企业跨国并购中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文资料翻译
译文：
中国企业跨国并购绩效的决定因素摘要：采用了独特的数据上设置的跨境合并和收购活动在中国的证券交易所上市的公众公司，我们收购前的性能和国有股比例对收购公司的表现产生积极的影响。

关键词：跨国兼并和收购，中国企业，国际化
1.介绍
在过去的30年里，中国经历了快速的经济增长。

在此期间，大量的中国企业已经成长起来和具备竞争力，有一些甚至已经涉足海外投资，以寻找新的增长来源。

国际化扩张的方式之一就是收购现有企业，在国外，所谓的跨国兼并和收购（M＆A）。

虽然这个数字是低，规模小的，但最近比过去的趋势明显加快。

这种现象值得密切关注，以便更好地了解在这个问题上。

跨国兼并和收购是指一个企业购买在国外的另一家公司的股份或资产的行动。

显然，跨国兼并和收购是在两个或两个以上国家的公司的控制权之间的交易。

虽然跨国并购的目标常常被说成是为股东创造价值的收购公司,结果相距较远的规定的目标。

系统研究表明，有相当数量的跨国兼并和收购以失败而告终。

除了在母国和东道国的市场环境之间的差异，收购公司的竞争力和比较优势被认为是更重要的。

这些优势包括公司治理，高层管理人员的长期竞争力，学习能力，以及其他。

因此，有必要看一看公司的特定因素影响的性能，跨境并购本研究的主要目的是确定的因素，影响结果的跨国兼并和收购中国公司，特别是在最近几年收购公司的经济表现。

近年来，中国企业的跨国兼并和收购的规模稳步上升。

根据联合国贸易与发展会议，中国企业的跨国兼并和收购总额为8.139亿美元，这个时间是1988年至2003年，其中大部分是1997年后发生。

虽然平均金额每年只有2.16亿美元，1988年和2003年间，在2003年，就达到了1.647亿美元的水平。

有一些广为人知的案例：上海电气集团在
2002年购买了日本印刷机制造商，TCL收购德国施耐德在2003年和2004年，联想收购IBM PC业务的。

所有这些情况表明，中国企业的跨国兼并和收购已经进入了一个时代。

收购公司的经济表现的不同结果这样的公司的行动。

一些差异可能涉及到的国际化扩张的动机。

例如，有些公司这样做，因为在国内市场的竞争压力，而寻求资源，如原材料和技术，大概有几个甚至鼓励政府的政策措施。

尽管他们的动机的不同，许多公司因此增加了困难，在跨国并购的整合风险，并没有一个明确的概念成功因素导致性能上的差别。

因此，它必须有一个很好的理解中国和国际的关系，中国企业海外并购和决定因素之间的关系。

虽然这个问题是很重要的，许多严肃的学术研究中是很难找到的。

通过系统搜索的网站，其中列出了所有在中国的学术期刊上发表给我们接近千条跨国并购的中国国家知识基础设施大多数仅仅是现有的理论，说明目前的情况下，或简单的个案研究的评论。

我们的研究试图分析系统的经济性能，近年来，中国企业的跨国并购世界儿童之友协会的决定因素。

除了促进跨境并购的文献，我们也希望研究结果可以提供有益的指导对外直接投资的中国企业中所持的信念。

跨国并购是不是新的。

本文拟作出贡献是解释企业层面的海外并购，中国企业的因素和表现。

由于跨国并购表现受多种因素影响，我们采用了多种理论观点，特别是组织学习的观点与代理理论。

作为我们讨论的早期，我们还发现一个发达的数据库的跨境中号和一个，因此，我们开发我们自己的一个数据库覆盖165中号和一个情况下，通过搜索，通过各种数据源，包括公司网站，年度报告，报纸上，并在互联网。

本文的组织如下。

在第2条中的跨境并购活动的中国企业的特点进行了讨论。

经过短暂的文献回顾，一些假设的基础上的理论观点。

第4节讨论的方法和结果报告的结论性意见之前在第5。

2.跨境并购中国公司的特点
跨国并购的中国企业开始在20世纪80年代，位于美国，加拿大和香港的大部分目标公司。

该公司涉及的基本上是大型国有企业，如中信，中化集团，首都钢铁，中国的资源。

例如，北京首都钢铁集团购买的美国工程公司MASTA的70％的股份，于1988年7月为US $340
百万。

在20世纪90年代，越来越多的中国公司开始从事海外并购。

除了国有企业，私营和集体企业还联合游戏。

进入21世纪后，中国企业在跨国兼并和收购，几个大的情况下发生，如购买由上海汽车工业总公司和韩国双龙汽车公司汽车公司收购IBM的PC业务变得更具侵略性联想。

传闻观测结果显示几个趋势：1）量和交易金额的增加随着时间的推移。

图0.1显示了中国企业的跨国兼并和收购所涉及的金额。

多年来虽然涉及的金额有所不同，但趋势是往上走。

2）现金收购要约的采购方法扩展到各类款项，如杠杆收购和交换的股票的。

例如，TCL法国的汤普森在其收购的资产注入股份交换的方法。

3）虽然大跨境并购交易中占主导地位的国有企业，收集国有和民营企业也成为近年来活跃在。

4）涉及的行业领域延伸至国内垄断行业，如能源，化学制品制造业普遍。

3.学术评论
有大量文献国内和跨国兼并和收购，主要是基于发达国家的经验。

有一些中国学者研究了在国内市场的兼并和收购的情况下。

例如，冯武（2001），使用会计数据及因素分析，制定一个整体的企业绩效评价函数。

他们没有找到的M＆A公司的业绩在今年显着的变化，但在一年
后性能提高，在第三年下降。

朱和王（2002）的股本回报率（ROE）和资产收益率（ROA）为收购方和目标公司于1998年67兼并和收购的情况下，分析改进。

张（2003年），采用事件研究法和会计分析方法，分析了中国上市公司的兼并，收购和重组。

他发现，兼并，收购和重组，目标公司的价值，但对股东收购公司的收入及财务表现产生了负面的影响。

佳（2003）报道，收购公司的表现，和他们以前的收购经验之间存在着倒U形关系。

我们没有发现，中国企业的跨国兼并和收购的实证研究。

在下面的章节中，我们将开发一些假设的基础上的跨境并购案例表现的可能的影响因素，当时的理论。

4.假设发展
跨国并购的成果至少2大因素。

首先，它依赖于外部环境，如在本国的经济增长和竞争程度，东道国的政治和文化环境的变化等。

其次，取决于收购公司的资源和能力。

这是，我们要着眼于后者。

因此，几个假设，以反映的跨国并购公司的特点和性能之间的关系
4.1预收购公司的收购表现
控制权的分配和可能的协同作用，经常被用来解释收购前的性能和收购行为。

它们也可以用来解释收购与目标公司收购后的表现。

韦斯顿等。

（1990）提出，协同效应的主要来源，其中的收购增加值，这意味着经济效率提高后，企业的兼并与不同的管理能力。

一个比较有效的投标人购买效率较低的目标公司，并通过改善目标公司的效率，增加合并后的公司的价值。

从目标公司的角度来看，市场对公司控制权理论认为，它是一个公司的市场价值之间的差异，其实际价值，决定公司是否将被收购。

此外，收购公司和目标公司的管理效率之间的差异，确定目标公司的收购后的表现。

从收购公司的观点，市场对公司控制权的理论预测，收购前表现的无罪坚定的正相关，其收购的性能。

例如，郎咸平等。

（1989）发现，在要约收购中，收购公司和股东的利益的托宾Q值呈正相关。

Servaes（1991）发现，与托宾Q值的收购方，收购方和被收购公司的股东收益是正相关。

在这些研究中，托宾的Q定义为公司的市场价值除以它的重置成本，作为一个公司的收购前业绩和管理能力的一个指标。

在此，我们制定以下假设：
假设1：收购前的中国公司（收购方）和跨国并购性能表现呈正相关。

4.2自由现金流
代理理论描述了股东与经理人之间的关系为委托代理关系。

委托人和代理人的不同，经常发生冲突的利益。

一位经理认为自己的利益为先，在做决策时，可能无法在股东的最佳利益。

詹森和麦克林（1983）定义了一个公司作为一个承上启下的合同，，争夺代理成本是不可避免的公众公司。

一类代理成本与自由现金流量是指后留在该公司的所有净现值为正的投资项目，涵盖了需要的现金数额的大小。

大量的自由现金流，可能会导致更高的代理成本收购公司的企业管治是不完善的。

当一家公司有一个大型的免费现金流，但没有或只是一个小的债务，股东和管理人员可能会面临着严重的利益冲突股息政策。

为了使自己的利益最大化，管理者不想分发的免费现金派息，并保留在公司内部的现金流。

因此，他们可以用这些资金不仅为他们个人的私人利益或过度投资，同时也为在未来可能损失的补偿（詹森，1986）。

如果没有良好的控制系统，以确保运营效率，自由的现金流可能导致代理成本高。

在这情况下，收购不能是一个明智的决定。

另一方面，自由的现金流是可再发行的金融资源，因此在收购公布，并把它变成更有效率的使用。

詹森还预测自由现金流行业的集中度的特点，表现出的自由现金流可以是一个严重的问题，公司大量的自由现金流和低增长的前景，特别是必不可少的公司注定要缩小。

这些企业面临的最严重的情况，在不盈利的项目投资上的浪费现金。

我们认为在中国的上市公司，自由的现金流可能会导致相同的代理成本。

派息降低了资源管理器的控制下，因此，经理人更愿意使用免费的现金流投资，而不是派发股息，即使这种投资可能不会产生积极的股东回报。

因此，我们假设有足够的现金流，收购公司在收购前收购后的表现不佳。

假设2：收购前的现金流中国公司（收购方）和其收购的性能是负相关的。

原文：
Determinants of Cross-Border Merger & Acquisition Performance of Chinese Enterprises Abstract：Using a unique data set on the cross-border merger and acquisition activities of the public companies listed at China's stock exchanges, we show that pre-acquisition performance and proportion of the state shares have a positive impact on performance of acquiring companies Keywords: Cross-border mergers and acquisitions; Chinese enterprises; International-alization
1. Introduction
In the past thirty years China has experienced a rapid economic growth. In that period, a large number of Chinese enterprises have grown up and gained compositeness, a few have even ventured abroad to search for new sources of growth. One way of international expansion is to acquire existing businesses abroad, so called cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Although the number was low and the scales were small in the recent past, the trend is clearly picking up. It warrants a close look at this phenomenon to gain a better understanding on this matter.
Cross-border M&A refers to a corporate action of purchasing the shares or assets of another company in a foreign country. Obviously, cross border M&A is a transaction of control rights between companies in two or more countries. Although the goals of cross-border M&A are often said to be creating value for the shareholders of acquiring companies, the results are far apart from the stated objective. Systematic studies show a considerable number of cross-border mergers and acquisitions end up in failure. In addition to differences in market environments between home and host countries, the competitive and comparative advantages of the acquiring companies are considered more important. Those advantages include corporate governance, top management term competence, learning ability, among others. Therefore, it s necessary to take a look at the firm specific factors that influence the performance of cross-boarder M&A. The main purpose of this study is to identify the factors that influence the outcomes of cross-border M&A made by Chinese firms in recent years, particularly, economic performance of the acquiring firms.
The scale of cross-border mergers and acquisitions by Chinese firms has increased steadily in recent years. According to the United Nation Conference on Trade and Development, cross-border mergers and acquisitions by Chinese firms totaled US$ 8.139 billion in the period of 1988 to 2003, most of which occurred after 1997. While the average amount each year was only $ 216 million between 1988 and 2003, it reached the level of $ 1.647 billion in2003. There are a few well publicized cases: Shanghai Electric Group purchased a Japanese printing machine manufacturer in 2002, TCL acquired Schneider in Germany in 2003 and Lenovo purchased PC business of IBM in2004. All these cases show Chinese enterprises have entered an era of cross-border mergers and acquisitions.
The economic performance of acquiring firms differs as a result of such corporate action. Some of the differences may relate to the motives of the international expansion. For example, some companies do it because of competitive pressure at home market, while others seek resources such as raw materials and technologies, and probably a few are even encouraged by government policy measures. Despite the variety in their motives, many companies underestimate difficulties and integration risks in cross-border M&A and don’t have a clear idea about success factors that contribute to the difference in performance. Therefore it is imperative to have a good understanding of the relationship between performance of Chinese overseas mergers and acquisitions and determinant factors.
Although the issue is clearly important, many serious academic studies are hard to find. A systematic search through the website of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure that lists all academic journals published in China give us nearly one thousand articles on cross-boarder M&A. Most are merely reviews of existing theories, descriptions of current situations or simple case
studies.
Our study attempts to analyze systematically economic performance and its determinants of cross border M&A made by Chinese companies in recent years. In addition to contribute to cross-border M&A literature, we also hope that the findings can provide useful guidance to outward foreign direct investment by Chinese enterprises in the future.
Cross-border M&A is not new. What this paper intends to contribute is to explain the firm level factors and performance of overseas M&A by Chinese enterprises. Because the M&A performance are influenced by multiple factors, we adopt a multiple theoretical perspectives, specifically, organization learning perspective and agency theory.
As we discussed early, we have not yet found a well developed database on the cross-border M&A, therefore we develop on our own a database covering 165 M&A cases by searching through various data sources including company websites, annual reports, newspapers, and the internet.
The paper is organized as follows. The features of cross-border M&A activities of Chinese firms are discussed inspection 2. After a short literature review, a number of hypotheses are developed based on a number of theoretical perspectives. Section 4 discusses the methodology and results are reported in section 5 before the concluding remarks.
2. Features of Cross-border M&A by Chinese Companies
Cross-border M&A by Chinese companies began in the 1980s, with most of the target companies located in the US, Canada and Hong Kong. The firms involved were basically large state-owned enterprises, such as CITIC, SINOCHEM, Capital Steel and China Resources. For example, Beijing Capital Steel Group purchased 70% shares of an American engineering company MASTA for US $3.4 millions in July 1988. In the 1990s, more and more Chinese companies start engaging acquisitions overseas. In addition to the state-owned enterprises, privately and collectively owned enterprises also joint the game. After entering into the 21 century, Chinese firms become more aggressive in cross-border mergers and acquisitions, several large cases occurred, such as the purchase of Korean company Sang Yong Motor Company by Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation and the purchase of PC business of IBM by Lenovo.
Anecdotal observations show a few tendencies: 1) volume and sum of transactions increase over time. Figure.1shows amounts of money involved in that cross-border mergers and acquisitions of Chinese enterprises. Although the amounts of money involved vary over the years, but the trend is going up. 2) The purchasing method extended from cash offer into various kinds of payments, such as leveraged acquisitions and swap of equity shares. For example, TCL used the methods of asset injection and shares swap in its acquisition of Thompson of France. 3) Although the state-owned corporations dominate in big cross-border M&A deals, collectedly owned and private enterprises also become active in recent years. 4) The industries covered extended from domestically monopolized industries such as energy, chemicals to manufacturing industry in general.
3. Literature Review
There is a vast literature on both domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions, mostly based on the experiences from developed countries. There are a few Chinese scholars have studied mergers and acquisitions casein domestic markets. For example, Feng and Wu (2001), using accounting data and factor analysis, formulate an overall evaluation function of corporate performance. They do not find significant change in firm performance in the year of M&A, but the performance improves in the year after and falls back in the third year. Zhu and Wang (2002) analyze improvement of return on equity (ROE) and returns on assets (ROA) for both acquirer and target companies in 67 mergers and acquisitions cases in 1998. Zhang (2003), using event study method and accounting an alytical method, analyzes the mergers, acquisitions and reorganizations of Chinese publicly listed companies. He found that mergers, acquisitions and reorganizations add value to the target company, b ut had a negative influence upon shareholders’ income and financial performance in the acquiring company. Jia (2003) reports a reverse U shape relationship exists between performance of acquiring companies and their previous acquisition experience. We do not find empirical study on cross-border mergers and acquisitions of Chinese companies. In the following section,we are going to develop a few hypotheses based on the prevailing theories on possible factors that influence the performance of cross-border M&A cases.
4.Hypotheses Development
The outcomes of cross-border M&A depends at least on 2 broad factors. First of all, it depends on external environment, such as economic growth and degree of competition at home country, changes of political and cultural environment of host country and so on. Secondly, it depends on resources and capability of the acquiring company.It is the latter that we are going to focus on. A few
hypotheses therefore are developed to reflect the relations between acquiring firm characteristics and performance of cross-border M&A.
4.1 Pre-Acquisitions Performance of Acquiring Firms
Allocation of control rights and possible synergy are often used to explain pre-acquisition performance and acquisition behavior. They are also used to explain post-acquisition performance for both acquiring and target firms.Weston et al. (1990) proposes that synergy effect is one of the main sources in which acquisition adds value, which means economic efficiency can improve after mergers of firms with different management capabilities. A relatively efficient bidder purchases a less efficient target firm and increases the value of the merged firm through improving target firm’s effectiveness.
From target firm perspective, market for corporate control theory argues that it is the difference between a company’s market value and its actual value that determines whether a firm will be acquired. Moreover, the difference of management efficiency between the acquiring firm and the target firm determines the target company's post-acquisition performance. From the acquiring firm s viewpoint, market for corporate control theory predicts that pre-acquisition performance of the acquitting firm is positively related to its acquisition performance.For example, Lang et al. (1989) found that in tender offers, Tobin Q value of acquiring firms and shareholders’interests are positively related. Servaes (1991) found both acquirer’s and acquired company’s shareholders gainsare positively associated with the Tobin Q value of the acquirer. In these studies, Tobin s Q, defined as the market value of a company divided by its replacement cost, is used as an indicator of a company s pre-acquisition performance and management capacity. Hereby we develop the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Pre-acquisition performance of Chinese company (the acquirer) and its cross-border acquisition performance are positively related.
4.2 Free Cash Flow
Agency theory describes that the relationship between shareholders and managers as a principal-agent relationship. The principal and agent have different and often conflict interests. A manager considers his own interest first when making decisions that may not at the best of interest of shareholders. Jensen & Meckling (1983)define a firm as a nexus of contracts, contending that agency cost is unavoidable in public companies.
One kind of agency costs is associated with the magnitude of free cash flow that refers to the amount of cash leftin the company after covering the need of all investment projects with positive net present value. Large amounts of free cash flow can cause higher agency cost when corporate governance of acquiring company is imperfect. When a company has a large free cash flow but no or just a little debt, shareholders and managers may face a serious conflict in interests regarding dividend policy. In order to maximize their interests, managers prefer not distributing the free cash as dividend payout and to keep free cash flow within the company. Therefore they can use that cash not only for their personal private benefits or over-investment, but also for compensation of possible losses in the future(Jensen, 1986). If there is no good control system in place to ensure efficiency in operations, free cash flow may lead to high agency cost. Under that circumstance, acquisition cannot be a sound decision. On the other hand, free cash flow is redistributable financial resource thus
本科毕业论文外文翻译
released in acquisitions, and put it into more productive use.
Jensen also predicts the characteristics of the free cash flow concentrated industries, showing that the free cashflow can be a serious problem for companies with large amounts of free cash flow and low growth prospect, and especially essential for companies doomed to shrink. These companies face the most serious situation for wasting cash on investments in non profitable projects.
We argue free cash flow can cause the same agency cost in China’s publicly listed companies. Dividend payout lowers the resources under manager’s control; therefore managers prefer using free cash flow to invest instead of dividend payment, even though such investment may not generate positive returns to shareholders. Therefore, we hypothesize that acquiring company with sufficient cash flow before acquisition has poor post acquisition performance.
Hypothesis 2: Pre-acquisition free cash flow Chinese company (the acquirer) and its acquisition performance are negatively related.
References
[1] Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 57-74.
[2] Feng, Genfu and Linjiang Wu, 2001. Empirical Study of Performance of Mergers and Acquisitions of Chinese Public Companies. EconomicResearch, 1, in Chinese
[3] .Fowler, K. L. & Schmidt, D. R., 1989. Determinants of tender offer post-acquisition financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4): 339.
[4] Franks, J., R. Harris & S. Titman, 1991. The post-merger share-price performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 29. pp.81-96.
[5] Haleblian, J. & S. Finkelstein, 1999. The influence of organizational acquisition experience on acquisition performance: A behavioralperspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1): 29. [6] Harrison J. S., M. A. Hitt, R. E. Hoskisson & R. D. Ireland, 1991. Synergies and Post Acquisition Performance: Differences V ersus Similaritiesin Resource Allocations. Journal of Management, 17: 173-190.
[7] Hayward, M. L. A., 2002. When do firms learn from their acquisition experience? Evidence from 1990—1995. Strategic Management Journal,23 (1): 21.
[8] Hitt, M., Harrison, J., Ireland, R. D., & Best, A., 1998. Attributes of Successful and Unsuccessful Acquisitions of US Firms. British Journal ofManagement, 9 (2): 91.
11。