跨國(guó)企業(yè)和國(guó)際財(cái)務(wù)管理[文獻(xiàn)翻譯](文件)
【正文】 early 1970s, prices increased significantly only to fall sharply during the bear market of 19745 following a 300 per cent hike in the price of oil. A global recovery then ensued, with minor price reversals in 19823, 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 $ trillion. Finally from midto end 1997, the stock markets of Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Manila lost US $370 billion, or 63 per cent of the four countryes’ bined 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 19734. 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 mentators 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 crossmarket correlation(systematic risk) suggesting country risk is nondiversifiable 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 pared to the actual returns earned on defaultfree (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 inves
公司管理相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1