我国上市公司生命周期划分方法实证比较研究.pdf

19 3 系 统 管 理 学 报 V ol. 19 N o. 3 20 10 6 J ournal o f System s M anagement Jun . 20 10 : 1005- 2542( 2010 03- 0313- 10 曹 裕, 陈晓红, 王傅强 ( , 410083 在对已有企业生命周期阶段模型进行梳理 基础上, 重点分析了文献中出现 管理熵法产业 增长率法和现金流法3 种常用 企业生命周期划分方法, 并在此基础上, 运用中国沪深两市上市公司数据展 开实证比较研究研究发现, 虽然以上方法在不同学者各自 研究中均具有一定 适用性, 但对中国上市公 司生命周期阶段进行划分 结果却并不一致, 不同方法所得结果之间在统计上存在显著性差异运用以上 方法对我国上市公司不同生命周期阶段资本结构 差异进行了研究结果表明, 所采用 3 种方法 划分 结果并不能很好反应企业不同生命周期阶段资本结构 差异因此, 有必要进 一步加强对企业生命周期阶 段划分模型 研究 : 生命周期; 管理熵; 产业增长率; 现金流; 非参数检验 : F 276. 6 : A Comparative Research of Life Cycle Models of Chinese Companies in Stock Market CA O Yu, CH EN X iao-hong , WA N G F u-qiang ( Schoo l of Business , Cent ral Sout h Universit y, Changsha 410083, China AbstractOn t he basis of carding t he exist ing lif e cycle st age models , t his paper fo cu s on analy ze t hree com monly u sed method of divisio n o f enterprises lif e cycle, w hich is respect ively managerial ent ropy met h- o d, indust ry grow t h rat e met hod and cash f low met hod and does an empirical resear ch t o compar e t hese three met hods above by the data of list ed com panies in Chinas St ock M ar ket . We f ind that alt hough the abov e methods hav e a degr ee o f applicabilit y in diff erent scho lars research , but t he abo ve lif e cycle div-i sion models do nt g ive consist ent result s f or Chinas list ed companies, and t he diff erent is st at ist ically sig- nificant . We also use t he above method t o resear ch t he dif f erences of Chinese list ed companies capit al st ruct ure in diff er ent life cy cle st ages, the result s show t hat t he three methods o f div ision cant g ive a v ery goo d r esult s and should not react t he capi