歯목차.PDF

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "歯목차.PDF"

하선 방
6 years ago
Views:

1 200%

2 , LG

3 < >, IMF,, 30 IMF 30,,, , , % 164% 30 IMF i

4 ,, (+), (-) IMF 30 5~30 1~4 (-), (+) IMF 30, 200%, 30 ii

5 < > < > I II : 17 5 : ROE III IV 200% 32 < > 40 < >45

6 < > <I-1> <I-2> <I-3> 30 5 <1> GDP 12 <I-4> 30 5 <2> 18 <I-5> 30 6 <I-6> 30 7 < 1> GDP ( )11 <I-7> 30 8 < 2> 12 <I-8> 30 9 < 3> GDP 13 <II-1> < 4> 14 <II-2> < 5> GDP HP 14 <II-3> < 6> 15 <II-4> < 7> GDP GDP15 <II-5> < 8> 16 <III-1> 26 < 9> 16 <III-2> 30 < 10> 17 <III-3> 31 < -1> 41 < -2> 4 42 < -3> 4 42 < -4> 4 43 < I-1> < II-1> < II-2> < II-3> < II-4> 30 19

7 30 1 IMF EVA,,, LG, SK 4 200% IMF, 2 4 IMF 200% % 1

8 2 30, 2 (Debit), (Credit) 30,, IMF,, IMF

9 200% % , , , 97 1/4 30, 4 5 ~ , 9731, 986, IMF 98 4 IMF 96, 97 1/3 5~ , 9714, 9813, ~ , 97 1/6 <I-1> 30 ( : ) ~ ~ : ,,,, , % 3

10 9811, , 9710 IMF 9875, ~ <I-2> 30 ( : ) ~ ~ : 1 = , , 9732, 9818, , 9721, 9813, ~ , 9711, 985, 992 4

11 <I-3> 30 ( : ) ~ ~ : 1 = , , 9781, , , 9751, 9890, IMF 2 5 ~ , 9729, 9826, ,, <I-4> ~ ~ : % 5

12 IMF , 97 20, %, %, %, % %, %, %, % <I-5> 30 ( ) (%) ~ ~ ~ ~ : = %, %, %, % 30 IMF

13 ~30 96~ , 4 <I-6> ~ ( ) 5~ ~ ~ (%) : = ( )+ ( )+ ( ) , 9728, 9818, IMF , 9720, 9815, ~ IMF ~ , 9786, 9829, % 7

14 <I-7> ~ ~ : = , IMF,, 200% , 9742, , 9725, , 9620, , , 9717, 9871, , 29 5~30 4 5~30, 96115, 97135,

15 5~ , 9708, 9812, ~4 5~30 30 <I-8> : 30 5,,, 30,,, , % 9

16 , ,, 1) 30, < > 96 97, < I-1> 30 ( ) ( ) 1) IMF / 30, 10

17 , 30, , 97307, 98294, % 63 4, 96125, 97178, 98165, %, 42 5~ , 97129, 98129, ~ %, 21 30, 30, 96147, 97211, , , 97125, 98117, % 5~ , 9786, 9889, ~ % 200% 11

18 30 30, 96 60, 9763, 9892, IMF 136% , 9738, 9857, % 5 ~ , 9725, 9834, ~ % 30, % 20 1~4 5~30 <II-1> 30 ( :, %) ( ) (576) (804) (1247) (1172) (820) ( ) (550) (670) (860) (891) (698) ( ) (1126) (1474) (2107) (2063) (1518) : ~99 (98 ), (99 ), (95, 97, 98, 99 ) =

19 2 30, , 4 35, , 37, % % 2 325%p , 63, , % 200% 13

20 < II-1> %, 9772%, 98116%, 99105% %, 9740%, 9862%, 9943% 5~ %, 9777%, 98125%, 99115%

21 = =, 30 30, 96110%, 97101%, %, 99115% %, 9791%, 98135%, % 5~ %, 97102%, 98130%, % IMF 2, %, 9756%, 9857%, 9952% %, 9754%, 9855%, 9944% 5~ %, 9757%, 9858%, 9953% , 97093, 9808, , 97124, 98119, ~ , 97088, 98073, % 200% 15

22 %, 9717%, 985%, 991% IMF ) 3 <II-2> 30 1~4 5~ (%) (%) (%) () (%) (%) (%) () (%) (%) (%) () : = ( / ) 100 = ( / ) 100, =( + )/2 = ( / ) 100 = /, = ( + )/2 2),

23 4 :,, <II-3> 30 () ~ ~ : , , , 200% 17

24 < II-2> 30 () < II-3> 30 (1996~1999 ) () 3 96~99 117% (ROIC) :, (,,,,,,, ) = / = / 18

25 5 : ROE 30, (ROE) = [( ) ( 1 ) ] % 99 28% < II-4> 30 ( ) : 200% 19

26 99 30 (96~99 117%),,,,, ( / ), = [( ) ( )] = [( ) ] ( 1 ) = ( ) ) 1~4 5~30 20

27 <II-4> 30 1~ (%) (%) () (%) () ~30 (%) (%) () (%) () (%) (%) () (%) () : = [( - ) (1 )] = ( ) 100 = = ( ) 100 = 6 200% 21

28 3) IMF IMF ,500 IMF ,800, % 5,600 IMF 5~ , ,700 48% IMF ,500 5~30 1/ <II-5> ~4 4,269 5,506 4,918 3,813 5,585 5~30 2,999 4,461 3,895 1,707 2, ,268 9,967 8,813 5,520 8,119 3) Business Week Global1000 Global1000,,, 585,

29 1 IMF,, IMF, MM(Modigliani Miller), (Pecking order theory), (Tradeoff theory) MM,,,,,, Myers (Information Asymmetry) 200% 23

30 24,,,,,,,,,,

31 Tradeoff Tradeoff 2 Shyam Sunder-Myers 4) (Deficit) deficit = ( X + W + XP + IR + R + Div) CF X : = ( ) W : = + ( ) XP : = ( ) 4) Shyam-Sunder L and S Myers, Testing Static Tradeoff Against Pecking Order Models of Capital Structure, Journal of Financial Economics 51, 1999, pp % 25

32 IR : R : Div : = ( ) CF : = + L = α + β Deficit + ε L = Lt Lt 1 : L + E ( X deficit = t t t + Wt + XPt + IRt + Rt + Divt ) CFt : L + E t t L : = E : <III-1> ; L α 0004 IMF IMF 1~4 5~30 (0200) β 0324 (3689) 0095 (3649) 0378 (3208) (-3126) 0061 (0563) 0014 (0215) 0038 (0203) (-1692) 0776 (9419) (-2248) 1386 (4646) 0007 (0290) 0283 (3092) R : ( ) t (+) (+)

33 IMF, (+) IMF IMF IMF IMF,,, ~4 5~30 1~4 -, IMF, 200% 27

34 3 Fama-French Fama-French,, Tradeoff,, 5) Fama-French, (Fitted leverge) (Fitted leverage), < > L t A t = a 0 + a 1 S A t t + a 2 CF S t t + a 3 Div t + a ( EBIT IR ) t t 4 Dep A t t + a 5 RD A t t + a 6 ln( A ) + ε t t < > L A t t L A t 1 t 1 = b 0 Lt + b E A 1 t L A t 1 t 1 + b 2 L A t 1 t 1 CFt + b 3 St CF S t 1 t 1 Wt + X t + XP t + b 4 At + ε t 5) Fama E and K French, Testing Tradeoff and Pecking Order Predictions about Dividends and Debts, Univ of Chicago CRSP Working Paper No 506, July

35 A : = ( + ) + L : = S : RD : ( ) Dep : ( ) EBIT : IR : CF : = + W : = + ( ) X : = ( ) XP : = ( ) Div : = ( ) L t E : At 30 Tradeoff Tradeoff Tradeoff, (-) 200% 29

36 IMF (-) (-) (-), (+) Tradeoff <III-2> IMF IMF 1~4 5~ (-187) (-126) (-223) (-001) 0078 (248) 0007 (004) (-231) (-093) (-085) 0599 (127) 0000 (-009) (-214) 0098 (119) (-270) (-144) 1169 (246) (-017) 3095 (155) (-071) (-055) 0001 (003) (-059) (-214) (063) (097) (-396) (-065) (-077) (416) (-087) (376) (169) (-105) (-088) (608) (-266) (198) (-315) (-297) (207) (011) (-161) R : ( ) t ~30 1~4 (-), (-) (+) ( (-) )

37 IMF IMF (-), (+) <III-3> IMF IMF 1~4 5~ (269) 0126 (144) (-284) 0307 (731) 0127 (070) (-226) (-043) 0048 (088) 0395 (264) 0239 (181) (-261) 0265 (381) 0696 (357) (-152) (-128) 0102 (106) 0203 (114) (-070) 0079 (028) 0250 (613) 0519 (164) 0358 (068) (-115) 0544 (289) 0441 (375) 0068 (077) (-260) 0256 (559) R : ( ) t (-), 30 6) IMF 5~30, IMF, 1~4, IMF 6), Tradeoff 200% 31

38 200% 30 IMF 30,, , 149 IMF 30, 200%, 30 (FLC)

39 30, 30 (ROIC) = =,,, = [( ) ] ( 1 ),, ( / ), 7) 7),,,, 2,, % 33

40 34 1, 1,

41 ,, ROIC, EVA, ROE NPV, EVA, NPV, ),,,,,, % 35

42 IMF,,,,,,,,, 36

43 200% 37 R&D,, % % %

44 38 (hedge),, (ABS),,, CFO

45 200% 39, 60%,,, IR

46 40 < >,, ( ) 8 16,,

47 4 4 < -1> LG SK : 4 192%, 98%, 396% 200% 41

48 4 384%, 56% 381%, 417%, LG 380%, SK 361% < -2> 4 ( ) (%) : : % 785% 490% 382%, (ROIC) 4 103% 135%32%p 42 < -3> 4 (%) :, (Kis-Line) : 4,, = / [ +( - )]

49 4 2311% 1405% 90%p < -4> 4 (%) () :, (Kis-Line) : 4 = / ( - ) 200% 43

50 44 IR

51 < >,,, (I), , pp ,,,,,, 1998,, EVA, 14, 1997, pp 1-21,,,, 11997, 21999,, " ", 51, 1999, pp27-51,,, " ", , pp ,,, 1999 (II), , pp 1-20,,, LG, 1998,, 17, , 200% :, LG 584, LG, ,, MBO, LG, 1998,,, 7, LG, ,, " ", , pp1-21,,, LG 432, LG, ,,, 122, 1999, pp ,, " ", , pp ,,, LG, 2000, - Global 1000, LG 585, LG, , - Global 1000, LG 586, LG, , " ", KDI % 45

52 1999, pp3-58 Bacidore, Jeffrey M, John A Boquist, Todd T Milbourn, and Anjan V Thakor, The Search for the Best Financial Performance Measure, Financial Analysts Journal, May/June 1997, pp Emery, Grey W, Sustainable Growth for Credit Analysis, Business Credit, February 2000, pp Fama, E and K French, Testing Tradeoff and Pecking Order Predictions about Dividends and Debt, Univ of Chicago CRSP Working Paper No 506, July 2000 Fazzari, S, R Hubbard and B Peterson, "Financing Constraints and Investment: Response to Kaplan and Zingales", Working Paper, Jan 1996 Ferguson, Robert and Dean Leistikow, Search for the Best Financial Performance Measure: Basics Are Better, Financial Analysts Journal, January/February 1998, pp Kaplan, S and L Zingales, "Investment-Cash Flow Sensitivities Are Not Valid Measures of Financing Constraints", NBER Working Paper no 7659, April 2000 Krishnan, Gopal V and James A Largay, The Predictive Ability of Direct Method Cash Flow Information, Journal of Business & Accounting, January/March 2000, pp Mills, John R and Jeanne H Yamamura, The Power of Cash Flow Ratios, Journal of Accountancy, October 1998, pp Mauboussin, Michael J and Bob Hiler, Cash Economics in the New Economy Cash Flowcom, February 1999 Scharfstein, D, "The Dark Side of Internal Capital Markets II: Evidence from Diversified Conglomerates", NBER Working Paper, Jan 1998 Schnure, C, "Internal capital markets and investment: do the cash flow constraints really bind?", Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Working Paper, 1997 Shin, Hyun-Han and R Stulz, "Are Internal Capital Market Efficient?", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1998, pp Shyam-Sunder L and S Myers, Testing Static Tradeoff Against Pecking Order Models of Capital Structure, Journal of Financial Economics 51, 1999, pp Titman, S and R Wessels, "The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice", Journal of Finance 43, 1988, pp 1-19 Vogt, Stephen C and Joseph D Vu, Free Cash Flow and Long-Run Firm Value: Evidence from the Value Line Investment Survey, Journal of Managerial Issues, Summer 2000, pp

, ( ) * 1) * * (KCGS) 2003, 2004 (CGI),. (+),.,,,.,. (endogeneity) (reverse causality),.,,,. I ( ) .

, ( ) * 1) *** *** (KCGS) 2003, 2004 (CGI),. (+),.,,,.,. (endogeneity) (reverse causality),.,,,. I ( ) *. ** *** , 40 3 4 (2006 12 ) * 1) *** *** (KCGS) 2003, 2004 (CGI),. (+),.,,,.,. (endogeneity) (reverse causality),.,,,. I. 1998. 2005 12 ( ) *. ** *** 2, 40 3 4 37.2%, 20 60%. 80%..,..,.,,, (SCB),,,.,..,, /,..

歯목차.PDF

歯목차.PDF