营运管理__英文文献_对整个行业中营运资金管理的研究

外文原文 An Analysis of Working Capital Management Results across Industries Greg Filbeck and Thomas M. Krueger Abstract 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. We provide insights into the performance of surveyed firms across key components of working capital management by using the CFO magazine’s annual Working Capital Management Survey. We discover that significant differences exist between industries in working capital measures across time. In addition, we discover that these measures for working capital change significantly within industries across time. Introduction The importance of efficient working capital management is indisputable. Working capital is the difference between resources in cash or readily convertible 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 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 back 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? methodologies 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 第1页(共6页) (DSO),accelerates the payment cycle, improves customer satisfaction and reduces the necessary amount and cost of working capital needs. There appear to be many success stories, including Jennifer Towne’s (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 Regional Medical Center. Furthermore, bad debts declined from $3.4 million to $600.000. However, Waxer’s (2003) study of multiple firms employing Six Sigma? find s 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? methodology, 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 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, which claims to be the source of “tools and information 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 together at consistent levels of working capi tal measures?” For instance, are firms in one industry able to quickly transfer sales into cash, while firms from another industry tend to have high sales levels for the particular level of inventory. Th e other research question is “D oes 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 annual Working Capital Management Survey published by CFO magazine. Findings are then presented and conclusions are drawn. Related Literature 第2页(共6页) The importance of working capital management is not new to the finance literature. Over twenty years ago, Largay and Stickney (1980) reported that the then-recent bankruptcy of W.T. 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 stu dy of the Fortune 500’s financial management practices, Gilbert and Reichert (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, Farragher, Kleiman and Sahu (1999) find that 55 percent of firms in the S&P Industrial index complete some form of a cash flow assessment, but did not present insights regarding accounts receivable and inventory management, or the variations of any current asset accounts or liability accounts across industries. Thus, mixed evidence exists concerning the use of working capital management techniques. Theoretical determination of optimal trade credit limits are the subject of many articles over the years (e.g. Schwartz 1974; Scherr 1996) with scant attention paid to actual accounts receivable management. Across a limited sample, Weinraub and Visscher (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 issues. Hill·Sartoris 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 payors view payment as the postmark date. Additional WCM insight across firms, industries and time can add to this body of research. Maness and Zietlow (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 Zietlow discuss industry influences in a short paragraph that includes the observation that “An industry a company is located in may have more influence on that company’s fortunes than ov erall GNP” (2002. 507). In fact,a careful review of this 627-page textbook finds only sporadic information on actual firm levels of WCM dimensions, virtually nothing on 第3页(共6页) 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 by investigating patterns related to working capital measures within industries 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 Weisel and Bradley’s (2003) article on cash flow management and one of inventory control as a result of effective supply chain management by Hadley (2004). Research Method The first annual CFO Working Capital Survey, a joint project with REL Consultancy Group, was published in the June 1997 issue of CFO (Mintz and Lezere 1997). REL is a London, England-based management consulting firm specializing 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 1000 companies. REL continues to update the original information on an annual basis. REL uses the “cash flow from operations” value l ocated on firm cash flow statements to estimate cash conversion efficiency (CCE). This value 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. T he “days of working capital” (D WC) represents the time period between 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 company’s ability to finance its core operations with vendor credit. A detailed investigation of WCM is possible because CFO also provides firm and industry values for days sales outstanding (A/R), inventory turnover and days payables outstanding (A/P). Research Findings:Average and Annual Working Capital Management Performance Working capital management component definitions and average values for the entire 1996 – 2000 period. Across the nearly 1.000 firms in the survey, cash flow from operations, 第4页(共6页) defined as cash flow from operations divided by sales and referred to as “ca sh conversion efficiency” (CCE). Averages 9.0 percent. Incorporating a 95 percent confidence interval, CCE ranges from 5.6 percent to 12.4 percent. The day’s working capital (DWC), defined as the sum of receivables and inventories less payables divided by daily sales, averages 51.8 days and is very similar to the days that sales are outstanding (50.6). Because the inventory turnover rate (once every 32.0 days) is similar to the number of days that payables are outstanding (32.4 days). In all instances, the standard deviation is relatively small, suggesting that these working capital management variables are consistent across CFO reports. Industry Rankings on Overall Working Capital Management Performance CFO magazine provides an overall working capital ranking for firms in its survey, using the following equation: Industry-based differences in overall working capital management are presented for the twenty-six industries that had at least eight companies included in the rankings each year. In the typical year, CFO magazine ranks 970 companies during this period. Industries are listed in order of the mean overall CFO ranking of working capital performance. Since the best average ranking possible for an eight-company industry is 4.5 (this assumes that the eight companies are ranked one through eight for the entire survey). It is quite obvious that all firms in the petroleum industry must have been receiving very high overall working capital management rankings. In fact, the petroleum industry is ranked first in CCE and third in DWC (as illustrated in Table 5 and discussed later in this paper). Furthermore, the petroleum industry had the lowest standard deviation of working capital rankings and range of working capital rankings. The only other industry with a mean overall ranking less than 100 was the Electric & Gas Utility industry, which ranked second in CCE and fourth in DWC. The two industries with the worst working capital rankings were Textiles and Apparel. Textiles rank twenty-second in CCE and twenty-sixth in DWC. The apparel industry ranks twenty-third and twenty-fourth in the two working capital measures Conclusions 第5页(共6页)