Ⅲ.外文翻译
外文翻译之一
The focus of working capital management
in UK small firms（节选）
Author：Carole Howorth，Paul Westhead
Nationality：Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
Derivation: Management Accounting Research ,2003, –111
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 implications
The 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 (. 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 -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 ,2003,–111
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单的结论可能会吸引投资者更多的运营资
金，这样导致更恶劣的处境。在企业管理运营方面，因果关系的复杂性可能使确
认企业在运营资金管理的绩效更加困难。我们可以推断出，有比较低倾向的公司
在进行运营资金管理模式的时候不能有效解决现金流问题，致使削弱了企业的盈
利能力。有一些迹象表明，这可能是公司的“生活方式”，再此公司得出去切的揭
露之前但是需要进一步的研究。目前，那些落后的基金资金运营公司确实表现不
佳或者有增长的潜力尚不清楚。
以类似的方式，由于因果关系的方向不明确，就无法在公司内部将实行运营
资金原理和公司的财务技能水平紧密联系一起。本研究采取简单的金融体系复杂
化代理措施。需要深入的实验探究，用来明确研究方向和加强实行运营资金管理
模式与财务管理技能、教育训练、以前积累的宝贵经验之间的联系。额外的多元
统计研究也需要大量一个多家的、多种文化和产业背景去辨别内部因素和外部因
素的结合，并且联系不同大小、就业情况的私营企业实行的运营资金管理模式
（例如微观管理，小型、中型和大型）。定性研究和纵向研究将提供新的关于工
作过程和资金管理力度，以及复杂因果关系的见解(Scapens, 1990)。
政策制定者和从业人员寻求，增加专业管理公司的股票，可能需要小公司拥
有者的帮助，他们要面对消极态度、操作障碍的运营资金管理模式的帮助。有证
据表明，小公司不应该被视为一个和运营资金管理模式的同质慷慨实体。政策制
定者和从业人员需要珍惜这种多样性，他们应该利用有效证据去帮助各种类型公
司的需求，而不是仅仅为所有公司资源和战略目标提供被子式的支持。
政策制定者和从业人员需要珍惜有限的管理时间，这个对很多小公司的约束。
由于时间紧张，不仅限制了花费在经营资金管理上的时间，还有评估正在运行资
金管理模型是否有效或者改变模型的时间。此外，我们可以期望更高的技术水平
去提高时间的使用效率，但是小公司的管理者有力的证据去验证投资在财务管理
技能培训上的资金的利弊。如果在引进适合的运营资金管理模型后确认能够决定
性提高公司的管理行为能力，则需要增加模型（财务技能培训）的建立。纵向附
加，需要定性和多元统计证据来判断在小公司实行运营资金管理模型是否可以提
高公司管理水平达到质一样的飞跃。从案例研究得到的最佳业务时间经验可以利
用政策制定者和从业人员说服小公司拥有者认可怎么样的运营资金管理模式可
以运用到商业中去，并促进商业发展。在我们充分了解运营资金管理模式的变动
前，有一个明显的理由去增加更多的实验探究。
外文翻译之二
Optimal impulse control for a multidimensional
cash management system
with generalized cost functions（节选）
Auditor： Stefano Baccarin
Nationality：I-10122 Turin, Italy
Derivation ： European Journal of Operational Research ， ， 2009 ，
–206
Abstract
We consider the optimal control of a multidimensional cash management system
where the cash balances fluctuate as a homogeneous diffusion process. We formulate
the model as an impulse control problem on an unbounded domain with unbounded
cost functions. Under general assumptions we characterize the value function as a
weak solution ofa quasi-variational inequality in a weighted Sobolev space and we
show the existence of an optimal policy. Moreover we prove the local uniform
convergence of a finite element scheme to compute numerically the value function
and the optimal cost. We compute the solution of the model in two-dimensions with
linear and distance cost functions, showing what are the shapes of the optimal policies
in these two simple cases. Finally our third numerical experiment computes the
solution in the realistic case of the cash concentration of two bank accounts made by a
centralized treasury.
Introduction
The cash management problem has been considered in the mathematical fnance
literature only in dimension one. From the pioneer works of Baumol (1952), Tobin
(1956), Miller and Orr(1966), it originated the main mathematical model used by the
theory of the transactions and precautionary demand for money. The decisive
improvement in solving the model was the use of the optimal control technique of
‘‘impulse control”, introduced by Bensoussan and Lions (1973, 1975). Assuming
linear holding/penalty costs,,fixed plus proportional costs of control and the cash
stock dynamics described by a generalized Brownian motion, Constantinides and
Richard (1978)first showed the existence of a simple optimal impulse policy of a
control band type. Harrison et al.(1983), proved a similar result assuming a
nonnegative constraint for the cash balance – which implies that the lowest barrier is
equal to zero – and they also gave a simple numerical procedure to compute the three
remaining optimal barriers. The assumption of a nonnegative minimum level for the
cash balance is common to many papers (see Frenkel and Jovanovic, 1980; Chang,
1999; BarIlan et al., 2004), but it is basically due to technical difficulties in obtaining
closed-form solutions for the more general case. However it is an essential feature of
liquidity management to allow a negative cash balance (at some penalty rate) and as
pointed out in Bar-Ilan (1990), the transaction demand for money should have to
consider the possibility of overdraft cash facilities. In Baccarin (2002) the existence
results of Constantinides and Richard(1978) are extended to the case of
holding-penalty costs which have also a quadratic term .In that paper it is shown that
as long as the penalty costs are finite the lowest barrier of the optimal policy is always
below zero and a simple numerical algorithm is given to compute the four critical
numbers. In a recent paper, Bar-Ilane al.(2004) model the changes in the money stock
by a superposition of a Brownian motion and a compound Poisson process Assuming
the optimality of a control band policy they derive the relevant discounted costs as
function of the barriers by using renewal and martingale techniques. This can allow to
approximate the optimal control parameters numerically.
Conclusions
In this paper we have presented a general method to solve a multidimensional
cash management problem. Our solution allows the transaction costs and the
holding/penalty costs to be nonlinear functions. Furthermore the cash stocks dynamics
may be correlated and they may have drift and diffusion coefficients which can
depend upon the state of the system. These general assumptions are very important to
deal with realistic applications. Using the functional analysis techniques of
Bensoussan and Lions we have shown that there always exists an optimal policy for
our multidimensional cash management system. Moreover ,in order to compute the
solution, we have proved the convergence of a numerical scheme which has a strong
foundation in the theory of quasi-variational inequalities and impulse control.
Although we have solved the problem in some two-dimensional examples the
algorithm remains the same for greater dimensions, requiring, of course, a growing
computational cost. There are several directions in which our variational approach can
be further investigated .One can think ofa more general process describing the state
dynamics, a jump-diffusion process, and the set of controls could be generalized
considering also a continuous control of the drift or introducing temporal lags in
implementing the decisions. If we consider the same model with a finite time horizon
we obtain an evolutionary problem where we have to study and interpret the solutions
of aparabolic quasi-variational inequality.
多层面现金管理系统的最优脉冲控制与广义费用函数(节选)
作者： Stefano Baccarin
国籍： I-10122 Turin, Italy
原文出处：European Journal of Operational Research ， ，2009， –206
摘要
我们认为，一个多层面的现金管理系统的最优控制在于其中现金余额波动均
匀并且平衡扩散的状态。我们制定的成本函数是用来解决无界域脉冲控制问题的
模型。在一般假设情况下，我们认为作为一个弱解 OFA 的准变分不等式的加权
索伯列夫空间的价值功能与我们展示的最优策略是一个很大的特点。此外，我们
证明了有限元方法计算数值的价值功能理论与成本的最佳局部一致收敛。我们还
计算了在两线性尺寸和距离成本函数模型的解，显示了在这两个简单的情况下，
最优政策的表现形态形状。最后，我们的第三个数值试验计算制定出实际案例解
决方案其中包括了中的两个银行账户的现金国库集中浓度。
导言
在本文中，我们提出了一个通用的方法用来解决多层面的现金管理问题。我
们的解决方案是使交易成本和持有/惩罚陈本为线性函数。此外，该现货库存动
态可能是相关的，他们可以在依赖系统的状态下漂移和扩散。这些一般的假设在
实际应用处理中非常重要。利用 Bensoussan and Lions 的功能分析技术，我们已
经发现，始终存在对于我们现金管理系统的多维最优策略。此外，为了计算出解
决方案，至今我们已经证明了一个数值格式的收敛性，它有一个准变分不等式及
脉冲控制理论的坚实基础。虽然我们已经解决一些二维例子的问题，而且计算方
法适用于更大的尺度，但是当然需要越来越多的计算成本。利用我们的变分方法，
我们可以向另外几个方向进一步的研究。更多的人像利用 OFA 的一般过程描述
动态力学和跳跃扩散过程。控件的设置可以被认为是连续控制或者推出时间滞后
的执行决定。如果我们在有限时间范围内考虑同一个模型，可以得到一个进步问
题，同时我们必须要研究和寻找变分不等式的解决。
结论
现金管理问题一直被认是数学文献里财务均衡的一部分。从对鲍莫尔，托宾，
米勒和奥尔的工作中可以得出，它起源于主要的数学模型所使用的理论的交易和
预防性货币需求。对解决模型起决定性作用的是使用改善“脉冲控制的” 最优控
制技术，这些理论都是由 Bensoussan 和 lions（1973，1975）介绍的。假设线性
持有/惩罚成本，再加上固定比例的成本控制和现金股票是由广义布朗运动描述
的动态，Constantinides 和 Richard (1978)首次指出一个简单的最优脉冲带型政策
的存在。Harrison et al(1983)证明了一个类似的结果其假设是一个非负约束的现金
余额。这意味着，最低的障碍是零，同时他们也给了一个简单的数学计算程序用
来计算其余三个障碍。非负的现金余额最低水平的假设经常出现在一些论文中
（如 Frenkel and Jovanovic, 1980; Chang, 1999; BarIlan et al., 2004）。但是由于它
技术上的困难基本上只能取得一般情况下封闭的形势的方案。然而，它是一种流
动性管理的基本功能，但是 Bar-Ilan (1990)指出允许负现金余额（在一些惩罚性
利率下）。对货币的交易需求应该考虑透支现金设施的可能性。在巴卡林，
Constantinides 和 Richard (1978)的存在性结果在罚款方面也推广到二次项。在该
文件中表明，只要罚款成本低于最优政策那么总是会低于零，一个简单的数值计
算方法考虑到四个重要的数字。在最近的一篇文章中，Bar-Ilane l.(2004)模型的
一个布朗运动的叠加和复合的假设是一个控制带的政策，他们获得有关函数的贴
现成本最优货币存量变化率重建的障碍和技术方法，这个是近似最优控制参数的
数值。
