(完整版)外文翻译：通过并购创造价值

并购财务风险中英文对照外文翻译文献并购财务风险中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)并购的财务风险研究摘要并购是一个高风险的活动。

并购业务，无论是在准备阶段，还是在合并的运营阶段，或之后的整合阶段，将伴随着大量的不确定性。

这些跨国并购所带来的不确定性有可能导致巨大的财务风险。

尤其在当前,更多的国内企业已经选择了并购这条路。

本文对并购的各个重点阶段容易受到的财务风险分析，并对这些风险提出了防范措施。

关键词：并购，财务风险，防范措施在西方国家，并购有大约超过100年的历史，交易规模不断扩大。

2000年，在我国，第五次全球并购浪潮达到一个高峰，并购在我国越来越受欢迎。

例如，许多公司加快海外扩张和并购的步伐，许多企业选择并购来渡过难关。

正如我们所知道的，并购一定会有风险，比如：目标公司的评估，交易方法，或财务风险的选择。

如何才能避免这些风险？我们要选择哪种方法？这就是这篇文章的目的。

1.并购导致财务风险的原因1.1高估或低估了公司价值带来的风险1.1.1信息不对称是影响估计的主要因素由于信息不对称，目标公司一直隐瞒不良信息和夸大良好的信息。

投标人还夸大自己的实力，他们所披露的情况不足或失真。

因此，贸然行动的失败结果随处可见。

有很多有关风险的资料，两个重要的例子就是：第一，股票风险，公平对任何一家公司都是很重要的，但所提供的信息和真实情况之间存在着差异，这些虚假的信息威胁到并购的成功；第二，债务信息的风险，如果没有发现这种风险，庞大的债务将毫无缘由的转嫁到投标人身上。

1.1.2缺乏合理的评估方法有三种评估方法：成本法、市场法、收益法，这其中，市场法要求有关信息的对称性要高，只有当信息评价具有高对称性时才可以对企业作出准确判断。

然而，在我国，信息对称水平低，小企业采用这种方法。

他们大多采用替代法和收益法。

这两个方法也有缺点，重置成本反映历史成本，不能反映未来盈利能力；就算把现值看做增值的收入，它也明显的缺陷，那就是，未来的收入预期是不同的。

文献出处: Comell B., Financial risk control of Mergers and Acquisitions [J]. International Review of Business Research Papers, 2014, 7(2): 57-69.原文Financial risk control of Mergers and AcquisitionsComellAbstractM&A plays a significant part in capital operation activities. M&A is not only important way for capital expansion, but also effective method for resource allocation optimization. In the world around, many firms gained high growth and great achievement through M&A transactions. The cases include: the merger between German company Daimler-Benz and U.S. company Chrysler, Wal-Mart’s acquisition for British company ADSA, Exxon’s merger with Mobil and so on.Keywords: Enterprise mergers and acquisitions; Risk identification; Risk control1 Risk in enterprise mergers and acquisitionsMay encounter in the process of merger and acquisition risk: financial risk, asset risk, labor risk, market risk, cultural risk, macro policy risk and risk of laws and regulations, etc.1. 1 Financial riskRefers to the authenticity of corporate financial statements by M&A and M&A enterprises in financing and operating performance after the possible risks. Financial statements is to evaluate and determine the trading price in acquisition of important basis, its authenticity is very important to the whole deal. False statements beautify the financial and operating conditions of the target enterprise, and even the failing companies packing perfectly. Whether the financial statements of the listed companies or unlisted companies generally exists a certain degree of moisture, financial reporting risk reality In addition, the enterprise because of mergers and acquisitions may face risks, such as shortage of funds, a decline in margins has adverse effects on the development of enterprises.1. 2 Asset riskRefers to the assets of the enterprise M&A below its actual value or the assets after the merger failed to play a role of original and the formation of the risk. Enterprise merger and a variety of strategies, some of them are in order to obtain resources. In fact, enterprise asset accounts consistent with actual situation whether how much has the can be converted into cash, inventory, assets assessment is accurate and reliable, the ownership of the intangible assets is controversial, the assets disposal before delivery will be significantly less than the assets of the buyer to get the value of the contract. Because of the uncertainty of the merger and acquisition of asset quality at the same time, also may affect its role in buying businesses.1. 3 Labor riskRefers to the human resources of the enterprise merger and acquisition conditions affect purchase enterprise. Surplus staff and workers of the target enterprise burden is overweight, on-the-job worker technical proficiency, ability to accept new technology and the key positions of the worker will leave after the merger, etc., are the important factors influencing the expected cost of production.1. 4 Market riskRefers to the enterprise merger is completed, the change of the market risk to the enterprise. One of the purposes of mergers and acquisitions may be to take advantage of the original supply and marketing channels of the target enterprise save new investment enterprise develop the market. Under the condition of market economy, the enterprise reliance on market is more and more big, the original target enterprise the possibility of the scope of supply and marketing channels and to retain, will affect the expected profit of the target enterprise. From another point of view, the lack of a harmonious customer relationship, at least to a certain extent, increase the target enterprise mergers and acquisitions after the start-up capital.1. 5 Culture riskRefers to whether the two enterprise culture fusion to the risks of mergers and acquisitions, two broad and deep resources, structure integration between enterprises, inevitably touches the concept of corporate culture collision, due to incompleteinformation or different regions, and may not be able to organizational culture of the target enterprise become the consensus of the right. If the culture between two enterprises cannot unite, members will make the enterprise loss of cultural uncertainty, which generates the fuzziness and reduce dependence on enterprise, ultimately affect the realization of the expected values of M&A enterprises.2 Financial risk of M&AHowever, there are even more unsuccessful M&A transactions behind these exciting and successful ones. A study shows that 1200 Standard & Poor companies have been conducting frequent M&A transactions in recent years, but almost 70%cases ended up as failures.There are various factors that lead to the failures of M&A transactions, such as strategy, culture and finance, among which the financial factor is the key one. The success or failure of the M&A transactions largely depends upon the effectiveness of financial control activities during the process. Among the books talking about M&A, however, most focus on successful experience but few on lessons drawn from unsuccessful ones; most concentrate on financial evaluation methods but few on financial risk control. Therefore, the innovations of this thesis lie in: the author does not just talk about financial control in general terms, but rather specify the unique financial risks during each step of M&A transaction; the author digs into the factors inducing each type of risks, and then proposes feasible measures for risk prevention and control, based on the financial accounting practices, and the combination of international experience and national conditions.The thesis develops into 3 chapters. Chapter 1 defines “M&A” and several related words, and then looks back on the five M&A waves in western history. Chapter 2 talks about 3 types of financial risks during M&A process and digs into factors inducing each type of risks. Chapter 3 proposes feasible measures for risk prevention and control. At the beginning of chapter 1, the author defines M&A as follows: an advanced form of property right transaction, such as one company (firm) acquires one or more companies (firms), or two or more companies (firms) merge as one company (firm). The aim of M&A transaction is to control the property andbusiness of the other company, by purchasing all or part of its property (asset). In the following paragraph, the thesis compares and contrasts several related words with “M&A”, which are merger, acquisition, consolidation and takeover.In the chapter 1, the author also introduces the five M&A waves in western history. Such waves dramatically changed the outlook of world economy, by making many small and middle-sized companies to become multinational corporations. Therefore, a close look at this period of time would have constructive influence on our view with the emergence and development of M&A transactions. After a comprehensive survey of M&A history, we find that, with the capitalism development, M&A transactions presented diverse features and applied quite different means of financing and payment, ranging from cash, stock to leveraged buyout. Chapter 2 primarily discusses the different types of financial risks during M&A, as well as factors inducing such risks.According to the definition given by the thesis, financial risks during M&A are the possibilities of financial distress or financial loss as a result of decision-making activities, including pricing, financing and payment.Based on the M&A transaction process, financial risks can be grouped into 3 categories: decision-making risks before M&A (Strategic risk), implementation risks during M&A (Evaluation risk, financing risk and payment risk) and integration risks after M&A. Main tasks and characteristics in each step of M&A transaction are different, as well as the risk-driven factors, which interrelate and act upon each other. Considering limited space, the author mainly discusses target evaluation risk, financing and payment risk, and integration risk. In chapter 2, the thesis quotes several unsuccessful M&A cases to illustrate 3 different types of financial risks and risk-driven factors. Target evaluation risk is defined as possible financial loss incurred by acquirer as a result of target evaluation deviation. Target evaluation risk may be caused by: the acquirer’s expectation deviation for the future value and time of target’s revenue, pitfalls of financial statements, distortion of target’s stock price, the deviation of evaluation methods, as well as backward intermediaries. Financing and payment risks mainly reflect in: liquidity risk, credit risk caused by deterioratedcapital structure, financial gearing-induced solvency risk, dilution of EPS and control rights, etc.Integration risks most often present as: financial institution risk, capital management risk and financial entity risk. Chapter 3 concludes characters of financial risks that mentioned above, and then proposes detailed measures for preventing and controlling financial risks. Financial risks during M&A are comprehensive, interrelated, preventable, and dynamic. Therefore, the company should have a whole picture of these risks, and take proactive measures to control them.As for target evaluation risk control, the thesis suggests that (1) Improve information quality, more specifically, conduct financial due diligence so as to have comprehensive knowledge about the target; properly use financial statements; pay close attention to off-balance sheet resource. (2) Choose appropriate evaluation methods according to different situations, by combining other methods to improve the evaluation accuracy. Meanwhile, the author points out that, in practice the evaluation method is only a reference for price negotiation. The target price is determined by the bargaining power of both sides, and influenced by a wealth of factors such as expectation, strategic plan, and exchange rate.In view of financing and payment risk control, the author conducts thorough analysis for pros and cons of different means of financing and payment. Then the author proposes feasible measures such as issuing convertible bonds and commercial paper, considering specific conditions. To control integration risk, the author suggests start with the integration of financial strategy, the integration of financial institution, the integration of accounting system, the integration of asset and liability, and the integration of performance evaluation system. Specific measures include: the acquirer appoints person to be responsible for target’s finance; the acquirer conducts stringent property control over target’s operation; the acquirer conducts comprehensive budgeting, dynamic prevision and internal auditing.3 ConclusionsAt the end of the thesis, the author points out that many aspects still worth further investigation. For instance, this thesis mainly concentrates on qualitativeanalysis, so it would be better if quantitative analysis were introduced. Besides, the thesis can be more complete by introducing financial risk forecast model.译文企业并购中的财务风险控制作者：康奈尔摘要企业并购是资本营运活动的重要组成部分，是企业资本扩张的重要手段，也是实现资源优化配置的有效方式。

本文档包括改专题的：外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献Financial synergy in mergers and acquisitions. Evidence from Saudi ArabiaAbstractBusinesses today consider mergers and acquisitions to be a new strategy for their company's growth. Companies aim to grow through increasing sales, purchasing assets, accumulating profits and gaining market share. Thus; the best way to achieve any of the above-mentioned targets is by getting into either a merger or an acquisition. As a matter of fact, growth through mergers and acquisitions has been a critical part of the success of many companies operating in the new economy. Mergers and acquisitions are an important factor in building up market capitalization. Based on three structured interviews with major Saudi Arabian banks it has been found that mergers motivated by economies of scale should be approached cautiously. Similarly, companies should also approach vertical mergers cautiously as it is often difficult to gain synergy through a vertical merger. Firms should seek out mergers that allow them to acquire specialized knowledge. It has also been found that firms should look for mergers that increase market power whilst avoiding unrelated mergers or conglomerate mergers.Keywords: Synergy, Mergers and Acquisitions, Saudi Arabia 1. IntroductionThere is a major difference between mergers and acquisitions. Mergers occur between similarly sized companies and the collaboration is "friendly" between both companies. However, Acquisitions often occur between differently sized companies and the partnership is usually forced and hostile.Wheelen and Hunger (2009) define a merger as a transaction involving two or more corporations in which stock is exchanged but in which only one corporation survives. In other words, the two companies become one and the name for the corporation becomes composite and is derived from the two original names. Furthermore, an acquisition is the purchase of a company that is completely absorbed as an operating subsidiary or divisionof the acquiring corporation (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). The authors also state thathostile acquisitions are called takeovers.The main reason for firms entering into mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is to grow, andcompanies grow to survive (Akinbuli, 201 2). Growth strategies expand the company's activities and add to its value since larger firm have more bargaining power than smaller ones. A firm sustaining growth will always have more opportunities for advancement, promotions and more jobs to offer people (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). In general, mergers and different types of acquisitions are performed in the hope of realizing an economic gain. For such a business deal to take place, the two firms involved must be worth more together than each was apart.A few of the prospective advantages of M&A include achieving economies of scale, combining complementary resources, garnering tax advantages, and eliminating inefficiencies. Other reasons for considering growth through acquisitions contain obtaining proprietary rights to products or services, increasing market power by purchasing competitors, shoring up weaknesses in key business areas, penetrating new geographic regions, or providing managers with new opportunities for career growth and advancement (Brown, 2005).Many firms choose M&A as a tool to expand into a new market or new area of expertise since it is quicker and cheaper than taking the risk alone. Furthermore, M&A happen when senior executives feel enthusiastic and excited about a potential deal ; the idea of successfully pursuing and taking over another company before the company s competitors are able to do so. Competition in a growing industry drives firms to acquire others. In fact, a successful merger between companies increases benefits for the entire corporation.However, failures also occur in M&A as indicated by Haberbserg and Rieple (2001) and Akinbuli (2012). They showed that 50% of acquisitions are unsuccessful; they increase market power but do not necessarily increase profits. Brown (2005) explains the reasons for the high failure rate of M&A as follows:(a)Over-optimistic assessment of economies of scale. Economies of scale are usually achieved at certain business size. However, expansion beyond the optimum level results in disproportionate cost disadvantages that lead to various diseconomies of scale.(b)Inadequate preliminary investigation combined with an inability to implement the amalgamation efficiently. Resistance to change and the inability for the acquired company to manage change well is a main reason for failure due to the resistance of the employees and management of both companies involved.(c)Insufficient appreciation of the personnel problems, which will arise, is due mainly to the differing organizational cultures in each company.(d)Dominance of subjective factors such as the status of the respective boards of directors.Therefore, drafting careful plans before and after the merger is a necessity that should not be overlooked. Some companies find the solution in hiring a change manager who will add value and better manage the transition of the "marriage between both companies" (Brown, 2005).2.Synergy in M&A and financial synergyThis section discusses the literature review in order to identify the importance of acquiring financial synergy in the M&A.2.1Synergy in M&ASynergy, as defined in the business dictionary, is the state in which two or more agents, entities, factors, processes, substances, or systems work together in a particularly fruitful way that produces an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. Synergy is the magic force that allows for enhanced cost efficiencies of the new business. Synergy takes the form of revenue enhancement and cost savings (Mergers and acquisitions: Definition, n.d.).Synergy is also expressed as an increase in the value of assets as a result of their combination. Expected synergy is the justification behind most business mergers. For example, the 2002 combination of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq was designed to reduce expenses and capitalize on combining Hewlett-Packard's reputation for quality with Compaq's impressive distribution system (Synergy Business Definition, n.d.).Through research it has been noted that synergy is the concept that two businesses will generate greater profits together than they could separately (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). Synergy is said to exist for a divisional corporation if the return on investment of each division is greater than what the return would be if each division were an independent business (Wheelen and Hunger, 2009). In order to succeed cooperation between the partners is the basic ingredient for achieving growth through synergy (Rahatullah, 201 0). This requires partners to build trust, commitment, and secure consensus, to achieve their targets (Gronroos, 1997; Ring and Van-de-Ven, 1994).Synergy can take several forms. According to Goold and Campbell (1 998) synergy is demonstrated in six ways: benefiting from knowledge or skills, coordinated strategies,shared tangible resources, economies of scale, gaining bargaining power over suppliers and creating new products or services.M8<A result in the creation of synergies, the sharing of manufacturing facilities, software systems and distribution processes. This type of synergy is referred to as operational synergy and is seen mostly in manufacturing industries. Another motive for forming an acquisition is gaining greater financial strength by purchasing a competitor, which increases market share. The aim of mergers and acquisitions is to achieve improvement for both companies and produce efficiency in most of the company's operations. (Haberberg and Rieple, 2001).However, Brown (2005) summarizes the sources of synergy that result from M8<A underthe following headlines:1.Operating economies which include:(a)Economies of scale: Horizontal mergers (acquisition of a company in a similarline of business) are often claimed to reduce costs and therefore increase profits due to economies of scale. These can occur in the production, marketing or finance divisions.Note that these gains are not expected automatically and diseconomies of scale may also be experienced. These benefits are sometimes also claimed for conglomerate mergers(acquisition of companies in unrelated areas of business) in financial and marketingcosts.(b)Economies of vertical integration: Some acquisitions involve buying out other companies in the same production chain. For example, a manufacturer buys out a rawmaterial supplier or a retailer. This can increase profits through eliminating the middleman in the supply chain.(c)Complementary resources: It is sometimes argued that by combining the strengths of two companies a synergistic result can be obtained. For example, combining a company specializing in research and development with a company strong in the marketing area could lead to gains. Combining the expertise of both firms would benefit each company through the gained knowledge and skills that individually they lack.(d)Elimination of inefficiency: If either of the two companies had been badly managed; its performance and hence its value can be improved by the elimination of inefficiencies through M&A, Improvements could be obtained in the areas of production, marketing and finance.2.Market power; Horizontal mergers may enable the firm to obtain a degree of monopoly power which could increase its profitability. Coordinated strategies between both companies will lead the entire organization in gaining competitive advantage. Gaining bargaining power over suppliers is realized since the company is larger in size after the merger.3.Financial gains; Companies with large amounts of surplus cash may see the acquisition of other companies as the best application for these funds. Shared tangible resources such as sharing a bigger building, more office supplies, equipment, manufacturing facilities and research and design labs will also lead to a reduction in costs translated into better financial performance. McNeil (2012) identifies that the shareholders of a business under M&A process may benefit from the sale of their stocks, this is especially true if the M&A is with a better, bigger and more reputable prospective partner.4.Others; such as surplus management talent, meaning that companies with highly skilled managers can make use of their qualified personnel only if they have problems to solve. The acquisition of inefficient companies allows for maximum utilization of skilled managers. Incorporating the efforts of both management teams will drive the creation of innovative products or services.The synergy factor prevails in the M&A when the firms produce a greater return than the two individual firms owing to reasons such as improvements in efficiency and an increase in market power for the merged or acquired firms (Berkovitch and Narayana, 1993).2.2Financial synergyAs defined by Knoll (2008), financial synergies are performance advantages gained by controlling financial resources across businesses of firms. There exist four types of financial synergies, which are:1.Reduction of corporate risk: Reduction of corporate risk is increasing the risk capacity of the overall firm, which means the ability of the firm to bear more risk. Meaning that by increasing the risk capacity the shareholders will invest more in the company and the firm will gain benefits such as coinsurance effects.2.Establishment of internal capital market: Establishing internal capital gains means that the firm will decrease its financing costs and will increase financialflexibility which results in the company having higher liquidity and the ability to payits creditors easily.3.Tax advantages: Tax advantages by reducing the tax liabilities of the firm using the losses in one business to offset profits in the other business referred to as "profit accounting".4.Financial economies of scale: Financial economies of scale reducing transaction cost in issuing debt and equity securities (Knoll, 2008).3.Methodology and resultsFor this project, the method of interviews was used due to it being the most appropriate way to gather information about the interpretation of events, as to why some mergers produce synergy while others do not; and to understand the reasons why companies enter into mergers. In Saudi Arabia it is difficult to secure responses from senior executives. Approaching such a person is not only difficult protocol wise but there are bureaucratic hurdles. The quantitative analysis is more suitable for large scale data collection (Denzin and Lincoln, 1997). Whereas, qualitative research provides the researcher with the perspective of target audience members through captivation and direct interaction with the people under study (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992). These methods help to comprehend what others perceive of a certain phenomenon, postulates Creswell (1994).The planned interview method was to use a structured interview. In a structured interview, the researcher knows in advance what information is needed and asks a predetermined set of questions (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). The same questions are asked of all interviewees, which allows for better comparison of the responses than unstructured interviews, where the interviewees are asked different questions. The structured interview process does allow the researcher to ask different follow up or probing questions based on the interviewee's response. This allows the interviewer to identify new factors and gain a deeper understanding of the topic (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009).Since the interviewees were located in different parts of Saudi Arabia the interviews were scheduled in advance and conducted face to face. The data was gathered by taking notes during the interviews, which were not recorded as that may have seemed too intrusive.When conducting interviews it is important to conduct them in a manner that is free of bias or inaccuracies. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), bias can be introduced by theinterviewer, interviewee or the situation. Interviewers can introduce bias by distorting the information that they hear so it aligns with their expected responses to the question or through simple misunderstandings. To prevent this, the respondents' answers were summarized back to them before moving on to the next question. Interviewees can introduce bias if they do not like the interviewer or if they phrase the answers to be biased towards what they think the interviewer wants to hear. Since the interviewees were obtained through referrals, it is highly unlikely that they gave false responses. Also, the basic area of research was discussed with the interviewees, but no hypothesis was advance to them, such that they would skew their answers to what they though the interviewer wanted to hear.Three companies were interviewed and asked a specific set of questions (see Appendix). There are numerous reasons to interview three companies in Saudi Arabia. These are the following:*The M&A in Saudi Arabia are normally carried out by large size companies.*It is difficult to reach out to the senior managers to discuss such issues.*The officers are also tied by company confidentiality rules to not divulge information.*The number of M&A is also significantly less in comparison with other countries.*The researchers, using diverse resources including personal contacts and formal requests, were able to reach out to three of the major companies of the Kingdom.An interview was conducted with National Commercial Bank (NCB) NCB is an international bank headquartered in Saudi Arabia and engaged in personal, business and private banking, and wealth management (NCB, 2011 ). Another interview was done with Samba Financial Group. Samba is also an international bank headquartered in Saudi Arabia that is engaged in personal and business banking (Samba, 2011). The third company that was interviewed was Savola Holding Company, which is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and is engaged in the food industry. Through subsidiary companies, Savola is engaged in the manufacturing of vegetable oils, dairy products and food retailing operations both in Saudi Arabia and other international markets. Due to strict confidentiality of the companies interviewed, the names of the people will not be mentioned or their titles. This was the most important condition in order to conduct these interviews.Each of the three companies has been involved in significant mergers. NCB's most significant merger was when it acquired a Turkish bank, Turkiye Finans Katilm Bank in 2008.Samba's most significant merger was its acquisition of Cairo Bank in 1 999. Savola's most significant acquisition was its acquisition of Al-Marai in 1 991.NCB has engaged in four mergers overall and three international mergers. In addition to its acquisition of the Turkish bank, it acquired Estate Capital Holdings, The Capital Partnership Group Limited and NCB Capital. The acquisition oftheTurkish bank was considered its most successful acquisition because it allowed NCB to expand into a new international market with strong growth.While NCB does not consider any of its acquisitions to be a failure, it has recognized losses through goodwill impairment, even in the Turkish bank acquisition. Samba's most prominent M8<A has been with Cairo bank of Egypt.Savola has engaged in about 10 mergers including a few international mergers. It considers its acquisition of Panda (a supermarket chain) in 1998 to be its most successful because it allowed Savola to gain a major presence in the food retailing market and increases revenues significantly. Savola has had a couple of mergers that it considered to be failures. One such example was when it acquired a real estate company in Jordan. This company was outside Savola's core business and outside its home country. Savola's learning from this failure was not to invest outside its core business in a foreign country as there was no ability to create any value through this merger and it was investing in a country that it did not know as well as its home country. Another failed merger occurred when it acquired an edible oil company in Kazakhstan. This merger failed because even though the acquired company had good fundamentals, the value creation mechanisms were quite different between the two companies.Strategic motivations for mergers were discussed with the companies and Samba provided details. One motivation is to increase lines of business. Another motivation is to move into a new geographic area. In many cases when expanding into a new country, it is easier to acquire an existing business than try to start a new one. Another motivation is to increase market share.Particularly in a mature industry, a company can gain market share quickly through an acquisition, while it is usually a slow process to gain market share organically in an incremental manner.All the companies tried to achieve company growth and synergy in their mergers.The criteria and selection process for mergers were also discussed with the companies. Savola worked with financial institutions to identify acquisition target companies. Savola looked for companies that were among the leaders in their respective markets. Savola believed that companies that were leaders generally had good processes and were well managed, so their operations would be good to acquire. After the failed merger with the real estate company, Savola looked to acquire companies related to its core food manufacturing and sales business. All companies obviously reviewed financial statements closely to assess the financial condition of the acquired firm. Samba noted that sometimes in the banking and financial industry, strong banks will acquire banks that are in a weak financial condition in a rescue operation, often due to political reasons. In reviewing candidates for a merger, Savola engages its operations and technical team to assess the target company's operation, processes and potential fit into the business group.The three interviewed companies use various metrics to evaluate the success of the merger. Savola evaluates the revenue growth of the sector where the acquisition occurred along with the market share and operating cost. The goals are to increase revenue,increase market share or reduce operating cost. Samba evaluated similar metrics of market share and operating cost.Samba noted that it usually takes until the second year after a merger to evaluateits success. In the first year, there are onetime costs associated with integration costs of the merger. It usually takes until the second year to see reduced operating costs from activities such as closing and consolidating branches.The different ways to obtain synergy in a merger were discussed with the companies. Savola looked to obtain synergy through economies of scale, as acquisitions would add to the company's shipment volume, which would allow the company to reduce freight and distribution costs. Samba also looked to obtain synergy through economies of scale and eliminating the duplication of activities. When it acquired Cairo bank, which had previously acquired United Saudi Commercial Bank, Samba was able to cut costs in Saudi Arabia by reducing the number of bank branches and ATMs. NCB was able to gain financial synergies in its mergers by developing a more diversified and lower risk portfolio ofinvestments.From the responses to the questions included in the structured interview, thefollowing findings can be highlighted:A.Mergers to Expand to International Markets:One finding is that firms undertake some mergers to expand into new international markets. In doing so they are gaining the synergy of the acquired firm's knowledge of the market. In these cases, the acquiring firm saves the costs of starting up a business in the new country, gaining the necessary approvals, learning how to do business successfully in the market and building a brand in the country. This is especially true in the bank and finance industry, where the industry is closely regulated. It can be easier to acquire a company that already has all of the necessary regulatory approvals as opposed to trying to gain all of the necessary approvals to conduct business legally in the selected market. Also, building a brand is important in the banking industry, as consumers and commercial customers prefer to do business with a trusted firm. In these mergers, synergy can be gained through the acquired firm's knowledge of the market and the acquiring firm's capital. The new infusion of capital can often allow the acquired firm to grow in the market. The NCB acquisition of the Turkish bank is a good example of this type of synergy.Even when a firm acquires a company within their own market there is the chance to create synergies through knowledge gained and transferred. In many cases, the acquired firm has certain processes in some areas that are better than the acquiring firm, so selecting the best process allows the merged firm to improve its overall processes. Also, the acquiring company usually has some processes that are better than the acquired firm's processes in some areas, which allows the company to improve the newly acquired operations. As noted by Samba in its interview, the goal is to utilize the optimum processes from both companies to produce synergy from the merger.B.Mergers to Gain Economies of Scale:Firms also seek and gain synergies through economies of scale. Larger businesses can often gain economies in certain business activities including manufacturing, distribution and sales. One of the goals of Samba's mergers was to gain synergies through economies of scale. In their mergers, Savola hoped to gain economies of scale in shipping and distribution activities. Economies of scale can also be achieved in the banking industry since the cost of processing checks or issuing credit cards is likely to decline on a per unit basis with increasing volume; therefore the fixed cost associated with these activities can be spread over a larger volume. The result is reduced costs, which makes the merged firm more profitable and more competitive in the market.C.Eliminating Inefficiencies:Another way to achieve synergy is through elimination of inefficiencies. Removing the duplication of resources can eliminate inefficiencies. In horizontal mergers, it is common for the merged company to consolidate operations, close offices and reduce staff. Samba mentioned that reducing the number of bank branches, ATMs and staff was one of the ways that they drove cost efficiencies after acquiring Cairo Bank. Samba also provided the insight that there is a delay for these cost efficiencies to show up in financial performance, since it takes time to remove the duplication of resources involved and there are one-time costs associated with removing the duplication of resources. The official also pointed out that the success or failure of a merger should not be evaluated until at least two years after the merger.D.Gain More Market Power:Firms also try to achieve synergies through an increase in market power, by controlling a larger share of the market. Discussions with all respondents implied increasing market share to be one of the motivations to enter into a merger. Savola and Samba both mentioned increasing market share as a way to judge the success of a merger. Greater market power can improve profitability through a couple of mechanisms. One such mechanism is greater monopoly pricing power in the market, which allows firms to increase prices due to reduced competition. This is one reason that major mergers have to be approved by government regulators who s objective is to maintain a competitive market. A second mechanism is increased buyer power over suppliers. Since the merged firm represents a greater portion of an industry's business, suppliers to the industry want the merged firm's business more, which gives the merged firm better negotiating power over suppliers. This allows the merged firm to reduce its costs and increase it profits. However, a strategic perspective could be on the supplier side as Porter (1 998) identifies that the stronger the company becomes the weaker the supplier becomes thus reducing their bargaining power.E.Gain Growth:Growth is one of the main reasons that firms undertake mergers, as this was mentioned by all of the companies interviewed. Companies seek growth through mergers because it can allow them to gain market power, which generally leads to increased profits. Mergers are also a way to satisfy investors'/shareholders' expectations for growth. In many cases, itis difficult to grow a business in a mature market organically, so mergers are often the best way to achieve growth.Samba provided a perspective on the use of acquisitions as a growth strategy. Samba believed that within the same industry organic growth was less expensive than growth through acquisition because a premium had to be paid for another company's operations in the same industry. Samba believed that when trying to expand into a different industry, growth through acquisition was less expensive than organic growth because the firm had no knowledge or expertise in the new industry. Samba used this philosophy when formulating their strategic growth plans. If the company simply wanted to expand within their current industry, the focus would be on organic growth initiatives, whereas if the company wanted to grow by expanding into new industries, the focus would be on acquisitions.F.Reducing RisksFirms can gain synergies by reducing their overall risk through diversification and reducing their cost of capital. Generally, this is a weak form of synergy and prone to failures because it often entails firms moving into businesses outside of their core competencies. The businesses are then run without the knowledge of how to run a business successfully in that market. This leads to operational losses or subpar performance in the industry, which negates any synergistic gains from reducing the company's overall risk.This was experienced by Savola, who acquired a real estate company, which was outside its core business of the food market. Consequently, the acquired real estate business produced subpar performance and losses, which negated any gains from reducing risk. Thus, the merger was considered to be a failure because it reduced the overall value of the firm. Due to the difficulties of creating financial synergies through diversification, there are few conglomerate mergers and few conglomerate companies.The companies interviewed look for synergies when considering mergers and try to estimate the potential synergistic gains that could be attained in a proposed merger. The potential synergies gained depend on the industry and the characteristics of the company acquired. In the failed mergers, the firm overestimated the amount of synergy that could be gained through the merger. Savola overestimated the synergy that could be gained through the acquisition of a real estate company because the only synergy that could be gained was。

外文翻译Value creation and destruction incross-border acquisitions: an empirical analysis of foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms Material Source:Strategic Management JournalAuthor:Anju Seth,Kean P. Song and R. Richardson PettitWe conduct an investigation of the sources of gains and losses in cross-border acquisitions in light of different motives for undertaking these transactions: synergy-seeking, managerialism and hubris. We find that the data are consistent with the expectation that multiple sources of value creation exist in synergistic cross-border acquisitions: asset sharing, reverse internalization of valuable intangible assets, and financial diversification. Gains accrue to bidder firm shareholders only for the least fungible of these sources of gains, i.e., reverse internalization. For valuedestroying acquisitions that are expected to be driven by managerialism, we find that the data are consistent with only one of the sources of value destruction that we examine, i.e., risk reduction. In these acquisitions, the evidence also suggests that the relative size of the target to the bidder mitigates the negative effects of risk reduction. Our results underscore the importance of considering the implications of alternative behavioral assumptions in empirical strategy content research.The last decade has witnessed a surge of takeover activity by foreign firms of U.S. corporations.For example, W. T. Grimm’s 2000 Mergerstat Review reports that the number of these acquisitions (for brevity, we refer to these as crossborder acquisitions1) increased from 197 to 959 in the 15-year period between 1985 and 1999, and their value increased from $10.9 billion to $272.1 billion. Cross-border acquisitions accounted for 6 percent of takeover activity in the United States in 1985; by 1999, this share rose to 19 per cent.In light of the burgeoning importance of the phenomenon, recent research in the strategy, international business, and finance fields has attempted to describe and explain various aspects of this activity. The research indicates that the average crossborder acquisition reflects an increase of about 7.5 percent in the value of the combined firms relative to their preacquisition value (see Eun , Kolodny, and Scheraga, 1996; Seth, Song, and Pettit, 2000). However, there is limited evidence onwhy these value increases characterize crossborder acquisitions, i.e., what sources of economic value underlie these transactions. Clearly, addressing these questions would entail a consideration of not only how and why acquisitions (in general) create value but also the unique characteristics of cross-border acquisitions. In addition, there are significant complexities associated with the empirical examination of explanations for cross-border takeover activity.In previous research, one common empirical approach involves estimating the excess returns that accrue to U.S. targets of cross-border acquisitions, or to the foreign bidders, and examining whether these returns are systematically associated with factors representing different theories of FDI. For example, Harris and Ravenscraft (1991) found that gains to targets in cross-border acquisitions are systematically associated with exchange rate effects, but not with marketing, R&D intensity or tax regime effects. Cebenoyan, Papaioannou, and Travlos (1992) found some evidence for exchange rates, tax regimes and high technology to explain target gains, but concluded that the intensity of foreign acquisition activity in the target’s industry is the most important explanation of the difference in wealth gains between foreign and domestic takeovers of U.S. firms. In their investigation of gains to foreign bidders, Cakici, Hessel, and Tandon(1996) found significant effects for a country factor. Other factors such as exchange rate effects,R&D intensity, and tax effects did not appear to be associated with bidder returns. However, asCakici, Hessel, and Tandon indicated, this evidence is merely suggestive: to understand the sources of gains in cross-border acquisitions, it is necessary to examine the total wealth gains in these acquisitions, i.e., the combined gains to matched pairs of targets and acquirers (e.g., Bradley, Desai, and Kim, 1988; Seth, 1990b).Following this approach, Eun et al. (1996) examined the association between variables that proxy for different sources of gains with the total gains to the combined firm. Contrary to their expectations, there was no effect for variables capturing relatedness, exchange rates, tax regimes, and prior experience of the acquirer in the United States. Although they characterized their overall findings as ‘limited,’ Eun et al. did find some evidence to suggest that ‘reverse internalization’is an important source of synergy for their sample of cross-border acquisitions.We note that the Eun et al. (1996) methodology contains the implicit assumption that the synergy hypothesis characterizes all acquisitions in the sample: managers are assumed to make decisions with the objective of building the economic value of the firm and to have the cognitive capability to create economic value. However,Seth et al. (2000) (henceforth referred to as SSP) explicitly consider whether or not this assumption is in fact supported by the empirical evidence.Specifically, SSP (2000) examine the extent to which cross-border acquisitions are characterized by the synergy hypothesis vs. the managerialism hypothesis and the hubris hypothesis. The managerialism motive suggests that managers of acquiring firms embark on acquisitions to maximize theirown utility at the expense of the shareholders of the firm. The hubris hypothesis suggests that bidding firm managers make mistakes in evaluating target firms, but undertake acquisitions presuming that their valuations are correct. SSP (2000) find that the synergy hypothesis is the primary explanation for value-increasing acquisitions, although the hubris hypothesis appears to coexist with the synergy for this sample. Value-reducing acquisitions appear to be primarily driven by managerialism rather than hubris.In light of the above, the motivation for this study is as follows. We conjecture that the assumption that the synergy hypothesis homogeneously characterizes all acquisitions in the sample may underlie the weak and mixed results of previous studies on the sources of gains in cross-border acquisitions. As Hatten and Schendel (1977) and Bass, Cattin, and Wittink (1978) point out, cross-sectional regression methodology assumes that the relationships of interest are homogeneous across all firms in the sample.However, if there are a variety of behavioral motives that underlie cross-border acquisition activity, this assumption is likely to be violated, and the empirical results from a regression analysis become difficult to interpret. For example, internalization in the presence of market frictions is an important theoretical explanation of synergistic gains in cross-border acquisitions (but one that has received surprisingly little empirical support). If an empirical test of this hypothesis is conducted by regressing a proxy for internalization on total gains for the full sample, it may well be that no systematic pattern is revealed if in fact a significant proportion of the sample is characterized by value destruction rather than value creation.This paper describes our investigation of the sources of gains in cross-border acquisitions wherein we consider different underlying behavioral assumptions regarding decision-making. Specifically, in light of the results reported by SSP (2000), we distinguish empirically among crossborder acquisitions that are likely to be characterized by the synergy hypothesis, the managerialism hypothesis, and the hubris hypothesis. For each of these types of acquisitions, we examine the relativeimportance of different sources of value creation and sources of value destruction. The specific research questions that we investigate are:1.What is the role of various sources of economic gains in explaining value creation in synergistic cross-border acquisitions?2.What is the role of various sources of economic losses in explaining value destruction in crossborder acquisitions that are driven by managerialism?3.What is the relationship between returns to bidding firms and the various sources of economic gains/losses?To answer these questions, our study examines a sample of 100 acquisitions by foreign firms of U.S. corporations that took place over the 10- year period between 1981 and 1990.In the next section of the paper, we describe the theoretical background of the study, explain the sources of gains and losses in cross-border acquisitions, and present testable hypotheses. The following sections contain our sample and methodology, and our results. The final section presents our conclusions, and suggestions for additional research.We see our study as contributing to the current literature in at least three important ways.First, it integrates the critical interfirm governance choice relating to alliances and acquisitions. We find it intriguing that despite the recognition that alliances and acquisitions are two alternative governance structures that firms can use to achieve many similar strategic goals, it would appear that firms rarely take this into consideration when they combine resources with other firms. In a recent survey of 200 U.S. firms (Dyer et al., 2004), 82 percent of companies viewed acquisitions and alliances as two alternative ways of achieving the same growth goals, but only 24 percent considered an alliance option when making their most recent acquisition. Moreover, only 14 percent of companies developed specific policy guidelines or criteria for choosing between forming an alliance with and acquiring a potential partner. As a result, firms may be choosing suboptimal interfirm governance structures when combining resources. Similarly, strategy and organizational researchers, while cognizant of the promise and the pitfalls of alliances and acquisitions, have conducted surprisingly little research that considers what factors might tip the cost–benefit relationship toward one governance structure over the other.Second, this study represents the first study known to us that looks beyond the focal firm to evaluate the dyadic factors that lead two specific firms to choose anacquisition vs. an alliance when combining resources. The focal-firm perspective has been the ‘dominant logic’ for research on formation of alliances or occurrences of acquisitions, as well as the choice between the two. We have sought to contribute to the current literature by complementing the focal-firm perspective with one that emphasizes how the governance choice of resource combination of two firms can be determined by the characteristics of both firms. We see this as a particularly valuable analysis when two firms have different preferences for governance structures.Finally, this study can be used as a basis for extending two of the most prominent focal-firm theories in the strategic management field. Specifically, our approach extends the theoretical sphere of applicability of both the resource-based and knowledge-based theories of the firm, insofar as we are showing how these theories can be usefully elevated from the focal-firm level to the higher level of analysis, i.e., the level of the dyadic interfirm relationship. Given the explosive growth of alliances and acquisitions among paired firms as vehicles for their joint strategic business development, and given the importance of these two theories in the strategy field, it would be regrettable if the applicability of these two theories was limited to a focal-firm (i.e., a one-sided) analysis.We show that the value of resources and knowledge cannot be assessed only at a focal-firm level, since such value depends in part on the match of such resources and knowledge with those resources and knowledge held by specific potential partners.译文跨国并购的创造价值和摧毁作用：美国公司国外购并的经验统计分析法资料来源:战略管理作者：安吉赛斯.基恩.宋,理查森.皮提特在跨国并购中依不同动机，如协同主义,管理主义和自大主义进行这些交易，我们对这些交易进行调查，来搞清楚利润和损失的来源。

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。

M & Financial AnalysisCorporate mergers and acquisitions have become a major form of capital operation. Enterprise use of this mode of operation to achieve the capital cost of the external expansion of production and capital concentration to obtain synergies, enhancing competitiveness, spread business plays a very important role. M & A process involves a lot of financial problems and solve financial problems is the key to successful mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, it appears in merger analysis of the financial problems to improve the efficiency of M & Finance has an important practical significance.A financial effect resulting from mergers and acquisitions1. Saving transaction costs. M & A market is essentially an alternative organization to realize the internalization of external transactions, as appropriate under the terms of trade, business organizations, the cost may be lower than in the market for the same transaction costs, thereby reducing production and operation the transaction costs.2. To reduce agency costs. When the business separation of ownership and management, because the interests of corporate management and business owners which resulted in inconsistencies in agency costs, including all contract costs with the agent, the agent monitoring and control costs. Through acquisitions or agency competition, the incumbent managers of target companies will be replaced, which can effectively reduce the agency costs.3. Lower financing costs. Through mergers and acquisitions, can expand the size of the business, resulting in a common security role. In general, large companies easier access to capital markets, large quantities they can issue shares or bonds. As the issue of quantity, relatively speaking, stocks or bonds cost will be reduced to enable enterprises to lower capital cost, refinancing.4. To obtain tax benefits. M & A business process can make use of deferredtax in terms of a reasonable tax avoidance, but the current loss of business as a profit potential acquisition target, especially when the acquiring company is highly profitable, can give full play to complementary acquisitions both tax advantage. Since dividend income, interest income, operating income and capital gains tax rate difference between the large mergers and acquisitions take appropriate ways to achieve a reasonable financial deal with the effect of tax avoidance.5. To increase business value. M & A movement through effective control of profitable enterprises and increase business value. The desire to control access to the right of the main business by trading access to the other rights owned by the control subjects to re-distribution of social resources. Effective control over enterprises in the operation of the market conditions, for most over who are in competition for control of its motives is to seek the company's market value and the effective management of the condition should be the difference between the market value.Second, the financial evaluation of M & ABefore merger, M & A business goal must be to evaluate the financial situation of enterprises, in order to provide reliable financial basis for decision-making. Evaluate the enterprise's financial situation, not only in the past few years, a careful analysis of financial reporting information, but also on the acquired within the next five years or more years of cash flow and assets, liabilities, forecast.1. The company liquidity and solvency position is to maintain the basic conditions for good financial flexibility. Company's financial flexibility is important, it mainly refers to the enterprises to maintain a good liquidity for timely repayment of debt. Good cash flow performance in a good income-generating capacity and funding from the capital market capacity, but also the company's overall Profitability, Profitability is the size of which can be company's overall business conditions and competition prospects come to embody. Specific assessment, the fixed costs to predict the total expenditures and cash flow trends, the fixed costs and discretionary spendingis divided into some parts of constraints, in order to accurately estimate the company's working capital demand in the near future, on the accounts receivable turnover and inventory turnover rate of the data to be reviewed, should include other factors that affect financial flexibility, such as short-term corporate debt levels, capital structure, the higher the interest rate of Zhaiwu relatively specific weight.2. Examine the financial situation of enterprises also have to assess the potential for back-up liquidity. When the capital market funding constraints, poor corporate liquidity, the liquidity of the capital assessment should focus on the study of the availability of back-up liquidity, the analysis of enterprise can get the cash management, corporate finance to the outside world the ability to sell convertible securities can bring the amount of available liquidity. In the analysis of various sources of financing enterprises, the enterprises should pay particular attention to its lenders are closely related to the ease of borrowing, because once got in trouble, helpless to the outside world, those close to the lending institutions are likely to help businesses get rid of dilemma. Others include convertible securities are convertible at any time from the stock market into cash, to repay short-term corporate debt maturity.3 Determination of M & A transaction priceM & M price is the cost of an important part of the target company's value is determined based on M & A prices, so enterprises in M & Juece O'clock on targeted business Jinxing scientific, objective value of Ping Gu, carefully Xuanze acquisition Duixiang to Shi Zai market competition itself tide in an invincible position. Measure of the value of the target company, generally adjusted book value method, market value of comparative law, price-earnings ratio method, discounted cash flow method, income approach and other methods.1. The book value adjustment method. Net balance sheet shall be the company's book value. However, to assess the true value of the target company must also be on the balance sheet items for the necessary adjustments. On the one hand, on the asset should be based on market prices and the depreciation of fixed assets,business claims in reliability, inventory, marketable securities and changes in intangible assets to adjust. On liabilities subject to detailed presentation of its details for the verification and adjustment. M & A for these items one by one consultations, the two sides, both sides reached an acceptable value of the company. Mainly applied to the simple acquisition of the book value and market value of the deviation from small non-listed companies.2. The market value of comparative law. It is the stock market and the target company's operating performance similar to the recent average trading price, estimated value of the company as a reference, while analysis and comparison of reference of the transaction terms, compared to adjust, according to assessment to determine the value of the target company. However, application of this method requires a fully developed, active trading market. And a subjective factors and more by market factors, the specific use of time should be cautious. Mainly applied to improve the market system in the acquisition of listed companies.3. PE method. It is based on earnings and price-earnings ratio target companies to determine the value of the method. The expression is: target = target enterprise value of the business income × PE. Where PE (price earnings ratio) can choose when the target company's price-earnings ratio M, with the target company's price-earnings ratio of comparable companies or the target company in which the industry average price-earnings ratio. Corporate earnings targets and the target company can choose the after-tax income last year, the last 3 years, the average after-tax income, or ex post the expected after-tax earnings target company as a valuation indicator. This method is easy to understand and easy to apply, but its earnings targets and price-earnings ratio is very subjective determination, therefore, this valuation may bring us a great risk. This method is suitable for the stock market a better market environment, a more stable business enterprise.5. Income approach. It is the company expected future earnings discounted using appropriate discount rate to assess the present value of the base date, and thus determine the value of the company's assessment. Income approach in principle, thatis the reason why the acquirer acquired the target company, taking into account the target company can generate revenue for themselves, if the company's returns, but the purchase price will be high. Therefore, according to the company level can bring benefits to determine the value of the company is scientific and reasonable way. The use of this method must have two conditions: First, assess the company's future earnings are to be predicted, and can predict the basic income guarantee and the possibility of a reasonable amount; second, and enterprises to obtain expected benefits associated with future risk can be invaluable, and can provide convincing evidence. When the purpose is to use M & A target long-term management and enterprise resources, then use the income approach is suitable.Activities in mergers and acquisitions, M & A business through the acquisition of a variety of financing sources of funds needed. M & M financing enterprises in financing before the deal with a variety of M & A comprehensive analysis and evaluation, to select the best financing channels. M & A financing from the actual situation analysis, M & A financing is divided into internal financing and external financing. Internal financing is an enterprise to use their own accumulated profits to pay for acquisitions. However, due to the amount of funds required for mergers and acquisitions are often very large, and limited internal resources, after all, the use of M & A business operating cash flow to finance significant limitations, the internal financing generally not as the main channel for financing mergers and acquisitions. Of external financing is divided into debt financing, equity financing and hybrid financing.Channels of financing the actual response to determine their capital structure analysis, if the acquisition of their funds sufficient, using its own funds is undoubtedly the best choice; if the business debt rate has been high, as far as possible should be financed without an increase to equity of companies debt financing. However, if the business prospects for the future, can also increase the debt financing, in order to ensure all future benefits enjoyed by the existing shareholders.Whether M & A business development and expansion as a means or aninevitable result of market competition, will play an important stage in the socio-economic role. As an important participant in M & A and policy-makers, from the financial rational behavior on M & A analysis and selection of the same time, also taking into account the market, and management elements that will lead the enterprise's decision making provide the most effective Xin Xi .企业并购财务问题分析企业并购已成为企业资本运营的一种主要形式。

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Mergers and Acquisitions出处：The National Interest—Summer200作者：Richard Rosecrance原文：Mergers and Acquisitions.------------------------------------Richard RosecranceTalk about empire has become a cliche. Historians and economists busy themselves comparing America's contemporary rolewith Rome, Napoleonic Erance and imperial Britain. They assume that empire is the only model for a state seeking to project power and influence—ignoring alternatives from the business world. After all, businesses confront many of the same difficulties that states face. When competitors emerge, firms undergo pressure. A corporation may reduce the cost of its products by cutting the costs of raw materials and labor, increasing sales and finding new technological fixes—just as a state might try to increase economic growth, enhance productivity or develop new weapons systems. But if a company reaches the Hmits of its economic market, it may consider a merger with like-minded companies to cope with a competitor.States reaching the limits of their viability as self-sufficient actors can adopt merger strategies, too. Indeed, to preserve its global influence throughout the course of the 21st century, this is a path the United States must consider.Why do companies pursue mergers? Mergers give companies greater flexibility.They achieve greater scale without increasing production. If new products are involved in the merger, a combined firm can avoid anti-trust problems. Larger scale allows a company to maintain its position in the industry. Usually it can invest innew products, run higher advertising budgets and sometimes achieve lower prices. A large producer can get raw materials at reduced cost. Wal-Mart, the contemporary exemplar of corporate expansion, has not shrunk from plunging into new markets and cutting prices—thereby forcing the merger between K-Mart and Sears. Now Gillette is combining with Proctor and Gamble to offset Wal-Mart's domination in the household sector. Verizon's success in communications is provoking a connection between Nextel and Sprint, and Verizon is in turn seeking to acquire MCI. Oracle and PeopleSoft are merging to counter SAP in enterprise software. Hewlettt-Packard merged with Compaq to match Dell Computer's gains and is open to new merger strategies. Mergers give nations similar advantages in flexibility,and of course nations do not face antitrust problems.Wha t are mergers among states? They are arrangements that combine political leaderships to project greater power and influence in the world at large. A new superstate is not necessarily created.Countries retain separate governments and legislatures. Internal elections and democracy continue. But merged nations also accept a common code of behavior that their electorates sustain. They create merged bureaucracies and common decision-making councils that give effect to their unity. Approval by democratic publics lends credibility to the merger commitment on all sides. The European Union, for example, has developed such institutions and has now become a merged entity of 25 states that boasts a population of 450 million and a combined GDP of over $12 trillion.In the past, nation-states were usually content to form alliances forged through the balance of power. Ententes offered quick expedients in crises. Some arrangements, such as NATO, have endured even when the reason for their existence has passed. But even the most successful alliances face difficulties when situations change. In addition, alliances are vulnerable to public-goods problems. Why shouldn't countries "free-ride", letting someone else take the lead in opposing an aggressor? Within alliances, there are always attempts to shift burdens on to someone else, as NATO itself demonstrated. Thus, alliance ties may attenuate or become ineffective. The Franco-Russian alliance did not prevent Hitler from rewriting the map of easternEurope. The Little Entente did not guarantee help for Czechoslovakia from either France or Britain when the German dictator upped the ante in 1938. Stalin's non-aggression treaty with Hitler did not prevent the German attack of June 22, 1941. Though allies rarely attack one another, typical alliances represent a temporary confluence of interest between parties which rests on shifting historical sands. The legal requirement—rebus sic stantibus, things remaining the same—may not always obtain.Mergers among states are a different kettle of fish and have advantages over alliances. Because they are negotiated on the basis of contractual commitment and intended long-term relationships, they are not as vulnerable to public-goods problems. Instead, interstate mergers provide"club goods"—benefits that only members can enjoy. They emerge as much from historic commonalties as they do from oppositions. Common ideologies and democratic ideas solidify the union. Furthermore, one country cannot politically subsume another, and peoples of the merged states must agree before the union takes place. In fact, political mergers are in some ways more permanent than their industrial counterparts. hewlett-Packard may sell Compaq. Time-Warner may jettison AOL. In contrast, the European Union reluctantly allowed Norway to opt out while sustaining its other membership commitments. The upcoming national ratifications of the new European constitution could go awry, but ultimately they would be repeated and reaffirmed, just as Ireland's acceptance of Maastricht was years ago. State mergers still retain an open-ended flexibility. They are partial and not complete. Other states may join. Participating nations retain sovereignty. Coordination of policy frequently remains incomplete.Still, mergers forge a relation among erstwhile nation-states that is stronger than alliances and much more enduring than ententes. Mergers are also superior to the imperial bond. Imperialism is based on force and ultimately on the capitulation of the desired colony. State mergers are sanctioned by the parties involved. Nor are mergers vulnerable to the upsand downs of the balance of power, with participants changing sides as power trends alter. Sustained by democratic ideas, political mergers have a kind of irrevesibility.And war between merged units is unthinkable. In the European case, merger has ruled out military conflict between two long-time enemies, France and Germany. The Roman Empire collapsed because subordinate units were unequally treated and excluded from some of its benefits and Rome could not militarily discipline them. The returns from invasions did not rise to cover increasing military costs. This disproportion was axiomatic, as it was in the British rule of India. Political mergers—based on equality—confront no such problems.Thus, a Pax Americana is only one response—and an entirely disproportionate one at that—to a foreshadowed inadequacy in power. Farsighted corporations would aim instead to find a merger candidate to remedy the insufficiency. So should nations.The Problem of ChinaThe greatest long-term foreign policy problem facing both the United States and the European Union is what to do with China two decades from now. During that time, China's economic growth will likelyoutstrip that of both powers, though India will also emerge as a major industrial competitor. It is too early to do anything at the moment. China is still an authoritarian nation though its economy is moving in a liberal direction and it may be undergo political change. Democratic or not, Beijing's economic growth will likely foreshadow a hegemonic shift in the leadership of the international system just as did the emergence of imperial Germany in 1871-1914.The question is whether China will follow Bismarckian policies and forego expansionist aims. Bismarck tied Germany up into a series of pacts, limiting its future options and foregoing all but the tidbits of empire. He did not question French or British imperial primacy overseas. Nor did he build a German navy to offset British naval primacy, although bythe end of the 19st century, Germany's growth surpassed that of Britain. Had Bismarck's successors continued these self-limiting policies, there would have been no challenge to England, no rebuff to France, and World War I might have been avoided. As late as 1907, Sir Eyre Crowe of the British Foreign Office was willing to accept German growth that did not involve territorial expansion in the center of Europe. The rise of the United States is another example of growth that didnot overturn the status quo or threaten established powers. Even though Washington emerged from the First World War with the world's secondlargest navy. Great Britain did not long view the United States as a primary opponent. As a democratic country distant from Britain, the United States did not threaten British purposes in Europe orinitially in the empire. China, of course, is not democratic, but neither was Germany when it laid down its self-limiting regime. Then or now, no country has declared war on another simply because of the latter's growth rate. Thus, the key to the future is not Chinese growth but what Beijing does with it. The upshot is that power transitions have taken place without war in the past, and they can do so again.The balance of power may make this transition easier. If the new leader of the system confronts a series of like-minded balancers, the difference in power between the top two states may not be allimportant even though no new mergers take place. Short of mergers, a counterbalancing coalition may link India and Japan with the United States. China's growth will affect those nations as directly as it will America. Thus, Chinese primacy may not translate into the power to expand regionally or internationally.The need to formally balance China's relative strength may not arise, however. An American merger with Europe would create an unbreakable combination that provides similar size and scale as corporate mergers do today. If China becomes the Wal-Mart of world politics, the United States and Europe can do better than Sears and K-Mart. Their union would overshadow Chinese growth and size, and it would accommodate other rising nations as well. For the United States to find a merger partner to offset China, America must deepen its ties to Europe. Only a growing combination of the United States and Europe would be sufficient to offset the dynamic power of China over the long term. By themselves, neither the American nor the European growth rate will match China's. Corporations would know what to do in such circumstances, but states are only now becoming aware of the need for combination.China will not remain immobile as Europe and the United States begin tomerge their foreign policy fortunes. Beijing will turn to neighboring states for support, perhaps negotiating a special trade bloc with Japan, Korea and Southeast Asian states.Beijing might seek tofashion a new currency link among the renminbi, the yen and the won to prevent the dollar's slide from exporting inflation into Far Eastern economies. As China sells more to its own consumers and less to the outside world, a fixed relationship to the U.S. dollar will in any event be less important. At some point China will raise the value of the renminbi to take the economic pressure off its trade relationship with the United States and Europe.译文：兼并与收购关于帝国的报道已经是陈词滥调。

外文文件Mergers and Acquisitions Basics :All You Need To KnowIntroduction to Mergers and AcquisitionsThe first decade of the new millennium heralded an era of globalmega-mergers. Like the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) frenzy of the1980s and 1990s, several factors fueled activity through mid-2007: readily available credit, historically low interest rates, rising equity markets, technological change, global competition, and industry consolidation. In terms of dollar volume, M&A transactions reached a record level worldwide in 2007. But extended turbulence in the global credit markets soon followed.The speculative housing bubble in the United States and elsewhere, largely financed by debt, burst during the second half of the year. Banks, concerned about the value of many of their own assets, became exceedingly selective and largely withdrew from financing the highly leveraged transactions that had become commonplace the previous year. The quality of assets held by banks through out Europe and Asia also became suspect, reflecting the global nature of the credit markets. Ascredit dried up, a malaise spread worldwide in the market for highly leveraged M&A transactions.By 2008, a combination of record high oil prices and a reduced availability of credit sent mo st of the world ’s economies into recession, reducing global M&A activity by more than one-third from its previoushigh. This global recession deepened during the first half of 2009—despite a dramatic drop in energy prices and highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies—extending the slump in M&A activity.In recent years, governments worldwide have intervened aggressively in global credit markets (as well as in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy) in an effort to restore business and consumer confidence, restore credit market functioning, and offsetdeflationary pressures. What impact have such actions had on mergersand acquisitions? It is too early to tell, but the implications may be significant.M&As are an important means of transferring resources to wherethey are most needed and of removing underperforming managers. Government decisions to save some firms while allowing others to failare likely to disrupt this process. Such decisions are often based on thenotion that some firms are simply too big to fail because of their potentialimpact on the economy—consider AIG in the United States. Others areclearly motivated by politics. Such actions disrupt the smooth functioningof markets, which rewards good decisions and penalizes poor ones.Allowing a business to believe that it can achieve a size“too big t o fail may create perverse incentives. Plus, there is very little historicalevidence that governments are better than markets at deciding who shouldfail and who should survive.In this chapter, you will gain an understanding of the underlyingdynamics of M&As in the context of an increasingly interconnectedworld. The chapter begins with a discussion of M&As as change agentsin the context of corporate restructuring. The focus is on M&As and whythey happen, with brief consideration given to alternative ways ofincreasing shareholder value. You will also be introduced to a variety oflegal structures and strategies that are employed to restructurecorporations.Throughout this book, a firm that attempts to acquire or merge withanother company is called an acquiring company , acquirer, or bidder.The target company or target is the firm being solicited by the acquiring company. Takeovers or buyouts are generic terms for a change in the controlling ownership interest of a corporation.Words in bold italics are the ones most important for you tounderstand fully;they are all included in a glossary at the end of the book. Mergers and Acquisitions as Change AgentsBusinesses come and go in a continuing churn, perhaps best illustratedby the ever-changing composition of the so-called Fortune 500—the 500 largest U.S. corporations. Only 70 of the firms on the original 1955 list of 500 are on today ’ s list, and some 2,000 firms have appeared iston atthe l one time or another. Most have dropped off the list either through merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, downsizing, or some other form of corporate restructuring. Consider a few examples: Chrysler, Bethlehem Steel, Scott Paper, Zenith, Rubbermaid, Warner Lambert. The popular media tends to use the term corporate restructuring to describe actions taken to expand or contract a firm ’ s basic operations or fundamentally change its asset or financial structure. ····················································SynergySynergy is the rather simplistic notion that two (or more) businesses in combination will create greater shareholder value than if they are operated separately. It may be measured as the incremental cash flow that can be realized through combination in excess of what would be realized were the firms to remain separate. There are two basic types of synergy: operating and financial.Operating Synergy (Economies of Scale and Scope)Operating synergy comprises both economies of scale and economies of scope, which can be important determinants of shareholder wealth creation. Gains in efficiency can come from either factor and from improved managerial practices.Spreading fixed costs over increasing production levels realizes economies of scale, with scale defined by such fixed costs as depreciation of equipment and amortization of capitalized software; normal maintenance spending; obligations such as interest expense, lease payments, and long-term union, customer, and vendor contracts; and taxes. These costs arefixed in that they cannot be altered in the short run.By contrast, variable costs are those that change with output levels. Consequently, for a given scale or amount of fixed expenses, the dollar value of fixed expenses per unit of output and per dollar of revenue decreases as output and sales increase.To illustrate the potential profit improvement from economies of scale, let ’consider an automobile plant that can assemble 10 cars per hour and runs around the clock —which means the plant produces 240 cars per day. The plant ’fixeds expenses per day are $1 million, so the average fixed cost per car produced is $4,167 (i.e., $1,000,000/240). Now imagine an improved assembly line that allows the plant t o assemble 20 cars per hour, or 480 per day. The average fixed cost per car per day falls to $2,083 (i.e., $1,000,000/480). If variable costs (e.g., direct labor) per car do not increase, and the selling price per car remains the same for each car, the profit improvement per car due to the decline in average fixed costs per car per day is $2,084 (i.e., $4,167–$2,083).A firm with high fixed costs as a percentage of total costs will have greater earnings variability than one with a lower ratio of fixed to total costs. Let ’consider two firms with annual revenues of $1 billion and operating profits of $50 million. The fixed costs at the first firm represent 100 percent of total costs, but at the second fixed costs are only half of all costs. If revenues at both firms increased by $50 million, the first firm would see income increase to $100 million, precisely because all of its costs are fixed. Income at the second firm would rise only to $75 million, because half of the $50 million increased revenue would h ave to go to pay for increased variable costs.Using a specific set of skills or an asset currently employed to produce a given product or service to produce something else realizes economies of scope, which are found most often when it is cheaper to combine multiple product lines in one firm than to produce them in separate firms. Procter & Gamble, the consumer products giant, uses its highly regarded consumer marketing skills to sell a full range of personalcare as well as pharmaceutical products. Honda knows how to enhanceinternal combustion engines, so in addition to cars, the firm develops motorcycles, lawn mowers, and snow blowers. Sequent Technology letscustomers run applications on UNIX and NT operating systems on asingle computer system. Citigroup uses the same computer center toprocess loan applications, deposits, trust services, and mutual fundaccounts for its bank customers’. Each is an example of economies ofscope, where a firm is applying a specific set of skills or assets toproduce or sell multiple products, thus generating more revenue.Financial Synergy (Lowering the Cost of Capital)Financial synergy refers to the impact of mergers and acquisitions on thecost of capital of the acquiring firm or newly formed firm resulting froma merger or acquisition. The cost of capital is the minimum returnrequired by investors and lenders to induce them to buy a firm ’ s s to lend to the firm.In theory, the cost of capital could be reduced if the merged firms havecash flows that do not move up and down in tandem (i.e., so-called co-insurance), realize financial economies of scale from lowersecurities issuance and transactions costs, or result in a better matchingof investment opportunities with internally generated funds. Combining afirm that has excess cash flows with one whose internally generated cashflow is insufficient to fund its investment opportunities may also result ina lower cost of borrowing. A firm in a mature industry experiencingslowing growth may produce cash flows well in excess of availableinvestment opportunities. Another firm in a high-growth industry may nothave enough cash to realize its investment opportunities. Reflecting theirdifferent growth rates and risk levels, the firm in the mature industry mayhave a lower cost of capital than the one in the high-growth industry, andcombining the two firms could lower the average cost of capital of thecombined firms.DiversificationBuying firms outside a company’currents primary lines of business iscalled diversification , and is typically justified in one of two ways. Diversification may create financial synergy that reduces the cost ofcapital, or it may allow a firm to shift its core product lines or marketsinto ones that have higher growth prospects, even ones that are unrelatedto the firm ’currents products or markets. The extent to which diversification is unrelated to an acquirer’s current lines of business canhave significant implications for how effective management is in operating the combined firms.··········································A firm facing slower growth in itscurrent markets may be able to accelerate growth through related diversification by selling its current products innew markets that are somewhat unfamiliar and, therefore, mor risky. Suchwas the case when pharmaceutical giant Johnson &Johnson announcedits ultimately unsuccessful takeover attempt of Guidant Corporation in late 2004. J&J was seeking an entry point for its medical devices business inthe fast-growing market for implantable devices, in which it did not then participate. A firm may attempt to achieve higher growth rates bydeveloping or acquiring new products with which it is relativelyunfamiliar and then selling them in familiar and less risky current markets. Retailer JCPenney ’ s acquisition of the Eckerd Drugstore chain or J&J$16 billion acquisition of Pfizer’s consumer health care products line in 2006 are two examples of related diversification. In each instance, thefirm assumed additional risk, but less so than unrelated diversification ifit had developed new products for sale in new markets. There is considerable evidence that investors do not benefit from unrelated diversification.Firms that operate in a number of largely unrelated industries, suchas General Electric, are called conglomerates. The share prices of conglomerates often trade at a discount—as much as 10 to 15 percent—compared to shares of focused firms or to their value were theybroken up. This discount is called the conglomerate discount or diversification discount. Investors often perceive companies diversifiedin unrelated areas (i.e., those in different standard industrial classifications) as riskier because management has difficulty understanding these companies and often fails to provide full funding forthe most attractive investment opportunities.Moreover, outside investorsmay have a difficult time understanding how to value the various parts ofhighly diversified businesses.Researchers differ on whether the conglomerate discount is overstated.Still, although the evidence suggests that firms pursuing a more focused corporate strategy are likely to perform best, there are always exceptions.Strategic RealignmentThe strategic realignment theory suggests that firms use M&As to makerapid adjustments to changes in their external environments. Althoughchange can come from many different sources, this theory considers only changes in the regulatory environment and technological innovation—two factors that, over the past 20 years, have been majorforces in creating new opportunities for growth, and threatening, or making obsolete, firms ’ primary lines of business.Regulatory ChangeThose industries that have been subject to significant deregulation inrecent years—financial services, health care, utilities, media, telecommunications, defense—have been at the center of M&A activitybecause deregulation breaks down artificial barriers and stimulates competition. During the first half of the 1990s, for instance, the U.S. Department of Defense actively encouraged consolidation of the nation ’s major defense contractors to improve their overall operating efficiency.Utilities now required in some states to sell power to competitorsthat can resell the power in the utility own’s marketplace respond withM&As to achieve greater operating efficiency. Commercial banks thathave moved beyond their historical role of accepting deposits and g ranting loans are merging with securities firms and insurance companies thanks to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed legislation dating back to the Great Depression.The Citicorp–Travelers merger a year earlier anticipated this change, and it is probable that their representatives were lobbying for the new legislation. The final chapter has yet t o be written: this trend toward huge financial services companies may yet be stymied by new regulation passed in 2010 in response to excessive risk taking.The telecommunications industry offers a striking illustration. Historically, local and long-distance phone companies were not allowed t o compete against each other, and cable companies were essentially monopolies. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, local and long-distance companies are actively encouraged to compete in eachother ’markets, and cable companies are offering both Internet access and local telephone service. When a federal appeals court in 2002 struck down a Federal Communications Commission regulation prohibiting a company from owning a cable television system and a broadcast TV station in the same city, and threw out the rule that barred a company from owning TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of U.S.households, it encouraged new combinations among the largest media companies or purchases of smaller broadcasters.Technological ChangeTechnological advances create new products and industries. The development of the airplane created the passenger airline, avionics, and satellite industries. The emergence of satellite delivery of cable networks t o regional and local stations ignited explosive growth in the cable industry. Today, with the expansion of broadband technology, we are witnessing the convergence of voice, data, and video technologies on the Internet. The emergence of digital camera technology has reduced dramatically the demand for analog cameras and film and sent householdnames such as Kodak and Polaroid scrambling to adapt. The growth ofsatellite radio is increasing its share of the radio advertising market atthe expense of traditional radio stations.Smaller, more nimble players exhibit speed and creativity many larger,more bureaucratic firms cannot achieve. With engineering talent often inshort supply and product life cycles shortening, these larger firms may nothave the luxury of time or the resources to innovate. So, they may look toM&As as a fast and sometimes less expensive way to acquire newtechnologies and proprietary know-how to fill gaps in their currentproduct portfolios or to enter entirely new businesses. Acquiring technologies can also be a defensive weapon to keep important new technologies out of the hands of competitors. In 2006, eBay acquiredSkype Technologies, the Internet phone provider, for $3.1 billion in cash, stock, and performance payments, hoping that the move would boosttrading on its online auction site and limit competitors’ access to the new technology. By September 2009, eBay had to admit that it had beenunable to realize the benefits of owning Skype and was selling thebusiness to a private investor group for $2.75 billion.Hubris and the“ Winner’ s Curse”Managers sometimes believe that their own valuation of a target firm is superior to the market’ s valuation. Thus, the acquiring company tends to overpay for the target, having been overoptimistic when evaluating petition among bidders also is likely to result in the winner overpaying because ofhubris , even if significant synergies are present.In an auction environment with bidders, the range of bids for a targetcompany is likely to be quite wide, because senior managers t end to bevery competitive and sometimes self-important. Their desire not to losecan drive the purchase price of an acquisition well in excess of its actual economic value (i.e., cash-generating capability). The winner pays morethan the company is worth and may ultimately feel remorse at havingdone so—hence what has come to be called thewinner ’s curse.Buying Undervalued Assets (The Q-Ratio)The q-ratio is the ratio of the market value of the acquiring firm ’s stock to the replacement cost of its assets. Firms interested in expansion can choose to invest in new plants and equipment or obtain the assets by acquiring a company with a market value less than what it would cost to replace the assets (i.e., q-ratio ＜1). This theory was very useful in explaining M&A activity during the 1970s, when high inflation and interest rates depressed stock prices well below the book value of many firms. High inflation also caused the replacement cost of assets to be much higher than the book value of assets. Book value refers to the value of assets listed on afirm ’s balance sheet and generally reflects the historical cost of acquiring such assets rather than their current cost.When gasoline refiner Valero Energy Corp. acquired Premcor Inc. in 2005, the $8 billion transaction created the largest refiner in North America. It would have cost an estimated 40 percent more for Valero to build a new refinery with equivalent capacity.Mismanagement (Agency Problems)Agency problems arise when there is a difference between the interests of incumbent managers (i.e., those currently managing the firm) and thefirm ’shareholders. This happens when management owns a small fraction of the outstanding shares of the firm. These managers, who serve as agents of the shareholder, may be more inclined to focus on their own job security and lavish lifestyles than on maximizing shareholder value. When the shares of a company are widely held, the cost of such mismanagement is spread across a large number of shareholders, eachof whom bears only a small portion. This allows for toleration of the mismanagement over long periods. Mergers often take place to correct situations in which there is a separation between what managers and owners (shareholders) want. Low stock prices put pressure on managersto take actions to raise the share price or become the target of acquirers, who perceive the stock to be undervalued and who are usually intent onremoving the underperforming management of the target firm.Agency problems also contribute to management-initiated buyouts, particularly when managers and shareholders disagree over how excess cash flow should be used.Managers may have access to information not readily available to shareholders and may therefore be able to convince lenders to provide funds to buy out shareholders and concentrate ownership in the hands of management.From: Donald DePamphilis. Mergers and acquisitions basics:All you need to know America :Academic Press. Oct，2010，P1-10外文文件中文翻译并购基础知识：全部你需要知道的并购新千年的第一个十年 , 预示着全世界大规模并购时代的到来。

企业并购财务风险控制外文文献翻译译文3100字Financial risk is one of the major XXX It refers to the risk of financial loss caused by the XXX in the value of assets。

The main types of financial risk in mergers and ns include credit risk。

interest rate risk。

exchange rate risk。

and liquidity risk。

Credit risk refers to the risk of default by the borrower。

while interest rate risk refers to the risk of XXX。

Exchange rate risk is the risk of XXX。

and liquidity risk refers to the risk of XXX.XXX。

it is XXX before the n。

including analyzing the financial status of the target company。

XXX。

and assessing the potential impact of interest rate and exchange rate XXX。

it is XXX a sound financial management system and XXX.1.2 Asset riskAsset risk refers to the risk of losses caused by the decline in the value of assets or the XXX the expected value of assets。