陈雪美--外文翻译.doc

中国中小企业融资方式的国际借鉴外文翻译浙江师范大学本科毕业设计(论文)外文翻译译文： 融资的获得与企业的成长穆罕默德米Rahaman索贝商学院 - 圣玛丽大学银行与金融杂志，2010年6月11日融资是任何企业经营的重要组成部分。如果没有获得足够的融资，企业后劲和增长潜力将受到损害。尽管这种传统的行为，经济学家极度不同意作为企业横向成长的不同来源的金融结构的角色。关于融资结构对企业发展的实证影响早已被解释为错误指定为“真正的”影响的代表，因为在一个完美的资本市场上公司的投资决定与其财务状况无关。如果所有的公司都有平等进入资本市场的权利，那么由于外部资金为内部资本提供了一个完美的替代品，公司的财务结构与企业融资的增长无关。但在现实中，企业已经进入资本市场的不平衡，以及内部和外部资金因为一些因素并不能完全替代，如交易成本，税收优惠，代理问题，财务困境成本和信息不对称。特别是小型和中小型企业，以负担得起利率和公平条款获得融资和其他银行服务从来就不是容易。我们看到在最近的金融危机的影响下，这一挑战将进一步加剧。在本文中，我调查某公司通过使用报价及非上市公司的业务部门的代表的样本来访问各种融资资源在其成长潜力的效果。一个有限或根本无法获得外部资本公司可能会使其追求最佳的投资政策的能力受到严重制约，这反过来，可能会阻碍企业的发展。由于小的和非上市的公司与相对较大的和上市的同行相比一般都受到严重的财政约束，他们是在事后，不太可能成为商业部门增长的引擎。然而，越来越多的关于工业经济的文献认为，小企业和非上市企业与相对较大和上市的同行相比增长较大。这种文学文件链，在企业层面，增长和增长下降的波动与公司规模和年龄，生成的企业规模和增长的分布有关。我在现存文献的基础上的讨论研究，从而在本文中提出问题：为什么一些财务约束的企业比那些不受约束的同行经济成长不成比例地多？一个大型金融文献已经研究了企业投资和现金流量的关系，以测试融资制约因素的存在和重要性。这些研究机构根据分类的一个先验的融资限制措施，并表明，财务约束的企业表现出的投资现金流的敏感度比经济上的无约束的企业更高。但是，这种方法有几个局限性。首先，这些研究大多利用的财务报表的数据是由美国公共公司提交的。由于公开上市的公司一般都很大，而且与小型和非上市公司相比不太受财政约束，对投资政策的约束影响识别主要来自在获取相对无约束企业的外部资本市场的程度的变化上。鉴于小型和中型企业（非上市公司）部门是工作和任何经济体的经济产量的主要来源，关于在财政上的限制的现有的研究，可以通过对这个业务部门的重要组成部分的分析后得到改善。其次，卡普兰和津加莱斯（1997）认为，没有强烈的理论理性支持投资现金流敏感性来增加融资约束程度。使用具有很高的投资现金流敏感性的公司为样本，它们表明该公司在85%公司年限中，这些公司可能会增加他们的投资已让他们选择。最后，如果企业能够成功地预测未来的某些时期有利可图的投资机会，可以提前投资于高未分配利润的这些项目，那么就有真正的反转可能，也就是说，现金流量对公司有多好可以预见其未来的投资机会非常敏感。本人在四个方面偏离现行办法。首先，我研究的样板企业，包括非上市公司和上市公司。因此，在我的示例中，我可能在他们访问的外部资本市场的程度方面在企业有更多不同的变化。第二，我专注于企业级就业增长作为我的主要成果变量，而不是投资。就业增长的一个明显的优势是企业级的就业是随着时间的推移认真遵守和记录并较少受到会计操纵。第三，我专注于一个公司的采用银行信贷作为外部融资约束，而不是采用现金流敏感性的措施，因为苏菲（2009年）表明，缺乏获得的信用额度是财政拮据的外部统计比传统的投资现金流敏感性衡量现存文献中使用的财政限制措施更为有力。最后，我使用了动态面板的估算方法，以确定对公司的资金来源增长的影响。这种方法利用了在公司内部的资金来源随着时间的推移变化，并探讨在投资现金流敏感性的现有研究的潜在反向因果关系的问题。我认为企业成长的资金来源的影响是显著和相当重要的。有限进入外部资本市场公司（小非上市相对有限获得银行信贷服务公司）可以积累更多的内部资金来克服它们的外部融资高增长的制约。然而，该公司获得外部融资（银行信贷）增加使企业成长的内部融资中的作用减小。我觉得，对于一个财政约束的公司（在银行授信额度25个百分点），内部资金10%增长与14.68%增长的企业相关是当所有其他变正处于评估手段相比，具有3.82%公司内部资金用于公司的一个财政资金类似的增加（在银行授信额度75百分位）的增长。这表明，随着外部融资约束（更多的机会获得银行信贷融资），内部融资对企业成长的跌幅增量效应缓解。因此，该公司依靠内部资金，作为其融资的主要来源的增长外部融资开关少。我觉得这之间的内部和外部资金来源的过渡模式，特别是小非上市公司显着（对他们的生存条件）。这些企业，在其生长阶段的初期在积累更多的内部资金方面比大中型同行平均增长不成比例地多，即使他们已经相对较少获得外部融资。在实证测试下一组时，我将以企业的经济表现，而不是内部资金作为内部融资的重点，因为较高的经济表现可以转化为更大的企业内部融资的潜在来源的水平。此外，对于更大的经济表现代表运作的效率，以及对公司的未来发展机遇的质量。我构想了三个经济性能指标，即利润率，回报股东资金，以及总资产报酬。我发现一个公司的经济表现对经济增长有着显著的效果，但效果的强度还取决于该公司的外部融资约束的程度。特别是，利润率1%与利润率在3.84%与一个企业的财务约束企业的成长相关。此外，分析结果表明，对企业成长（上水平的外部融资约束条件）的盈利非单调性效应是比较小的非上市公司明显。我还提出，这些结果是强大的潜在反向因果关系的问题。这些结果表明，企业成长的资金来源的影响是显著和相当重要的，企业发展的融资结构发生了真正的离职倾向，成了内部和外部私人信贷资金之间的成本楔子。此外，也有内部和外部融资之间的互补性，特别是小企业也面临着信息化的问题。内部资金可能不会仅仅是一个直接的融资来源，但也可能对未来前景提供范围内的信号，对过去的表现提供了关于未来机会的信息。同时，内部资金可能有银行贷款的抵押品价值与非对称信息环境。因此，访问内部的融资来源可能发挥代理（内部）的财政能力以及提供一个关于未来的增长机会质量信号的双重作用。这样的信号减少企业面临的外部融资信息问题的制约。一个金融基础的问题是：一个企业的金融结构对于它的投资政策重要吗？一个共识已出现了，内部资金和外部资金是不完美的替代品，而且内部和外部资本的成本之间产生的外部融资约束，可能会潜在地限制一家公司的投资。现存文献中的经验证据表明，融资约束显著影响公司的投资，减缓的融资约束可以促进经济增长。然而，大多数的金融约束的研究是基于上市公司，和文学一样使用公司规模，非分红的地位，或作为公司的财务约束代理穷人采取信用评级措施。在本文中，我使用了上市公司和非上市公司作为样本，随着时间的推移在公司内部利用获得内部和外部融资的变化，以探讨企业成长的资金来源的影响。我觉得，获得内部融资对企业的成长具有显著的影响。然而，企业成长的内在融资中的作用在减小，该公司访问外部银行的信贷在增加。在某种程度上，获得银行信贷融资统计上是一种融资约束更为有力的措施（苏菲，2009年），这一发现还表明，随着外部融资约束缓解，该公司依靠内部资金和外部融资减少转换它的主要来源，从而使融资有所增长。我也表明，这种内部和外部资金来源的过渡模式，特别是小非上市公司（对他们的生存条件）。在我的示例小非上市公司的增长不成比例比大中型同行多。尽管这些企业（小非上市公司）更可能在财政上受到限制，他们通过积累更多的内部资金来克服融资限制，这反过来，这能够使他们的融资产生高增长.本文的研究结果表明，资金来源对企业数量的增长的影响是相当重要的，金融结构产生的实际影响在于内部和外部私人信贷资金的成本优势。此外，有内部和外部融资的互补性，特别是小企业和报价公司也面临着信息化的问题。获得内部的融资来源可能发挥代理内部财务能力以及提供一个关于未来的增长机会质量信号的双重作用。这样的信号，反过来，能够减少外部融资约束。原文：Access to Financing and Firm GrowthMohammad M. RahamanSobey School of Business - Saint Marys UniversityJournal of Banking and Finance, ForthcomingJune 11, 2010Financing is an essential part of operating any businesses. Without adequate access to financing, the staying power of the business and its potential for growth is jeopardized. Despite this conventional wisdom, economists disagree sharply on the role of financial structure as a source of heterogeneity in the cross section of firm growth. The empirical effect of financial structure on firm growth has long been interpreted as proxies for misspecified “real” influences because in a perfect capital market a firms investment decisions are independent of its financial condition. If all firms have equal access to capital markets, a firms financial structure is irrelevant in financing firm growth because external funds provide a perfect substitute for internal capital. In reality, however, firms have uneven access to capital markets, and internal and external funds are not perfect substitutes for reasons such as transaction costs, tax advantages, agency problems, costs of financial distress, and asymmetric information.In particular, for small and medium-sized businesses, obtaining financing and other banking services at affordable rates and fair terms has never been easy. This challenge is further exacerbated during financial crises like the one we witnessed recently.In this paper, I investigate the effects of a firms access to various sources of financing on its potential for growth using a sample of quoted and unquoted firms representative of the business sector. A firm with limited or no access to external capital may be seriously constrained in its ability to pursue an optimal investment policy which, in turn, may hinder the firms growth. Since small and unquoted firms are generally more financially constrained compared to their relatively large and quoted counterparts, they are, in hindsight, less likely to be the engines of growth in the business sector. However, a growing literature in industrial economics argues that small and unquoted firms grow at a disproportionately faster rate than their relatively large and quoted counterparts. This strand of literature documents that, at the firm level, growth and volatility of growth decrease with firm size and age, generating heteroscedasticity in firm size and growth distribution. The foregoing discussion of the findings in the extant literature motivates the question that I study in this paper: How do some financially constrained firms grow disproportionately more than their relatively unconstrained counterparts?A large finance literature already studies the relationship between corporate investment and cash flow to test for the presence and the importance of financing constraints. These studies classify firms according to an a-priori measure of financing constraints and show that financially constrained firms exhibit higher investment-cash-flow sensitivity than financially unconstrained firms. There are, however, several limitations to this approach. First, most of these studies use financial statement data filed by U.S. public firms. Since publicly quoted firms are generally large and are less financially constrained compared to small and unquoted firms, the identification of the impact of constraints on investment policy comes mainly from the changes in the degree of access to external capital markets for relatively unconstrained firms. Given that the small and medium-sized enterprize (unquoted firms) sector is the major source for jobs and economic output in any economy, existing studies on financial constraints can be improved upon by incorporating this important part of the business sector into the analysis. Second, Kaplan and Zingales (1997) argue that there is no strong theoretical reason for investment-cash-flow sensitivities to increase monotonically with the degree of financing constraints. Using a sample of firms with very high investment-cash flow sensitivities, they show that in 85% of the firm-year, the firms could have increased their investment had they so chosen. Finally, if firms can successfully anticipate future profitable investment opportunities some periods ahead and can invest in those projects in advance with their high retained earnings, then the reverse might be true; that is, cash-flows are sensitive to how well firms can anticipate their future investment opportunities. I deviate from the existing approach in four ways. First, I study a sample of firms that include both quoted and unquoted firms. Thus, in my sample, I potentially have more variations across firms in terms of their degree of access to the external capital markets. Second, instead of investment I focus on firm-level employment growth as my primary outcome variable. A clear advantage of using employment growth is that firm-level employment is carefully followed and recorded over time and is less subject to accounting manipulation. Third, I focus on a firms access to a bank credit facility as a measure of external financing constraints instead of investment-cash-flow sensitivity since Sufi (2009) shows that the lack of access to a line of credit is a more statistically powerful measure of external financial constraints than the traditional investment-cash-flow sensitivity measure used in the extant literature. Finally, I use a dynamic panel estimation method to identify the impact of financing sources on firm growth. This methodology exploits the variations in the sources of financing within a firm over time and also addresses the potential reverse causality problem in the existing studies on investment-cash-flow sensitivity.I show that the effects of financing sources on firm growth is statistically significant and quantitatively important. Firms with limited access to external capital markets (small unquoted firms with relatively limited access to bank credit facilities) can overcome their external financing constraints by accumulating more internal funds to finance higher growth. However, the effect of internal financing on firm growth decreases with an increase in the firms access to external financing (bank credit facility). I find that, for a financially constrained firm (at the 25th percentile of Bank Credit Facility), a 10% increase in internal funds is associated with a 14.68% increase in firm growth when all other covariates are evaluated at their means compared to a 3.82% increase in firm growth with a similar increase in internal funds for a financially unconstrained firm (at the 75th percentile of the Bank Credit Facility). This suggests that as the external financing constraint is alleviated for a firm (greater access to bank credit facility), the incremental effect of internal financing on firm growth decreases. As a result, the firm relies less on internal funds and switches to external financing as its primary source of financing for its growth. I find that this pattern of transition between internal and external financing sources is particularly pronounced in small unquoted firms (conditional on their survival). These firms, on average, grow disproportionately more than their medium and large counterparts at the early stages of their growth phases by accumulating more internal funds even though they have relatively less access to external financing.In the next set of empirical tests, I focus on the economic performance of the firm instead of the level of internal funds as a potential source of internal financing since higher economic performance can translate into greater internal financing for the firm. Moreover, greater economic performance also proxies for the operating effciency as well as the quality of future growth opportunities of the firm. I construct three economic performance measures, namely, Profit Margin, Return on Shareholders Funds, and Return on Total Assets. I find that a firms economic performance has a statistically significant effect on growth, but the strength of the eddect also depends on the level of external financing constraints of the firm. In particular, a 1% increase in profit margin is associated with a 3.84% increase in firm growth for a financially constrained firm whereas a 1% increase in profit margin is associated with only a 0.80% increase in growth for a financially unconstrained firm. Furthermore, the results show that the non-monotonic effect of profitability on firm growth (conditional on the level external financing constraints) is more pronounced for small unquoted firms. I also show that these results are robust to the potential reverse causality problem.These findings suggest that the effects of financing sources on firm growth is quantitatively important and that the real effct of financial structure on firm growth arises out of the wedge between the costs of internal funding and external private credit. Furthermore, there is also complementarity between internal and external financing especially for small firms and also non-quoted firms facing informational problems. Internal funds may not simply be a direct source of financing but may also provide signals about future prospects to the extent that past performance provides information about future opportunities. As well, internal funds may have collateral value for bank loans in environments with asymmetric information. Thus, access to internal sources of financing may play the twin roles of proxying for (internal) financial capacity as well as providing a signal about the quality of future growth opportunities. Such signals reduce the external financing constraints for firms facing informational problems.A fundamental question in Finance is: Does the financial structure of a firm matter for its investment policy? A consensus has emerged that internal capital and external capital are imperfect substitutes, and that the wedge between the costs of internal and external capital gives rise to an external financing constraint that may potentially limit a firms investment. The empirical evidence in the extant literature suggests that financing constraints significantly affect firm investment, and that an alleviation of financing constraints can foster economic growth. However, most previous research on financial constraints is based on public companies, and the literature uses measures like firm size, non-dividend paying status, or poor credit ratings as proxies for the financial constraints of firms.In this paper, I use a sample of quoted and unquoted firms and utilize the variations in access to internal and external financing within a firm over time to investigate the effects of financing sources on firm growth. I find that access to internal financing significantly affects firm growth. However, the effect of internal financing on firm growth decreas