产能过剩背景下跨国经营的实物期权价值
|
摘要
本文从实物期权的视角,研究产能过剩背景下中国制造业上市公司跨国经营对企业价值的驱动作用。根据实物期权理论,跨国经营赋予企业一系列增长期权和转换期权,有助于企业在不确定环境中提高运营弹性和决策柔性,从而降低业绩下行风险并提高业绩上行潜力。为此,本文构建出2008—2016年间中国制造业上市公司国际化经营的相关数据,在此基础上研究产能过剩背景下跨国经营的实物期权价值,发现跨国经营能显著降低产能过剩行业上市公司的业绩下行风险并提高其业绩上行潜力,而且东道国政治风险越高、东道国与中国经济关联度越小或东道国市场规模越大,跨国经营的实物期权价值就越高。研究结果表明,深入考察东道国政治风险、经济关联度及市场规模等影响实物期权价值的外部环境因素,建立健全海外政治和经济风险管控体系,同时,合理选择境外投资地点及其广度与分散度,积极优化海外投资区域布局,才能走出一条符合中国国情的新型国际化道路,从而适应和引领经济新常态、化解产能过剩并推进产业转型升级。
Traditional theories of internationalization posit that multinationality enhances firm value because multinational companies can obtain various advantages through monopoly, ownership and control, internalization, and location. However, multinationality may reduce firm value because it can be accompanied by liability of foreignness, formal and informal institution distance, and uncertainty of market demand and investment environment. Applications of real options theory to internationalization have recognized that uncertainty in the external business environment is associated with not only downside risks but also flexibility and opportunity that multinational companies can exploit to hedge against various political and economic risks. In particular, the network of multinational operations across different countries is equivalent to a portfolio of switching options, which enables the multinational company to shift production, investment, and sales activities across its subsidiaries in different countries when the external environmental condition changes, such as a sudden big movement in the exchange rate. In response to new opportunities and challenges, managers of multinational companies can maintain flexibility in deliberating, evaluating, and revising important decisions, thus creating real options value by deferring and switching investment projects across subsidiaries located in home and host countries. This flexibility lowers the downside risk and enhances the upside potential for multinational companies.Our paper is one of the first to apply real options theory to studies of internationalization for Chinese multinational companies. Using data from all of the manufacturing firms publicly listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Securities Exchanges during 2008 and 2016, we seek to determine whether multinationality under excess capacity can enhance the value of real options and whether and to what extent political risks, the correlation of economic growth between host countries and China, the correlation of economic growth between host countries, and market size affect the real options value of multinationality. We also use a list of excess capacity firms compiled by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other government agencies to classify our sample into excess capacity and non-excess capacity industries. We then seek answers as to whether excess capacity is an important mitigating factor in determining the real options value of multinationality, and whether excess capacity affects the sensitivity between the option value of multinationality and external factors such as the political risks and economic links of host countries. We find that multinationality leads to lower downside risk and upside potential, but only for multinational companies with excess capacity. In addition, multinational companies in industries characterized by excess capacity on average have a significantly higher real options value of multinationality than multinational companies in other industries. Moreover, the real options value of multinationality increases with the market size of host countries, but decreases with the host countries' political risks and the correlation of economic growth between the host countries and China. Our results are robust to(1) measures of multinational companies using the number of host countries, the number of host regions, the number of overseas subsidiaries, the diversification of host countries and host regions, and a comprehensive multinationality indicator;(2) measures of real options value using downside risk and upside potential;(3) the specification of a Heckman two-step procedure to account for the potential "self-selection" problem between multinationality and the value of real options.Overall, our results indicate that the benefits of multinationality are subject to whether multinational companies have excess capacity and operate in host countries with low political risks, low economic correlations with China, and low market sizes. Therefore, China's current Go Global Strategy, which it uses to encourage its firms to invest overseas, should not primarily focus on small countries or economies where political risks are high. The time is ripe for more manufacturing companies with excess capacity, high growth opportunities, and good risk management capability to become major participants in overseas investment in larger economics with advanced technologies and knowhow and in economies whose GDP growth shows a low correlation with that of China.
Traditional theories of internationalization posit that multinationality enhances firm value because multinational companies can obtain various advantages through monopoly, ownership and control, internalization, and location. However, multinationality may reduce firm value because it can be accompanied by liability of foreignness, formal and informal institution distance, and uncertainty of market demand and investment environment. Applications of real options theory to internationalization have recognized that uncertainty in the external business environment is associated with not only downside risks but also flexibility and opportunity that multinational companies can exploit to hedge against various political and economic risks. In particular, the network of multinational operations across different countries is equivalent to a portfolio of switching options, which enables the multinational company to shift production, investment, and sales activities across its subsidiaries in different countries when the external environmental condition changes, such as a sudden big movement in the exchange rate. In response to new opportunities and challenges, managers of multinational companies can maintain flexibility in deliberating, evaluating, and revising important decisions, thus creating real options value by deferring and switching investment projects across subsidiaries located in home and host countries. This flexibility lowers the downside risk and enhances the upside potential for multinational companies.Our paper is one of the first to apply real options theory to studies of internationalization for Chinese multinational companies. Using data from all of the manufacturing firms publicly listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Securities Exchanges during 2008 and 2016, we seek to determine whether multinationality under excess capacity can enhance the value of real options and whether and to what extent political risks, the correlation of economic growth between host countries and China, the correlation of economic growth between host countries, and market size affect the real options value of multinationality. We also use a list of excess capacity firms compiled by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other government agencies to classify our sample into excess capacity and non-excess capacity industries. We then seek answers as to whether excess capacity is an important mitigating factor in determining the real options value of multinationality, and whether excess capacity affects the sensitivity between the option value of multinationality and external factors such as the political risks and economic links of host countries. We find that multinationality leads to lower downside risk and upside potential, but only for multinational companies with excess capacity. In addition, multinational companies in industries characterized by excess capacity on average have a significantly higher real options value of multinationality than multinational companies in other industries. Moreover, the real options value of multinationality increases with the market size of host countries, but decreases with the host countries' political risks and the correlation of economic growth between the host countries and China. Our results are robust to(1) measures of multinational companies using the number of host countries, the number of host regions, the number of overseas subsidiaries, the diversification of host countries and host regions, and a comprehensive multinationality indicator;(2) measures of real options value using downside risk and upside potential;(3) the specification of a Heckman two-step procedure to account for the potential "self-selection" problem between multinationality and the value of real options.Overall, our results indicate that the benefits of multinationality are subject to whether multinational companies have excess capacity and operate in host countries with low political risks, low economic correlations with China, and low market sizes. Therefore, China's current Go Global Strategy, which it uses to encourage its firms to invest overseas, should not primarily focus on small countries or economies where political risks are high. The time is ripe for more manufacturing companies with excess capacity, high growth opportunities, and good risk management capability to become major participants in overseas investment in larger economics with advanced technologies and knowhow and in economies whose GDP growth shows a low correlation with that of China.
引文
陈立敏、刘静雅、张世蕾,2016:《模仿同构对企业国际化-绩效关系的影响——基于制度理论正当性视角的实证研究》,《中国工业经济》第9期。
陈岩、蒋亦伟、王锐,2014:《产品多元化战略、企业资源异质性与国际化绩效:对中国2008—2011年制造业上市公司的经验检验》,《管理评论》第12期。
董敏杰、梁泳梅、张其仔,2015:《中国工业产能利用率:行业比较、地区差距及影响因素》,《经济研究》第1期。
张少华、蒋伟杰,2017:《中国的产能过剩:程度测算与行业分布》,《经济研究》第1期。
林毅夫、巫和懋、邢亦青,2010:《“潮涌现象”与产能过剩的形成机制》,《经济研究》第10期。
杨忠、张骁,2009:《企业国际化程度与绩效关系研究》,《经济研究》第2期。
肖慧敏、刘辉煌,2014:《中国企业对外直接投资的学习效应研究》,《财经研究》第4期。
Aggarwal, R., J. Berrill, E. Hutson, and C. Kearney, 2011, “What is a Multinational Corporation? Classifying the Degree of Firm-level Multinationality”, International Business Review, 20(5), 557—577.
Allayannis, G., J. Ihrig, and J. P. Weston, 2001, “Exchange-rate Hedging: Financial versus Operational Strategies”, American Economic Review, 91(2), 391—395.
Allen, L., and C. Pantzalis, 1996, “Valuation of the Operating Flexibility of Multinational Corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 633—653.
Belderbos, R., T. W. Tong, and S. Wu, 2014, “Multinationality and Downside Risk: The Roles of Option Portfolio and Organization”, Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 88—106.
Belderbos, R., and J. Zou, 2009, “Real Options and Foreign Affiliate Divestments: A Portfolio Perspective”, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(4), 600—620.
Cashman, G. D., D. M. Harrison, and H. Sheng, 2015, “Political Risk and the Cost of Capital in Asia-Pacific Property Markets”, International Real Estate Review, 18(3), 331—364.
Carr, D. L., J. R. Markusen, and K. E. Maskus, 2001, “Estimating the Knowledge-capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise”, American Economic Review, 91(3), 693—708.
Delios, A., and W. J. Henisz, 2003, “Political Hazards, Experience, and Sequential Entry Strategies: The International Expansion of Japanese Firms, 1980—1998”, Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1153—1164.
de Meza, D., and F. van der Ploeg, 1987, “Production Flexibility as a Motive for Multinationality”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(3), 343—351.
Jiménez, A., and J. B. Delgado-García, 2012, “Proactive Management of Political Risk and Corporate Performance: The Case of Spanish Multinational Enterprises”, International Business Review, 21(6), 1029—1040.
Johanson, J., and J. E. Vahlne, 2009, “The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited: From Liability of Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership”, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411—1431.
Huchzermeier, A., and M. A. Cohen, 1996, “Valuing Operational Flexibility under Exchange Rate Risk”, Operations Research, 44(1), 100—113.
Kogut, B., 1985, “Designing Global Strategies: Profiting from Operational Flexibility”, Sloan Management Review, 27(1), 27—38.
Kogut, B., and N. Kulatilaka, 1994, “Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network”, Management Science, 40(1), 123—139.
Lee, S. H., and M. Makhija, 2009, “The Effect of Domestic Uncertainty on the Real Options Value of International Investments”, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 405—420.
Li, J., 2007, “Real Options Theory and International Strategy: A Critical Review”, Advances in Strategic Management, 24(1), 67—101.
Liu, X., L. Gao, J. Lu, and E. Lioliou, 2016, “Environmental Risks, Localization and the Overseas Subsidiary Performance of MNEs from an Emerging Economy”, Journal of World Business, 51(3), 356—368.
Myers, S. C., 1977, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing”, Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147—175.
Miller, K. D., and M. J. Leiblein, 1996, “Corporate Ris-return Relations: Returns Variability versus Downside Risk”, Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 91—122.
Rangan, S., 1998, “Do Multinationals Operate Flexibly? Theory and Evidence”, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(2), 217—237.
Reuer, J. J., and M. J. Leiblein, 2000, “Downside Risk Implications of Multinationality and International Joint Ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 203—214.
Tong, T. W., and J. J. Reuer, 2007, “Real Options in Multinational Corporations: Organizational Challenges and Risk Implications”, Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 215—230.
Trigeorgis, L., and J. J. Reuer, 2017, “Real Options Theory in Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 42—63.
Waisman, M., P. Ye, and Y. Zhu, 2015, “The Effect of Political Uncertainty on the Cost of Corporate Debt”, Journal of Financial Stability, 16, 106—117.
Zhang, K. H., and J. R. Markusen, 1999, “Vertical Multinationals and Host-country Characteristics”, Journal of Development Economics, 59(2), 233—252.
陈岩、蒋亦伟、王锐,2014:《产品多元化战略、企业资源异质性与国际化绩效:对中国2008—2011年制造业上市公司的经验检验》,《管理评论》第12期。
董敏杰、梁泳梅、张其仔,2015:《中国工业产能利用率:行业比较、地区差距及影响因素》,《经济研究》第1期。
张少华、蒋伟杰,2017:《中国的产能过剩:程度测算与行业分布》,《经济研究》第1期。
林毅夫、巫和懋、邢亦青,2010:《“潮涌现象”与产能过剩的形成机制》,《经济研究》第10期。
杨忠、张骁,2009:《企业国际化程度与绩效关系研究》,《经济研究》第2期。
肖慧敏、刘辉煌,2014:《中国企业对外直接投资的学习效应研究》,《财经研究》第4期。
Aggarwal, R., J. Berrill, E. Hutson, and C. Kearney, 2011, “What is a Multinational Corporation? Classifying the Degree of Firm-level Multinationality”, International Business Review, 20(5), 557—577.
Allayannis, G., J. Ihrig, and J. P. Weston, 2001, “Exchange-rate Hedging: Financial versus Operational Strategies”, American Economic Review, 91(2), 391—395.
Allen, L., and C. Pantzalis, 1996, “Valuation of the Operating Flexibility of Multinational Corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 633—653.
Belderbos, R., T. W. Tong, and S. Wu, 2014, “Multinationality and Downside Risk: The Roles of Option Portfolio and Organization”, Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 88—106.
Belderbos, R., and J. Zou, 2009, “Real Options and Foreign Affiliate Divestments: A Portfolio Perspective”, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(4), 600—620.
Cashman, G. D., D. M. Harrison, and H. Sheng, 2015, “Political Risk and the Cost of Capital in Asia-Pacific Property Markets”, International Real Estate Review, 18(3), 331—364.
Carr, D. L., J. R. Markusen, and K. E. Maskus, 2001, “Estimating the Knowledge-capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise”, American Economic Review, 91(3), 693—708.
Delios, A., and W. J. Henisz, 2003, “Political Hazards, Experience, and Sequential Entry Strategies: The International Expansion of Japanese Firms, 1980—1998”, Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1153—1164.
de Meza, D., and F. van der Ploeg, 1987, “Production Flexibility as a Motive for Multinationality”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(3), 343—351.
Jiménez, A., and J. B. Delgado-García, 2012, “Proactive Management of Political Risk and Corporate Performance: The Case of Spanish Multinational Enterprises”, International Business Review, 21(6), 1029—1040.
Johanson, J., and J. E. Vahlne, 2009, “The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited: From Liability of Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership”, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411—1431.
Huchzermeier, A., and M. A. Cohen, 1996, “Valuing Operational Flexibility under Exchange Rate Risk”, Operations Research, 44(1), 100—113.
Kogut, B., 1985, “Designing Global Strategies: Profiting from Operational Flexibility”, Sloan Management Review, 27(1), 27—38.
Kogut, B., and N. Kulatilaka, 1994, “Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network”, Management Science, 40(1), 123—139.
Lee, S. H., and M. Makhija, 2009, “The Effect of Domestic Uncertainty on the Real Options Value of International Investments”, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3), 405—420.
Li, J., 2007, “Real Options Theory and International Strategy: A Critical Review”, Advances in Strategic Management, 24(1), 67—101.
Liu, X., L. Gao, J. Lu, and E. Lioliou, 2016, “Environmental Risks, Localization and the Overseas Subsidiary Performance of MNEs from an Emerging Economy”, Journal of World Business, 51(3), 356—368.
Myers, S. C., 1977, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing”, Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147—175.
Miller, K. D., and M. J. Leiblein, 1996, “Corporate Ris-return Relations: Returns Variability versus Downside Risk”, Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 91—122.
Rangan, S., 1998, “Do Multinationals Operate Flexibly? Theory and Evidence”, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(2), 217—237.
Reuer, J. J., and M. J. Leiblein, 2000, “Downside Risk Implications of Multinationality and International Joint Ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 203—214.
Tong, T. W., and J. J. Reuer, 2007, “Real Options in Multinational Corporations: Organizational Challenges and Risk Implications”, Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 215—230.
Trigeorgis, L., and J. J. Reuer, 2017, “Real Options Theory in Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 42—63.
Waisman, M., P. Ye, and Y. Zhu, 2015, “The Effect of Political Uncertainty on the Cost of Corporate Debt”, Journal of Financial Stability, 16, 106—117.
Zhang, K. H., and J. R. Markusen, 1999, “Vertical Multinationals and Host-country Characteristics”, Journal of Development Economics, 59(2), 233—252.