以现金周转周期补充分析企业短期偿债能力

随着全球经济一体化以及金融市场的国际化，现代理财环境和理财方式存在着更多的隐性风险，企业面临的经济环境更加复杂多变，从而对企业财务分析提出更高要求。作为财务分析重要的一个方面，企业的短期偿债能力反映了企业支付其短期债务的能力，揭示了企业现时财务风险的大小。有关调查显示，银行在进行信贷决策时所关注的各项企业财务指标中，资产负债率、流动比率、速动比率依次排在前三位。不仅仅是债权人，投资人和分析师对公司拥有足够的现金满足日常生产需求的能力十分关注，供应商也很关注企业是否能够定期支付购买商品的价款。一套贴近企业实际且合理的短期偿债能力指标体系对于企业经营者和投资者判别企业风险是十分有用的。然而，面对瞬息万变的市场以及企业的多样化经营，单纯的静态指标已不能充分反映企业存在的风险。因此，有必要对企业现有的短期偿债能力指标进行补充，来弥补现有短期偿债能力指标的缺陷，使得短期偿债能力的分析为投资者提供更加可靠完整的依据。一、现有短期偿债能力指标的缺陷在评估企业短期偿债能力时，最常用的指标是流动比率以及它的转变形式速动比率。流动比率为流动资产/流动负债。速动比率为速动资产/流动负债，速动资产是指可以在短期内变现的货币资金、交易性应收账款和各种应收款项等，它扣除了存货、预付款项等流动资产。一方面，它概念清晰，易于计算，而且资料容易取得，也非常便于人们理解，具有很强的验证性。因此，它也很受大家亲睐，成为分析企业短期偿债能力最重要的指标。而另一方面，流动比率本身存在着很多缺陷，一直为理论界所争议，而在现实生活中也存在着许多流动比率、速动比率较高的企业纷纷倒闭的例子。本文认为，流动比率和速动比率的缺陷主要表现在一下几个方面：1、首先，流动比率和速动比率计算的依据都是来源于企业的资产负债表，而资产负债表是一种静态报表。因此，它们只能反映在报表日企业以其所拥有的流动资产偿还其所承担流动负债的能力。而财务报表的使用者无法确定哪怕是在财务报表前一日的流动比率。而企业对其所负担债务的偿还过程恰恰是一个动态过程。除了持有的现金和现金等价物，偿债能力还取决于随着时间发生的所需的现金流入和现金流出的关系。流动比率和速动比率没有考虑到流动资产转换为现金或者支付流动负债的时间，企业是分期偿还债务和利息的，每一项债务和利息偿还的时间都是不同的。所以用流动比率和速动比率来衡量企业的短期偿债能力，并不能很好地反映企业的一般状况和一个时期内的平均水平，也就无法完全依此来判断企业未来真正的资金周转状况。比如说，某公司拥有100万的流动资产和75万的流动负债，那么该公司流动比率是1.33（）。如果公司希望维持较高的流动比率或者债权人要求公司有更高的流动比率，该公司可以偿还50万的流动负债，则该公司的财务报表中现在有50万元的流动资产和25万元的流动负债。流动比率是2（），但这一行动可能实际上损害了公司的财务状况，使其少50万元现金来满足意外的需要。应收账款的上升也会导致流动比率升高，如果为了报告较高的流动比率，延长回收应收账款的时间，这一行为将会损害公司的财务状况，但却不会在流动比率或者更为保守的速动比率中表现出来。2、流动比率和速动比率的另一个弊端是，尽管它们的计算简单，但它们的经验参考值存在问题。较高的通常被认为是更好的，但太高可能表明资产的使用效率低下。较低的普遍被视为不利的，但实际上可能是有效的利用了营运资本的结果。如果流动比率为1，这表明公司几乎无法支付流动负债，但是如果公司善于管理其营运资金，现金流入可与现金流出的需求相匹配，也并不一定表明公司的短期偿债能力差。当然，这种情况也有着潜在的危险，一个较好的整体现金流对公司保持活力是必要的。因此，很难精确地确定一个高或低的流动比率，来界定较好的或不利的流动比率之间的界限。尽管很多会计教材具体表明目前流动比率为2是很好的基准，区分良好的和不利的流动性，但考虑到行业的差异和公司营运资本管理的差异，这种概括是危险的。二、现金周转周期现金周转周期最早由Gitman（1974）提出，是指公司出售库存及收到出售这项库存应收账款所需的时间，并且提出了用现金周转周期衡量资金的流动性。Hager（1976）也提探究了现金周期的概念，并且指出它在评价企业经营指标方面的重要作用。Richard和 Laughlin（1980）发现了它更多的作用，它可以帮助企业更好地了解企业的现金经营状况，同时也提出了现金周期的计算方法。现金周转周期=存货周转天数+应收账款周转天数-应付账款周转天数这个公式可以扩展为：现金周转周期=平均库存（售出货物成本365）+平均应收账款（净销售365）-平均应付账款（售出货物成本365）公式的第一部分是存货周转天数，计算的是公司将存货销售出去的天数，滞销存货将导致较长的现金周转周期。而销售存货的周期越长，表明存货的变现能力是越差的。相比之下，目前我们所使用的流动比率不区分现金流动资产和非现金流动资产。对流动比率而言，库存和现金是一回事，可以立即偿还流动负债。公式的第二部分，应收账款周转天数是计算的是公司收回应收账款的天数。如果某公司放宽信贷政策，应收账款的流动性降低，其短期偿债能力将会受到影响有所下降。而流动比率却并不能反映这一问题，对它而言，应收账款越多，流动比率越大，短期偿债能力越强。公式的第三部分，应付账款周转天数，是计算公司能够延迟支付应付账款的天数，这部分，反映了某公司通过与供应商的信用关系获得免息贷款的时间的长短。在不伤害供应商关系的前提下，公司能够延迟支付的时间越长，则公司的营运资本运行越好，很可能为公司短期债务的偿还争取更多的时间，减轻公司某段时间的偿债压力，增加公司偿还其他债务的能力。然而，流动比率则将公司维持较大的应付账款视作不利因素，就如前面的例子所示。综上所述，较短的现金周转周期是有利的，它要求较短的存货周转周期、应收账款周转周期和较长的应付账款周周期，这并不是与流动比率和速动比率背道而驰。而是动态地考虑营运资金的运动，就是公司能够及时地购买库存商品，尽快地销售库存，并在购买商品产生的相关应付账款到期前，收回应收账款。若某公司的现金周转周期较短，即使有一个稍低的流动比率也没有关系。因为，它良好的营运资金管理提高了短期偿债能力。因此，现金周转周期这一动态指标可以补充分析公司的短期偿债能力。三、总结总的来说，在评价短期偿债能力的时候，仅运用流动比率和速动比率是比较片面的，还应当从动态的角度考虑其营运资本的状况，也就是通过现金周转周期这一指标来进行补充。只有将流动比率和速动比率这两个传统的静态指标和现金周转周期这一动态指标相结合，构建更具有实践意义的短期偿债能力指标体系，才能更好地体现企业的现实情况，更加客观真实的评价其短期偿债能力。Along with the global economic integration and financial market internationalization, modern financial environment and financing way exists more hidden risks, enterprises are facing the economic environment is more complex and changeable, and corporate financial analysis to put forward higher requirements. As an important aspect of financial analysis, the short-term debt paying ability of the enterprise reflects the ability of the enterprise to pay its short-term debt, and reveals the size of the enterprises financial risk. The survey shows that banks in the credit decisions of the various corporate financial indicators, the asset liability ratio, current ratio, quick ratio in the top three. Not only creditors, investors and analysts have enough cash to meet the needs of the daily production of the companys ability to pay attention, the supplier is also very concerned about whether the company can pay the price of the purchase of goods on a regular. A set of practical and reasonable short-term solvency index system is very useful for enterprise managers and investors to judge the risk of enterprise. However, in the face of the ever-changing market and the diversification of business, the simple static indicators can not fully reflect the risk of the existence of the enterprise. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement the existing enterprises in the short-term solvency indicators, to make up for the defects of the existing short-term solvency indicators, the short-term debt paying ability analysis to provide a more complete and reliable basis for investors.One, the existing short-term solvency indicators of defectsIn assessing the short-term solvency of enterprises, the most commonly used indicator is the ratio of the flow rate and the rate of change. Flow rate for current assets / current liabilities. Quick ratio for quick assets / current liabilities, the quick assets refers to can be realized in the short term the monetary funds, trading should be accounts receivable and a variety of receivables, it is deducted from the inventory, prepayments and other current assets. On the one hand, it is a clear concept, easy to calculate, and easy to obtain information, but also very easy to understand, with a strong validation. Therefore, it is also very popular Pro gaze, become the most important index analysis of short-term solvency of enterprises. On the other hand, the flow rate itself has many defects, which has been controversial in the theoretical field. In the real life, there are many examples of the failure of many current ratio and high speed ratio. In this paper, the defects of the current ratio and the velocity ratio are mainly shown in the following aspects:1, first of all, the basis for the calculation of the current ratio and quick ratio is derived from the balance sheet of the enterprise, and the balance sheet is a static report. As a result, they can only be reflected in the ability of the enterprise to repay its current liabilities with the liquid assets owned by the enterprise. The financial statements of the user can not determine which is in the financial statements of the previous days flow rate. And the process of the repayment of the burden on the enterprise is just a dynamic process. In addition to holding cash and cash equivalents, solvency also depends on the relationship between cash inflows and cash outflows that occur over time. Dynamic current ratio and quick ratio does not take into account the current assets conversion for cash or payment of current liabilities, the enterprise is the amortization of debt and interest payments, each of the debt and interest repayment time is different. So with the current ratio and quick rate to measure the enterprises short-term debt paying ability, and can well reflect the enterprise general situation and a period of time the average level, it cannot completely depend on this to judge the enterprise future real cash flow situation.For example, a company with 100 million of liquidity, and 75 million current liabilities, then the company liquidity ratio is 1.33 (1 83019 ). If companies want to maintain a high flow rate or the creditor requires companies to have higher liquidity ratio, the company can pay 50 million current liabilities, the financial statements of the company now have 50 million yuan of liquidity and 25 million yuan of current liabilities. Current ratio is 2 (5 00000 ), but this action may actually damage the companys financial situation, making it less 50 million yuan in cash to meet unexpected needs. Accounts receivable rise will lead to increased liquidity ratio, if in order to report higher liquidity ratio, extend the recovery should be accounts receivable, it will damage the companys financial situation, but not in the flow rate or more conservative speed dynamic ratio performance.2, another drawback of the current ratio and quick ratio is that, in spite of their simple calculation, their empirical reference value is a problem. Higher is generally considered to be better, but too high may indicate the low efficiency of the use of assets. The lower general is considered detrimental, but in fact it may b