外文翻譯--關于美國建筑業(yè)收購兼并后的經營表現(xiàn)的假設（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1900單詞，1.1萬英文字符,3280漢字</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目： Post-operating performance of construction mergers and acquisition of the </p><p>　　United States of America Hy

2、potheses </p><p>　　出 處： Net Economy, 2011, 33(3):266-277. </p><p>　　作 者： Jongsoo Choi and Donald Harmatuck </p>

3、<p><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　Post-operating performance of construction mergers and acquisition of the United States of America Hypotheses</p><p>　　Jongsoo Choi and Donald Harma

4、tuck</p><p>　　I. Hypothesis</p><p>　　Hypothesis I: do mergers and acquisitions generate synergistic gains?</p><p>　　The empirical research findings tend to support no synergistic ga

5、ins from M&A activities. For example, Kusewitt (1985) argued that the financial performance of an acquirer would suffer in the long run if the price paid for acquisitions was more than they were worth, even taking in

6、to account any synergistic benefits. Similarly, Sirower (1997) rigorously examined the premium paid on M&A transactions and showed that synergy could not be realized if one considers the amount of premium paid. Also,

7、 He</p><p>　　Theoretically, there may exist a variety of sources of synergy gains, as noted in an earlier section. Most construction firms that have engaged in M&A activities expected synergistic gains w

8、hen implementing M&A transactions. For example, many construction firms have engaged in multiple M&A transactions. If firms had experienced loss in the earlier transactions, they would not jump into the game agai

9、n. The implication is that there may be a sort of synergy that is realized through M&A transaction</p><p>　　Hypothesis I. By engaging in M&A transactions, construction firms may realize a kind of syn

10、ergistic gain, and this would be an improved operating performance of the firm. </p><p>　　Hypothesis II: management welfare versus shareholder wealth maximization </p><p>　　Theoretically, there

11、are two conflicting motivations regarding M&A transactions: the shareholder wealth maximization and the managerial welfare hypotheses. The managerial welfare hypothesis states that managers just want to maximize firm

12、 size and thus build an empire. For example, “Penrose (1959) and Williamson (1964) argued that the significantly positive relationship between organization size and executive compensation provides top managers with an in

13、centive for growth even when there is no ex</p><p>　　Post-operating performance can serve as an indicator in relation to this issue. Suppose that a firm decided to implement M&A transactions that usually

14、 increase the size of a firm. Further, link the change of firm size with the actual operating performance, which is frequently not under the control of the management. Then the decision may be interpreted in two ways fro

15、m a managerial standpoint. The first one is the shareholder wealth maximization argument, which states that if a management decisi</p><p>　　The firm size can be represented by various indices such as turnove

16、r, number of employees, total assets, profits, and market capitalization (Weston and Mansinghka 1971; Kreitl et al. 2002). There are also other arguments regarding this issue. For example, Marris (1963) and Fowler and Sc

17、hmidt (1988) postulate that managers engage in acquisition activity to increase growth in sales or assets, control a large empire, or experience compensatory gains. Fowler and Schmidt further argue that if firms p</p&

18、gt;<p>　　By summing up the previous arguments and empirical research findings, the management wealth maximization theory could be tested by aligning and comparing the operating performance and the size changes of

19、a firm. Specifically, the change of firm size, measured as sales volume or employment, and post-operating performance will be compared to test the management wealth maximization hypothesis. Hence, if there is a significa

20、nt increase in sales volumes or employment level without improved operating </p><p>　　Hypothesis II. Managements of public firms tend to increase firm size to increase their own wealth rather than improve fi

21、rm performance. </p><p>　　Hypothesis III: the consistency between short-term-based stock market return and long-term-based operating performance</p><p>　　According to Franks et al. (1977), in an

22、 efficient capital market, stock (or share) prices fully and instantaneously reflect all new information, and thus the value of expected benefits from merging would be reflected in share prices when the merger is first a

23、nticipated. It follows that, if the stock market is strongly efficient, the market should effectively forecast the post-operating performance at the time of an M&A transaction. Therefore, one can test the market effi

24、ciency by aligning the e</p><p>　　Hypothesis III. If the equity market is efficient, the expost-operating performance should be reflected in the exante expectations at the time a firm is implementing an M&am

25、p;A transaction. </p><p>　　II. Methodology: operating cash flow return and adjustment </p><p>　　This section describes a widely debated issue associated with accounting measures of firm performa

26、nce and defines the performance measure employed in this study. In assessing the performance of firms, different performance measures have been favored depending on the field of study. For example, event study has been a

27、 dominant analysis methodology in the finance research field. However, the argument of strategic management researchers is that, even though event studies are statistically rigorous,</p><p>　　There are numer

28、ous definitions of organizational performance, but there is relatively little agreement about which definitions are best (Barney 2002). Most early research in strategy and strategic management focused on evaluating the i

29、mpact of strategy on the accounting performance of a firm and heavily relied on ratio analysis; for example, “return on sales is a commonly used measure of financial performance in strategy research” (Powell 1996, p. 329

30、), whereas it is possible to integrate financ</p><p>　　Accounting returns and associated problems</p><p>　　Although accounting-based returns have been widely used in assessing firm performance,

31、many researchers point out the problems or biases present in accounting-return calculation. For example, as Barney (2002) asserts, bias may be present if simple accounting approaches are used to measure the performance o

32、f a firm because longer term, multiple year investments in a firm are usually treated, for accounting purposes, simply as costs in those years where they do not generate revenues that exceed co</p><p>　　A wi

33、dely used alternative measure of business performance, return on investment (ROI), has also been extensively criticized because “it does not properly relate the stream of profits to the investment that it produced” (Jaco

34、bson 1987, p.470). Thus, it is the general belief that ROI is not a true indicator of economic rate of return. The underlying rationale is that the income (the numerator in the ROI formula) is a consequence of investment

35、 decisions made in the past, but the assets (the denomin</p><p>　　Operating cash flow returns </p><p>　　Many scholars in the management research field support the use of cash flow returns for as

36、sessing firm performance because “it represents the actual economic benefits generated by the assets” (Healy et al. 1992, p. 139). Also, it is a measure of operating synergies because it reflects the true economic impact

37、 of the acquisition (Anand and Singh 1997). In addition, using the cash flow performance has advantages compared with the accounting return on book assets because it excludes the effect of d</p><p>　　Followi

38、ng Desai and Jain (1999) and Megginson et al. (2000), the OCF return measure was employed in the present study as a firm-performance index computed as the year-end operating cash flow of a firm (COMPUSTAT® data item

39、 13) divided by the year-end total assets of the firm (COMPUSTAT® data item 6). The OCF return is defined as follows: </p><p>　　The operating performances were then averaged over the 3 years both pr

40、ior to and after M&A transactions to minimize the bias that may arise when a single-year performance is used. The theoretical rationale on this procedure is that the acquiring business can be regarded as an investmen

41、t of the acquiring firm and its impact may spread over a long time horizon after the investment. Thus, measuring the performance of multiple years overcomes the bias of a short-term snapshot measure of operating pe</p

42、><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　關于美國建筑業(yè)收購兼并后的經營表現(xiàn)的假設</p><p>　　Jongsoo Choi and Donald Harmatuck</p><p><b>　　一、假設</b></p><p>　　（一）假設一：并購是

43、否產生協(xié)同收益</p><p>　　實證研究結果傾向于支持并購活動無協(xié)同收益產生。例如，Kusewitt（1985）認為，如果進行收購的支付價格大于其本身價值，甚至沒有任何協(xié)同收益，并購方的財政業(yè)績將遭受長期威脅。類似的，Sirower（1997）嚴格審查了并購交易支付的最低保費，并且表示，如果考慮了保費支付的總額，協(xié)同效應就無法實現(xiàn)。另外，Hensey（2000，pp.36-37）指出在并購交易中的協(xié)同收益：“

44、當一家企業(yè)尋找收購，期望收購活動能帶來協(xié)同作用和收益，那么企業(yè)便無法實現(xiàn)該愿望，并且，在同一公司‘屋檐’下，總是會帶來新的可預見的沖突”。</p><p>　　理論上說，可能存在大量的協(xié)同收益的來源，就像前面部分提到的。多數進入并購活動的建筑公司期待在實施并購交易時，獲得協(xié)同收益。例如，很多建筑企業(yè)都參與了多個并購交易。如果企業(yè)在早期遭受利益損失，企業(yè)將不會再次參與這類交易。這意味著，有一系列的協(xié)同作用是通過并購

45、交易實現(xiàn)的。只要并購交易產生任何協(xié)同收益，他們將獲得調整后的經營業(yè)績形式。由于在建筑行業(yè)，并購交易的實證研究被嚴格的限制，筆者制定以下伴隨著理論斷層的協(xié)同假說。</p><p>　　假設一：通過并購，企業(yè)將獲得一系列的協(xié)同收益，并且這將推動企業(yè)的業(yè)績。</p><p>　?。ǘ┘僭O二 管理福利和股東收益最大化</p><p>　　理論上講，并購交易存在兩個相互沖突

46、的動機：股東收益最大化和管理福利假說。管理福利假說認為，管理者只想實現(xiàn)企業(yè)規(guī)模最大化，并因此建立一個帝國。比如，“Penrose（1959）和Williamson（1964）認為，在組織規(guī)模和行政補償的正顯著關系激勵了高層管理者，即使并沒有為股東提供任何預期的收益”（Schmidt和Fowler 1990，p.560）。此外，“Murphy（1985）以及Coughlan和Schmidt（1985）發(fā)現(xiàn)了在行政補貼和公司業(yè)績之間的強大聯(lián)

47、系”（ Schmidt和Fowler 1990，p.562）。并且，Megginson et al.（2000）為這個以代理理論為基礎的問題提供了一個類似的解釋。這里，代理理論，是建立在代理成本的概念上，指的是由于股東和管理者之間的沖突帶來的成本（Ross et al. 2000）。類似的，Shleifer和Vishiny（1989）以及Anderson et al.（2000），討論了公司法人結構角度的企業(yè)多樣化，表明它使管理人員能夠

48、鞏固自己，并獲得以股東為代價的私人利益。</p><p>　　管理后業(yè)績可以被作為這個問題的一個指標。首先假設有一公司決定實施會擴大其規(guī)模的并購交易。然后，聯(lián)系企業(yè)規(guī)模變化與實際管理業(yè)績（通常不是管理可以控制的）。這樣，可以從管理立場的兩方面來解釋最后的決策。第一個是股東財富最大化的觀點，這個觀點認為如果管理決策是以股東收益為基礎的，企業(yè)的業(yè)績在并購交易之后會提升；另一方面，如果企業(yè)業(yè)績下降，管理收益依然隨著企業(yè)

49、規(guī)模增加而增加，那么就要質疑在并購交易來的決策，質疑管理財富最大化假說。解釋企業(yè)規(guī)模變化和管理業(yè)績之間的關系是必要的，然而，即使管理層通過并購交易打算增加股東收益，也存在實際經營業(yè)績不會成功的可能性。</p><p>　　企業(yè)規(guī)?？梢酝ㄟ^注入營業(yè)額、員工人數、資產總額、利潤多少以及市場資本化等指標來體現(xiàn)（Weston和Mansinghka 1971；Kreitl et al.2002）。這里仍然有一些關于此問題的

50、爭論。比如，Marris（1963），F(xiàn)owler和Schmidt（1988）推測，管理者為了增加銷售量或資產，或者獲得補償收益而從事收購活動。Fowler和Schlidt隨后又指出，如果在收購活動之后企業(yè)的表現(xiàn)很不好，則很可能是因為當初收購背后的執(zhí)行動機是股東財富最大化。</p><p>　　通過總結以往的觀點和實證研究結果，財富最大化的管理理論可以通過調整和比較經營業(yè)績和企業(yè)的規(guī)模變化來測試。具體來說，企業(yè)規(guī)

51、模的變化，如銷售或就業(yè)，以及企業(yè)的后經營業(yè)績，都將用來與測驗財富福利最大化的假設相比較。因此，在沒有改進管理業(yè)績的情況下，存在一個在銷售量或就業(yè)水平顯著的增長，管理的目標將是實現(xiàn)規(guī)模最大化，而不是增加股東財富。這將導致假設二的形成。</p><p>　　假設二：公共企業(yè)網的管理機構傾向于增加企業(yè)規(guī)模，以增加自己的財富，而不是提高公司績效。</p><p>　?。ㄈ┘僭O三：短期股市收益與長

52、期業(yè)績之間的一致性</p><p>　　根據Franks et al.（1977），在一個有效的資本市場，股票（或股本）價格充分反映了全部新資訊，并且當兼并首次被預期，來自兼并的預期收益價值將會在股價中體現(xiàn)。如果股市是強有效的，市場應該能有效的預測在并購交易期間的后經營的業(yè)績。因此，可以專業(yè)化的檢測市場的有效性，即通過調整事前市場業(yè)績和前后經營業(yè)績。如果這兩種指標在意義和標識水平上都是相同或相似的，股市可能會被認

53、為非常有效。因此，對于測試市場效率的說法，這個假設是可以形成的。</p><p>　　假設三：如果股市是有效的，在企業(yè)實施并購交易時，后經營業(yè)績應該能在預期中反應出來。</p><p>　　二、方法：資金流收益和經營調整</p><p>　　本節(jié)描述了一個與公司業(yè)績的會計績效指標有關的問題，并定義了衡量運用這項研究的績效。在公司業(yè)績的評估中，不同業(yè)績衡量法取決于研究

54、領域。例如，時間研究一直是金融研究領域的主導分析方法。然而，戰(zhàn)略管理研究者的觀點是，即使時間研究是屬于嚴格的數據性的，時間段的研究依然是相對短暫的（Fowler和Schmidt1989）。因此，在戰(zhàn)略管理研究領域的研究者們一般更青睞于評估伴隨著特定企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略措施的長期組織業(yè)績。</p><p>　　關于組織績效的定義有很多，但是關于哪個定義最好，幾乎沒有一致的觀點（Barney 2002）。大多數在戰(zhàn)略和戰(zhàn)略管理的

55、早期研究關注與評估企業(yè)的會計業(yè)績上的戰(zhàn)略的影響，并且大部分依靠于比率分析。例如，“銷售回報是在戰(zhàn)略研究中，時常用來衡量金融業(yè)績”（Powell 1996，p.329），而它有可能將企業(yè)的金融比率整合成一個單個指數，比方說Altman’s Z分數，用來獲得更完整的經濟業(yè)績。</p><p>　?。ㄒ唬媹蠖惐砑跋嚓P問題</p><p>　　盡管會計基礎的收益已經被廣泛運用于企業(yè)績效評估，很

56、多研究者指出會計收益計算中的問題或偏移。例如，像Barney（2000）說的，如果簡單會計方法被用來衡量一個企業(yè)的業(yè)績，偏移會存在，因為企業(yè)中長期的多年限投資總是存在的。就會計而言，只是消耗成本而不產生收益。在這些問題中，最嚴峻的是經營自主權（Healy et al.1992；Revsine et al. 1999；Bodie et al.1998）。舉個例子，當管理獎金與會計績效掛鉤，管理者必須有強烈的動機通過會計管理來提高當期利潤水

57、平。</p><p>　　一種廣泛使用于替代經營業(yè)績衡量法——投資回報（ROI），因為“它將利潤流與帶來的投資不恰當的聯(lián)系起來”，而被廣泛批評（Jacobson 1987，p,470）。因此，人們普遍認為，ROI不是經濟回報率的真實指標。其基本理論是，收入（ROI中的分子）是過去制定的投資決策的結果，但是資產（分母）被認為不僅對過去和現(xiàn)在的收入有影響，而且對將來的收入也有影響。類似的，Meeks和Meeks（19

58、81，p,4）斷言，“用盈利的措施來推斷由于兼并帶來的失真運用效率”。然而，經營業(yè)績在這項研究中采取的措施，即OCF返回，在一定程度上克服了上述缺陷。在下節(jié)中，將詳細討論有關OCF返回的優(yōu)勢。</p><p>　?。ǘ┵Y金流收益的運營</p><p>　　很多在管理研究領域的學者都支持使用資金流收益來評估企業(yè)績效，因為“它代表了由資產帶來的實際經濟收益”（Healy et al. 199

59、2，p.139）。并且，它是經營協(xié)同作用的措施之一，因為它反映了收購的真實經濟影響（Anand和Singh 1997）。此外，使用資金流業(yè)績與會計收益對賬面收益有好處，因為它不包括折舊、商譽、信息開支、收入和稅收的影響。因此，它不受收購和融資的影響。此外，它允許公司間的融資比較。而且，Barber和Lyon（1996）認為，與盈利相比，收入業(yè)績是更好的衡量方式。他們的論據是，它比來自經營性資產的生產率更能清楚地起到衡量作用，因為經營業(yè)績

60、會被特殊項目、稅收考慮或者上述股東權益所遮蓋。</p><p>　　在Desai和Jain（1999）以及Megginson et al.（2000）之后，OCF的返回措施被用在當下的研究，作為被企業(yè)年末總資產（COMPUSTAT®數據項6）分割的一個企業(yè)性能指標（COMPUSTAT®數據項13）。OCF返回按照以下所列定義：</p><p>　　經營業(yè)績的平均值將超過

61、在并購交易發(fā)生的前期和后期的三年均值，用來最小化由于使用一年業(yè)績而產生的偏移。關于這個過程的理論基礎是，收購可以作為收購企業(yè)的一項投資，并且它的影響將分散在投資后的一段很長時間內。因此，多年的業(yè)績衡量措施克服了經營業(yè)績措施的短期偏見。另外，繼先前的研究，收購年的OCF返回不包括消除來自一次性會計事項，諸如顧問費用和重組費用的潛在偏見?？紤]到這個，Ross et al.（2000）指出，對于任何特定的公司，異?；蛩矐B(tài)事件，例如來自資產出售