評(píng)估財(cái)務(wù)健康狀況時(shí)無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的相關(guān)性外文翻譯

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p>　　外文出處 Journal of Intellectual Capital </p><p>　　外文作者 Ram S. Sriram </p><p&g

2、t;<b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Relevance of intangible assets to evaluate financial health</p><p>　　1、Asset composition – relevance to financial health evaluation</p><p>　　Tech

3、nology firms differ from traditional firms both in their internal and external environments. Unlike traditional manufacturing or retail firms, technology firms may not offer tangible products for sale. Compared to tradit

4、ional firms, technology firms are relatively younger and would not have a long history of management. On the average, technology firms own relatively fewer physical assets than their traditional manufacturing counterpart

5、s. They derive future economic benefits primarily from t</p><p>　　The principal reason that published financial statements do not report intangible asset values is because, measuring the value of these asset

6、s is subjective and is prone to measurement errors. Intangible assets do not fit the definition of an “accounting asset” and reporting their monetary worth is likely to provide unreliable information to investors. But, r

7、egardless of whether such values are reported in published financial statements or not, investors do seem to consider the strength of these</p><p>　　Analysts and others caution that market capitalization of

8、a firm’s stock is not a true reflection of a firm’s intangible asset values and investors must use prudence while using such subjective values. While conceding that market capitalization is subjective and must be used wi

9、th caution, we must acknowledge that it nevertheless helps a technology firm with high-market capitalization to obtain much needed equity from the market. We must also recognize that while high-market capitalization may

10、he</p><p>　　Long-term financial stability depends not only on the ability to raise equity but also on the ability to effectively and efficiently manage a firm’s assets – tangible as well as intangible assets

11、. Therefore, the long-run value of any asset, whether it is tangible or intangible would depend on an asset’s ability to provide future benefits and its ability to influence future financial performance. To most investor

12、s, evidence of future benefits and performance are indicated by growth in revenues, p</p><p>　　The premise of this discussion is that, while a market’s perception of intangible assets is relevant for short-t

13、erm pricing of a stock; it should not be used to evaluate long-term financial health. While perception gained from market capitalization of a stock could be used to supplement the assessment of long-term financial health

14、, the primary data for such evaluation should come from fundamental financial indicators culled from published financial statements. Therefore, this study uses a financ</p><p>　　2、Understanding firm failure

15、– financial distress models</p><p>　　While there is no consensus on the relationship between financial performance and health, there is agreement that business failure causes losses to creditors and stockhol

16、ders. Since investors mostly rely on accounting disclosures to assess financial health, researchers have been using published accounting data when building financial distress models. Published accounting data is also use

17、ful because it is measured objectively and it evolves from acceptable and recognized accounting practices. An </p><p>　　In the past, almost all the bankruptcy studies used only traditional manufacturing firm

18、s as their sample subjects. The benefit of using such a sample is that these firms were from established industries with traditional business models. Consequently, using performance measures such as current ratio, debt t

19、o equity ratio, return on assets and other ratios that surrogate for liquidity, solvency, or profitability made sense and the ratios provided reliable signals of financial health. But, whether </p><p>　　The

20、principal reason why prior studies used financial ratios to evaluate financial strength is because, such ratios pointed out whether:</p><p>　　. a firm has a feasible business model; and</p><p>　

21、　. the model is helping the firm in earning adequate revenues and profits.</p><p>　　A workable business model is essential whether a firm offers products or services or whether it owns physical assets or int

22、angible assets. But, in the case of non-traditional technology firms with short histories, the existence of a business model may not be supported by indicators such as revenues or profits. Therefore, it becomes essential

23、 to augment the short-term performance indicators with longer term indicators of strength. For example, indicators such as market capitalization and market r</p><p>　　This study, therefore, uses two financia

24、l health models: a traditional financial health model designed by Altman et al. (1977) and a hybrid model constructed by the author of this study, which includes both past performance indicators and subjective values of

25、intangible assets to indicate future potential. The Altman model was designed years ago and applied to manufacturing firms with traditional assets in their portfolio. The predictor variables only included financial ratio

26、s of past performanc</p><p>　　The Altman and hybrid models would be tested on samples of both traditional manufacturing firms and technology service firms that represent firms with different asset compositio

27、ns. The statistical methodology used for the analysis is Logit analysis. Traditionally, financial distress models have been evaluated using statistical techniques such as Logit or multiple discriminant analysis (MDA). Th

28、ese techniques are founded on mathematical concepts and are usually robust in their performances. The d</p><p>　　Altman model</p><p>　　One of the earliest and most popular bankruptcy prediction

29、models was developed by Altman et al. (1977). Altman et al. (1977) identified five financial ratios (out of a group of 22 financial ratios) as important predictors of bankruptcy. The ratios were: working capital/total as

30、sets; retained earnings/total assets; earnings before interest and taxes/total assets; market value of equity/book value of total debt; sales/total assets. </p><p>　　The hybrid model</p><p>　　Wh

31、ile several studies found the Altman et al. model to be a good predictor of financial health, a few years ago, Shumway (2001) wrote that Altman model could be improved further by using market-based information. Shumway (

32、2001) stated that unless financial variables are used along with market-based information, they are not likely to provide useful signals of financial health. Shumway’s view is also supported by other studies. For example

33、, Raghunanandan and Subramanyam (2003) report that firms t</p><p>　　To observe whether concurrently using fundamental financial information along with market-based information improves future financial healt

34、h, the hybrid model study includes all of the variables used in Altman (1968) study, and also two additional market variables – excess of market capitalization over book value of assets (intangible) and market Return to

35、represent market’s perception of future prospects.</p><p>　　The two models will be tested using two distinctive samples: a matched pair sample of healthy and bankrupt traditional firms and a matched pair sam

36、ple of healthy and bankrupt technology firms. Using two distinctive samples would help answer the following questions:</p><p>　　(1) How far a financial ratio model developed decades ago and tested on traditi

37、onal firms is relevant when used on firms with non-traditional assets?</p><p>　　(2) Does including surrogates for intangible asset values (the hybrid model) improve financial health evaluation and does the s

38、urrogate variables provide additional and meaningful signals of financial health specifically in the cases of firms with significant intangible asset holdings?</p><p>　　3、Conclusions</p><p>　　Th

39、e purpose of this study is observing how far traditional financial health models designed to evaluate manufacturing firms with traditional physical assets is capable of signaling financial health of non-traditional techn

40、ology firms that own more intangible assets than physical assets. This issue is important because technology firms take longer to develop the intangible assets and even longer to earn revenues, profits, and provide adequ

41、ate return to its stockholders. As such, using financial h</p><p>　　This study argued that, while considering the value of intangible assets, we must also bear in mind that the eventual value of such assets

42、would be reflected through their contribution to revenue generation, profitability, and future earnings potential. As such, financial health models must include not only subjective variables that reflect the value of int

43、angible assets but also objectively measured and reported fundamental financial variables that point to the assets’ performance.</p><p>　　To test these arguments, this study selected two distinctive financia

44、l health models –the Altman’s model designed, tested, and validated over 40 years ago on traditional firms and a hybrid model developed for the purposes of this study and that included both fundamental variables and surr

45、ogates for intangible asset values. The two models were tested on two separate samples of traditional firms and non-traditional technology firms. The results highlighted the importance of using two different mod</p>

46、;<p>　　Specifically, the results showed that many of the fundamental financial variables reported by Altman et al. to continue to play an important role in predicting financial health, regardless of a firm’s asset

47、 composition. The predictive accuracy was comparable to the prediction rates reported years ago in the Altman model. This supports the contention that objectively measured and published fundamental financial variables ar

48、e very important when evaluating financial health and that regardless of a</p><p>　　Source:Ram S. Sriram. Relevance of intangible assets to evaluate financial health. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 9

49、Issue: 3, p.351 – 366.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　評(píng)估財(cái)務(wù)健康狀況時(shí)無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的相關(guān)性</p><p>　　一、資產(chǎn)組合- 相關(guān)財(cái)務(wù)健康狀況評(píng)估</p><p>　　科技企業(yè)在其內(nèi)部和外部環(huán)境都不同于傳統(tǒng)的公司。不同于傳統(tǒng)的制造業(yè)或零售業(yè)公司，科技公司可以不提供有

50、形產(chǎn)品的銷售。相對(duì)于傳統(tǒng)的公司，科技公司比較年輕，不會(huì)有悠久的管理歷史。平均而言，科技企業(yè)自身?yè)碛斜葌鹘y(tǒng)的制造業(yè)相對(duì)較少的有形資產(chǎn)。他們獲得的未來(lái)經(jīng)濟(jì)利益主要來(lái)自其無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的力量- 專利，研究和發(fā)展，人類資源或知識(shí)基礎(chǔ)。由于這些無(wú)形的資產(chǎn)需要很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的發(fā)展，他們對(duì)科技企業(yè)的利潤(rùn)底線作出貢獻(xiàn)的能力也需要很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間。因此，在一個(gè)科技公司最初的幾年，其收入，盈利能力，資產(chǎn)收益率或許很低，使用這些指標(biāo)來(lái)評(píng)估其財(cái)政實(shí)力有可能導(dǎo)致錯(cuò)誤的結(jié)論。對(duì)一

51、家科技公司的實(shí)力主要的評(píng)估也只能從它擁有的無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值派生。但是，這種價(jià)值是很少在公布的財(cái)務(wù)聲明中報(bào)告出來(lái)的。</p><p>　　公布的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表不報(bào)無(wú)形資產(chǎn)價(jià)值的主要原因是，衡量這些資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值是主觀的，很容易產(chǎn)生誤差。無(wú)形資產(chǎn)不符合 “會(huì)計(jì)的定義資產(chǎn)”，報(bào)告其貨幣價(jià)值可能會(huì)提供不可靠的信息給投資者。但是，無(wú)論這種價(jià)值在公布的財(cái)務(wù)聲明中報(bào)告與否，投資人在作出投資決定時(shí)都會(huì)評(píng)價(jià)這些資產(chǎn)的強(qiáng)度。他們通過(guò)觀察一個(gè)公司

52、的股票市值的數(shù)據(jù)推斷出公司擁有的無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值。例如，幾年前，當(dāng)戴爾公司實(shí)施了運(yùn)作良好的供應(yīng)鏈體系，市場(chǎng)通過(guò)調(diào)整戴爾股票的市場(chǎng)價(jià)值，承認(rèn)了戴爾供應(yīng)鏈的無(wú)形價(jià)值。</p><p>　　分析人士警告說(shuō)，一個(gè)公司的股票市值不是其無(wú)形資產(chǎn)價(jià)值的真正反映，投資者在使用這種主觀價(jià)值時(shí)必須謹(jǐn)慎。雖然承認(rèn)該市場(chǎng)資本是主觀的，必須謹(jǐn)慎使用，但我們也必須承認(rèn)，它有助于一個(gè)高市值技術(shù)公司從市場(chǎng)獲得更多需要得公平。我們還必須認(rèn)識(shí)到，高市

53、場(chǎng)資本可以幫助公司提高實(shí)力，市值數(shù)據(jù)可能不會(huì)是一個(gè)公司長(zhǎng)期財(cái)政實(shí)力穩(wěn)定的必然反映。</p><p>　　長(zhǎng)期財(cái)務(wù)穩(wěn)定不僅取決于有能力籌集權(quán)益，但也取決于能否有效地管理公司的資產(chǎn) -有形以及無(wú)形資產(chǎn)。因此，任何資產(chǎn)的長(zhǎng)期價(jià)值，無(wú)論是有形的或無(wú)形資產(chǎn)將取決于資產(chǎn)的提供未來(lái)收益的能力和影響今后財(cái)務(wù)表現(xiàn)的能力。對(duì)于大多數(shù)投資者來(lái)說(shuō)，未來(lái)的效益和性能的證據(jù)表示在收入、利潤(rùn)的增長(zhǎng)和償還債務(wù)的能力上。目前，投資者可以通過(guò)分析公

54、布的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中的數(shù)據(jù)發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣的性能指標(biāo)。</p><p>　　這個(gè)討論的前提是，雖然市場(chǎng)對(duì)無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的看法是與短期的股票價(jià)格相關(guān)，它不應(yīng)該被用來(lái)評(píng)估長(zhǎng)期的財(cái)務(wù)健康。而從市場(chǎng)獲得感知的股票市值可用于補(bǔ)充長(zhǎng)期財(cái)務(wù)狀況的評(píng)估， 這種評(píng)價(jià)的主要數(shù)據(jù)應(yīng)來(lái)自公布的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中的基本財(cái)務(wù)指標(biāo)。因此，本研究采用財(cái)務(wù)危機(jī)模型，為一個(gè)公司所擁有的無(wú)形資產(chǎn)使用由代理人支持的基本財(cái)務(wù)指標(biāo)評(píng)估一個(gè)公司的財(cái)務(wù)狀況。</p><

55、;p>　　這項(xiàng)研究預(yù)計(jì)將通過(guò)突出貢獻(xiàn)的同時(shí)公開(kāi)相關(guān)現(xiàn)有的資料，評(píng)估財(cái)務(wù)狀況時(shí)主觀計(jì)量資產(chǎn)價(jià)值。</p><p>　　二、了解公司的失敗 -財(cái)務(wù)危機(jī)模型</p><p>　　雖然沒(méi)有對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效和健康之間的關(guān)系達(dá)成共識(shí)，一致認(rèn)為，有經(jīng)營(yíng)失敗造成損失的債權(quán)人和股東。由于投資者對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)信息披露主要依靠財(cái)政狀況評(píng)估，研究人員一直在使用公布的會(huì)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)時(shí)，建設(shè)財(cái)務(wù)危機(jī)模型。印發(fā)的核算數(shù)據(jù)也是有用的，

56、因?yàn)樗强陀^衡量，它可以接受和公認(rèn)的會(huì)計(jì)慣例而演變。一個(gè)使用財(cái)務(wù)比率的優(yōu)勢(shì)是，它們對(duì)公司財(cái)務(wù)狀況的重要屬性，如流動(dòng)性，償債能力，或盈利的替代品。</p><p>　　在過(guò)去，幾乎所有的破產(chǎn)只有把傳統(tǒng)制造企業(yè)作為研究對(duì)象的樣本。firms as their sample subjects.使用這種樣本的好處是，這些公司是從傳統(tǒng)的商業(yè)模式建立起來(lái)的產(chǎn)業(yè)。因此，使用性能的措施，如流動(dòng)比率，債務(wù)權(quán)益率，資產(chǎn)回報(bào)率和其他比

57、率，流動(dòng)性，償債能力，盈利能力或有意義的比例，這些比例提供了財(cái)務(wù)健康的可靠的信號(hào)。但是，在評(píng)估一個(gè)主要提供服務(wù)的公司，而且公司主要資產(chǎn)形式是無(wú)形資產(chǎn)時(shí)，這些比率是否適當(dāng)并不明顯。由一家科技公司提供的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)需要大量的定制和每年開(kāi)發(fā)，在產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)產(chǎn)生可行的收入前。在這種情況下，只使用諸如收入和利潤(rùn)反映了過(guò)去傳統(tǒng)的參數(shù)性能，而忽視未來(lái)的潛力是不可能揭示技術(shù)公司完整的金融地位的。</p><p>　　以前使用財(cái)務(wù)比率

58、來(lái)評(píng)估財(cái)務(wù)實(shí)力研究的主要原因是，這些比率指出，是否：</p><p>　　一個(gè)公司有一個(gè)可行的商業(yè)模式;</p><p>　　該模型幫助公司賺取足夠的收入和利潤(rùn)。</p><p>　　一個(gè)公司是否提供產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)，是否擁有實(shí)物資產(chǎn)或無(wú)形資產(chǎn)，一個(gè)可行的商業(yè)模式是必不可少的。但是，在非傳統(tǒng)的短歷史的技術(shù)公司的案例中，其業(yè)務(wù)模式的存在形式可能不被投資者支持，如收入或利潤(rùn)指

59、標(biāo)。因此，用長(zhǎng)期指標(biāo)的實(shí)力擴(kuò)大短期表現(xiàn)指標(biāo)是必要的。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，如市值和市場(chǎng)回報(bào)的指標(biāo)，雖然短期內(nèi)是根據(jù)長(zhǎng)期預(yù)期實(shí)力推導(dǎo)出的。他們指向一個(gè)市場(chǎng)對(duì)一家公司的未來(lái)盈利潛力是多么樂(lè)觀。因此，當(dāng)有重要的無(wú)形資產(chǎn)評(píng)估事務(wù)所，至關(guān)重要的是，我們同時(shí)考慮公開(kāi)報(bào)道過(guò)去的業(yè)績(jī)數(shù)據(jù)和未來(lái)盈利潛力和實(shí)力的主觀感受。</p><p>　　這項(xiàng)研究，采用兩個(gè)財(cái)政年度健康模式：傳統(tǒng)的財(cái)務(wù)狀況模型由奧特曼等(1977)設(shè)計(jì),混合模式由這項(xiàng)研究的

60、作者構(gòu)建，其中既包括過(guò)去的業(yè)績(jī)指標(biāo)和無(wú)形資產(chǎn)主觀價(jià)值，以表示將來(lái)的潛力。該奧特曼模型是幾年前設(shè)計(jì)的，適用于在其投資組合中使用傳統(tǒng)資產(chǎn)的制造企業(yè)。該預(yù)測(cè)變量只包括過(guò)去表現(xiàn)的財(cái)務(wù)比率，在傳統(tǒng)制造業(yè)公司得到了測(cè)試和驗(yàn)證。</p><p>　　奧特曼和混合的模式將被代表不同的資產(chǎn)組成的傳統(tǒng)制造公司和技術(shù)服務(wù)公司當(dāng)做樣品測(cè)試。用于分析的統(tǒng)計(jì)方法是羅吉特模型分析。傳統(tǒng)上，財(cái)務(wù)危機(jī)模型已經(jīng)評(píng)價(jià)使用如羅吉特或多重判別分析的統(tǒng)計(jì)技

61、術(shù)。這些技術(shù)都是建立在數(shù)學(xué)概念上，通常在他們的表演中強(qiáng)調(diào)。因變量將破產(chǎn)（編碼1）或健康（編碼0）。這兩個(gè)在本研究中使用的模型在以下各段進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)要討論。</p><p><b>　　1、奧特曼模型</b></p><p>　　最早的和最流行的破產(chǎn)預(yù)測(cè)模型是奧特曼等(1977)開(kāi)發(fā)的。他們確定了五個(gè)重要的預(yù)測(cè)為破產(chǎn)的財(cái)務(wù)比率。這些比率分別為：工作資本/總資產(chǎn)；留存收益/總

62、資產(chǎn)；之前的利息收益和稅收/總資產(chǎn)；市場(chǎng)的股票價(jià)值/總債務(wù)的賬面價(jià)值；銷售收入/總資產(chǎn)。</p><p><b>　　2、混合模式</b></p><p>　　雖然一些研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，奧特曼模型是一個(gè)很好的預(yù)測(cè)財(cái)政健康的模型，但是幾年前，沙姆韋（2001）寫(xiě)道，奧特曼模型可以通過(guò)以市場(chǎng)為基礎(chǔ)的信息進(jìn)一步改善。沙姆韋（2001）指出，除非金融變量與以市場(chǎng)為基礎(chǔ)的信息一起使用，

63、否則他們不太可能提供對(duì)財(cái)政健康有益的信號(hào)。沙姆韋的看法也被其他研究支持。例如，讓格華那丹和蘇泊麻葉（2003）的報(bào)告中說(shuō)，收到了持續(xù)經(jīng)營(yíng)審計(jì)意見(jiàn)的企業(yè)，市場(chǎng)價(jià)值一般都較低，降低股票收益，高波動(dòng)。雖然沙姆韋的論點(diǎn)，即股票價(jià)格提供關(guān)于一個(gè)公司的未來(lái)前景的其他有效信息，但這問(wèn)題只得到了金融危機(jī)研究領(lǐng)域有限的接受（海貍，1966；沙姆韋，2001）。</p><p>　　同時(shí)，觀察是否用基本的財(cái)務(wù)信息以及以市場(chǎng)為基礎(chǔ)的信

64、息改善未來(lái)的財(cái)務(wù)狀況，混合模式研究包括了在奧特曼（1968）研究中使用的所有變量，以及兩個(gè)額外市場(chǎng)變數(shù)-市值超逾賬面資產(chǎn)價(jià)值（無(wú)形）和市場(chǎng)回報(bào)，代表市場(chǎng)對(duì)未來(lái)前景的看法。</p><p>　　這兩個(gè)型號(hào)將采用兩個(gè)不同的測(cè)試樣品：一個(gè)健康的配對(duì)樣本和破產(chǎn)的傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)、一個(gè)健康的配對(duì)樣本和破產(chǎn)的科技企業(yè)。使用兩個(gè)不同的樣本將有助于回答下列問(wèn)題：(1)當(dāng)使用到非傳統(tǒng)資產(chǎn)的公司上時(shí)，財(cái)務(wù)比率模型在十年前的發(fā)展和對(duì)傳統(tǒng)公司的

65、測(cè)試有多大的相關(guān)性?；(2) 無(wú)形的資產(chǎn)價(jià)值是否包括代理人（混合模式）改善財(cái)務(wù)狀況的評(píng)價(jià)，替代變數(shù)是否提供額外而有意義的財(cái)政健康信號(hào)，特別是在持有顯著無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的公司案件中?</p><p><b>　　三、結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　本研究的目的是觀察傳統(tǒng)的財(cái)務(wù)健康模型，旨在評(píng)估傳統(tǒng)的有形資產(chǎn)與制造業(yè)公司，即擁有更多無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的非傳統(tǒng)技術(shù)公司的財(cái)務(wù)健康狀況。這個(gè)問(wèn)

66、題很重要，因?yàn)榭萍计髽I(yè)發(fā)展無(wú)形資產(chǎn)需要很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間，甚至更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間才能賺取收入，利潤(rùn)，并提供足夠的回報(bào)給股東。因此，使用財(cái)務(wù)健康模式和業(yè)務(wù)模式，可能會(huì)更適合來(lái)評(píng)價(jià)傳統(tǒng)的公司，可能不適合在評(píng)價(jià)科技企業(yè)。</p><p>　　這項(xiàng)研究認(rèn)為，在考慮無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的價(jià)值的同時(shí)，我們也必須牢記，這些資產(chǎn)的最終價(jià)值將通過(guò)他們的貢獻(xiàn)，創(chuàng)造收入，盈利能力反映出來(lái)其未來(lái)的收益潛力。因此，財(cái)務(wù)狀況模型不僅需要包括反映去腥資產(chǎn)價(jià)值的主管因素，也

67、包括客觀地評(píng)估和報(bào)告指向資產(chǎn)表現(xiàn)的基本財(cái)務(wù)因素。</p><p>　　為了測(cè)試這些論點(diǎn)，本研究選擇了兩個(gè)獨(dú)特的財(cái)務(wù)健康模式，奧特曼模型40年前就對(duì)傳統(tǒng)公司設(shè)計(jì)，測(cè)試，以及驗(yàn)證，而為本研究開(kāi)發(fā)的一種混合模式，其中包括兩個(gè)基本變量和無(wú)形資產(chǎn)價(jià)值的替代量。這兩個(gè)模型以傳統(tǒng)企業(yè)和非傳統(tǒng)的科技公司為樣本進(jìn)行了測(cè)試。研究結(jié)果強(qiáng)調(diào)了利用兩種不同的模型進(jìn)行評(píng)估時(shí)，不同的資產(chǎn)組成的具有獨(dú)特的商業(yè)模式和企業(yè)的重要性。研究結(jié)果指出了在

68、投資組合中評(píng)價(jià)含有更多無(wú)形資產(chǎn)的公司時(shí)，使用無(wú)形資產(chǎn)代理價(jià)值的重要性。</p><p>　　具體來(lái)說(shuō)，結(jié)果表明：奧特曼模型報(bào)道的很多基本的財(cái)務(wù)變數(shù)繼續(xù)在預(yù)測(cè)財(cái)務(wù)狀況時(shí)發(fā)揮重要的作用，與一個(gè)公司的資產(chǎn)組成無(wú)關(guān)。該預(yù)測(cè)準(zhǔn)確率是與奧特曼模型幾年前的預(yù)測(cè)數(shù)據(jù)相比的。這支持了論點(diǎn)，即客觀地測(cè)量和發(fā)布基本財(cái)務(wù)變量在財(cái)務(wù)狀況和評(píng)估時(shí)是非常重要的，無(wú)論公司資產(chǎn)組合或一個(gè)企業(yè)的經(jīng)營(yíng)模式時(shí)怎樣，基本的財(cái)務(wù)表現(xiàn)的指標(biāo)不應(yīng)被忽略。<