[pretty] it's not easy to understand in practice. The reasonable validity of the measurement reference method, the specific method of calculation and the significance of the results are discussed in depth. On the basis of the survey, a reasonable estimate of the borrower's operating capital is projected for changes in the liquidity times. As for instruments receivable, if an enterprise is in dire need of liquidity, the enterprise can discount them at any time and may not take them into account, and the measure is not considered and there is some consistency. The most difficult is for the borrower to be identified as having its own funds, and the following is an examination of different methods for measuring the additional liquidity line, mainly in terms of the different valuation methods of owning the funds. Option three, the borrower's own funds are valued at the balance between the enterprise owner's interests and long-term liabilities and long-term assets. Since the current operating expenditure measured by the methodology is in line with the calibre of the operating capital measurement method provided by the cmb liquidity management scheme, the additional liquidity loan requirements measured by the methodology are of greater relevance, provided that it is recognized that the use of the operating capital of the enterprise is in line with the actual circumstances of the enterprise, that the historical operating norms of the enterprise are reasonable, that the stock lending that has been developed are in line with the requirements of the system and that the real capital needs of the enterprise to operate its production. According to the experience of authors, it is virtually impossible, in practice, to measure the results in any way consistent with the level of liquidity loans actually requested by enterprises. This situation illustrates the low demand for enterprise liquidity. Conclusion: the bank's management of liquidity loans has a historic regulatory perspective that provides a quantitative measure of the borrower's liquidity lending needs. It fully reflects the need for banking financial institutions to actually upgrade their financial services and manage financial risks in line with clients ' requirements. It is more relevant to discourage commercial bank lending impulses, prevent over-trusting and increase business sector risk management capabilities. The author has tried to further explore this measurement reference. Many other enterprises account for their part of the main business transactions in other accounts receivable. In terms of formulae, the amount of operating capital provided by other sources is not directly derived from the financial statements of the enterprise, but is estimated by the client manager in-depth field surveys of the enterprise, the size of which is also uncertain, and is therefore not considered here. The measurement formula is as follows: the new liquidity line = operating capital (current asset current liability) short-term loans is based on the assumption that an enterprise does not have a long-term loan or short-term loan. Option four, the new liquidity line is derived directly from projected operating capital less operating capital currently occupied. Owing to the difficulty of doing so, some banks have not implemented them at all and are awaiting further clarification from the cbsa, while others have been issued by the head office, requiring their respective branch approving officers to calculate the level of liquidity loan requirements in strict accordance with the cbsa methodology and, in principle, not to exceed that level. This is in line with our regulatory requirements, and it is believed that the credit approvers are better off, but unfortunately, it is rare. The regulators would prefer not to over-trust them, which are also high-quality customers of commercial banks. In contrast, the operating capital turnover = 360/(stock days + accounts receivable days + accounts payable days + advances — days received in advance) formula 3. In fact, cash is mentioned in the scheme as one of the factors influencing the volume of operating funds, but is not taken into account in the measurement. The operating capital turnover calculated under the two formulas is not normally equal and is only equal when “sale cost = sales income” or “accounts payable = inventory + advances”. Replace “formula 2” with “module 2” for “operational capital turnover = sales income/operating capital” (note: this is the accepted formula referred to above, unlike the cmb formula): operating capital = upload of operating capital (1+ expected annual increase in sales revenue) (1-up sales profit) formula 4. Operating fund requirements = inventory + accounts receivable + accounts payable + advances − advances received in advance, as defined by the board. If the operating capital turnover is to be calculated in this way, then the number of days (number) of the working capital will have to be modified, either by using full sales revenue or by using full sales costs. The previous year's operating capital = 2505+100200 = 1 million yuan, which, according to the method of measurement in the scheme, is expected to be 3 million yuan. V. Summary. Would it be reasonable for a company to request that its own funds, calculated in terms of the formula, constitute 80 per cent of operating funds? In my view, it is unreasonable that the company spends more of its own funds on supplementary operating funds when it has sufficient funds, no fixed assets and equity investments, and it is reasonable to reduce the amount of its own funds used to supplement operating funds when additional fixed assets or equity investments are made. It would also be interesting to note that the term “borrower-owned funds” in formula 1 is not clearly defined in the scheme, resulting in different methods of calculation, such as “proprietary funds = max{0, owner equity — non-current assets + non-current liabilities}”. For example, many believe that the cib formula is not suitable for all enterprises, and that it should be designed in industry, by size, by stage of development, etc., which is actually a misunderstanding. The forecast results for the three formulas above are in most cases uneven, but closer, because of different assumptions, assuming that operating funds are proportional to sales revenue, sales costs and total cost tax charges, but at least are self-conforming and not inherently contradictory. Compared to “full cost tax charges”, sales costs are reduced by three fees and income taxes, while sales revenues are more profitable, while “full cost tax fees” are closest to actual cash flows from the enterprise. For example, if we want to forecast operating capital in these two formulas, it is true that only the projected annual growth in sales revenue = 0 would be sufficient, and that formula 5 would be (predicted above) operating capital = operating capital on it; but formula 4 would be: (predicted above) operating capital = operating capital on it * (1-up sales margin), and formula 4 would lead us to the conclusion that, at zero, operating capital on top would appear absurd, and that when sales profit = 0, sales growth = 0, operating capital would become smaller and tend to be zero. For example, assuming sales revenue = 100, sales cost = 50, accounts receivable = 10, accounts payable = 6 and others = 0, operating capital turnover under formula 3 = -50, the number of working days is negative, indicating that there is no shortage of operating funds, but the actual operating shortfall is 4 = accounts receivable -- accounts payable = 10-6) operating capital turnover = correctly calculated; for example, assuming sales revenue = 100, sales cost = 50, advance receipts = 10, inventory = 6 and others = 0, operating capital turnover = 50 under formula 3, operating capital days = indicating that there is an operating capital gap that requires financial support (the funding gap is about “average daily sales income”), but in fact, not only is there no operating capital gap, but there are additional funds available (value 4). Replace the words “six formulae for the number and number of working days” with the words “formula 3” can be obtained: the number of working capital working days = 1 (inventory/sale costs + receivables/sales proceeds — accounts payable/sales costs — advances/sales costs — advance receipts/sales proceeds)。cost of sales up
I don't know. In practice, commercial bank credit practitioners should conduct an in-depth analysis based on the different stages of an enterprise's development and actual operations, taking into account the basic lines provided by the new approach, and opt for a more appropriate measure of an enterprise's liquidity requirements as a reference to the enterprise's lending lines to achieve the objective of complying with regulatory requirements and effectively protecting against credit risks. In accordance with the regulatory requirements, we cannot lend to enterprises that are over-trusted, and that are designed to prevent them from misappropriation or diversion of credit funds. Regardless of which method, assuming that the above measurement method we have chosen is correct and that its results correspond to the actual situation of the enterprise, there are certainly three scenarios in which the results and the amount of the enterprise's loan application are: the first is that the measure is much greater than the amount of the enterprise's application. Each of the four methods described above has its own characteristics, requiring bank credit approving officers to choose the appropriate mode of measurement based on the actual circumstances of the enterprise in order to arrive at more indicative values, and blind fixed selection of one method is not reasonable. If an enterprise strictly follows the laws and regulations, these assumptions are reasonable, and the accuracy of the party is higher and better understood. Assuming that the enterprise has entered a stable development cycle, that the enterprise's liquidity loans have been fully used for operating capital and that the enterprise's long-term borrowing has been fully used for the enterprise's long-term assets, the enterprise's own funds available for additional investment and operating capital are the book money funds. In addition, the “up-market margin” in the above formula should be valued at the firm's gross profit margin, i. E. The main business profit margin, as it is more reasonable to calculate the operating cost of the business as the head of the business, as calculated by the “up-market income (a top business profit margin)”. The main factors affecting the borrower's operating capital are inventory, receivables, accounts payable, advances received and advances. The new scheme provides for the systematic regulation of liquidity lending operations from the borrower's loan needs measurement methodology, payment modalities, contractual terms, etc., and requires immediate implementation as from the date of issuance. For such enterprises, the risks are relatively small. If our banks lend to such enterprises, the risks are understandable. Iii. The new approach to the measurement of liquidity lending needs has been in place for more than three months. In practice, however, many enterprises do not comply with regulations, and there are also frequent problems of long-term borrowing, leading to excessive long-term assets and negative balances between ownership interests and long-term liabilities and long-term assets. Option ii, the difference between the current assets and current liabilities of the enterprise for which the borrower has its own funds. That is, the new liquidity line = operating capital — the borrower's own funds — the existing liquidity facility — the operating capital provided by other sources. In theory, the measure is reasonable and provides an effective estimate of the operating capital requirements of the borrower's main operation. The core elements of the new approach, on the one hand, emphasize the payment and post-credit management of liquidity, the introduction of fiduciary payments and the strengthening of controls over receptor funds. The formula for measuring the financial needs of borrowers in the document, which deals with the average use of their funds, the time taken, and the absence of a distinction between the cumulative and average requirements of the funds and an explanation thereof, is also confusing in this regard, and its results are unlikely to be accurate. In addition, the formula proposed in the document, which directly reduces the turnover of inventory, receivables, accounts payable, etc., is technically
