這是我們賣得最好的商品

這是我們賣得最好的商品

結果 (英文) 1:

This is our best-selling product

結果 (英文) 2:

Investment Response.—The closest estimates of the impact of the DPAD on investment come from Lester (2015), which finds that DPAD reporting firms increased domestic investment by 3.19 cents per dollar of installed capital for each 1 percentage point DPAD reduction they receive. I find that domestic investment increased by 5.98 cents per dollar of installed capital (Specification (2a) from Table 4). Both studies show a significant domestic investment response to the policy. The difference in magnitudes is most likely attributable to the Lester methodology, which compares DPAD reporting firms to firms that did not report the DPAD. If DPAD non-reporting firms benefited from the policy but did not report it on their Form 10-K, the Lester (2015) methodology would understate the impact of the policy.
Zwick and Mahon (2017) provides the most recent estimates of the effect of bonus on investment. The Zwick and Mahon (2017) elasticity of Investment with respect to the net of tax rate (BONUS) is 3.96, which is remarkably close to the 3.977 value of BONUS derived from Specification (1a) in Table 4. The Zwick and Mahon (2017) estimated investment response among large firms is in the range of Hassett and Hubbard (2002) and similar to Desai and Goolsbee (2004), Edgerton (2010), and Ohrn (2017). Thus, the elasticity that I find is similar, as well.
Financing Response.—De Mooij (2011) performs a meta-analysis of results from papers that investigate the effect of corporate tax rates on debt ratios and finds that a 1 percentage point higher tax rate typically increases the debt-asset ratio by between 0.17 and 0.28. The DPAD estimates are comparatively low, suggesting a 1 percentage point increase in effective tax rates increases the debt-asset ratio by 0.0531 for all firms and by 0.0756 for US domestic firms. One explanation for the discrepancy is that most studies that estimate tax induced debt bias rely on cross-country variation or variation in simulated MTRs based on past profitability. These measures may be endogenous to debt choice at the macro or micro level. Alternatively, debt ratios may take time to adjust and the DPAD estimates may represent only short-run responses.
Payouts Response.—Yagan (2015) finds the elasticity of Payouts with respect to the cost of equity is between 3.2 and 6.3. where the cost of equity is defined as R.
The equivalent DPAD Payout elasticity with respect to the cost of equity finance is between 4.6 and 10 and in a similar range to the Yagan (2015) estimates.
Interestingly, traditional view investment models, in which a firm’s marginal source of finance is new equity, suggest that firms (i) should never issue equity and payout earnings simultaneously and (ii) should not increase payouts in response to decreases in the cost of equity capital; firms do both in response to the DPAD.
However, based on estimates and discussion presented in online Appendix G, the equity response is much larger than the payout response and, on net, firms seem to mostly follow the predictions of neoclassical investment theory in response to the DPAD.
Taxable Income Response.—Devereux, Liu, and Loretz (2014) and Patel, Seegert, and Smith (2016) find that taxable income is responsive to kinks and notches in the tax schedule, even in the short run. Gruber and Rauh (2007) find that taxable income is responsive to long run variation in user costs. In contrast, I find that taxable income is not responsive to the DPAD for the average firm. The discrepancy again indicates that the DPAD estimates may represent only short-run responses.

結果 (英文) 3:

This is our best selling product