Cash Flow in Fixed Capital Cost Projects

1961 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 49A-50A
Author(s):  
Carl Bauman
Keyword(s):  
1961 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 49A-50A
Author(s):  
H. Carl Bauman
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 144 ◽  
pp. 118-124
Author(s):  
Il'ya I. Marushchak ◽  
◽  
Irina V. Pavlenko ◽  
Elena V. Zelenkina ◽  
◽  
...  

The authors have analyzed the legal acts regulating accountancy in the Russian Federation and concluded that they contain no definitions, classification or descriptions of innovations, which makes it problematic to put the corresponding provisions of State programs into practice. The authors suggest singling out “expenditure on innovation” as a separate object of accounting and define it as expenditure for the purpose of improving the quality of production, works and service as well as improving the organizational and management system. This new level of quality can be measured by means of the following indicators: physical properties, chemical composition, technical and economic indicators. In view of the fact that investments in innovation can be referred to as both fixed capital (intangible assets, constant assets) and working capital (elite seeds, young animals, innovative biological additives etc.), the authors suggest adding to entry 08 “Investments in fixed assets” sub-entry 9 “Creating or purchasing innovations as part of fixed capital” and sub-entry 10 “Creating or purchasing innovations as part of working capital”. In view of the fact that Cash flow statement reveals some important analytical information about investing, it would be advisable to add to “Cash flow from investing activities” line 4215 “Cash inflows from selling innovations” and line 4225 “Expenditures on purchasing, creating innovations”


1997 ◽  
Vol 34 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 457-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco D'Adda

2013 ◽  
pp. 32-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phan Dinh Nguyen ◽  
Dong Phan Thi Anh

The purpose of this study is to examine determinants of corporate investment decisions. By adopting a static approach, the findings show that cash-flow, fixed capital intensity, business risk, leverage, and firm size are the key elements in making investment activities. Additionally, by using a dynamic approach, the results reveal that past investment also affects investment decisions at the firm level.


2019 ◽  
Vol 152 ◽  
pp. 184-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Xu ◽  
Guomin Cui ◽  
Weidong Deng ◽  
Yuan Xiao ◽  
Heri Kayange Ambonisye

Liquidity ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Nurlis Azhar ◽  
Helmi Chaidir

This study was conducted to examine the effect of Free Cash Flow Ratio, Debt Equity Ratio (DER), Institutional Ownership, Employee Welfare and Price Earning Ratio (PER) to Divident Payout Ratio (Parliament) partially on manufacturing companies listed on Indonesia Stock Exchange period 2011-2015. In addition, to test the feasibility of regression model, the influence of Free Cash Flow Ratio, Debt Equity Ratio (DER), Institutional Ownership, Employee Welfare and Price Earning Ratio (PER) to Divident Payout Ratio (DPR) simultaneously at manufacturing company listed on Bursa Indonesia Securities period 2011-2015. The population in this study are 146 manufacturing companies that have been and still listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange period 2011-2013. The sampling technique used was purposive sampling and obtained sample of 42 companies. Data analysis technique used is by using multiple linear regression test. The results showed that Free Cash Flow Ratio, no significant effect on Divident Payout Ratio (DPR). Debt Equity Ratio (DER) has a negative and significant influence on Divident Payout Ratio (DPR), Institutional Ownership has a significant positive effect on Divident Payout Ratio (DPR), Employee Welfare and Price Earning Ratio (PER) has a positive and significant influence on the Divident Payout Ratio ). Simultaneously Free Cash Flow Ratio, Debt Equity Ratio (DER), Institutional Ownership, Employee Welfare and Price Earning Ratio (PER) give effect to Divident Payout Ratio. The prediction ability of the five variables to the Divident Payout Ratio (DPR) is 21.3% as indicated by the adjusted R square of 0.271 while the remaining 79.7% is influenced by other factors not included in the research model.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document