期刊文献+

战略风险与收益:中国上市公司的实证研究 被引量:9

Strategic Risk and Return:Empirical Study on Chinese Listed Companies
下载PDF
导出
摘要 国外大量的研究表明,战略风险与收益的关系存在被称为"鲍漫悖论"(Bow-man’s paradox)即负相关关系的现象。文章摒弃了资本资产定价、均值方差等传统的战略风险度量方法,借鉴序数信息下系统组织整体不确定性度量的熵法,把战略风险转化为企业在战略参考系统内收益排名(竞争位置)下降带来的负面不确定信息,给出了序数战略风险度量的一般模型,这个方法符合战略风险的战略本质。通过收集中国上市公司上证50指数36家企业的收益数据,运用该模型方法,根据事件研究思路,对战略风险与收益的相关关系进行了中国情景下的多次验证,得到战略风险与收益的一致负相关关系。这个结果表明,高风险不一定带来高收益,企业持久竞争优势的获取不仅源于高收益,更是长期高收益—低风险的绩效产出结果。 A large number of foreign studies have found a negative rela- tionship between strategic risk and return, which is known as "Bowman's paradox". The paper employs the entropic measure of system uncertainty under the ordinal information, abandoning the traditional CAPM and meanvariance approachs. Through defining the strategic risk as negative uncertainty information when enterprise loses rank with return (competitive position) in a strategic reference system, the paper gives a general strategic risk measurement model. According to a train of thought of event study, correlations analysis using data from 36 Chinese companies listed on the SSE 50 indicates that the existence of negative relationship between strategic risk and return is significant and constant in Chinese context. The result shows that high risk does not necessarily lead to high return, and enterprisers sustainable competitive advantage is not only obtaining from the high return, but resulting in long-term high return-low risk performance outputs. The study is very important to reframe strategic risk theory and to change the attitudes in strategic management practice.
出处 《财经研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2008年第5期133-143,共11页 Journal of Finance and Economics
基金 国家留学基金委项目[2006]3074 教育部新世纪优秀人才计划项目(NCET05-0864)
关键词 战略风险 收益 负相关 strategic risk return entropy negative relationship
  • 相关文献

参考文献33

  • 1Hamel G, Prahalad C K. Competing for the future [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1994,(4) : 122-128.
  • 2Miller K D, Bromiley P. Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternative risk measures[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1990, 33(4) : 756-779.
  • 3Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H. Strategic risk and competitive advantage: An integrative perspective [J]. European Management Review, 2004, 1 (1) : 84- 95.
  • 4Clarke C J, Varrna S. Strategic risk management: The new competitive edge[J]. Long Range Planning, 1999, 32(4): 414-424.
  • 5祝志明,杨乃定,姜继娇,贾晓霞.企业战略风险识别研究[J].科研管理,2005,26(6):1-6. 被引量:26
  • 6Bowman E H. A risk/return paradox for strategic management[J]. Sloan Management Review, 1980, 21(3): 17-31.
  • 7Bowman E H. Risk seeking by troubled firms [J]. Sloan Management Review, 1982, 23(4) : 33-42.
  • 8Baird I S, Thomas H. Toward a contingency model of strategic risk taking[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1985, 10(2): 230-243.
  • 9Ruefli T W. Mean-Variance approaches to risk-return relationships in strategy: Paradox lost [J]. Management Science, 1990,36(3): 368-380.
  • 10Fiegenbaum A. Prospect theory and the risk-return association: An empirical examination in 85 industries[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1990, 14: 187-204.

二级参考文献46

  • 1波特.竞争优势[M].北京:华夏出版社,1997..
  • 2波特 陈小悦(译).竞争战略[M].北京:华夏出版社,1997..
  • 3Christopher J. Clarke and Suvir Varma. Strategic risk management: The new competitive edge [ J ]. Long Range Planning,1999, 32(4): 404 - 312.
  • 4明茨伯格.战略历程:纵览战略管理学派[M].机械工业出版社,2001..
  • 5Wernerfelt B. The resource - based view of the firm: ten years after [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1995, 16(3): 171- 174.
  • 6项保华.战略管理:艺术与实务[M].华夏出版社,2003..
  • 7GaryHamelandPrahalad C K.竞争大未来[M].昆仑出版社,1998..
  • 8R.A. Bettis and Howard Thomas. 1990. Risk, Strategy and Management [M]. JAT Press: Greenwich, Conn.
  • 9JamesM. Collins and Tmothy W. Ruefli. 1996. Strategic Risk : A State - defined Approach [ M]. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • 10R.S. Kaplan and Norton D.P. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard:Translating Strategy Into Action [ M ]. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

共引文献62

同被引文献161

引证文献9

二级引证文献37

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部