英语翻译The results of this analysis confirm that stock-based acquirers have relatively high-advertising expenditures prior to the merger,whereascash-based acquirers do not.Finally,although we are largely agnostic about the meansby which ad

英语翻译The results of this analysis confirm that stock-based acquirers have relatively high-advertising expenditures prior to the merger,whereascash-based acquirers do not.Finally,although we are largely agnostic about the meansby which ad
英语翻译
The results of this analysis confirm that stock-based acquirers have relatively high-advertising expenditures prior to the merger,whereascash-based acquirers do not.Finally,although we are largely agnostic about the meansby which advertising may increase stock prices,and therefore benefit the pre-mergerowners,we do attempt to provide some preliminary evidence that may shed some lighton this issue[3].
First,we attempt to relate insider stock OWN with advertising ctivities prior to the stock-based acquisition.If managers attempt to increase stockprices through increased advertising for selfish reasons,they are more likely to do sowhen they have more OWN in their firm[4].The evidence we present in the paper isindeed consistent with this notion.Surprisingly,when we attempt to link the deal ratio(DR; defined as the ratio of the deal value (price paid to the target for the acquisition)divided by the acquirer’s immediate past fiscal-year-end market value of the equity) with advertising expenses prior to the acquisition we do not find any evidence thatsuggests that increased advertising is linked with DRs that are beneficial to themanagers of the acquiring firms.

英语翻译The results of this analysis confirm that stock-based acquirers have relatively high-advertising expenditures prior to the merger,whereascash-based acquirers do not.Finally,although we are largely agnostic about the meansby which ad
The results ofthis analysis confirm that stock-based acquirers have relativelyhigh-advertising expenditures prior to the merger,whereas cash-based acquirersdo not.Finally,although we are largely agnostic about the means by whichadvertising may increase stock prices,and therefore benefit the pre-merger owners,we do attempt to provide some preliminary evidence that may shed some light onthis issue[3].
本分析证实,以股权交换的收购者花费在并购前的宣传开销要比使用现金的收购者相对较高.最后,尽管我们根本不可知道通过哪种宣传手段能够提升股价,从而使并购前的业主获益,但我们试图针对此课题提供一些初步证据.
First,we attempt to relate insider stock OWN with advertising activities priorto the stock-based acquisition.If managers attempt to increase stock pricesthrough increased advertising for selfish reasons,they are more likely to do sowhen they have more OWN in their firm [4].The evidence we present in the paperis indeed consistent with this notion.Surprisingly,when we attempt to linkthe deal ratio(DR; defined as the ratio of the deal value (price paid to thetarget for the acquisition)divided by the acquirer’s immediate pastfiscal-year-end market value of the equity) with advertising expenses prior tothe acquisition we do not find anyevidence that suggests that increased advertising is linked with DRs that arebeneficial to the managers of the acquiring firms.
首先,以股权交换的收购前期,我们试图将OWN的内部股票与广告宣传活动联系起来.如果管理者是为了私利而加强宣传来提升股价的话,他们很有可能会这样做如果当时他们的公司已拥有更多的OWN股票.本文所显示的证据确实与这个观念是一致的.出乎意料的是,当我们试图将并购交易比率（即是将支付给被收购方的并购交易价值,除于收购方在刚过去的财政年度结束时的市场价值）与收购前的广告宣传开销联系起来时,我们未发现任何证据可以表明加强宣传能够改变并购交易比率使收购公司的管理者获益.

这个分析结果证实，基于股票的收购方合并前有比较高的广告支出，而基于现金的收购不。最后，虽然我们在很大程度上是不可知的广告可能增加股票价格，并因此受益合并前业主手段，我们试图提供一些初步的证据表明，可能揭示一些减轻这个问题[3]。
首先，我们尝试自己的广告活动之前，基于股票的收购涉及股票内幕。如果管理者试图通过增加广告增加股票价格为自私的理由，他们更可能在做sowhen他们有更多的自己公司[...

全部展开

这个分析结果证实，基于股票的收购方合并前有比较高的广告支出，而基于现金的收购不。最后，虽然我们在很大程度上是不可知的广告可能增加股票价格，并因此受益合并前业主手段，我们试图提供一些初步的证据表明，可能揭示一些减轻这个问题[3]。
首先，我们尝试自己的广告活动之前，基于股票的收购涉及股票内幕。如果管理者试图通过增加广告增加股票价格为自私的理由，他们更可能在做sowhen他们有更多的自己公司[4]。我们提出的证据的文件的确符合这个概念。令人惊讶的是，当我们试图与广告链接的处理比（DR;定义是交易价值（价格支付收购的目标）除以收购的立即过去财政，每年的年底市场价值的股权比例）在收购之前，我们没有发现任何证据thatsuggests费用增加广告链接到收购企业的经理，有利于与DRS。

收起

分析的结果证实了股权收入型的收购者对广告的投入相比较于合并本身来说是很高的，然而现金收付型的则不然。最终，尽管我们对广告对股票价格产生影响从而对前期合并者产生的影响是不可知的，我们仍然尝试着提供一些对此透露希望初级证据。
首先，我们尝试着去与在股权收入型之前就做广告活动并自持股权的知情人士联系。如果高层们愿意为私因通过提高广告提高股价，当他们拥有更多的自己公司的股票时，他们就更可能这么做。...

全部展开

分析的结果证实了股权收入型的收购者对广告的投入相比较于合并本身来说是很高的，然而现金收付型的则不然。最终，尽管我们对广告对股票价格产生影响从而对前期合并者产生的影响是不可知的，我们仍然尝试着提供一些对此透露希望初级证据。
首先，我们尝试着去与在股权收入型之前就做广告活动并自持股权的知情人士联系。如果高层们愿意为私因通过提高广告提高股价，当他们拥有更多的自己公司的股票时，他们就更可能这么做。我们在纸上呈现的证据的确与这些观念一致。让人意外的是，当我们试着去联系交易比例（DR,定义为交易金额（被收购者前一年股权财政年末的合并项目的目标金额）的比率）与合并项目之前的广告支出之间的联系时，我们没有发现任何能够表明提高广告支出与DR有关系的、对收购方公司有利的证据。
^_^

收起

这一分析结果CON RMfi股权收购具有相对高的广告支出在合并之前，基于whereascash收购不。最后，虽然我们是不可知论者的手段，广告可以增加股票价格，因此效益fiT预mergerowners，我们试图提供一些初步证据表明，可能有助于弄清这个问题[ 3 ]。
首先，我们试图与股票内幕的广告活动的股权收购之前。如果管理者试图通过SELfiSH原因广告...

全部展开

这一分析结果CON RMfi股权收购具有相对高的广告支出在合并之前，基于whereascash收购不。最后，虽然我们是不可知论者的手段，广告可以增加股票价格，因此效益fiT预mergerowners，我们试图提供一些初步证据表明，可能有助于弄清这个问题[ 3 ]。
首先，我们试图与股票内幕的广告活动的股权收购之前。如果管理者试图通过SELfiSH原因广告提高价格，他们更有可能这样做时，他们在fiRM [ 4 ]更多的自己。我们提出的证据是符合这个概念。令人惊讶的是，当我们试图把交易比率（DR；德fi内德作为交易的价值比（注意目标的收购价格）分由收购的前任fi会计年度结束的市场价值的股票）的广告费用，我们不fiNd任何证据，这表明，增加广告收购前与DRS，社会效益fi的获取fiRMS themanagers联系。

收起