汽车制造业上市公司财务状况对资本结构的影响研究

河南科技大学硕士学位论文汽车制造业上市公司财务状况对资本结构的影响研究姓名：董亚洁申请学位级别：硕士专业：企业管理指导教师：郭浩20091201I3216(1)08(2)II,,ABSTRACTIIISubject:StudyofInfluenceofTheFinancialStatusofAutomobileManufacturingIndustryListedCompaniesonCapitalStructureSpecialty:EnterpriseManagementName:DongYajieSupervisor:Pro.GuoHaoABSTRACTCapitalstructurehasbeenoneofthreemajorthemesoffinancialmanagementItinvolveseachenterprise’slink,suchascapitalraising,operationandprofitassignmentetc.Capitalstructureisthemainbasisforreflectingenterprises’capitalstrength,measuringenterprises’financialriskandcarryingoutfinancingdecisionAtpresent,oneofthemostimportantreasonsofmostthestate-ownedenterprises’pooreconomicbenefitispayingnoattentiontothestrategicandscientificofcapitalstructuredecision,resultingindecisionfailure.Soenterprisesmustseekwaystooptimizethecapitalstructure.Ourautomobileindustryhasformedfairlycomprehensiveproductseriesandproductiondistribution,andhasbecomeanimportantforcetoexpanddomesticdemandandsupportfutureeconomicgrowth.Undoubtedly,thegoodorbadofenterprises’developmentinthisindustryhasimportanteffecttoourgeneraleconomicdevelopment.Sothestudyoncapitalstructureofautomobilemanufacturingindustrylistedcompanieshassignificance.Thisthesisstartedwiththewesterncapitalstructuretheory,selected32samplefirmsinwholevehiclemanufacturingindustry,combiningwiththepresentsituationofourautomobilemanufacturingindustrylistedcompanies,andanalyzedthecharacteristicsofourautomobilemanufacturingindustrylistedcompanies’debtfinancingandcapitalstructure,usingalargeofstatisticdata.Then,itselected16representativeindexes,evaluatedfinancialstatusofautomobilemanufacturingindustrylistedcompaniesbyfactoranalysis,andcalculatedfactorscoresandfinancialstatustotalscoreofsamplefirms.Finally,thisthesisanalyzedtherelationshipbetweeneachfactorscoreandtotalscoreoffinancialstatuswithcapitalstructure,byconstructingmultiplelinearregressionmodelsbetweeneachfactorscoreoffinancialstatuswithasset-liabilityratioandlongtermloan-assetratio.Tillthenitcompletedtheinfluencestudyoffinancialstatusoncapitalstructureofautomobilemanufacturingindustrylistedcompanies.ABSTRACTIVTheregressionresultshowedthat:(1)Capitalstructurewasnegativerelatedtosolvency,developmentabilitydecidedbydebtmaturity,profitabilityandaccountsreceivableturnover,accordingwiththeoreticalexpectationCapitalstructurewasnegativerelatedtooperationabilitywhichwasnotaccordedwiththeoreticalexpectation.Oneofthereasonswastheeffectoffinancialcrisisin2008;Developmentabilitywaspositiverelatedtocapitalstructure;thelinearrelationshipbetweenprofitabilityandasset-liabilityratiowasnotsignificant,butregressionresultwasstillpositive,whichwasconsistentwithresearchhypothesisofagencycosttheory.(2)Longtermloan-assetratiowaspositiverelatedtosolvency,andnegativerelatedtodevelopmentabilitydecidedbydebtmaturity,thelinearrelationshipbetweenlongtermloan-assetratioandotherfactorswasnotsignificant.Finally,thisthesisempiricalsurveyedthecapitalstructureofautomobilemanufacturingindustrylistedcompanies,accordingtotheresultoffactoranalysisandregressionanalysis,dividedevaluationregionandriskrank,andanalyzedcomprehensivelycombinedwithcapitalstructure.Itheldthatproportionofshort-termdebtwastoohighandcapitalstructurewasunreasonableinautomobileindustry.Onthisbasis,itproposedcountermeasuresandsuggestionsofcapitalstructureoptimization.KEYWORDS:AutomobileManufacturingIndustry,CapitalStructure,FinancialStatusDissertationType:ApplicationStudy1111.1[1][2]21.21.2.1MM1958ModiglianiMiller[3]MM70[4-5]801.2.2131(1)[6][7]1993199950%(2)[8](3)[9]30%70%85%90%90%2(1)[10][11](2)4[12][13][14][15][16][17](3)[17][13][12](4)[7][18][19]19992000(5)[10]1996[20](6)[21]1.3151.3.120081.3.2(1)(2)1.3.361-1Fig.1-1Technologyroadmap1.41.4.1(1)32(2)71.4.2(1)52B32(2)2722.12.1.1Titman[22]RajanZingales[23]82.1.2(1)(2)(3)2.1.32.2DavidDurand1958ModiglianiMillerMM2.2.12919521Netincometheory100%2Netoperatingincometheory3[24]2.2.21MM1958MM10100%[3]MMMM2MM1963[25]—MM32070MyersScott[26]2.2.31JensenMeckling[27](1)GrossmanHartGH[28]211(2)HarrisRavivHRStulz[29](3)DiamandHershleiferThakor[30]2Ross[4]3[5]4125HarrisRaviv[28]StulzAghionBolton[31]2.2.4(1)(2)(3)(4)213(5)2.3100%[32]31433.13.1.111953198419501965219841994—198411985301986199425198731994—19941998162.8[33]3.1.21550(1)(2)(3)(4)[33]3.220083.2.1024681012203040506070809013-l2008Fig.3-1Asset-liabilityratiointervaldistributionmapin20083163-132120%30%280%90%90%l10%40%50%50%60%5360%70%11430%40%70%80%40%70%62.5%20083.2.21C0C1C2C3C4C5C63-12008C7200860.90%3-12008Table.3-1Themeanofasset-liabilityratioofeverymanufacturingindustriesin2008C0C1C2C3C4C5C6C752.8155.3848.0458.1358.3558.5759.8960.902009220083-265.82%1769.55%65%52.94%60.90%3-22008Table.3-2Themeanofasset-liabilityratioofdifferentindustriesin200860.9052.9469.5547.6665.8257.2120093.2.32007880200625.3%22%65%100052008200717.05%15.56%3-320062008Table.3-3ThemeanofEPSandnetprofitratioin2006200820060.089-21.032820070.453119.232820080.2656-0.704120083-307318083.33.3.13220062008200620083-420062008Table.3-4Descriptionofasset-liabilityratioin2006200820