急!跪求英语文章的翻译：Value Investing and Financial Statement AnalysisⅤRisk or Mispricing　　The empirical results so far support the view that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals. To check robustness,

急!跪求英语文章的翻译：Value Investing and Financial Statement AnalysisⅤRisk or Mispricing　　The empirical results so far support the view that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals. To check robustness,
急!跪求英语文章的翻译：Value Investing and Financial Statement Analysis
ⅤRisk or Mispricing
　　The empirical results so far support the view that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals. To check robustness, this study examined F_SCORE and risk, and examined two risk measures: b and total return volatility.
　　I calculate b using monthly returns for 60 months before preceding portfolio formation. Using 60 months of return data decreases the sample number from 10, 385 to 9672. We see from Panel A of Table 10 that F_SCORE is negatively related to b for all firms, high BM firms, and low BM firms. For all firms, an F_SCORE 0 portfolio has a mean b of 1.021, while an F_SCORE 3 portfolio has a mean b of 0.920. In addition, the difference between mean b for F_SCORE 0 and F_SCORE 3 is significant.
　　I measure total return volatility as the standard deviation of monthly returns for 12 months preceding portfolio formation. This reduces the sample number to 10, 268. The results are demonstrated in Panel B of Table 10. For all firms, high BM firms, and low BM firms, the F_ SCORE is inversely related to total return volatility.
　　It seems reasonable to conclude that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals because the relation between F_SCORE and risk is not positive6 . In other words, it is not a risk view, but a mispricing view that explains the abnormal returns gained by the investment strategy using F_SCORE.

急!跪求英语文章的翻译：Value Investing and Financial Statement AnalysisⅤRisk or Mispricing　　The empirical results so far support the view that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals. To check robustness,
风险或错误定价的实证结果到目前为止支持认为,市场不完全信息的基本信号扣押.检查的鲁棒性,本研究f_score和风险,并研究了两种风险的措施：B和总收益波动.我计算B的每月回报的前60个月前组合形成.使用返回的数据60个月减少样本数从10,385到9672.我们看到的从面板一表10,f_score呈负相关,B为所有fiRMS,高BMfiRMS,和较低的BMfiRMS.所有fiRMS,一f_score 0组合有一个B的平均1.021,而f_score 3组合的平均B 0.920.此外,二ff分之间的平均B 0和3 f_score f_score显著fi斜面.我衡量总收益波动对投资组合形成的前12个月的月度回报率的标准差.这减少了样本数为10,268.结果在表10的B小组展示.所有fiRMS,高BMfiRMS,和较低的BMfiRMS,这f_评分是总收益波动率成反比关系.它似乎合理的结论,市场不完全信息的扣押基本信号由于f_score和风险之间的关系是不positive6.换句话说,这不是一个风险的看法,但一个错误的观点,阐述了利用f_score投资策略获得异常报酬.

价值投资与财务报表分析
V 风险或错误定价
到目前为止，经验主义的结果支持市场无法完全反应基本信号的观点。为验证这种观点的可靠性，本文研究了F_SCORE和风险，以及两个风险度量：b和总回报的变化无常。
我在继续投资组合构建之前花了60个月用月回报率计算b。用60个月的回报率数据把投资样本数目从10,385减少到9672.我们从表格10的面板A中可以看到，对所有公司来说，F...

全部展开

价值投资与财务报表分析
V 风险或错误定价
到目前为止，经验主义的结果支持市场无法完全反应基本信号的观点。为验证这种观点的可靠性，本文研究了F_SCORE和风险，以及两个风险度量：b和总回报的变化无常。
我在继续投资组合构建之前花了60个月用月回报率计算b。用60个月的回报率数据把投资样本数目从10,385减少到9672.我们从表格10的面板A中可以看到，对所有公司来说，F_SCORE与b是负相关的关系，不管是高BM的公司还是低BM的公司。对所有公司来讲，一个F_SCORE 0组合有一个均值b1.031， 而一个F_SCORE3组合的均值b为0.920.另外，F_SCORE0和F_SCORE3的均值b之间的差异也是非常明显的。
我在进行投资组合构建之前，核算了总回报率变化幅度，以此作为12个月月回报率偏差的标准。这使样本数目降到10,268.结果展示在表10的面板B中。对所有公司来讲，高BM和低BM的公司都一样，F_SCORE与总回报率的变化呈负相关的关系。
似乎得出市场无法完全反应基本信号这样的结论是合理的，因为F_SCORE和风险之间的关系是反向的。换句话说，它不是从风险的角度而是从错误定价的角度解释了采用F_SCORE投资策略不正常的回报率的现象。

收起

VRisk or Mispricing
The empirical results so far support the view that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals. To check robustness, this study examined F_SCORE and r...

全部展开

VRisk or Mispricing
The empirical results so far support the view that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals. To check robustness, this study examined F_SCORE and risk, and examined two risk measures: b and total return volatility. I calculate b using monthly returns for 60 months before preceding portfolio formation. Using 60 months of return data decreases the sample number from 10, 385 to 9672. We see from Panel A of Table 10 that F_SCORE is negatively related to b for all firms, high BM firms, and low BM firms. For all firms, an F_SCORE 0 portfolio has a mean b of 1.021, while an F_SCORE 3 portfolio has a mean b of 0.920. In addition, the difference between mean b for F_SCORE 0 and F_SCORE 3 is significant. I measure total return volatility as the standard deviation of monthly returns for 12 months preceding portfolio formation. This reduces the sample number to 10, 268. The results are demonstrated in Panel B of Table 10. For all firms, high BM firms, and low BM firms, the F_ SCORE is inversely related to total return volatility. It seems reasonable to conclude that markets fail to impound fully the information in fundamental signals because the relation between F_SCORE and risk is not positive6 . In other words, it is not a risk view, but a mispricing view that explains the abnormal returns gained by the investment strategy using F_SCORE.
Ⅴ风险或错误定价的实证结果到目前为止支持认为，市场不完全信息的基本信号扣押。检查的鲁棒性，本研究f_score和风险，并研究了两种风险的措施：B和总收益波动。我计算B的每月回报的前60个月前组合形成。使用返回的数据60个月减少样本数从10，385到9672。我们看到的从面板一表10，f_score呈负相关，B为所有fiRMS，高BMfiRMS，和较低的BMfiRMS。所有fiRMS，一f_score 0组合有一个B的平均1.021，而f_score 3组合的平均B 0.920。此外，二ff分之间的平均B 0和3 f_score f_score显著fi斜面。我衡量总收益波动对投资组合形成的前12个月的月度回报率的标准差。这减少了样本数为10，268。结果在表10的B小组展示。所有fiRMS，高BMfiRMS，和较低的BMfiRMS，这f_评分是总收益波动率成反比关系。它似乎合理的结论，市场不完全信息的扣押基本信号由于f_score和风险之间的关系是不positive6。换句话说，这不是一个风险的看法，但一个错误的观点，阐述了利用f_score投资策略获得异常报酬。

收起