Question

哪位大侠能帮我翻译一下这段英文文献吗？

Including a company specific risk premium to account for differences between theforecasted and expected cash flows is generally accepted by valuation professionals. The publications of the American Society of Appraisers (ASA) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) suggest in their guides to valuation that company specific risk premium be included in the discount rate as an adjustment for the riskiness of the forecast. These adjustments are qualitative, at best. The ASA manual explains that “There are few objective data and no quantitative means of establishing the company-specific risk premium. It is largely a matter of judgment and experience.” [page 61, v. 5.1 (11/06)]. The AICPA publication, Understanding Business Valuation, suggests that the company-specific risk premium should account for “risk elements not covered by the equity risk premium.” It also reports that there is “no objective source of data to properly reflect or quantify” the companyspecific risk premium, “[t]here are no mystical tables that an appraiser can turn to, nor can the appraiser be totally comfortable with this portion of the assignment” and that it makes “auditors cringe.”
While the practice of increasing the discount rate in DCF calculations to account for biased cash flow forecasts is common by practitioners and appraisers, and is used in venture capital and international project valuations, most traditional academic discussions frown on it. Brealey, Myers, and Allen (2005) describe these denominator adjustments as “fudge factors” that managers use because they “fail to give bad outcomes their due weight in cash flow forecasts.” These discount rate adjustments make the authors “nervous” and they recommend that managers instead adjust the forecasts so that cash flows used in the DCF calculation are expected values.
In this paper I simply model the expected cash flows as the forecasted cash flows plus a missing component. I present two different specifications of the missing component in Section 2. I show that the appropriate adjustment to the DCF formula when using forecasted cash flows depends on the specification of the missing component. In one specification, the appropriate adjustment is to decrease the forecasted cash flows; in the other specification, however, the appropriate adjustment is to decrease the forecasted cash flows and increase the discount rate. Furthermore, the choice of specification has a substantial impact on the estimated value.

Answer 1

包括theforecasted之间的差异和预期现金流量的公司特定风险溢价帐户是由专业评估人员普遍接受。在美国评估师协会（ASA）和美国注册会计师协会（美国注册会计师协会）出版物的指南，建议在该公司的特定风险估值溢价将其作为一个对预测的风险调整贴现率包括在内。这些调整是定性的，最好的。 ASA的手册解释说，“很少有客观的数据和建立公司特定风险溢价没有量化手段。这在很大程度上是判断和经验。“[61页，诉5.1（11/06）]的问题。 AICPA的出版物，了解企业价值评估，表明公司特定风险溢价应占“风险没有被覆盖的元素股权风险溢价。”这还报告说，没有“客观的数据源，以适当反映或量化”的companyspecific风险溢价，“[吨]这里没有神秘的鉴定表一可以打开，也不能完全的鉴定与此转让部分舒适”，它使“核数师畏缩。”
虽然越来越多的现金流预测偏差DCF的折扣率计算到账户的做法是由医生和鉴定人共同的，并在风险投资和国际估值中采用的项目，最传统的学术讨论皱眉就可以了。备课阅读：Brealey，迈尔斯和Allen（2005）描述了这些分母的调整“蒙混因素”，管理人员使用，因为他们“不给他们的不良后果的现金流量预测应有的重视。”这些折扣率的调整使作家的“神经”，他们建议管理者，而不是现金流量调整，使在DCF计算中使用的预测预期值。
在本文中，我只是模型作为预测现金流量加上缺少组件的预期现金流量。我提出的两个第2名失踪组件的不同规格。我表明，适当的调整，在使用的DCF公式预测现金流量缺少的组成部分规格而定。在一个规范的，适当的调整是为了减少现金流量预测，而在其他规格，然而，适当的调整是为了减少现金流量预测，提高贴现率。此外，规范的选择对估计的价值产生重大影响。

Answer 2

包括公司具体风险溢价占差异和期望的theforecasted普遍接受现金流量表是根据评价专业人士。出版物的美国社会的估价师(亚撒)和美国注册会计师协会(AICPA)他们的守护天使提出报价,公司具体风险溢价计入折现率作为调整预测的风险性。这些调整的材质,最好的了。广告标准局手册解释道“很少有客观数据和定量研究的方法建立特定公司的风险溢价。这很大程度上是一种判断和经验。(页61岁的11/06 v 5.1()。会计师协会出版,理解业务的估值,提示特定公司的风险溢价应当把“危险因素中未涉及的股票风险溢价。“这也报道说“没有客观的数据源,使之正确反映或量化“companyspecific风险溢价,”[t]这里没有神秘表可以向鉴定人鉴定人,也不能完全舒适与这部分任务”,并将“审计人员一跳。”
而增加的实践一致的折现率计算在考虑有偏见的现金流预测是常见的被程序员和项目,主要用于价格风险投资与国际项目评估,大多数传统的学术讨论皱眉。-布莱雷,指出,和阿伦(2005)描述这些分母调整为“福吉因素”,管理者使用,因为他们“不给坏结果它们应有的体重的现金流预测,“这些贴现率调整使著作者”紧张”,他们建议经理调整,而不是现金流预测计算中使用的期望值缺陷。
摘要本文简单模型的预期现金流预测现金流加上一名失踪的组成部分。我提出两种不同规格的失踪的组成部分第二部份。我表明,适当地调整配方使用时的理想预测现金流取决于规格的失踪的组成部分。在一个规格、适当地调整以减小网络预测现金流;在其它规格,然而,适当地调整以减小网络预测现金流和增加折现率。此外,选择不同的规格有实质性影响的估计值。