【正文】 專業(yè)文獻(xiàn)翻譯 題 目 ： 資本成本公司財(cái)務(wù)和投資理論 概論 學(xué) 院 ： 國(guó)際商學(xué)院 專 業(yè) ： 姓 名 ： 指導(dǎo)教師 ： 2021 年 4 月 5 日 The cost of Capital ， Corporation finance and the theory of investment By FRANCO MODIGLIAN1 AND MERTON H。 MILLER* What is the cost of capital to a firm in a world in which funds are used to acquire assets whose yields are uncertain； and in which capital can be obtained by many different media ， ranging from pure debt instruments ， representing moneyfixed claims， to pure equity issues， giving holders only the right to a prorata share in the uncertain venture。 ? This question has vexed at least three classes of economists： (1) the corporation finance specialist concerned with the techniques of financing firms so as to ensure their survival and growth； (2) the managerial economist concerned with capital budgeting； and (3) the economic theorist concerned with explaining investment behavior at both the micro and macro levels。 39。 In much of his formal analysis， the economic theorist at least has tended to sidestep the essence of this costofcapital problem by proceeding as though physical assetslike bondscould be regarded as yielding known， sure streams。 Given this assumption， the theorist has concluded that the cost of capital to the owners of a firm is simply the rate of interest on bonds； and has derived the familiar proposition that the firm， acting rationally， will tend to push investmnent to the point where the marginal yield on physical assets is equal to the market rate of interest。 This proposition can be shown to follow from either of two criteria of rational decisionmaking which are equivalent under certainty， namely (1) the maximization of profits and (2) the maximization of market value。 According to the first criterion， a physical asset is worth acquiring if it will increase the profit of the owners of the firm。 But profit will increase only if the expected rate of return， or yield， of the asset exceeds the rate of interest。 According to the second criterion， an asset is worth acquiring if it increases the value of the owners39。 equity， i。 e。， if it adds more to the market value of the firm than the costs of acquisition。 But what the asset adds is given by capitalizing the stream it generates at the market rate of interest， and this capitalized value will exceed its cost if and only if the yield of the asset exceeds the rate of interest。 Note that， under either formulation， the cost of capital is equal to the rate of interest on bonds， regardless of whether the funds are acquired through debt instruments or through new issues of mon stock。 Indeed， in a world of sure returns， the distinction between debt and equity funds reduces largely to one of terminology。 It must be acknowledged that some attempt is usually made in this type of analysis to allow for the existence of uncertainty。 This attempt typically takes the form of superimposing on the results of the certainty analysis the notion of a risk discount to be subtracted from the expected yield (or a risk premium to be added to the market rate of interest)。 Investment decisions are then supposed to be based on a parison of this risk adjusted or certainty equivalent yield with the market rate of interest。 No satisfactory explanation has yet been provided， however， as to what determines the size of the risk discount and how it varies in response to changes in other variables。 Considered as a convenient approximation， the model of the firm constructed via this certaintyor certaintyequivalentapproach has admittedly been useful in dealing with some of the grosser aspects of the processes of capital accumulation and economic fluctuations。 Such a model underlies， for example， the familiar Keynesian aggregate investment function in which aggregate investment is written as a function of the rate of interestthe same riskless rate of interest which appears later in the system in the liquiditypreference equation。 Yet few would maintain that this approximation is adequate。 At the macroeconomic level there are ample grounds for doubting that the rate of interest has as large and as direct an influence on the rate of investment as this analysis would lead us to believe。 At the microeconomic level the certainty model has little descriptive value and provides no real guidance to the finance specialist or managerial economist whose main problems cannot be treated in a framework which deals so cavalierly with uncertainty and ignores all forms of financing other than debt issues。 Only recently have economists begun to face up seriously