【導(dǎo)讀】本文提供了區(qū)分金融活動和業(yè)務(wù)運(yùn)營中杠桿作用的財務(wù)報表分析。這些分析得出了兩?；貓舐室约肮蓛r與賬面價值比率具有代表性的差異。因此文章得出如下結(jié)論，資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表。項(xiàng)目的運(yùn)營負(fù)債定價不同于融資負(fù)債。未來盈利能力和提升適當(dāng)?shù)墓蓛r與賬面價值比率的影響。傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，杠桿效應(yīng)是從金融活動中產(chǎn)生的：公司通過借貸來增加運(yùn)營的資金。杠桿作用的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是負(fù)債總額與股東權(quán)益。是由于在運(yùn)營過程中與供應(yīng)商的貿(mào)易，與顧客和雇傭者在結(jié)算過程中產(chǎn)生的負(fù)債。債通常交易運(yùn)作良好的資本市場其中的發(fā)行者是隨行就市的商人。價格與賬面比率是由預(yù)期回報率的賬面價值決定的。此，本文還研究了是否兩類負(fù)債與將來的賬面收益率的區(qū)別有關(guān)。因此，為了制定用于實(shí)證分析的規(guī)范，本文提出了一份財務(wù)報。此外，合同和預(yù)期經(jīng)營負(fù)債的區(qū)別進(jìn)一步說明不同。我們的研究結(jié)果是用于愿意分析預(yù)期公司的收益和賬面收益率。

　　

【正文】 V (ROOA－ market borrowing rate )] (12) where the borrowing rate is the aftertax shortterm interest ROOA, the effect of leverage on pro?tability is determined by the level of operating liability leverage and the spread between ROOA and the shortterm aftertax interest rate. Like ?nancing leverage, the effect can be favorable or unfavorable: Firms can reduce their operating pro?tability through operating liability leverage if their ROOA is less than the market borrowing rate. However, ROOA will also be affected if the implicit borrowing cost on operating liabilities is different from the market borrowing rate. Total Leverage and its Effect on Shareholder Protability Operating liabilities and ?nancing debt bine into a total leverage measure: Total leverage (TLEV) = ( financing debt＋ operating liabilities)247。mon equity The borrowing rate for total liabilities is: Total borrowing rate = ( financing expense＋ market interest on operating liabilities) 247。 financing debt＋ operating liabilities ROCE equals the weighted average of ROOA and the total borrowing rate, where the weights are proportional to the amount of total operating assets and the sum of ?nancing debt and operating liabilities (with a negative sign), respectively. So, similar to the leveraging equations (8) and (12): ROCE = ROOA ＋ [TLEV(ROOA － total borrowing rate)] (13) In summary, ?nancial statement analysis of operating and ?nancing activities yields three leveraging equations, (8), (12), and (13). These equations are based on ?xed accounting relations and are therefore deterministic: They must hold for a given ?rm at a given point in time. The only requirement in identifying the sources of pro?tability appropriately is a clean separation between operating and ?nancing ponents in the ?nancial statements. 2 Leverage, Equity Value and PricetoBook Ratios The leverage effects above are described as effects on shareholder pro?tability. Our interest is not only in the effects on shareholder pro?tability, ROCE, but also in the effects on shareholder value, which is tied to ROCE in a straightforward way by the residual ine valuation model. As a restatement of the dividend discount model, the residual ine model expresses the value of equity at date 0 (P0) as: B is the book value of mon shareholders’ equity, X is prehensive ine to mon shareholders, and r is the required return for equity investment. The price premium over book value is determined by forecasting residual ine, Xt – rBt1. Residual ine is determined in part by ine relative to book value, that is, by the forecasted ROCE. Accordingly, leverage effects on forecasted ROCE ( of effects on the required equity return) affect equity value relative to book value: The price paid for the book value depends on the expected pro?tability of the book value, and leverage affects pro?tability. So our empirical analysis investigates the effect of leverage on both pro?tability and pricetobook ratios. Or, stated differently, ?nancing and operating liabilities are distinguishable ponents of book value, so the question is whether the pricing of book values depends on the position of book values. If this is the case, the different ponents of book value must imply different pro?tability. Indeed, the two analyses (of pro?tability and pricetobook ratios) are plementary. Financing liabilities are contractual obligations for repayment of funds loaned. Operating liabilities include contractual obligations (such as accounts payable), but also include accrual liabilities (such as deferred revenues and accrued expenses). Accrual liabilities may be based on contractual terms, but typically involve estimates. We consider the real effects of contracting and the effects of accounting estimates in turn. Appendix A provides some examples of contractual and estimated liabilities and their effect on pro?tability and value. Effects of Contractual liabilities The ex post effects of ?nancing and operating liabilities on pro?tability are clear from leveraging equations (8), (12) and (13). These expressions always hold ex post, so there is no issue regarding ex post effects. But valuation concerns ex ante effects. The extensive research on the effects of ?nancial leverage takes, as its point of departure, the Modigliani and Miller (Mamp。M) (1958) ?nancing irrelevance proposition: With perfect capital markets and no taxes or information asymmetry, debt ?nancing has no effect on value. In terms of the residual ine valuation model, an increase in ?nancial leverage due to a substitution of debt for equity may increase expected ROCE according to expression (8), but that increase is offset in the valuation (14) by the reduction in the book value of equity that earns the excess pro?tability and the increase in the required equity return, leaving total value (., the value of equity and debt) unaffected. The required equity return increases because of increased ?nancing risk: Leverage may be expected to be favorable but, the higher the leverage, the greater the loss to shareholders should the leverage turn unfavorable ex post, with RNOA less than the borrowing rate. In the face of the Mamp。M proposition, research on the value effects of ?nancial leverage has proceeded to relax the conditions for the proposition to hold. Modigliani and Miller (1963) hypothesized that the tax bene?ts of debt increase aftertax returns to equity and so increase equity value. Recent empirical evidence provides support for the hypothesis (., Kemsley and Nissim, 2021), although the issue remains controversial. In any case, since the implicit cost of operating liabilities, like interest on ?nancing debt, is tax deductible, the position of leverage should have no tax implications. Debt has been depicted in many studies as affecting value by reducing transaction and