毕业论文外文翻译--上市公司财务状况的评价研究—创业板和中小企业板比较（适用于毕业论.doc

1、 An Evaluation Research on Financial Situation of Listed Companies on GEM & SMEs Board Yuan Shi Abstract: On the basis of comparative analysis of the growth enterprise markets position and financing function, this paper chose 28 companies of the first batch on the growth enterprise market (GEM) with

2、 their 2009 financial data, and correspondingly selected 28 companies in the same industry and accounting period on the small and medium-size enterprise (SME) board as paired samples. The empirical results showed that: GEM listed companies were optimistic about the overall financial position, and mo

3、st of them had the qualifications to list on the SME board. These results indicated the GEM was not an excellent financing platform for the potential small and medium-size enterprises. It also revealed the reasons and provided policy recommendation on development strategy to improve the market. Keyw

4、ords: GME; SME board; listed company; financial situation; financing function I. INTRODUCTION Small and medium enterprises, accounting for 99% of total number of all the enterprises in China, provide the state with a large number of jobs and tax contributions. However, financing is the bottleneck re

5、stricting the development of SMEs for a long time. In order to share the benefits SMEs creating, the society must give a good financing system to make it more effectively. Although the Shenzhen Stock Exchange launched the SME board in May 2004, its positioning principle of two unchanging, four indep

6、endence results in strict listing requirements on the SME board, which is very close to the main board market. Therefore, SME board does not facilitate SMEs financing problem through issuing and listing and leads to a serious impediment to the direct financing channels. Clearly, GEM is undoubtedly a

7、n innovative financing platform in the capital market for SMEs in China and is one of the most valid paths to solve the financing problem for the growth enterprises. Difficult direct financing of SMEs is mainly due to the failure of listing on the main board or SMEs board because of lacking market c

8、onditions, policies and legal environment. Company issuing publicly is required to meet the Securities Law and Company Law. Compared to the SME board, the GEM aims at high growth, high innovative ability SMEs with a much lower threshold of listing on the scale of assets and sales revenue, profit lev

9、el. To some extent, the GEM is a better platform for SMEs, and helps many outstanding SMEs finance in the capital market. Therefore, the official landing of GEM has been the inevitable result during the development of capital market in China. October 30, 2009, the first 28 GEM listed companies focus

10、ed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, marking the birth of GEM officially. GEM, it not only further improving the financing system of our capital market, but also meeting the different financing needs of SMEs, play a significant role in promoting the industry upgrade and standardizing the operation nor

11、ms of SMEs. Under this background, the paper does some empirical research on the financial situation of GEM and SME board listed companies in order to provide some reference for investor, listed companies, SMEs to be listed and government, and to make a modest contribution to GEM financing function.

12、II.COMPARATIVE STUDY ON FINANCIAL SITUATION A. Sample SelectionThis paper chose 28 companies of the first batch on GEM and correspondingly 28 companies in the same industry and accounting period on the SME board as paired samples (See Table 5).Due to it was just a year after the GEMs establishment,

13、the paper only made use of financial data during 2009. The data came from: (1) Juyuan database; (2) . By consolidated financial index factor analysis using statistical software SPSS15.0, the paper comparatively study financial situation of listed company on GEM and SMEs Board.B. Index System 1) Trad

14、itional Accounting RatioThis paper selected five categories of traditional accounting ratios, mainly related to long-term liquidity capacity, short-term liquidity capacity, operation capacity, profitability and growth capacity of listed enterprises on SME board and GEM. These 20 financial indicators

15、 basically reflected the financial situation on the accrual basis. These 20 traditional accounting ratios made up the primary evaluation indicators of financial status. Specific indicators are in Table 1: Table 1. Traditional Accounting Ratios2) Common Cash Flow Ratios In order to evaluate financial

16、 situation of listed enterprises on SME board and GEM scientifically and reasonably, the single use of traditional accounting ratios was not enough. Because there was a great deal of difference between the book sales and actual cash flow, explaining financial situation of listed enterprises with ear

17、nings information may lead to a deviation. Sometimes despite the accounting profit delivered a signal of good profitability capacity, the company may face financial risks due to the inability to generate sufficient cash flow in a short term. So it was necessary to introduce common cash flow index as

18、 a supplement to the traditional accounting ratios. The paper tried to reflect the financial situation as fully as possible when choosing cash flow indicators. Common cash flow indicators which were chosen in the paper were showed in Table 2: C. Difference Analysis of Indicators means Difference ana

19、lysis aimed at finding indicator variables from the 28 primary evaluation indicators that were significantly different between SME board and GEM. To get reliable and scientific research results, the paper chose non-parametric test method to carry out difference analysis on the 28 primary evaluation

20、indicators means, which did not limit the samples distribution. The paper used Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (MWW) for non-parametric test. The null hypothesis H0: Primary indicator variables did not exist significant differences in listed enterprises between SME board and GEM. The non-parametric test resul

21、ts were in Table 3. Table 3 showed that there were 17 financial ratios passing the 0.05 level of significance test. Because the other 11 financial ratios did not pass the test, accepting the null hypothesis H0, the paper suggested that there is no significant difference in the listed enterprises bet

22、ween on SME board and GME. These indicators are X9, X10, X12, X16, X17, X21, X22, X23, X25, X26, X27, and they should be removed. The remaining 17 primary indicators would go to next round of screening. D. Factor Analysis For the first 17 candidate indicators from difference analysis, the paper used

23、 Correlate-Bivariate (MWW) for correlation analysis. The results showed in addition to X8, X19, X20, the majority of the financial indicators had significant correlation with each other. For fear of the loss of some important information if deleting indicators, the paper would not exclude relevant i

24、ndicators. Instead, the paper carried out factor analysis to concentrate the 17 indicators. In this way, a small number of stable, weak-related, and comprehensive indicators can be extracted so as to include most of the financial information. Before the factor analysis, we must test the feasibility

25、of factor analysis. With SPSS15.0 the paper chose principal component analysis to concentrate the 17 candidate indicators and the KMO value is 0.7250.5, suitable for factor analysis. The factor extraction method used in this paper was: eigenvalue1 and the cumulative contribution rate80%.Besides, in

26、order to make it easier to explain the factors, we selected the maximum variance method to complete the orthogonal rotation. After varimax orthogonal rotation, eigenvalues and cumulative contribution rate of the factors were in Table 4: As can be seen from Table 4, the eigenvalues of the first five

27、principal components factor were all greater than 1, and covered 80.537% of the information the original variables contained. Generally, the lost information was little and the effect was desirable. Therefore, the first 5 factors can be used to replace and concentrate the original indicators. Then i

28、t was necessary to know the factor loadings of the 17 candidate indicators on the first 5 factors (i.e. the correlation coefficient of each factor and original financial ratios). According to the result of factor analysis, factor F1 was loaded greater on the X7.Due to X7 was related to the long-term

29、 liquidity of enterprises, F1 can be defined as long-term liquidity fact or; factor F2 was loaded greater on the financial ratios X1, X2 and X3. Because they all reflected the short-term liquidity of enterprises, F2 can be named as short-term liquidity factor; factor F3 had a greater load on the X13

30、, X14 and X15, reflecting the companys profitability, can be defined as the profitability factor; factor F4 had a greater load on the X18 and X19. These indicators are related to the ability to grow, so F4 can be named as business growth factor; factor F5 was loaded greater on X28, therefore can be

31、defined as the cash factor. E. Factor Scores and Composite Score According to factor loading matrix after varimax orthogonal rotation, through regression we can calculate the factor score coefficient matrix, which multiplied the standardized data matrix of financial indicators was the factor scores

32、of 56 listed enterprises samples. Then using the contribution of each factor eigenvalue as the weight, the composite score of each listed company can be calculated as follows: (Fi1, Fi2, Fi3 ., Fi6 meant the factor scores of listed companies“i”)Fi=43.521%Fi1 + 11.795%Fi2 + 9.492%Fi3 +8.792%Fi4 + 6.9

33、37%Fi5Calculated in the above method, each factor score and composite score of listed companies on SME board and GEM can be calculated. III. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONA. Listed enterprises on GEM had a stronger cash acquisition capacity. Table showed that in the 28 selected samples, the cash fa

34、ct or scores of 24 listed companies on GEM were significantly higher than the paired samples in the SME board, indicating that the listed companies on GEM had a stronger ability to obtain cash flow on the whole. The reasons why listed companies on GEM had an advantage on the ability of cash acquisit

35、ion were mainly attributed to the following two reasons: on the one hand, this first batch of 28 listed enterprises on GEM successfully issued in 2009, and the company got sufficient cash flow through financing; on the other hand, listed companies on GEM characterized by high-tech and service-based

36、industries were light-asset operation so that it was easier for listed enterprises to keep sufficient cash. Furthermore, it was an important method to manage and control cash that the level of cash flow can keep pace with the net profit. B. Listed enterprises on GEM had a stronger liquidity capacity

37、. By comparing long-term and short-term liquidity factor scores on Table 5, it can be easily found that listed enterprises on GEM had a stronger liquidity capacity, not only in the short-term liquidity, but also on the long-term liquidity. According to the above analysis, liquidity ratio and quick i

38、ncreased substantially as a result of the significant increase cash after the IPO. This brought a high liquidity and a stronger short-term liquidity capacity. In addition, equity capital increase due to the IPO brought a higher improvement on long-term liquidity than the listed enterprises on SME bo

39、ard. Therefore, listed enterprises on GEM faced a smaller financial risk and possibility of bankruptcy because of inability to repay due debts. C. Listed enterprises on GEM had a stronger profitability capacity and growth capacity. In this paper, ratio of main businesss gross profit, ratio of main b

40、usinesss profit margin and ratio of profits to cost were the indicators which reflected the profitability capacity of listed enterprises. From the profitability factor scores, it can be found that nearly 65% of the 28 listed enterprises on GEM had a better profitability capacity that the paired samp

41、les on SME board. It proved that listed enterprises on GEM had a stronger profitability capacity. On one hand, as the originality of core technology was one of the requirements when companies were listed on GEM, most of the listed enterprises on GEM owned leading and original technology, as well as

42、independent intellectual property rights; on the other hand, the listed enterprise on GEM often had greater market potential, thus increasing its economic benefits. 外文翻译：上市公司财务状况的评价研究创业板和中小企业板比较 袁石摘 要：在比较分析成长型企业市场的地位和融资功能的基础上，本文选择了创业板市场（GEM）第一批28家公司2009年的财务数据，并相应地在小型和中等规模的企业（SME）板选择了28家相同行业及相同会计期间公司

43、，对作为配对样本。实证结果表明：创业板上市公司的整体财务状况持乐观态度，他们大部分都有资格列在中小企业板。这些结果表明，创业板对于一些潜在的小型和中等规模的企业不是一个很好的融资平台。另外，该调查还找到得以提高市场发展战略的原因和政策建议。关键词：创业板，中小企业板，上市公司，财务状况，融资能力一、简介中小型企业，占中国的所有企业总数的99，为国家提供了大量的就业机会和税收贡献。然而，资金在很长一段时间是制约中小企业发展的瓶颈。因此，为了分享中小企业所创造的利益，社会必须提供一个良好的更加有效的融资制度。尽管深圳证券交易所于2004年5月推出中小企业板，但是其非常接近主板市场的“两个不变，四个

44、独立”的定位原理导致了中小企业板严格的上市要求。因此，中小企业板不利于中小企业通过发行股票和上市解决融资难的问题，同时严重阻碍了直接融资渠道。显然，创业板在中国中小企业资本市场无疑是一个新的的融资平台，是为成长型企业解决融资难的问题最有效的途径之一。中小企业直接融资的难点主要是由于因缺乏市场条件，政策和法律环境而导致的在主板或中小企业板上市的失败。而上市公司公开发行股票必需遵守“证券法”和“公司法”。与中小企业板相比，创业板的目的在于为有高成长，高创新性能力的中小企业的上市提供低得多的资产规模，销售收入，利润水平门槛。在一定程度上，创业板，对中小企业来说，是一个更好的平台，帮助许多优秀的中小企

45、业在资本市场融资。因此，创业板的正式登陆是中国资本市场发展过程中的必然结果。2009年10月30日，28家创业板上市公司首次集中在深圳证券交易所上市，标志着创业板正式诞生。创业板，不仅进一步提高我国资本市场的融资体系，也满足了不同中小企业的融资需求，在促进中小企业产业升级，规范运作规范中发挥重要的作用。在此背景下，本文做了一些关于创业板和中小企业板上市公司的财务状况实证研究，以为投资者，上市公司，拟上市的中小企业和政府提供一些参考，并为创业板融资功能作出微薄的贡献。二、财务状况比较研究（一） 样本选择 本文选择了28家首次在创业板上市的公司，相应的中小企业板中28家相同行业和会计期间的公司作为

46、配对样本。由于这仅仅是创业板的成立一年后，所以只能利用2009年的财务数据。这些数据来自于：（1）聚源数据库；（2）。使用统计软件SPSS15.0，综合财务指标因子分析，本文对在创业板和中小企业板上市公司的财务状况比较研究。（二）指标体系1、传统会计的比率本文选择了五大类传统的会计比率，主要涉及中小企业板和创业板上市企业长期的资金融通能力，短期流动性的能力，营运能力，盈利能力和成长能力。这20个财务指标基本反映了以权责发生制为基础的财务状况。另外这20个传统的会计比率构成财务状况的主要评价指标。具体指标列于表1：表1 传统的会计比率类别编码指数名称公式短期资金融通能力X1 流动比率流动资产/流

47、动负债X2 速动比率（流动资产 - 存货）/流动负债X3 现金比率（货币资金+短期投资）/流动负债X4 资产营运资金比率（流动资产流动负债）/平均总资产X5 资产负债率平均总负债/平均总资产长期资金融通能力X6 债权比率总负债/总资产X7 股东权益比率总股本/总资产X8有形资本负债率负债总额/（总股本无形资产）X9应收账款周转率主营业务收入/平均应收账款经营能力X10 应付账款周转期（主营业务成本+期末存货成本期初存货成本）/平均应付账款X11营业额的流动性资产主营业务收入/平均流动资产X12 营业额资产比主营业务收入/平均资产总额X13 主营业务的毛利（主营业务收入 - 主营业务成本）/主营

48、业务收入盈利能力X14 主营业务的利润率比主营业务利润/主营业务收入X15 利润成本比净利润/（主营业务成本+销售费用+管理费用+财务费用）X16 净资产收益率利润总额/平均股东权益X17 总资产报酬率利润总额/平均资产总额X18主营业务收入增长比（本年主营业务收入-上年主营业务收入）/主营业务收入今年成长能力X19净利润增长比（本年净利润-去年净利润）/净盈利从上年同期X20总资产率（本年总资产-上年总资产）/上年总资产 为了科学，合理地评估在中小企业板和创业板上市企业的财务状况，单独使用传统的会计比是不够的。因为有大量的差异存在于图书销售和实际的现金流之间，说明上市企业的财务状况与盈利信息可能会导致偏差。有时尽管会计利润传递盈利能力良好的信号，但公司仍可能面临由于短期内无法产生足够的现金流的财务风险。因此，有必要采用通用的现金流量指标来补充传统的财务比率。本文选择现金流量指标时尝试尽可能充分反映企业的财务状况。本文所选的现金流量指标见表2：表2常见的现金流量比率分类代码指数名称分子式资金