激进的营运资本管理政策对企业盈利能力的影响外文文献翻译

文献信息：文献标题：ImpactofAggressiveWorkingCapitalManagementPolicyonFirms’Profitability（激进的营运资本管理政策对企业盈利能力的影响）国外作者：MianSajidNazir，TalatAfza文献出处：《TheIUPJournalofAppliedFinance》,2009,Vol.15,PP19-30字数统计：英文2669单词，14456字符；中文4407汉字外文文献：ImpactofAggressiveWorkingCapitalManagementPolicyonFirms’ProfitabilityIntroductionThecorporatefinanceliteraturehastraditionallyfocusedonthestudyoflong-termfinancialdecisions,particularlyinvestments,capitalstructure,dividendsorcompanyvaluationdecisions.However,short-termassetsandliabilitiesareimportantcomponentsoftotalassetsandneedtobecarefullyanalyzed.Managementoftheseshort-termassetsandliabilitieswarrantsacarefulinvestigationsincetheworkingcapitalmanagementplaysanimportantroleinafirm’sprofitabilityandriskaswellasitsvalue(Smith,1980).Efficientmanagementofworkingcapitalisafundamentalpartoftheoverallcorporatestrategyincreatingtheshareholders’value.Firmstrytokeepanoptimallevelofworkingcapitalthatmaximizestheirvalue(Deloof,2003;HoworthandWesthead,2003andAfzaandNazir,2007).Ingeneral,fromtheperspectiveofChiefFinancialOfficer(CFO),workingcapitalmanagementisasimpleandstraightforwardconceptofensuringtheabilityoftheorganizationtofundthedifferencebetweentheshort-termassetsandshort-termliabilities(Harris,2005).However,a‘Total’approachisdesiredasitcancoverallthecompany’sactivitiesrelatingtovendor,customerandproduct(Hall,2002).Inpractice,workingcapitalmanagementhasbecomeoneofthemostimportantissuesintheorganizationswheremanyfinancialexecutivesarestrugglingtoidentifythebasicworkingcapitaldriversandanappropriatelevelofworkingcapital(Lamberson,1995).Consequently,companiescanminimizeriskandimprovetheoverallperformancebyunderstandingtheroleanddriversofworkingcapitalmanagement.Afirmmayadoptanaggressiveworkingcapitalmanagementpolicywithalowlevelofcurrentassetsasapercentageoftotalassets,oritmayalsobeusedforthefinancingdecisionsofthefirmintheformofhighlevelofcurrentliabilitiesasapercentageoftotalliabilities.Excessivelevelsofcurrentassetsmayhaveanegativeeffectonthefirm’sprofitability,whereasalowlevelofcurrentassetsmayleadtoalowerlevelofliquidityandstockouts,resultingindifficultiesinmaintainingsmoothoperations(VanHorneandWachowicz,2004).Themainobjectiveofworkingcapitalmanagementistomaintainanoptimalbalancebetweeneachoftheworkingcapitalcomponents.Businesssuccessheavilydependsonthefinancialexecutives’abilitytoeffectivelymanagereceivables,inventory,andpayables(FilbeckandKrueger,2005).Firmscanreducetheirfinancingcostsand/orincreasethefundsavailableforexpansionprojectsbyminimizingtheamountofinvestmenttiedupincurrentassets.Mostofthefinancialmanagers’timeandeffortsareallocatedtowardsbringingnon-optimallevelsofcurrentassetsandliabilitiesbacktooptimallevels(Lamberson,1995).Anoptimallevelofworkingcapitalwouldbetheoneinwhichabalanceisachievedbetweenriskandefficiency.Itrequirescontinuousmonitoringtomaintainproperlevelinvariouscomponentsofworkingcapital,i.e.,cashreceivables,inventoryandpayables,etc.Ingeneral,currentassetsareconsideredasoneoftheimportantcomponentsoftotalassetsofafirm.Afirmmaybeabletoreducetheinvestmentinfixedassetsbyrentingorleasingplantandmachinery,whereasthesamepolicycannotbefollowedforthecomponentsofworkingcapital.Thehighlevelofcurrentassetsmayreducetheriskofliquidityassociatedwiththeopportunitycostoffundsthatmayhavebeeninvestedinlong-termassets.Thoughtheimpactofworkingcapitalpoliciesonprofitabilityishighlyimportant,onlyafewempiricalstudieshavebeencarriedouttoexaminethisrelationship.Thisstudyinvestigatesthepotentialrelationshipofaggressive/conservativepolicieswiththeaccountingandmarketmeasuresofprofitabilityofPakistanifirmsusingapaneldatasetfortheperiod1998-2005.Thepresentstudyisexpectedtocontributetobetterunderstandthesepoliciesandtheirimpactonprofitability,especiallyinemergingmarketslikePakistan.ResearchMethodologyVariablesUsedintheStudyThisstudyusesaggressiveinvestmentpolicyasusedbyWeinraubandVisscher(1998),whoanalyzedworkingcapitalpoliciesof126industrialfirmsintheUSmarket.AggressiveInvestmentPolicy(AIP)resultsinminimallevelofinvestmentincurrentassetsversusfixedassets.Incontrast,aconservativeinvestmentpolicyplacesagreaterproportionofcapitalinliquidassetswiththeopportunitycostoflessprofitability.Ifthelevelofcurrentassetsincreasesinproportiontothetotalassetsofthefirm,themanagementissaidtobemoreconservativeinmanagingthecurrentassetsofthefirm.Inordertomeasurethedegreeofaggressivenessofworkingcapitalinvestmentpolicy,thefollowingratiowasused:wherealowerratiomeansarelativelyaggressivepolicy.Ontheotherhand,anAggressiveFinancingPolicy(AFP)utilizeshigherlevelsofcurrentliabilitiesandlesslong-termdebt.Incontrast,aconservativefinancingpolicyusesmorelong-termdebtandcapitalandlesscurrentliabilities.Thefirmsaremoreaggressiveintermsofcurrentliabilitiesmanagementiftheyareconcentratingontheuseofmorecurrentliabilitieswhichputtheirliquidityonrisk.Thedegreeofaggressivenessofafinancingpolicyadoptedbyafirmismeasuredbyworkingcapitalfinancingpolicy,andthefollowingratioisused:whereahigherratiomeansarelativelyaggressivepolicy.Theimpactofworkingcapitalpoliciesontheprofitabilityhasbeenanalyzedthroughaccountingmeasuresofprofitabilityaswellasmarketmeasuresofprofitability,i.e.,ReturnonAssets(ROA)andTobin’sq.Thesevariablesofreturnarecalculatedas:Tobin’sqcomparesthevalueofacompanygivenbyfinancialmarketswiththevalueofacompany’sassets.Alowq(between0and1)meansthatthecosttoreplaceafirm’sassetsisgreaterthanthevalueofitsstock.Thisimpliesthatthestockisundervalued.Conversely,ahighq(greaterthan1)impliesthatafirm’sstockismoreexpensivethanthereplacementcostofitsassets,whichimpliesthatthestockisovervalued.Itiscalculatedas:whereMarketValueofFirm(MVF)isthesumofbookvalueoflongplusshorttermandmarketvalueofequity.Marketvalueofequityiscalculatedbymultiplyingthenumberofsharesoutstandingwiththecurrentmarketpriceofthestockinaparticularyear.ControlVariablesInworkingcapitalliterature,variousstudieshaveusedthecontrolvariablesalongwiththemainvariablesofworkingcapitalinordertohaveanappositeanalysisofworkingcapitalmanagementontheprofitabilityoffirms(Lamberson,1995;SmithandBegemann,1997;Deelof,2003;Eljelly,2004;TeruelandSolano,2005andLazaridisandTryfonidis,2006).Onthesamelines,alongwithworkingcapitalvariables,thepresentstudyhastakenintoconsiderationsomecontrolvariablesrelatingtofirmssuchasthesizeofthefirm,thegrowthinitssales,anditsfinancialleverage.Thesizeofthefirm(SIZE)hasbeenmeasuredbythelogarithmofitstotalassets,astheoriginallargevalueoftotalassetsmaydisturbtheanalysis.Thegrowthoffirm(GROWTH)ismeasuredbyvariationinitsannualsalesvaluewithreferencetopreviousyear’ssales[(Salest–Salest–1)/Salest–1].Moreover,thefinancialleverage(LVRG)wastakenasthedebttoequityratioofeachfirmforthewholesampleperiod.Somestudies,likeDeloof(2003)inhisstudyoflargeBelgianfirms,alsoconsideredtheratiooffixedfinancialassetstototalassetsasacontrolvariable;however,thisvariablecannotbeincludedinthepresentstudybecauseofunavailabilityofdata,asmostofthefirmsdonotdisclosefullinformationintheirfinancialstatements.Finally,sincegoodeconomicconditionstendtobereflectedinafirm’sprofitability(Lamberson,1995),thisphenomenonhasbeencontrolledfortheevolutionoftheeconomiccycleusingtheGDPGRvariable,whichmeasurestherealannualGDPgrowthinPakistanforeachofthestudyyearfrom1998to2005.StatisticalAnalysisTheimpactofaggressiveandconservativeworkingcapitalpoliciesontheprofitabilityofthefirmshasbeenevaluatedbyapplyingthepaneldataregressionanalysis.Theperformancevariables(ROAandTobin’sq)aswellastheTCA/TAandTCL/TAalongwiththecontrolvariableswereregressedusingtheSPSSsoftware.Thefollowingregressionequationsareruntoestimatetheimpactofworkingcapitalpoliciesontheprofitabilitymeasures.where,=currentratio=currentliabilitiesratioROAi=Returnonqi=ofqSIZEi=NaturallogoffirmsizeGROWTHi=Growthofsales=FinancialleverageoffirmsGDPGRi=RealAnnualGDPgrowthrateofPakistan=Intercept;=ErrortermofthemodelSampleandDataThesampleofthestudyconsistsofallnon-financialfirmslistedontheKarachiStockExchange(KSE).KSEhasdividedthenon-financialfirmsintovariousindustrialsectorsbasedontheirnatureofbusiness.Inordertobeincludedinthesample,afirmmustbeinbusinessforthewholestudyperiod.Also,firmsshouldneitherhavebeendelistedbytheKSEnormergedwithanyotherfirmduringthewholewindowperiod.Newincumbentsinthemarketduringthestudyperiodhavealsonotbeenincludedinthesample.Furthermore,firmsmusthavecompletedatafortheperiod1998-2005.Firmswithnegativeequityduringthestudyperiodhavealsobeenexcluded.Thus,thefinalsampleconsistsof204non-financialfirmsfrom17variousindustrialsectors.Thisstudyusedannualfinancialdataof204non-financialfirmsfortheperiod1998-2005.Thepaneldatasetwasdevelopedforeightyearsandforthe204sampledfirmswhichproduced1,632year-endobservations.Therequiredfinancialdataforthepurposeofthestudywasobtainedfromtherespectivecompanies’annualreportsandpublicationsofStateBankofPakistan.ThedataregardingannualaveragemarketpriceswascollectedfromthedailyquotationsofKSE.AnalysisTable1presentstheresultsofregressionmodelinwhichtheimpactofworkingcapitalinvestmentpolicyontheperformancemeasurementshasbeenexamined.TheF-valuesofregressionmodelsrunarefoundstatisticallysignificant,whereasDurbin-Watsonstatisticsofmorethan1.8indicatelesscorrelationamongtheindependentvariablesoftheregressionsmodels.Thet-statisticsofworkingcapitalinvestmentpolicyispositiveandstatisticallysignificantat1%levelforReturnonAssetsandTobin’sq.ThepositivecoefficientofTCA/TAindicatesanegativerelationshipbetweenthedegreeofaggressivenessofinvestmentpolicyandreturnonassets.AstheTCA/TAincreases,thedegreeofaggressivenessdecreases,andreturnonassetsincreases.Therefore,thereisanegativerelationshipbetweentherelativedegreeofaggressivenessofworkingcapitalinvestmentpoliciesoffirmsandbothperformancemeasures,i.e.,ROAandTobin’sq.Thissimilarityinmarketandaccountingreturnsconfirmsthenotionthatinvestorsdonotbelieveintheadoptionofaggressiveapproachintheworkingcapitalmanagement,hence,theydonotgiveanyadditionalweighttothefirmsonKSE.Table2reportsregressionresultsforworkingcapitalfinancingpolicyandtheperformancemeasures.TheF-valueofregressionmodelsandDurbin-WatsonstatisticsindicatesimilarresultsasreportedinTable1.ThenegativevalueofcoefficientforTCL/TAalsopointsoutthenegativerelationshipbetweentheaggressivenessofworkingcapitalfinancingpolicyandreturnonassets.ThehighertheTCL/TAratio,themoreaggressivethefinancingpolicy,thatyieldsnegativereturnonassets.However,surprisingly,therelationshipbetweenTobin’sqandworkingcapitalfinancingpolicyhasbeenestablishedaspositiveandstatisticallysignificant.Investorswerefoundgivingmoreweighttothefirmswhichareadoptinganaggressiveapproachtowardsworkingcapitalfinancingpolicyandhavinghigherlevelsofshort-termandspontaneousfinancingontheirbalancesheets.Thecontrolvariablesusedintheregressionmodelsarenaturallogoffirmsize,salesgrowth,realGDPgrowthandtheaverageleverage.Allthecontrolvariableshavetheirimpactontheperformanceofthefirms.Firms’sizecausesthereturnsofthefirmstobeincreasedanditisfoundtobestatisticallysignificant.Moreover,GROWTHandLVRGarefoundtobesignificantlyassociatedwiththebook-basedreturnsonassetswhichconfirmthenotionthatleverageandgrowtharestronglycorrelatedwiththebookvalue-basedperformancemeasures(Deloof,2003andEljelly,2004).RealGDPgrowthmaynotaffectthereturnsbasedonbookvalues;however,investorsmayreactpositivelytoapositivechangeinthelevelofeconomicactivitywhichisinaccordancewiththefindingsofLamberson(1995).TheaboveresultscontradictthefindingsofGardneretal.(1986),Deloof(2003),Eljelly(2004)andTeruelandSolano(2005);however,theyareinaccordancewithAfzaandNazir(2007)andproducedanegativerelationshipbetweentheaggressivenessofworkingcapitalpoliciesandaccountingmeasuresofprofitability.Managerscannotcreatevalueiftheyadoptanaggressiveapproachtowardsworkingcapitalinvestmentandworkingcapitalfinancingpolicy.However,iffirmsadoptaggressiveapproachinmanagingtheirshort-termliabilities,investorsgivemorevaluetothosefirms.Thedegreeofaggressivenessofworkingcapitalpoliciesadoptedhelpsonlyincreatingshareholders’wealththroughincreasedmarketperformance,whereasaccountingperformancecannotbeincreasedbybeingaggressiveinmanagingtheworkingcapitalrequirements.Theresultsofthisstudyaresomewhatdifferentfromthoseconductedinthedevelopedeconomies.PakistanisoneoftheemergingeconomiesandPakistanimarketsarenotfullytransparentandefficienttofullyabsorbtheimpactofinformation.ThestudyresultsconfirmthisstateofPakistanimarkets.ConclusionThepresentstudyinvestigatestherelationshipbetweentheaggressive/conservativeworkingcapitalassetmanagementandfinancingpolicesanditsimpactonprofitabilityof204Pakistanifirmsdividedinto16industrialgroupsbyKSEfortheperiod1998-2005.Theimpactofaggressive/conservativeworkingcapitalinvestmentandthefinancingpolicieshasbeenexaminedusingpaneldataregressionmodelsbetweenworkingcapitalpoliciesandprofitability.Thestudyfindsanegativerelationshipbetweentheprofitabilitymeasuresoffirmsanddegreeofaggressivenessofworkingcapitalinvestmentandfinancingpolicies.Thefirmsreportnegativereturnsiftheyfollowanaggressiveworkingcapitalpolicy.Theseresultswerefurthervalidatedbyexaminingtheimpactofaggressiveworkingcapitalpoliciesonmarketmeasuresofprofitability,whichwasnottestedbefore.TheresultsofTobin’sqwereinlineoftheaccountingmeasuresofprofitabilityandproducedalmostsimilarresultsforworkingcapitalinvestmentpolicy.However,investorswerefoundgivingmorevaluetothosefirmsthataremoreaggressiveinmanagingtheircurrentliabilities.Thestudyusedanewmeasureofprofitability,i.e.,Tobin’sqandpaneldataregressionanalysis,toinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenworkingcapitalmanagementandfirmreturnsinPakistan.Thefindingsofthepresentstudyareexpectedtocontributesignificantlytofinanceliterature.Theresultsofthepresentstudyareincontradictiontothoseofsomeearlierstudiesontheissue.ThisphenomenonmaybeattributedtotheinconsistentandvolatileeconomicconditionsofPakistan.Thereasonsforthiscontradictionmayfurtherbeexploredinfutureresearches.ThestudyalsosuggestssomepolicyimplicationsforthemanagersandprospectiveinvestorsintheemergingmarketofPakistan.Firmswithmoreaggressivepolicytowardsworkingcapitalmaynotbeabletogeneratemoreprofit.So,asfarasthebookvalueperformanceisconcerned,managerscannotgeneratemorereturnsonassetsbyfollowingaggressiveapproachtowardsshort-termassetsandliabilities.Ontheotherhand,investorsarefoundgivingmorevaluetothefirmsthatadoptanaggressiveapproachtowardsworkingcapitalfinancingpolicies.Themarketvalueoffirmsusinghighlevelofcurrentliabilitiesintheirfinancingismorethanthebookvalue.Theinvestorsbelievethatfirmswithlessequityandlesslong-termloanswouldbeabletoperformbetterthantheothers.However,therearevariousotherfactorslikeagencyproblemwhichmayplayapivotalroleinsuchcases,andsothesefactorsmayfurtherbeexploredinfuture.中文译文：激进的营运资本管理政策对企业盈利能力的影响简介企业融资文章历来侧重于研究长期财务决策，特别是投资、资本结构、股利和公司估值决策。然而，短期资产和负债是全部财产的重要组成部分，需要仔细分析。因为营运资金管理在公司的收益、风险以及其价值中起到一个重大的作用，所以对这些短期资产和负债及认股权证的管理需要仔细调查(史密斯，1980)。有效的营运资金管理是一个创造股东价值的企业战略的基础部分。公司努力保持营运资金的最优水平，达到企业价值最大化(德鲁弗，2003；豪沃思和韦斯赫德，2003；阿夫扎和纳齐尔，2007)。一般而言，在财务总监CFO看来，营运资金管理是一个简单而直观的观点，用来确保短期资产和短期负债之间的合理差异(哈里斯，2005)。然而，总需要一种方法，可以使其覆盖整个关于客户、供应商和产品的公司活动(霍尔，2002年)。在实践中，营运资金管理已成为最重要的议题之一，许多企业的财务主管以识别营运资金的基本因素和最优水平作为竞争(兰伯森，1995)。因此，公司需要理解营运资金管理及其基本因素，降低风险，提高企业整体业绩。一个企业可以采取一种流动资产占总资产比例较低的投资政策，或者流动负债占总负债比例较高的融资政策的激进型营运资本管理政策。过量的流动资产可能对该公司的盈利能力产生负面影响，而较低的流动资产可能导致一个流动水平较低和缺货，结果很难维护正常运转(范霍恩和瓦霍维奇，2004)。营运资金管理主要目的是为了维系营运资金的每一个部分达到最优平衡。企业的成功很大程度上靠的是财务经理人有效地管理应收账款、存货、应付帐款(弗百克和克鲁格，2005)。公司可以降低融资成本和减少流动资产的投资金额从而增加用于扩建项目的资金。大部分的财务经理都将时间和努力用在现有资产和负债的非最优水平降至最佳水平(兰伯森，1995)。最理想的营运资金将会是唯一一个实现平衡风险与效率的途径。它需要不断监测，以维持营运资金，即现金、应收账款、存货和应付帐款等各组成部分的适当水平。一般来说，流动资产是公司的总资产中一个的重要组成部分。一个公司能够通过租赁机械或厂房来降低固定资产投资，而同样的政策不能应用营运资金。高水平的流动资产可以减少风险，增加流动性，与它们相关的资金的另一种方式也可投资于长期资产。虽然营运资金政策对利润的影响是非常重大，但只有少数的实证研究进行了验证两者关系。本研究利用1998-2005年巴基斯坦的公司样本数据，对激进/稳健型营运资本管理政策与会计和市场中的企业盈利指标之间潜在关系进行研究。本研究将有助于更好的理解，这些政策对企业盈利能力的影响，尤其是在巴基斯坦这样的新兴市场。研究方案在研究中应用的变量本研究采用激进型的投资政策方法是由温劳布和维斯切在1998年美国市场上分析126家工业企业的营运资本政策的方法。激进型的投资政策(AIP)是以最低水平的流动资产比固定资产。与此相反，保守型的投资政策是将较大比例的资金放在流动资产上，使得机会成本较大而收益较小。如果企业流动资产的增长水平与总资产的增长水平同比例增加，可以看出企业的流动资产的管理者以保守型的为主。为了测量激进型营运资本投资政策的程度，我们用下面的公式:AIP相对较低的是激进型政策。另一方面，一个激进型的融资政策(AFP)是较高水平的流动负债和较低水平的长期负债结合。与此相反，保守的融资政策，则使用了更多的长期债务和资金，以及较少的流动负债。一个公司如果精力集中于利用更多的流动负债，那么偿债能力会有风险，而在流动负债管理方面采用更加激进型政策。为了测量激进型营运资本融资政策的程度，我们用下面的公式:AFP相对较高的是激进型政策。关于营运资金管理政策对盈利能力的影响进行分析，采用总资产报酬率(ROA)和托宾q值，计算公式为:一个公司的托宾q值是通过金融市场上的公司价值。一个较低的托宾q值(在0与1之间)是指公司资产的成本大于其股票的价值，这意味着它的股票被低估。相反，一个较高的托宾q值(大于1)是指取代公司资产的成本小于其股票的价值，这意味着它的股票被高估了。公式如下:企业的市场价值(MVF)是短期和长期的普通股市场价值的总和。普通股的市场价值等于在某一年流通股数乘以当前市场股票价格。控制变量在研究营运资本的文献中，不同的营运资本研究使用的主要控制变量是分析公司盈利能力与营运资本管理关系的合理变量(兰伯森，1995；史密斯和贝格曼，1997；德鲁弗，2003；艾尔杰利，2004；特鲁埃尔和索拉诺，2005；拉扎里迪斯和瑞福里迪斯，2006)。以相同方式，连同营运资金的变量，目前的研究也考虑关于一些公司的控制变量，比如说公司规模大小，销售的增长速度，和财务杠杆利用效率。公司的规模大小用总资产的对数来测量，本文总资产的高价值可能会影响分析。一个公司的发展通过年销售额与上一年相比的变化来测量[(Salest–Salest–1)/Salest–1]。此外，财务杠杆(LVRG)采取了公司在整个样本期间的权益比率。Deloof在他的研究中考虑了，比利时的大型公司固定金融资产与总资产的比率为控制变量。然而，这个变量不包括在本研究中，由于大多数公司在其财务报表没有透露全部信息，因此无法获得数据。最后，良好的经济条件往往是反映公司利润的(兰伯森，1995年)。使用GDPGR变量确定经济周期的演变，这措施使得巴基斯坦从1998年至2005年每一个研究年度的年生产总值都增加。统计分析应用面板数据回归分析，评估积极和保守的营运资本政策对公司的盈利能力的影响。利用SPSS软件，对绩效变量（总资产收益率和托宾q值）以及TCA/TA和TCL/TA随着控制变量进行回归分析。下面的回归方程来估计营运资本政策对盈利能力的影响。其中，=总流动资产占总资产的比例=总负债占总资产的比例ROAi=资产收益率qi=q值SIZEi=企业规模自然对数GROWTHi=销售增长=企业财务杠杆GDPGRi=巴基斯坦实际年GDP增长率=截距=模型误差项样本与数据这项研究的样本包括了所有列示在卡拉奇证券交易所(简称KSE