论文部分内容阅读
关于流动资金周转天数的计算,在理论上如何方称合理,实践上如何比较有利于考核,在当前实行由银行统一供应和统一管理流动资金的体制改革下,己成为会计界注意和探索的一项中心议题。本刊在81年第4期曾发表汪孟勤同志《试论现行流动资金周转天数指标的计算》一文;接着于同年第10期发表了朱信诚同志的《关于流动资金周转率计算与考核的几个问题》,就汪文的某些论点提出了商榷。嗣于82年第6期,本刊又发表了张宝善同志《也谈工业企业流动资金总周转额的选择》一文;之后,翁新孟同志和朱宅仁同志各撰寄来同张文某些论点商榷的文章,题目分别是:《谈影响流动资金周转率的两因素,和《也谈工业企业流动资金周转率计算中流动资金周转额的选择》。我们认为,这种在会计学术上百家争鸣、切磋问难的学风,是值得发扬和倡导的。为此,我们特在上述体制改革之际,再就这一专题,选摘前后各家来稿中的各种观点,在本栏内发表。为了有助于读者和作者对各家论点的比较和思考,我们试把同类内容的论述并在一起,以资醒目。当然,限于我们的水平,必然会有某些不足或失当之处,希望读者和作者不吝指正,以便今后改进。 根据来稿,看来各家对流动资金周转天数的计算公式,即资金平均占用额×360天/周转额,是得到公认,并无争议的。问题的焦点,?
Regarding the calculation of the working capital turnover days, it is theoretically reasonable and practically more conducive to assessment. Under the current system reforms in which banks uniformly supply and manage liquidity, they have become an attention and exploration of the accounting profession. Item center issues. In the 4th issue of the 81st issue of this article, the journal published the article “Comments on the Current Working Capital Flow Turnover Index Calculation” by Comrade Wang Mengqin; then in the 10th issue of the same year, it published several questions on calculation and assessment of the liquidity turnover rate by Comrade Zhu Xincheng. ” A discussion was made on Wang Wen’s arguments. In the sixth issue of the 82th issue of the same year, the journal published the article “Comment on the Total Turnover of Working Capital in Industrial Enterprises” by Comrade Zhang Baoshan. Afterwards, Comrades Weng Xinmeng and Zhu Zurian wrote articles that were sent to some of Zhang Wen’s arguments. The topics are: “On the two factors that affect the turnover rate of liquidity, and ”Also on the selection of liquidity turnover in the calculation of the liquidity turnover rate of industrial enterprises." We believe that such a style of study in the accounting academic community that contends with one another and asks questions and answers is worthy of promotion and advocacy. To this end, we will specialize in the above-mentioned institutional reforms. We will then select various points of view from various submissions before and after this topic to be published in this column. In order to help the readers and the authors to compare and think about the various arguments, we try to put together the discussion of the same kind of content, in order to attract attention. Of course, limited to our level, there will inevitably be some deficiencies or missteps, I hope the readers and authors are not correct, in order to improve in the future. According to the manuscript, it seems that the calculation formula for the number of working days for liquidity, that is, the average amount of funds used × 360 days/turns, is recognized and not controversial. The focus of the problem?