【正文】 bility of operations, RNOA. RNOA is operating ine relative to operating assets, and operating assets are operating assets minus operating liabilities. So, the more operating liabilities a ?rm has relative to operating assets, the higher its RNOA, assuming no effect on operating ine in the numerator. The intensity of the use of operating liabilities in the investment base is operating liability leverage: Operating liability leverage (OLLEV) =operating liabilities 247。 financing debt (6) RNOA recognizes that pro?tability must be based on the assets invested in operations. So ?rms can increase their operating pro?tability by convincing suppliers, in the course of business, to grant or extend credit terms。 pricetobook ratio Leverage is traditionally viewed as arising from ?nancing activities: Firms borrow to raise cash for operations. This paper shows that, for the purposes of analyzing pro?tability and valuing ?rms, two types of leverage are relevant, one indeed arising from ?nancing activities but another from operating activities. The paper supplies a ?nancial statement analysis of the two types of leverage that explains differences in shareholder pro?tability and pricetobook ratios. The standard measure of leverage is total liabilities to equity. However, while some liabilities—like bank loans and bonds issued—are due to ?nancing, other liabilities—like trade payables, deferred revenues, and pension liabilities—result from transactions with suppliers, customers and employees in conducting operations. Financing liabilities are typically traded in wellfunctioning capital markets where issuers are price takers. In contrast, ?rms are able to add value in operations because operations involve trading in input and output markets that are less perfect than capital markets. So, with equity valuation in mind, there are a priori reasons for viewing operating liabilities differently from liabilities that arise in ?nancing. Our research asks whether a dollar of operating liabilities on the balance sheet is priced differently from a dollar of ?nancing liabilities. As operating and ?nancing liabilities are ponents of the book value of equity, the question is equivalent to asking whether pricetobook ratios depend on the position of book values. The pricetobook ratio is determined by the expected rate of return on the book value so, if ponents of book value mand different price premiums, they must imply different expected rates of return on book value. Accordingly, the paper also investigates whether the two types of liabilities are associated with differences in future book rates of return. Standard ?nancial statement analysis distinguishes shareholder pro?tability that arises from operations from that which arises from borrowing to ?nance operations. So, return on assets is distinguished from return on equity, with the difference attributed to leverage. However, in the standard analysis, operating liabilities are not distinguished from ?nancing liabilities. Therefore, to develop the speci?cations for the empirical analysis, the paper presents a ?nancial statement analysis that identi?es the effects of operating and ?nancing liabilities on rates of return on book value—and so on pricetobook ratios—with explicit leveraging equations that explain when leverage from each type of liability is favorable or unfavorable. The empirical results in the paper show that ?nancial statement analysis that distinguishes leverage in operations from leverage in ?nancing also distinguishes differences in contemporaneous and future pro?tability among ?rms. Leverage from operating liabilities typically levers pro?tability more than ?nancing leverage and has a higher frequency of favorable , for a given total leverage from both sources, ?rms with higher leverage from operations have higher pricetobook ratios, on average. Additionally, distinction between contractual and estimated operating liabilities explains further differences in ?rms’ pro?tability and their pricetobook ratios. Our results are of consequence to an analyst who wishes to forecast earnings and book rates of return to value ?rms. Those forecasts—and valuations derived from them—depend, we show, on the position of liabilities. The ?nancial statement analysis of the paper, supported by the empirical results, shows how to exploit information in the balance sheet for forecasting and valuation. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 1 outlines the ?nancial statements analysis that identi?es the two types of leverage and lays out expressions that tie leverage measures to pro?tability. Section 2 links leverage to equity value and pricetobook ratios. The empirical analysis is in Section 3, with conclusions summarized in Section 4. 1 Financial Statement Analysis of Leverage The following ?nancial statement analysis separates the effects of ?nancing liabilities and operating liabilities on the pro?tability of shareholders’ equity. The analysis yields explicit leveraging equations from which the speci?cations for the empirical analysis are developed. Shareholder pro?tability, return on mon equity, is measured as Return on mon equity (ROCE) = prehensive ine 247。進一步的研究也可以在不同的環(huán)境下調(diào)查運營負債，如公司在 哪 些地方的市場勢力超過供應(yīng)商。實際的分析證明了運營和債務(wù)預(yù)示了不同的利益在市場上價格也是不同的。這暗示了利益和平衡的杠桿。在運營中也借 款 ，但是是從顧客，雇傭者和供應(yīng)商借，創(chuàng)造了運營債務(wù)杠桿。這種方法可能低估借用消費因為與運營債務(wù)相關(guān)的風(fēng)險并不小。這項原則導(dǎo)致 63527 觀察的樣本。所以運營債務(wù)潛在被認為是潛在倒轉(zhuǎn)現(xiàn)象，能給影響杠桿，預(yù)示利益和 賬面價格 的比例。但是增長賬目的應(yīng)用會影響將來的運營收入。 預(yù)計的運營債務(wù)的潛在偏見對現(xiàn)在及長遠利益有想法效應(yīng)。但是，對盈利能力的影響也很清楚從方程（ 12）來看：雖然保守經(jīng)營性使資產(chǎn)增加了凈資產(chǎn)收益率，就如弗爾森和奧爾森（ 1995 年）和張（ 2021 年），較高的 賬 面價值的經(jīng)營負債杠桿高達 RNOA 超過凈資產(chǎn)收益率 。雖然合同負債通常是進行資產(chǎn)負債表上作為一個不偏不倚的說明現(xiàn)金支付，應(yīng)計制會計 估計不一定是公正的。他們也可能受益于效率的公司的供應(yīng)和分配鏈， 并可以給予信貸捕捉未來的業(yè)務(wù)。事實上，企業(yè)被視為主要是在增值業(yè)務(wù)，而不是融資活動因為比不過純粹的競爭力的產(chǎn)品和投入市場。例如， Biais 和 Gollier （ 1997 年）和彼得森和拉詹（ 1997 年）認為對比銀行和債券市場中供應(yīng)商有更多關(guān)于公司的信息， 使更多的經(jīng)營債務(wù)可能表明更高的價值。 彼德生和拉詹 （ 1997） 為這些解釋提供一些測試。 債務(wù)在許多研究中被描