创造财富-企业财务战略与决策【外文翻译】

本科毕业论文（设计）外 文 翻 译原文：Creating WealthCorporate Financial Strategy and Decision MakingCorporate Financial Strategic PlanningHerbert Simon has written that there is a Greshams law of planning: “Programmed activity tends to drive out non programmed activity.” The decision to buy a new energy-saving piece of equipment is a lot easier to discuss and analyze than strategic investment decisions. In the case of the energy-saving equipment, cash flows can be estimated and the decision to buy or not to buy can be made based on well-known capital budgeting techniques. The basic capital budgeting techniques are “programmed activities” in Simons law. Strategy issues are a lot softer and a lot less satisfactory to write about and to read. However, it may well be that strategy issues are much more important, even if they are not fun to consider.Strategy leads a firm to enter the energy business. That is the first and most important decision. The firm might then have to value a prospective acquisition as a means of accelerating the entry into the industry, but without the strategy decision it would not be necessary to value the acquisition. All business decision making is based on abstractions from reality. We have to simplify in order to make decisions. We can delay decision making by insisting- on more information, but when the more information is obtained, there will still be more information that could be obtained if you were willing to defer action. Sooner or later one has to resist the opportunity to get more information, and one has to make the decision.Herbert Simon has said this best: Administrative theory is peculiarly the theory of intended and bounded rationality of the behavior of human beings who satisfice because they have not the wits to maximize. And as additional explanation: Whereas economic man maximizes selects the best alternative from among all those available to him, his cousin, administrative man, satisfices looks for a course of action that is satisfactory or “good enough.” Examples of satisficing criteria, familiar enough to businessmen if unfamiliar to most economists, are “share of market,” “adequate profit,” “fair price.”The substitution of the word “satisfice” for “maximize” is not necessary if we are willing to consider the costs of information, search, and delay in the decision to maximize. In a sense we can conclude that Simon is suggesting that it is better to make decisions, even imperfect decisions, than to endure the long wait until the perfect information and perfect decision processes are available. “In an important sense, all decision is a matter of compromise.”While Simons “satisfice” description is an extremely useful device for describing how managers operate, we shall find it convenient to collapse Simons “satisfice” and profit maximization into one expression. Infect, the profit maximization (where profit is defined in terms of risk-adjusted present value) is deemed to be the primary objective of the firm. More is better. Further, the profit maximization objective includes the information cost and cost of search so that it is consistent with Simons satisfice (we are not rejecting the satisfice concept). The assumption is that decisions should be made from the point of view of improving the well-being of the stockholders. This is a reasonable point of departure, but it cannot be the entire message. Managers, employees, customers, and society in general have interests in the results of a firms operations. We must also consider the impact of decisions on the well-being of these groups. One might object to this conclusion, but realistically such considerations are being included by successful firms.No manager submits an investment or other decision proposal without carefully considering the impact of the decision being reviewed on his or her well-being. Even the board of directors will consider the well-being of managers if for no other reason than that managers are likely to be on the board. Employees also must be considered, since an obvious and continuous disregard of their interests will cause them to insist on the right to protect their interests. Customers also gain their right to be considered by the economic power they wield, not in the board room directly, but indirectly via the right of a consumer to avoid buying a corporations product.The rights of society can to some extent be ignored by a corporation for a short period of time, but continuous implementation of a “public be damned” philosophy is likely to bring forth a string of government legislation. The interests of society must be respected if only to avoid such legislation. A corporation should do “right” either because it is the proper thing to do or because it is in its own best interests to behave in such a fashion.Key Elements of Strategic PlanningThe five key elements of the strategic planning are listed below:The first element in developing a strategy is the identification of the problems and opportunities that exist. A successful firm will have a fertile idea-generating environment. What problems and opportunities are there? Problem and opportunity identification is one of the more important outputs resulting from good strategic planning. No problem can be solved or an opportunity can be seized unless it exists.The second element is to set goals (objectives). Goal setting is not independent of the identification of opportunities. If the goal is to achieve growth in sales of 15% per year, it will be necessary to spend more resources generating ideas than if the goal is to avoid growth. It may be argued that top management should stop with the setting of the goals and leave everything else to the operating managers. For example, top management might set the goals to earn at least 25% return on investment (ROI), to maintain a 15% growth rate per year, and to corner 20% of the total market as the firms profit goals. Operating management would then establish the details as to how the goals would be achieved. A popular form of managerial style is to “manage by objectives.” If one manages by objectives, the goal is set by the top, but the specific method of getting to the goal is not controlled. The results are important, not the method of getting to the results. Performance measurement is substituted for detailed supervision. Thus goal setting becomes a crucially important element in the strategic planning.We now have problems and goals defined. The third element is to have a procedure for providing, possible solutions, or “paths” the firm can follow to find a solution. For example, the current energy situation can be defined as a problem or an opportunity. The goal might be to achieve energy independence or to make a given return on investment. Assume a firm has decided to enter the energy industry and has to decide what kind of energy it will develop and how it will go about it. For example, it might consider solar, wind, tide, and fossil and then decide to go with solar.Having decided to enter the solar energy industry, the corporation might decide to spend large sums on research or alternatively might decide to acquire a firm that already has valuable know-how and thus accelerate its entry into the industry. The setting of tactics follows the setting of the basic strategy for entering the industry.The basic decision is to “enter the solar energy industry.” The goals that are set can be to earn 25% ROI, increase earnings 15% per year, and gain 20% of the total market. Top management of the corporation might then leave the details of how this is to be achieved to the managers operating the solar energy division. This is an extreme form of decentralization and “bottom line management.” The more normal procedure is for top management to oversee the more important decisions that are made, especially those involving large investment outlays or other large commitments.The fourth element of strategic planning is to choose the best solution, given possible solutions and the firms objectives. On what basis will the best solution be chosen? The goal might have been established to maximize the well being of the stockholders. This is easy to state, but given a large number of ways to enter the energy industry, which method should be chosen? It might be decided to choose the path with the largest net present value. But then risk considerations should enter analysis. Choosing the best solution, even with well-defined goals established, is a difficult job.The fifth and final element of strategic planning is to have some type of review procedures to check how the best solution has actually performed. How this review function is executed will depend on the preferences and style of management.The above five elements of strategic planning do not reveal anything about the style in which they (and the resulting plans) will be implemented. They are broad enough to encompass a wide range of financial decisions. For example, if the goal is to have reasonable growth but little risk, the amount of risk that is acceptable to the owners of the corporation (or in their absence, to the board of directors) will greatly affect the amount of debt that is used to finance the corporation.A major planning question not yet answered is to what extent the interests of the organization come ahead of the interests of the different groups of employees. What sort of performance measures will be used, and what happens when goals are not met? Will excuses (explanations) be listened to, or will there be an insistence on performance? Managerial style will circle back and affect things like idea generation.Approach to StrategyWe will consider four approaches to strategy. The first uses brilliance and is unstructured, while the second uses dramatic simplifications and broad generalizations. The third relies heavily on statistical data, and the fourth is a theoretical approach that is correct, but may not always be practical.Approach 1: BrillianceUnder this approach each situation is unique and the problem solver applies brilliance in arriving at a strategy. There is an unstructured analysis. A systematic approach to thinking about strategy can be learned (one can practice strategy decisions via cases and games), but there are few if any generalizations. A listing of the five elements of strategic planning described above is an illustration of an attempt to systematize thinking about strategy.One can read a strategy recommendation for a firm and admire its wisdom, but still not be able to tell a computer how to do the next analysis.Approach 2: Broad GeneralizationsThe Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has developed an amazingly simple to understand and attractive approach to strategy. In accordance with the model, the best of all worlds is for a product to have a high market share in a high-growth market (be a star). Thus the implication (recommendation?) is that a firm should maintain dominant market position in a growing market (the market segment may be very limited) or the firm should abandon the activity.To some extent this recommendation is based on theory. To be in a monopolistic position is a desirable state from the point of view of profit maximization. Secondly, if a firm is producing more than the competitors, it is apt to be further along its learning curve, and thus its cost is likely to be less than those of competitor. Here, it is assumed that the incremental costs reduce with the number of units produced, and there is evidence to substantiate this assumption. If the firm has a high market share but slow growth in the market, it has a cash cow. Do not invest in this market, but drain off the cash. And if both the market share and market growth are low, it has a dog, and the advice is to find some fool who will take if off. Finally, if the market growth is high but the market share is low, then there is a question mark. Strategy will depend on the expectation of being able to move from a low market share to a high market share. The firm should either spend to achieve stardom or get out of the market.Source: V K Bhalla,2004 “Creating WealthCorporate Financial Strategy and Decision Making” .Journal of Management Research,vol.4,no.1,april,pp.13-17.译文：创造财富:企业财务战略与决策企业财务战略规划赫伯特西蒙曾撰文指出有一个格雷欣法则规划：”列入方案的活动往往赶不上未列入方案的活动”。 决定购买新的节能设备比讨论和分析战略性投资决策容易得多。在节能设备的方案中，现金流量是可以预算的，购买或者不购买是可以根据著名的资本预算技术来决定的。资本预算的基本技术在西蒙法则中就是“程序活动”。 战略问题是一个柔和，担不是一个令人满意的写和读。但是，它很可能比这一战略问题更重要，即使他们考虑起来并不好玩。战略领导一个公司进入能源业务。这是第一个也是最重要的决定。该公司接下来可能有必要去做一个潜在的收购评估来加快进入该行业，但如果没有战略决策，将没有必要去做收购评估。所有的商业决策都是基于现实的抽象。我们必须简化，以便于做出决定。我们可以通过坚持要求更多的信息来延迟决策，但是当获得更多的信息，还会有更多的信息可以得到，如果你愿意推迟行动。人们迟早有必要去抵制得到更多的信息的机会，因为他们必须做出决定。西蒙说这个最好：行政管理理论是特有的预期的和有限理性理论 对于满足人类，因为他们没有智慧去最大限度地发挥人类的行为。而作为补充说明：鉴于经济人最大化 从所有这些选择提供给他，他的表弟，行政人员，以满足最佳替代查找的行动当然这是令人满意的，或者说“足够好”。标准的令人满意的例子，对于商人足够熟悉，但是对于大多数经济学家却很不熟悉是“市场占有率”，“足够的利润”，“公平的价格。”如果我们愿意最大限度的去考虑在信息，搜索成本和延误方面的决定的话，用“满意”这个词去替代“最大化”是没有必要。在某种意义上，我们可以得出结论，西蒙表明做出决定，即使这不是完美的决定，也要比忍受等待直到完善的信息和完善的决策过程实现可以利用要来得好。 “在一个重要的意义上，所有的决定是一个妥协的问题。”虽然西蒙的“满意”描述是描述如何管理运作非常有用的工具，我们会发现它是一种很方便去瓦解西蒙的“满意”和利润最大化的表述。事实上，利润最大化（其中利润是指在风险调整后的现值计算）被视为是该公司的首要目标。越多越好。此外，利润最大化的目标，包括信息成本和搜寻成本，使之符合西蒙的满意（我们不应拒绝令人满意的概念）。假设决策应该从股东所认为的改善福利的观点来决定。这是一个合理的出发点，但它不能成为整个讯息。一般来说，经理，员工，客户和整个社会在一个公司的经营业绩上都是有利益的。我们还必须把影响这些群体的福利的决策考虑在内。有人可能会反对这一结论，但实际上很多成功的公司都把这个考虑在内。在没有仔细考虑该投资或者这个决策建议对他或她的福利的审查的影响之前，没有经理会去提交。即使是董事会将考虑如果没有其他原因只是管理者很可能是资深董事的良好管理人员的福利。员工也必须被考虑，因为一个明显的，持续的无视他们的利益将促使他们坚持他们的权利去保护自己的利益。客户也获得他们的权利去考虑行使他们的经济实力，而不是直接通过董事会会议室，但间接地通过了消费者的权利，以避免购买公司的产品。社会的权利，可以在一定程度上被公司在很短的时间内忽略，但是一个持续实施“公众见鬼去吧”的经营理念可能带来一系列的政府立法。社会的利益必须得到尊重，如果只是为了避免这种立法。一个公司应该做的“权利”可能是因为它是正确的事情，或者是因为它在自己的最佳利益，来表现这样一种时尚。战略规划的关键要素五个战略规划的关键要素如下： 在制订战略的第一要素是鉴定存在的问题与机会。一个成功的公司将拥有一个丰富的理念创新环境。存在的问题和机会有哪些？问题与机会识别是其中一个重要的从良好的战略规划产生的。除非问题或机会被确立存在，否则任何问题都不能得到解决，也不可能抓住机会。第二个要素是要建立目标（目标）。设定目标是不是独立身份的机会。如果目标是实现每年15的销售增长，如果目标就是要避免出现增长，将需要花费更多的资源的见解。有人可能会认为，高层管理人员应停止去设定目标，并且把一切别的东西留给操作经理。例如，高层管理人员制定的目标可能获得至少25的投资回报（ROI），保持每年15的增长速度，作为垄断企业的利润目标总额的20的市场份额。经营管理，然后建立将目标如何实现的细节。常见的管理风格是“靠他们的目标”。如果有经营目标,目标是由领导设置,但得到目标的具体方法不是控制。结果很重要,而不是得到结果的方法。绩效评估代替了详细的监督。因此目标设定成为了重要元素的战略计划。我们现在有问题和目标定义。第三个要素是有程序以提供可能的解决方法或者“路线”，以便于公司能跟着找到解决的办法。例如,当前能源形势可以被定义为一个问题或一个机会。目标似乎可以实现能源独立或特定的投资回报率。假设一家公司已决定进入能源行业，并决定什么样的能源，将发展及如何去做。例如，它可能会考虑太阳能，风能，潮汐，化石，然后再决定去与太阳能。在决定进军太阳能产业，该公司可能会决定花大笔的研究又或者可能会决定收购一家已经拥有宝贵的知识的公司，从而加速其对该行业的进入。战术的设定遵循设置的基本策略来进入这一行业。基本决定就是“要进入太阳能产业。” 设定目标可以是赚取25的投资回报率，每年增加收入15，并获得市场总盈利的20%。该公司高层管理人员或者会把如何实现这