1、 外文翻译 原文 An Analysis of Working Capital Management Results across Industries Material Source:American Journal of Business Author: Greg Filbeck The importance of efficient working capital management (WCM) is indisputable. Working capital is the difference between resources in cash or readily converti
2、ble into cash (Current Assets) and organizational commitments for which cash will soon be required (Current Liabilities). The objective of working capital management is to maintain the optimum balance of each of the working capital components. Business viability relies on the ability to effectively
3、manage receivables, inventory, and payables. Firms are able to reduce financing costs and/or increase the funds available for expansion by minimizing the amount of funds tied up in current assets. Much managerial effort is expended in bringing non-optimal levels of current assets and liabilities bac
4、k toward optimal levels. An optimal level would be one in which a balance is achieved between risk and efficiency. A recent example of business attempting to maximize working capital management is the recurrent attention being given to the application of Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma methodologie
5、s help companies measure and ensure quality in all areas of the enterprise. When used to identify and rectify discrepancies, inefficiencies and erroneous transactions in the financial supply chain, Six Sigma reduces Days Sales Outstanding (DSO), accelerates the payment cycle, improves customer satis
6、faction and reduces the necessary amount and cost of working capital needs. There appear to be many success stories, including Jennifer Townes (2002) report of a 15 percent decrease in days that sales are outstanding, resulting in an increased cash flow of approximately $2 million at Thibodaux Regio
7、nal Medical Center. Furthermore, bad debts declined from $3.4 million to $600,000. However, Waters (2003) study of multiple firms employing Six Sigma finds that it is really a “get rich slow” technique with a rate of return hovering in the 1.2 4.5 percent range. Even in a business using Six Sigma me
8、thodology, an “optimal” level of working capital management needs to be identified. Industry factors may impact firm credit policy, inventory management, and bill-paying activities. Some firms may be better suited to minimize receivables and inventory, while others maximize payables. Another aspect
9、of “optimal” is the extent to which poor financial results can be tied to sub-optimal performance. Fortunately, these issues are testable with data published by CFO magazine (Mints and Lazier 1997; Codman 1998; Mints 1999; Myers 2000; Fink 2001), which claims to be the source of “tools and informati
10、on for the financial executive,” and are the subject of this research. In addition to providing mean and variance values for the working capital measures and the overall metric, two issues will be addressed in this research. One research question is, “are firms within a particular industry clustered
11、 together at consistent levels of working capital measures?” For instance, are firms in one industry able to quickly transfer sales into cash (i.e., have low accounts receivable levels), while firms from another industry tend to have high sales levels for the particular level of inventory (i.e., a h
12、igh inventory turnover). The other research question is, “does working capital management performance for firms within a given industry change from year-to-year?” The following section presents a brief literature review. Next, the research method is described, including some information about the an
13、nual Working Capital Management Survey published by CFO magazine. Findings are then presented and conclusions are drawn. The importance of working capital management is not new to the finance literature. Over twenty years ago, Large and Stickney (1980) reported that the then-recent bankruptcy of W.T
14、. Grant, a nationwide chain of department stores, should have been anticipated because the corporation had been running a deficit cash flow from operations for eight of the last ten years of its corporate life. As part of a study of the Fortune 500s financial management practices, Gilbert and Reiche
15、rt (1995) find that accounts receivable management models are used in 59 percent of these firms to improve working capital projects, while inventory management models were used in 60 percent of the companies. More recently, Forager, Kalian and Shaun (1999) find that 55 percent of firms in the S Sche
16、rer 1996), with scant attention paid to actual accounts receivable management. Across a limited sample, Wairau and Viscera (1998) observe a tendency of firms with low levels of current ratios to also have low levels of current liabilities. Simultaneously investigating accounts receivable and payable
17、 issues, Hill, Sartorius, and Ferguson (1984) find differences in the way payment dates are defined. Payees define the date of payment as the date payment is received, while payers view payment as the postmark date. Additional WCM insight across firms, industries, and time can add to this body of re
18、search. Maness and Ziegler (2002, 51, 496) presents two models of value creation that incorporate effective short-term financial management activities. However, these models are generic models and do not consider unique firm or industry influences. Maness and Ziegler discuss industry influences in a
19、 short paragraph that includes the observation that, “An industry a company is located in may have more influence on that companys fortunes than overall GNP” (2002, 507). In fact, a careful review of this 627-page textbook finds only sporadic information on actual firm levels of WCM dimensions, virt
20、ually nothing on industry factors except for some boxed items with titles such as, “Should a Retailer Offer an In-House Credit Card” (128) and nothing on WCM stability over time. This research will attempt to fill this void b y investigating patterns related to working capital measures within indust
21、ries and illustrate differences between industries across time. An extensive survey of library and Internet resources provided very few recent reports about working capital management. The most relevant set of articles was Wiesel and Bradleys (2003) article on cash flow management and one of invento
22、ry control as a result of effective supply chain management by Hadley (2004). The first annual CFO Working Capital Survey, a joint project with REL Consultancy Group, was published in the June 1997 issue of CFO (Mints and Leered 1997). REL is a London, England-based management consulting firm specia
23、lizing in working capital issues for its global list of clients. The original survey reports several working capital benchmarks for public companies using data for 1996. Each company is ranked against its peers and also against the entire field of 1,000 companies. REL continues to update the origina
24、l information on an annual basis. The industries that include at least eight companies with complete information over the 1996-2000 periods are listed in Table 1. REL uses the “cash flow from operations” value located on firm cash flow statements to estimate cash conversion efficiency (CCE). This va
25、lue indicates how well a company transforms revenues into cash flow. A “days of working capital” (DWC) value is based on the dollar amount in each of the aggregate, equally-weighted receivables, inventory, and payables accounts. The “days of working capital” (DNC) represents the time period between
26、purchases of inventory on account from vendor until the sale to the customer, the collection of the receivables, and payment receipt. Thus, it reflects the companys ability to finance its core operations with vendor credit. A detailed investigation of WCM is possible because CFO also provides firm a
27、nd industry values for days sales outstanding (A/R), inventory turnover, and days payables outstanding (A/P). More information on how these values are calculated is presented in Table 2. Prior to 2002, CFO also provided an overall WCM management ranking based on an equally-weighted combination of CC
28、E and DWC. The research presented here is based on the annual ratings of working capital management published in CFO magazine. Our findings indicate a consistency in how industries “stack up” against each other over time with respect to the working capital measures. However, the working capital meas
29、ures themselves are not static (i.e., averages of working capital measures across all firms change annually); our results indicate significant movements across our entire sample over time. Our findings are important because they provide insight to working capital performance across time and on worki
30、ng capital management across industries. These changes may be in explained in part by macroeconomic factors. Changes in interest rates, rate of innovation, and competition are likely to impact working capital management. As interest rates rise, there would be less desire to make payments early, whic
31、h would stretch accounts payable, accounts receivable, and cash accounts. The ramifications of this study include the finding of distinct levels of WCM measures for different industries, which tend to be stable over time. Many factors help to explain this discovery. The improving economy during the
32、period of the study may have resulted in improved turnover in some industries, while slowing turnover may have been a signal of troubles ahead. Our results should be interpreted cautiously. Our study takes places over a short time frame during a generally improving market. In addition, the survey su
33、ffers from survivorship bias only the top firms within each industry are ranked each year and the composition of those firms within the industry can change annually. Further research may take one of two lines. First, there could be a study of whether stock prices respond to CFO magazines publication
34、 of working capital management ratings. Second, there could be a study of which, if any, of the working capital management components relate to share price performance. Given our results, these studies need to take industry membership into consideration when estimating stock price reaction to workin
35、g capital management performance. 译文 横跨产 业分析结果的营运资金管理 资料来源 : 美国商业杂志 作者： 格雷格 菲尔贝克 高效率的营运资金管理的重要性（ WCM 系统）是不容置疑的。周转资金是在不同资源之间的现金或随时兑换成现金（流动资产）和组织承诺的现金为即将需要（流动负债）。营运资金管理的目标是维持周转每个组件的最佳平衡。企业的生存能力依赖于是否 有能力有效地管理应收账款，库存和应付款项。公司能够降低融资成本 或增加尽量减少绑在流动资产注册资金数额的资金用于扩充可用。经理花费很多努力，在使对最佳水平的流动资产及负债非最佳水平下降。一个最理想 的水平将
36、是一个在其中的风险之间的平衡和效率的实现。 一个试图最大化 的营运资金管理业务最近的例子是经常 注意的六西格玛方法的应用。六西格玛的方法帮助企业的措施，确保在企业的所有领域的质量。当用于识别和纠正金融供应链的差异，效率低下和错误的交易，六西格玛降低销售回款人，加快了付款周期，提高客户满意度，并减少了所需 的资金数额和工作需要的费用。似乎有许多成功的故事，包括詹妮弗汤 （ 2002 年）中的一个杰出的销售天数减少百分之 15 的报告，在一个约 200 万美元增加现金流量提波导致地区医疗中心。此外，坏帐下降，从 340 万美元 至 60 万元。然而，沃特 的研究 （ 2003 年）采用六西格玛多个
37、公司的研究发现，它确实是一个“致富慢”技术的回报率在 1.2 至 4.5 的 百分比范围。 即使在使用六西格玛方法，一个“最优”的营运资金管理水平的 业务需要确定。行业因素可能影响公司的信贷政策，库存管理，及票据 支付活动。一些公司可能更适合，尽量减少应收账款和存货，而其他应付款最大化。另一个方面的“最佳”是到了贫穷的财务业绩可连接到次优的性能范围。幸运的是，这些问题是由首席财务官杂志公布的数据可测试的，号称源“工具和财务主管信息”，是这个研究 的 课题。 除了提 供营运资金的措施和总体指 标的均值和方差的值，有两个问题将得到解决本研究。一个研究问题是： “内聚集在营运资金的水平一致措施，共同
38、特定行业的公司？”例如，在一个行业的公司能够迅速转化为现金销售（即应收账款水平低），而公司从另外一个行业往往有特定的库存水平（即，高存货周转率）水平较高 的销售额。的其他研究的问题是 ： “不特定行业内工作变动表现为企业资金管理，从年初至一年？” 以下部分介绍了简短的文献回顾。接下来，研究方法进行了描述，包括一些有关的年度工作资本管理公司的 CFO 杂志公布的调查资料和 结果，然后介绍和结论。 营运资金管理的重要性，是不是新来的财务文献。在 20 多年前， 拉格 和斯蒂克尼（ 1980）报道，野生型格兰特，一个全国性连锁百货，当时的最近破产应该已经预期，因为该公司已经运转了近八年的经营赤字，从
39、现金流其企业少活十年。作为财富 500 强企业的财务管理做法，吉尔伯特和赖克特研究的一部分（ 1995 年）发现，应收账款管理模式 在 这些企业中有百分之 59 用来改善营运资本项目账户，而库存管理模型，有百分之 60 的 公司 使用。最近， 法兰克，克莱曼和萨胡（ 1999 年）发现， 有百分之 55 的公司 中，标准普尔工业指数公司百分之完成一些现金流 评估表，但没有关于应收账款和存货管理人员，或任何现有资产的变化目前的见解帐户或跨行业债务帐目的登记。因此，混合证据有关的营运资金管理技术的使用。 最佳贸易理论厘定信贷限额是许多文章多年来（例如，施瓦茨 1974;谢尔1996）除与实际支付应
40、收账款的管理缺乏重视。跨越有限的样本， 瓦饶 和比塞彻（ 1998）观察到与目前的比例较低水平，也有企业的流动负债水平低的趋势。同时调查应收账款和应付的问题，希尔，沙多里斯，和弗格森（ 1984 年）发现，在付款日期的定义方式不同。收款人确定的付款日期为收到付款的日期，而付款人的邮戳日期视为付款。额外的 WCM 洞察整个企业，行业和时间可以增加这方面的研究机构。 马内斯和 奇格 （ 2002， 51， 496）提出了两种模式创造价值，纳入有效的短期财务管理活动。然而，这些模型是通用的模型并没有考虑到独特的企业或行业的影响。马内斯和 奇格 讨论在很短的一段，其中包括观察到，“一个公司位于行业可能
41、有更多的整体国民生产总值比该公司的财富影响力”的行业影响（ 2002年， 507）。事实上，这 627 页的课本上发现了认真审查的 实际尺寸的 WCM 企业一级，几乎没有对行业因素，除了一些如职称盒装物品只有零星的信息，“如果一个零售商提供一个内部的信用卡“（ 128）和 WCM 系统的稳定性没有随着时间的推移。本研究将试图填补这一调查工作有关的行业内资本措施无效，说明模式产业之间的差异跨越时空。 图书馆和网络资源的广泛调查提供有关资金管理工作最近的报告很少。最相关的文章了一套维塞尔和布雷德利的（ 2003）的文章对现金流量的管理和存货作为一种有效的供应链管理的哈德利（ 2004）的结果对照。
42、 第一次年度首席财务官周转的一项调查，与 REL 的咨询集团的 联合项目，发表于 1997 年 6 月的财务总监（明茨和 李瑞德 1997 年）的问题。 REL 是伦敦，英国为基础的管理咨询公司工作了其客户的全球资本问题的专业名单。最初的调查报告用了几个工作了 1996 年数据为上市公司资本的基准。每家公司的排名也对其同行和对整个领域的 1000 家公司。 REL 不断更新上 一年度的基础原始信息 的行业，包括至少 8 个在 1996-2000 年期间在表中列出的完整的信息公司。 REL 的使用对公司现金流量表位于“ 价值 的运营现金流”来估计现金转换效率。这个值表示公司如何转换成现金流收入。
43、 “ DWC 值的营运资 金”是基于在每一美元的总金额，同样加权应收账款，存货和应付账款账户。 DNC 的“营运资金 ”代表了 账户 存货采购之间的时间，直到从供应商向客户销售，应收款的收集和付款收据的时期。因此，它反映了公司的融资能力与供应商的信用其核心业务。详细调查的 WCM 系统是可能的，因为首席财务官也为销售回款，存货周转率和应付账款天优秀的公司和产业的价值。在 2002 年之前，首席财务官也提供了一个整体的 WCM 管理上的排名的商业性消费支出和 DWC 的同样加权相结合的基础。 这里介绍的研究是根据营运资金管理的首席财务官杂志上发表的年度评级为 基础。我们的研究结果表明，在如何产业
44、“叠起”对彼此就多了周转时间一致性的措施。然而，周转措施本身不是静态的（即，工作措施，在所有企业的资本平均每年变动），我们的结果表明：随着时间的推移我们整个样本重大变动。我们的研究结果非常重要，因为它们提供的洞察力资本绩效工作跨越时间，并在各行 业的资本管理工作。这些变化可能是受宏观经济因素的一部分解释。在利率，创新的速度，和竞争格局的变化有可能影响营运资金的管理。由于利率上升，也就会少一些渴望早日付款， 这将延伸应付帐款，应收帐款，现金帐户。 这项研究的后果包括为不同的 行业，往往是长期稳定的 WCM 措施不同层面的发现。许多因素有助于解释这一发现。期间的研究期间，改善经济可能已导致一些行业提高营业额，营业额而放慢可能是一个信号，未来的麻烦。我们的结果应谨慎解释。我们的研究发生在普遍提高市场在短期时间内的地方。此外，调查患有生存偏差 ， 只有每个行业内顶尖公司的排名每年这些公司在行业内的组成可以变更一次。 进一步的研究可能采取两种线路之一。首先，有可能是一个股票价格是否有回应 CFO 杂志的营运资金管理评级出版研究。第二，有可能是一个研究，如果有的话，营运资金管理组件涉及到的股价表现。 由于我们的研究结果 显示 ，这些研究需要考虑到行业会员在估计股票价格的反应，营运资金管理绩效。
