管理论文 外文文献 运营资金管理重点.doc

本文档系作者精心整理编辑，实用价值高。外文翻译The focus of working capital managementin UK small firms（节选）Author：Carole Howorth，Paul WestheadNationality：Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK Derivation: Management Accounting Research NO.14,2003, PP.94111 Abstract Working capital management routines of a large random sample of small companies in the UK are examined. Considerable variability in the take-up of 11 working capital management routines was detected. Principal components analysis and cluster analysis confirm the identification of four distinct types of companies with regard to patterns of working capital management. The first three types of companies focused upon cash management, stock or debtors routines respectively, whilst the fourth type were less likely to take-up any working capital management routines. Influences on the amount and focus of working capital management are discussed. Multinomial logistic regression analysis suggests that the selected independent variables successfully discriminated between the four types of companies. The results suggest that small companies focus only on areas of working capital management where they expect to improve marginal returns. The difficulties of establishing causality are highlighted and implications for academics, policy-makers and practitioners are reported.Conclusions and implicationsThe aim of this study has been to encourage additional research, rather than to provide an exhaustive review of all the factors associated with the take-up of working capital management routines by small companies. Three theories guided the selection of the independent variables explored in this study. The RBV highlighted that small firms have idiosyncratic bundles of resources associated with the take-up of working capital management routines. Agency theory identified the influence of external stakeholders as well as differences between small and large firms. Transactions costs theory indicated that small firms might invest resources in specific areas of working capital management if they perceive them to offer the highest marginal return. The results consistently highlighted, across a variety of statistical tests, that small firms are not a homogenous group with regard to working capital management routines. Considerable variability was detected in the take-up of 11 working capital management routines by a large random sample of small companies in the UK. Evidence from the PCA and the cluster analysis confirmed the identification of four distinct types of companies with regard to the take-up of working capital management routines. Moreover, evidence from the multinomial logistic regression analysis suggests that the selected independent variables successfully discriminated between the four types of companies. Twelve out of the 18 hypotheses were supported. A further two hypotheses showed the anticipated relationship but were not significant discriminators between the types of companies. Evidence that the majority of small companies focus their efforts on one area of working capital management indicates that resources for working capital management are limited. However, a striking finding from the regression analysis was the detection that firms which utilize fewer working capital management routines were not necessarily smaller companies. We can infer here that resource constraints per se may not be the major barrier to the utilization of working capital management routines by smaller companies. Instead, the results provide an indication that the perceived marginal return on committing resources may be a major influence on the extent and focus of working capital management.However, we acknowledge that a cross-sectional study such as this one cannot establish causality and can only provide an indication of associations that warrant further investigation. Additional studies could usefully explore the stimuli leading to the utilisation of working capital management routines and the barriers to their take-up. The dynamics of working capital management are complex and the links with performance are bidirectional and difficult to unravel. Small companies may invest resources into managing a particular area of working capital where they are performing badly because the returns from controlling the problem area are perceived to be high. If the direction of causality is not understood, an overly simplistic conclusion in this instance could be that investment of more resources into an area leads to worse performance. The complexity of causality makes it difficult to establish the effect of working capital management routines on the performance of the firm. We can infer that firms with a lower propensity to undertake working capital management routines are not significantly associated with increased cash flow problems, nor reduced profitability. There is some indication that these may be lifestyle firms but additional research is required before firm conclusions can be drawn. Currently, it is not clear whether these laggard working capital firms are underperforming or have untapped potential for growth. In a similar way, the direction of causality is not clear with regard to the link between the take-up of working capital management routines and the level of financial skills in a firm. This study employed a simple proxy measure of financial sophistication. Further research is warranted to investigate the direction and the strength of the links between the take-up of working capital management routines and financial management skills and training, education and prior experience. Additional multivariate statistical studies are also required in a variety of national, cultural and industrial contexts to identify the combination of internal and external environmental factors associated with the take-up of working capital management routines by different employment size bands of private firms (i.e. micro, small, medium and large).Qualitative studies and longitudinal research will provide fresh insights into the processes and dynamics of working capital management, as well as the complex strands of causality (Scapens, 1990). Policy-makers and practitioners seeking to increase the stock of professionally managed firms, might need to target their assistance towards owners of small firms who face attitudinal, resource and operational barriers to the utilization of working capital management routines. Presented evidence suggests that small companies should not be viewed as a homo generous entity with regard to their working capital management routines.Policy-makers and practitioners need to appreciate this diversity and they may use the presented evidence to tailor assistance to the needs of particular types of companies, rather than providing blanket” support to all firms irrespective of aspirations or resources.Policy-makers and practitioners need to appreciate the management time constraint faced by many small firms. Time constraints not only limit the amount of time for working capital management , but also the amount of time available to assess whether changes to current working capital management policy would be worthwhile. Moreover, we might expect improved skills to lead to more efficient use of time but small firm managers will require powerful evidence to convince them of the benefits of investing time in financial skills training. The take-up of routines (and financial skills training) could be increased if it was conclusively confirmed that firms significantly improve their performance after introducing appropriate working capital management routines. Additional longitudinal, qualitative and multivariate statistical evidence is warranted that explores whether the take-up of working capital management routines by small firms is subsequently associated with superior levels of performance. Best business practice evidence, from case studies, could also be utilised by policy-makers and practitioners to convince more owners of small firms of how specific working capital management routines can be used proactively to address constraints on business development. There is clearly a need for a great deal more research in this area before the dynamics of working capital management are well understood.英国小企业运营资金管理重点（节选）作者：Carole Howorth，Paul Westhead国籍：Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK 原文出处: Management Accounting Research NO.14,2003,PP.94111摘要从英国小公司中大量的随机抽样，并检查它们的运营资金管理模式。在运用资金管理模式的11到工作程序中检测出相当大的变化。通过主成分析和聚类分析确认得到了运营资金管理的四种不同类型模式。前三种类型把关注点分别放在现金管理、股票管理、债务管理上，但是第四种模式很少采取任何行动在运营资金管理上。大多数学者讨论资金数量和经营的重点的影响。多种Logistic回归分析表明，成功独立的选择的自变量受到四种模式的歧视。最终结果显示：小公司只有在把精力投放在运营资金集中管理方面才能获得他们期望的边际收益。建立因果关系的困难非常的突出，对学者、政策制定者和从业人员的影响也被披露出来。 结论与启示这项研究的目的是鼓励更多类似的研究，而不仅仅提供与小公司工作程序相关运营资金管理模式的观点。在本研究中三种理论指导了独立变量的选择。资源基础观强调，小企业应采取与特质和资源捆绑式的运营资金管理模式。代理理论确定了小型企业和大型企业之间的外部利益影响。交易费用理论表明：如果他们察觉发现他们能够提供最高边际收益，小公司可能把资源投资于特定领域的营运资金管理。结果一贯强调的是，纵观各种各样的统计测试，小企业不是关于运营资金管理模式的同质群体。从英国小公司抽取大量的随即样本，样本公司实行的11种运营资金管理模式中产生相当大的变化被检测到。从PCA和聚类分析中得到的证据确认关于四种不同类型管理模式鉴定与公司实行的运营资金管理模式有关。此外，从多种Logistic回归分析的证据表明：成功独立的选择的自变量受到四种模式的歧视。18种假设中的12种提供了支持，然而另外两个假说也表明了预期关系，但是不是那两种不同类型公司有意义的鉴别。有证据表明，大部分小公司努力把工作重心集中在运营资金管理的一方面，侧面反映出公司投入资金运营管理的资源有限。然而，从回归分析中惊奇发现的是：很少利用运营资金管理模式公司并不一定是规模较小公司。根据这点陈述，我们可以推断出，企业资源限制并一定是阻碍小公司企业实行运营资金管理模式的主要原因。相反，结果提供的迹象表明，能不能在有限的企业资金情况获得最优的期望边际收益是主要影响公司关注并实行运营资金管理模式的关键因素。但是我们必须要承认的是像这样的一个横截面研究方法无法建立因果关系，只能提供一个值得进一步深入研究的指示。进一步的研究能够有效促进对运营资金管理模式的认知和加快促使企业实行资金管理模式。运营资金管理的运动是复杂多变的，与此同时与表现的联系是双向并且难以解开。小公司极有可能把企业的资金投资于流动资金管理然而他们运营较差的特定区域，因为他们认为从可以控制的领域获得的收益相对于其他方面较高。如果不能正确的理解因果关系，甚至是糟糕的情况，在这种条件下一个过于的简