1、 PDF原文：http:/ 中文5045字 专业文献翻译 题 目 ： 资本成本公司财务和投资理论 概论 学 院 ： 国际商学院 &nb
2、sp; 专 业 ： 姓 名 ：
3、; 指导教师 ： 2010 年 4 月 5 日 The cost of Capital ， Corporation finance and the theory of investment
4、; By FRANCO MODIGLIAN1 AND MERTON H。 MILLER* What is the "cost of capital" to a firm in a world in which funds are used to acquire assets whose yields are uncertain； and in which capital can be obtained by ma
5、ny different media ， ranging from pure debt instruments ， representing money-fixed claims， to pure equity issues， giving holders only the right to a pro-rata share in the uncertain venture。 ? This question has vexed at least three classes of economists： (1) the corporat
6、ion finance specialist concerned with the techniques of financing firms so as to ensure their survival and growth； (2) the managerial economist concerned with capital budgeting ； and (3) the economic theorist concerned with explaining investment behavior at both the micro and macro level
7、s。 ' In much of his formal analysis， the economic theorist at least has tended to side-step the essence of this cost-of-capital problem by proceeding as though physical assets-like bonds-could be regarded as yielding known， sure streams。 Given this assumptio
8、n， the theorist has concluded that the cost of capital to the owners of a firm is simply the rate of interest on bonds； and has derived the familiar proposition that the firm， acting rationally， will tend to push investmnent to the point where the marginal yield on physical a
9、ssets is equal to the market rate of interest。 This proposition can be shown to follow from either of two criteria of rational decision-making which are equivalent under certainty， namely (1) the maximization of profits and (2) the maximization of market value。 Accord
10、ing to the first criterion， a physical asset is worth acquiring if it will increase the net profit of the owners of the firm。 But net profit will increase only if the expected rate of return， or yield， of the asset exceeds the rate of interest。 According to the second c
11、riterion， an asset is worth acquiring if it increases the value of the owners' equity， i。 e。， if it adds more to the market value of the firm than the costs of acquisition。 But what the asset adds is given by capitalizing the stream it generates at the market rate of inte
12、rest， and this capitalized value will exceed its cost if and only if the yield of the asset exceeds the rate of interest。 Note that， under either formulation， the cost of capital is equal to the rate of interest on bonds， regardless of whether the funds are acquired thr
13、ough debt instruments or through new issues of common stock。 Indeed， in a world of sure returns， the distinction between debt and equity funds reduces largely to one of terminology。 It must be acknowledged that some attempt is usually made in this type of analy
14、sis to allow for the existence of uncertainty。 This attempt typically takes the form of superimposing on the results of the certainty analysis the notion of a "risk discount" to be subtracted from the expected yield (or a "risk premium" to be added to the market rate of int
15、erest)。 Investment decisions are then supposed to be based on a comparison of this "risk adjusted" or "certainty equivalent" yield with the market rate of interest。 No satisfactory explanation has yet been pro-vided， however， as to what determines the size
16、 of the risk discount and how it varies in response to changes in other variables。 Considered as a convenient approximation， the model of the firm constructed via this certainty-or certainty-equivalent-approach has admittedly been useful in dealing with some of the grosser
17、 aspects of the processes of capital accumulation and economic fluctuations。 Such a model underlies， for example， the familiar Keynesian aggregate investment function in which aggregate investment is written as a function of the rate of interest-the same riskless rate of interest w
18、hich appears later in the system in the liquidity-preference equation。 Yet few would maintain that this approximation is adequate。 At the macroeconomic level there are ample grounds for doubting that the rate of interest has as large and as direct an influence on the rate of investment a
19、s this analysis would lead us to believe。 At the microeconomic level the certainty model has little descriptive value and provides no real guidance to the finance specialist or managerial economist whose main problems cannot be treated in a framework which deals so cavalierly with uncertainty
20、and ignores all forms of financing other than debt issues。 Only recently have economists begun to face up seriously to the problem of the cost of capital cum risk。 In the process they have found their interests and endeavors merging with those of the finance specialist and
21、the managerial economist who have lived with the problem longer and more intimately。 In this joint search to establish the principles which govern rational investment and financial policy in a world of uncertainty two main lines of attack can be discerned。 These lines represent， in
22、 effect， attempts to extrapolate to the world of uncertainty each of the two criteria-profit maximization and market value maximization-which were seen to have equivalent implications in the special case of certainty。 With the recognition of uncertainty this equivalence vanishes。 I
23、n fact， the profit maximization criterion is no longer even well defined。 Under uncertainty there corresponds to each decision of the firm not a unique profit outcome， but a plurality of mutually exclusive outcomes which can at best be described by a subjective probability distribu
24、tion。 The profit outcome， in short， has become a random variable and as such its maximization no longer has an operational meaning。 Nor can this difficulty generally be disposed of by using the mathematical expectation of profits as the variable to be maximized。 For dec
25、isions which affect the expected value will also tend to affect the dispersion and other characteristics of the distribution of outcomes。 In particular， the use of debt rather than equity funds to finance a given venture may well in-crease the expected return to the owners， but onl
26、y at the cost of in-creased dispersion of the outcomes。 Under these conditions the profit outcomes of alternative investment and financing decisions can be compared and ranked only in terms of a subjective "utility function" of the owners which weighs the expected yiel
27、d against other characteristics of the distribution。 Accordingly， the extrapolation of the profit maximization criterion of the certainty model has tended to evolve into utility maximization， sometimes explicitly， more frequently in a qualitative and heuristic form。 The utility approach undoubtedly represents an advance over the certainty or certainty-equivalent approach。 It does at least permit us to explore (within limits) some of the implications of different financing arrangements， and it does give some
