【正文】 在最近的一篇文章中，BarIlane l.(2021)模型的一個(gè)布朗運(yùn)動(dòng) 的疊加和復(fù)合的假設(shè)是一個(gè)控制帶的政策，他們獲得有關(guān)函數(shù)的貼現(xiàn)成本最優(yōu)貨幣存量變化率重建的障礙和技術(shù)方法，這個(gè)是近似最優(yōu)控制參數(shù)的數(shù)值。然而，它是一種流動(dòng)性管理的基本功能， 但是 BarIlan (1990)指出允許負(fù)現(xiàn)金余額（在一些懲罰性利率下）。非負(fù)的現(xiàn)金余額最低水平的假設(shè)經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)在一些論文中（如 Frenkel and Jovanovic, 1980。對(duì)解決模型起決定性作用的是使用改善“脈沖控制的” 最優(yōu)控制技術(shù)，這些理論都是由 Bensoussan 和 lions（ 1973， 1975）介紹的。控件的設(shè)置可以被認(rèn)為是連續(xù)控制或者推出時(shí)間滯后的執(zhí)行決定。此外，為了計(jì)算出解決方案，至今我們已經(jīng)證明了一個(gè)數(shù)值格式的收斂性，它有一個(gè)準(zhǔn)變分不等式及脈沖控制理論的堅(jiān)實(shí)基礎(chǔ)。我們的解決方案是使交易成本和持有 /懲罰陳本為線(xiàn)性函數(shù)。此外，我們證明了有限元方法計(jì)算數(shù)值的價(jià)值功能理論與成本的最佳局部一致收斂。 Chang, 1999?？v向附加，需要定性和多元統(tǒng)計(jì)證據(jù)來(lái)判斷在小公司實(shí)行運(yùn)營(yíng)資金管理模型是否可以提高公司管理水平達(dá)到質(zhì)一樣的飛躍。 政策制定者和從業(yè)人員需要珍惜有限的管理時(shí)間，這個(gè)對(duì)很多小公司的約束。定性研究和縱向研究將提供新的關(guān)于工作過(guò)程和資金管理力度，以及復(fù)雜因果關(guān)系的見(jiàn)解 (Scapens, 1990)。 以類(lèi)似的方式，由于因果關(guān)系的方向不明確，就無(wú)法在公司內(nèi)部將實(shí)行運(yùn)營(yíng)資金原理和公司 的財(cái)務(wù)技能水平緊密聯(lián)系一起。在企業(yè)管理運(yùn)營(yíng)方面，因果關(guān)系的復(fù)雜性可能使確認(rèn)企業(yè)在運(yùn)營(yíng)資金管理的績(jī)效更加困難。進(jìn)一步的研究能夠有效促進(jìn)對(duì)運(yùn)營(yíng)資金管理模式的認(rèn)知和加快促使企業(yè)實(shí)行資金管理模式。然而，從回歸分析中驚奇發(fā)現(xiàn)的是：很少利用運(yùn)營(yíng)資金管理模式公司并不一定是規(guī)模較小公司。從 PCA 和聚類(lèi)分析中得到的證據(jù)確認(rèn)關(guān)于四種不同類(lèi)型管理模式鑒定與公司實(shí)行的運(yùn)營(yíng)資金管理模式有關(guān)。代理理論確定了小型企業(yè)和大型企業(yè)之間的外部利益影響。建立因果關(guān)系的困難非常的突出，對(duì)學(xué)者、政策制定者和從業(yè)人員的影響也被披露出來(lái)。前三種類(lèi)型把關(guān)注點(diǎn)分別放在現(xiàn)金管理、股票管理、債務(wù) 管理上，但是第四種模式很少采取任何行動(dòng)在運(yùn)營(yíng)資金管理上。 Ⅲ .外文翻譯 Ⅲ 1 外文翻譯之一 The focus of working capital management in UK small firms（節(jié)選） Author： Carole Howorth， Paul Westhead Nationality： Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK Derivation: Management Accounting Research ,2021, –111 Abstract Working capital management routines of a large random sample of small panies in the UK are examined. Considerable variability in the takeup of 11 working capital management routines was detected. Principal ponents analysis and cluster analysis confirm the identification of four distinct ‘types’ of panies with regard to patterns of working capital management. The first three ‘types’ of panies focused upon cash management, stock or debtors routines respectively, whilst the fourth ‘type’ were less likely to takeup 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 panies. The results suggest that small panies 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, policymakers 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 takeup of working capital management routines by small panies. 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 takeup 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 takeup of 11 working capital management routines by a large random sample of small panies in th