variables, that is firms undertake various investment plans in order to confront actual and mainly potential competition. In this way the impact of investment on firms monopoly power is expected to be positive.The sign of the coefficient a2 may not be expected a priori. Some empirical studies found a positive relationship whereas other studies found a negative one. A positive sign means an effective use of borrowed capital. A negative sign means either that the cost of borrowed capital is higher than its benefit from the investment, or that firms financed by retained profits are more profitable than those financed by borrowed capital. The sign of the coefficient a1 is expected either positive or negative. A positive sign means that firms pre-fer to cooperate whereas a negative sign means that firms prefer to compete with each other. The sign of the coefficient a3 is expected to be positive. Firms undertake various investment programs. Their investment programs may be classified in three main categories: i.e investment in fixed assets, investment in R&D and market investment. Industrial organization theory considers all these categories of investment as firms strategic variables, that is firms undertake various investment plans in order to confront actual and mainly potential competition. In this way the impact of investment on firms monopoly power is expected to be positive.We have estimated equation (4) by the panel data method to obtain the estimates of the parameters of the total model (pooled model), the fixed effect model and the random effect model. The total model assumes a single slope coefficient and a single intercept for all cross-section units, which means that the intercepts and the slope do not vary over cross-section units. The fixed effect model assumes a common slope but each cross-section unit has its own intercept, which implies that the intercepts vary over cross-section units. The random effect model (variance components) assumes a common slope, but the intercepts (ai) are drawn from a common distribution with mean and variance 2In the random effect model, the intercept terms are treated as random rather than fixed and they are independent both of the residuals and mutually. Since the variance components estimates (random effect) are inconsistent when the individual intercepts are correlated with the independent variables, a Hausman test statistic is computed to test the correlation. The panel data procedure computes also the F-test for the hypothesis that the slope coefficients are equal.The reported results indicate a negative and statistically significant relationship between concentration ratio and profit margin. The negative sign suggests that firms prefer to compete rather than to cooperate with each other. Nevertheless, concentration proved an important element for firms profitability. There is also a negative and statistically significant relationship between debt-to-equity ratio and profit margin. The negative sign indicates that either the cost of borrowed capital is higher than its benefit from investment, or that firms financed by retained profits are more profitable than those financed by borrowed capital. However if we consider the signs of both a2 and a3 we suggest that firms preferring self-finance are more profitable than firms, which prefer borrowed capital. The negative relationship between the financial variable and the profit margin is in line with the results of Baker (1973), Hurdle (1974) and Oustapassidis (1998). The relationship between investment and profit margin is positive and statistically significant. This means that there is an effective use of capital3. ConclusionsFinancial structure is a very important element for firms profitability. Firms may use their debt-to-equity ratio to affect profitability. Some firms choose a high debt-to-equity ratio, whereas others prefer to choose a lower one. The successful selection and use of the debt-to-equity ratio is one of the key elements of the firms financial strategy. Most of the studies undertaken to examine the impact of financial indices on firms profitability have used industry level data. Studies, which have used various financial indices to capture the financial structure, found either a positive or a negative impact on firms profitability. We have used firm level data from various industries and we have found a strong negative impact of the debt-to-equity ratio on firms profitability. Generally, this means that either the cost of borrowed capital is higher than the benefit from investment or that firms which prefer to finance their investment activities through self-finance are more profitable than firms which finance investment by borrowed capital. In our study we may say that the firms that finance their investment activities by retained profits, are more profitable than those that finance their activities through borrowed capital. We also found a negative and statistically significant impact of concentration on firms profitability, which means that although firms take into consideration their interdependence they prefer to compete with each other than to cooperate.4. Suggestions for Future Research The research could be continued with a sample continuing small and big industrial companies in order to identify if exist a difference in the use of the financial variable according to the size of the companies.Source: Nikolaos P. Eriotis,2002.Profit Margin And Capital Structure: An Empirical Relationship.The Journal of Applied Business Research,Volume 18, Number 2. P112116.译文：利润率和资本结构：实证关系本研究试图探讨债务权益比率和公司的盈利能力构成之间的关系，同时考虑到了企业的投资水平和市场力量的强弱。本研究利用各行业面板数据，涵盖期间1995-96。我们研究的主要结论是：1）厂商资助其投资活动的资金更愿意通过自我融资，比通过企业借入资本投资更加有利可图；2）各公司愿意与合作比其他竞争对手；3）公司利用其固定资产投资作为战略变量影响盈利能力。1.概念结构、行为、绩效模型的研究在企业的经营状况（贝恩，1956）中起到了非常重要的作用。该地区大部分的实证研究集中在整个行业的表现说明了回归变量的结构和行为在行业层面（柯林斯和普雷斯顿，1969）的盈利。工业上主要用于数据，因为它们容易获得。作为产业的定义是不理想的，从而出现了以产业转移为重点的结构与性能的关系（牧，1972）分析。现今，结构、行为、绩效的关系的面板数据进行测试的方法，因为其结果考虑结构的变化以及周期性波动采取（德莫维兹等人，1986）。很少有研究采用独立变量（霍尔和维斯，1967，盖尔，1972，荷都，1974，奥特斯戴皮斯蒂斯，1998），金融指数，来解释公司的利润差异。大多数研究都集中在如RD政策、广告、规模经济等问题，以解释在价格成本费用利润率差异（克拉克1984；康诺利等，1984；康勇等，1991；弗朗格力，1999；哥塞，1991；马丁，1979；裴够罗陀斯等，1981）。财政因素可能被视为战略行为变量，因为它们会影响资金成本，从而影响公司的业绩。为了测量的不确定性，资本结构和维度的相关研究已经使用的债务权益比率，自有资本与总资产比率，自有资本比率的固定资产或固定资本总资本的比率。在并不总是明确的金融因素与企业盈利能力的关系中。无论是正面还是负面的这种关系都已经被证明。（霍尔和维斯，1967；盖尔，1972；夸兰，1974；谢泼德，1994；奥特斯戴皮斯蒂斯，1998）。本研究试图通过调查考虑到了公司的投资水平和市场力量的强弱之间的债务权益比率与公司的盈利能力的关系。借来的资金运用的增加，而不会造成任何企业的所有者权益比其他额外的费用开支由公司承担投资水平。这增加了投资资本所有者的回报。但是，借用资本的增加，为公司以及业主的风险，因为借入资本创造的固定费用（即利息），因此，一个最低利润水平，融资利率水平的需要。本研究利用从各行业的公司面板数据，并涵盖1995-96年期间。2分析框架和变数垄断者的市场力量的程度，方程（1） (p mc ) / p = 1 / e 其中，P是产品价格，MC是边际成本，E是需求的价格弹性。在规模报酬不变的情况下，边际成本等于平均成本（交流）方程（2） ac = ( wL + pk K) / qwL是劳动成本，pk是租金成本的资本， pk K是每德拉克马的价值租金成本的资本资产，包括对投资回报的正常速率。术语PK是资本购买价格,Q是产出水平。从方程（1）及（2）方程（3）则是从方程（3）(p q w L ) / p q = 1 / e pk K / p q假设一个市场集中度之间的线性关系和市场力量，然后我们有了方程（3），（干草和莫里斯1991年，马丁，1994年），可与企业层面的数据估计。线性版本具有以下形式：从方程（4）PM it = a0 + a1 CRt + a2 Fit + a3 Iit +utPM是指企业的利润率，CR为四个公司的集中率，是对市场力指标。f是指债务对权益比率，是对公司的财务结构的措施。I代表的公司的投资水平和资本管制的有效性。在这样的条件字，I是为pkK的替代。这些数据包括从（即资本工业和消费品行业）的各类工业企业。PM一词已被计算为利润和销售比是一个企业的盈利能力的代理。有关数据来自资产负债表。这四个公司的集中率一直计算为四个公司的销售行业销售总额的比率。有关集中度是指每一个特定的行业企业正在运行。f是指债务权益比率。有关数据来自资产负债表。这些公司包括在我们的样本有债务权益比率，范围从低层次到非常高的水平，这是不怀偏见的样本尽可能债务权益比率而言。术语，I指的是，每个投资水平由研究涵盖的时期特定的公司承担。有关观测数据均来自公司所在的样本内，