國外多元化和專業化策略與公司績效外文翻譯 外文翻譯Foreign diversification vs concentration strategies and firm performance MaterialSource:/0./0265-1335.htm Author:Francisco Firstly, the lack of consensus on the relationship foreign concentration/diversificatinperformance has been explained through the existence of operational problems in performance measurement. Empirical literature uses many different ways to measure performance, and the use of a multi-dimensional construct is perhaps the most appropriate Katsikeas,2000. Accordingly, our study simultaneously applies two different referents to compare foreign performance from several angles: accounting rate and a market evaluation measure.These measures, although interrelated, reflect different aspects of performance,with their respective advantages and limitations Ross,1983;Keats,1988. The limitations of each measureaccounting and market measures can be solved through their joint use Ross, 1983. Secondly, literature has mainly examined the impact of concentration/diversificationstrategies on firm performance in the context of export market expansion Attiyeh and Wenner, 1981; Lee and Yang, 1990; Piercy, 1981a. Alternatively, our paper is focused on exports and foreign direct investment FDI. This is explained as follows: The use of marketing efforts is independent of the instrument of expansion FDI or exports. In principle, in the way that concentration/diversification strategies stress the gradual/rapid expansion of a firm and marketing efforts allocated to new markets, these strategies concentration vs diversification seem to imply different levels of marketing efforts and different instruments in each market. In fact, given fixed resources, those assigned to each market in a diversification strategy are less than in a concentration strategyA low level of marketing efforts in a diversification strategy would imply less sales promotion, a greater tendency to use independent agents exports and skimming price initially high prices descending later; whereas a concentration strategy would imply investments in market share, which include large promotional costs, and greater control over distribution channels FDI and penetration prices low from the start.However, in the real world, these marketing instruments do not always follow the above description of allocation of marketing efforts, as a firm could invest identical resources in two markets with two different strategies e.g. exports with independent agents and strong promotion in one market and direct investment in a sales subsidiary with low promotion in another market, so that the allocation of marketing efforts can be a more precise analysis measure than expansion instruments Ayal and Zif, 1979.This line of thought, therefore, proposes the use of marketing efforts independently of the instrument of expansion FDI or exports. In order to solve operational problems around performance measurement, we use different referents simultaneously: accounting rate and stock market evaluation measure. This allows the limitations of each measure to be solved through their joint use; and thus, we use a multi-dimensional construct of performance which has been suggested by literature. The empirical analysis through the application of “event-study” on a sample of 75 expansion announcements between 1992 and 1996 from 36 Spanish quoted firms finds significant positive returns on the day after the event announcement in addition to accumulated returns over three days, which suggests that, on average, the stock market reacts positively to foreign expansion announcements. This has allowed measurement of the stock market results of foreign expansion. Likewise, the application of ANOVA and MRA shows that firm performance accounting and stock market does not depend directly on the strategies of foreign concentration vs diversification; but on the interaction between concentration/diversification strategies and some market and product factors. In particular, accounting rate of ROS is determined by the interaction between concentration/diversification and the NRP nature of the product, whereas stock market excess returns are affected by the interaction between concentration/diversification and CU and the D channel. Thus, the joint use of these measures accounting and stock market returns results in more complete information being obtained. Our conclusions are that whilst accounting results could not capture the moderator effect of D because these investments are not immediately profitable, we can observe an effect when the relationship is analysed by way of expected results of stock market measures. Thus, for Spanish firms foreign expansion strategies imply important investment distribution and growth prospects that are not reflected in current performance, although this strategy will allow the future performance of these firms to improve Ramrez and Espitia, 2001. Additionally, CU is positively associated, in a diversification context, with expected stock market results as these expectations take into account the risk implicit in countries with greater CU. Finally, accounting returns capture the moderating effect of the NRP character of the product, an aspect which is not collected by stock market results. The main implications of these results of managers and other olicy-makers are: first, decision makers in firms that expand abroad should not be concerned with foreign concentration/diversification strategies perse in order to improve results, but with the interaction of the concentration/diversification decision with the characteristics of the market, product and firm. In other words, neither the temporal element of the expansion and marketing efforts assigned to the foreign markets charaterristics of the concentration/diversification strategy, nor transnational network structure deep vs wide implicit in concentration vs diversification of our paper based on FDI, can uniquely explain firm performance. However, they are important in the context of the market, product and firm of the foreign expansion when explaining firm results. Second, essentially managers must realise that two markets factors, CU and D channel, along with a product factor NRP, play an important role in the choice of a concentration vs diversification strategy when explaining business results; factors that should be assessed at the individual firm level. results; factors that should be assessed at the individual firm level. An own distribution channel seems to be critical for firms that choose a foreigndiversification strategy, as firm stock market results are reduced. A strategy of rapid expansion in a large number of markets through costly own channels requently increases distribution costs as a result of necessary investment. Consequently, investors do not favour such firms, which reduce their potential value. Moreover, the lack of evidence on its effect on accounting results due to the fact that it is not an immediately profitable investment implies that it is essential that managers pay sufficient attention to the distribution systems of the overseas markets targeted in order to imize concentration/diversification strategy outcomes for the shareholder. Large CU between the home country and the different host-countries, referred to in the literature Ayal and Zif, 1979; Piercy, 1981b, seems to be more relevant for firms choosing foreign diversification, as it allows them to attain better stock market results. Large CU is an indicator of a high-risk level for the firm and concentration in such markets would be very risky for the firm. It is essential to operate a sensible diversification policy which spreads the risk over these unstable markets and improves shareholdersexpectations. Although the global F of the accounting results equation is not significant and cannot be used tomake conclusions, the negative sign of C/D*CU is revealing. This means that CU in the context of foreign diversification generates lower accounting returns, but leads to better stock market results. In this type of paradoxical situation, CU becomes a critical variable for firm managers, as they are simultaneously faced with contexts in which entry into culturally distant markets is seen by investors as positive or as an economically viable investment for diversified firms, but for which there is also empirical evidence of negative impacts on accounting results. These types of situation have important implications which are explained by Farrell and Frame 1997 through the agency costs theory, in the sense that decision makers could make own benefit investments supporting more visible decisions that improve shareholdersexpectations as opposed to firm accounting benefits to be obtain over subsequent years. Finally, a repeat purchase product appears to be interesting for firms choosing a foreign concentration strategy, as it increases accounting results. Moreover, the lack of evidence on its effect on stock market results implies that managers should pay attention to repeat purchase character of the product in order to imize the concentration/diversification strategy accounting outcomes for the firm.譯文國外多元化和專業化策略與公司績效節選 資料來源:/./0265-1335.htm 作者:弗朗西斯科 從國際市場營銷的角度來看,公司需要進行對外擴張,從公司長遠角度來說,公司的決策取決于該公司對外擴張的時間和它在國外市場的營銷程度。這使得文獻能夠區分這兩種對外擴張策略(Ayal and ZIF,1979年):(1)在一些關鍵市場集中進行營銷工作并隨著時間的推移逐漸擴大到新市場。(2)在大型市場進行快速多元化,并分配營銷工作。兩種戰略都對績效有影響,雖然這里沒有理論或實證上的共識他們中哪個會產生更好的績效(Lee and Yang,1990)。我們的論文對現有文獻在不同研究方式上有所貢獻。 首先,對專業化和多元化與績效的關系缺乏共識,這已經通過績效評估中存在的操作問題作出解釋。許多實證文獻使用不同的方法來衡量績效,使用多維結構或許是最合適的(Katsikeas等2000)。因此,我們的研究同時應用了兩種指標從不同角度來衡量績效:會計收益率和市場評估方法。這些方法,雖然相互聯系,反映了各個方面的效益,但它們也有各自的優點和缺陷(Ross,1983; Keats,1988)。通過他們的聯合使用可以解決不同方法的局限性(會計方法和市場方法)。 其次,文章主要研究企業向出口市場擴張(Attiyeh and Wenner,1981;Lee and Yang,1990;Piercy,1981a)的背景下企業專業化與多樣化戰略對企業績效的影響。另外,我們論文的關注點在出口和國外直接投資(FDI)。這里的解釋如下: 原則上,這種專業化和多元化的戰略強調公司的逐步和快速擴張行為和新市場的營銷部署,這些戰略(專業化和多樣化)似乎暗示了每個市場不同程度的營銷水平和方法。事實上,鑒于有限的固定資源,這些的安排方式對于一個進行多元化策略的市場來說它產生的效益要少于專業化所產生的效益。在多元化戰略中低程度的營銷水平將意味著減少銷售,使企業更傾向于使用獨立代理人(出口)和撇脂定價法(在最初將價格定高然后不斷下降);然而一個專業化戰略將意味著企業在市場份額方面做更大的投資,這其中包括大量的推廣成本,對于銷售渠道有更好的控制(FDI)和滲透價格(從一開始就將價格定低)。然而,在現實世界中,這些營銷手段并不總是按照上面的描述一樣來制定,因為一個公司可以投放相同的產品在兩個不同的市場使用兩種不同的策略,(例如:在一個市場使用獨立代理人和強力且有效的促銷方式,而在另一個低銷售水平的市場則采用直接投資的方法),這樣使營銷策略的制定相比擴張手段是一種更為精確的衡量方法(Ayal and ZIF,1979)。因此,我們更建議企業使用獨立的營銷擴張手段(外國直接投資或出口)。一般來說,多元化和公司績效之間的關系呈正相關當它有一個分散化網絡的時候(包括在許多國家的子公司)和負相關關系當它有一個集中型網絡(在每個國家中有很多分支)(Allen and Pantzalis, 1996;Pantzalis,2001)理由是多元化需要加強公司的管理系統,這會導致代理成本的增加。在有國際化和分散式網絡的情況下,在這種網絡中利潤增加并且業務的靈活性將會帶來一系列的好處(能實現海外市場之間的套利過程 - 組合實物期權 - 通過國家之間以上網絡市場內部化), 它能使企業克服在國際化經營管理監督中的所需承擔的代理成本。相反地,集中化網絡將使收益減少,因為它們意味著過多的實物期權組合(每個國家中的多個子公司)在這里找不到操作靈活性,也沒有對跨國網絡管理導致的代理費用給予賠償。 為了解決圍繞衡量企業經營績效的實際操作問題,我們同時使用不同的指標:會計收益率和股票價值的方法。這樣使得能通過他們的聯合使用從而解決不同方法的局限性;因此,我們使用文獻建議的多維結構績效模型。 實證研究通過在1992年至1996年期間宣布擴張的36個西班牙公司的75份擴張報告樣本進行“事件-研究”分析,這些公司在宣布擴張一天后都獲得了明顯的利潤回報而不是三天內的累積利潤回報,這表明,從平均情況來說股市對企業宣布對外擴張反應積極。這使得能夠衡量企業對外擴張時從股市獲得的收益,同樣,應用方差分析和MRA表明公司業績(會計和股票市場)并不直接依賴于企業的專業化和多元化策略;但與專業化和多元化戰略之間的相互影響和一些市場和產品因素相關。特別是,會計收益率取決于專業化和多元化之間的內在影響和產品的性質,而股市的超額收益會受到來自