论文中文题名: | QJ文化旅游公司融资风险评价研究 |
姓名: | |
学号: | 19202220081 |
保密级别: | 公开 |
论文语种: | chi |
学科代码: | 125300 |
学科名称: | 管理学 - 会计 |
学生类型: | 硕士 |
学位级别: | 管理学硕士 |
学位年度: | 2022 |
培养单位: | 西安科技大学 |
院系: | |
专业: | |
研究方向: | 资本市场与公司治理 |
第一导师姓名: | |
第一导师单位: | |
论文提交日期: | 2022-06-17 |
论文答辩日期: | 2022-06-07 |
论文外文题名: | Research on Financing Risk Evaluation of QJ Cultural Tourism Company |
论文中文关键词: | |
论文外文关键词: | QJ Cultural Tourism Company ; Financing Risk Evaluation ; Analytic Hierarchy Process ; Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method |
论文中文摘要: |
新世纪以来,我国旅游业得到快速发展,规模持续扩大,服务能力明显增强。但是,新冠肺炎疫情对旅游业的发展造成重大负面影响,作为旅游业重要载体的旅游企业所面临的融资风险加剧。融资风险是指企业融资活动中由于不确定性因素的影响,导致企业融资规模、融资结构等发生变化而引起预期收益变动的风险,影响着旅游企业经营目标的实现与可持续发展。而科学、准确评价旅游企业融资风险是有效控制融资风险的前提。因此,对QJ文化旅游公司融资风险的研究,具有一定的理论价值和现实意义。 本文以QJ文化旅游公司为研究对象,首先根据融资风险的概念,借鉴国内外学者的相关研究,结合访谈结果,构建了包括7个一级指标、27个二级指标的融资风险评价指标体系,然后运用层次分析法测度各个评价指标的权重,其次运用模糊综合评价法测度QJ文化旅游公司的融资风险,并对测度结果进行详细分析,分析结果表明:QJ文化旅游公司属于较高融资风险的评价等级;一级评价指标的综合得分各不相同,盈利能力的综合得分最高,现金流量能力的综合得分最低;二级评价指标得分区间相差较大,一级指标政策风险所包含的二级指标中,法律政策风险的得分最高,土地政策风险得分最低;金融风险所包含的二级指标中,股票价格风险的得分最高,利率风险的得分最低;经营管理风险所包含的二级指标中,企业战略风险的得分最高,管理者素质风险的得分最低;偿债能力所包含的二级指标中,利息保障倍数得分最高,流动比率的得分最低;营运能力所包含的二级指标中,应收账款周转率得分最高,存货周转率的得分最低;盈利能力所包含的二级指标中,销售净利率的得分最高,营业利润率的得分最低;现金流量能力所包含的二级指标中,现金到期债务比得分最高,现金流入流出比得分最低。最后基于分析结果提出如下对策与建议:加强政策风险与技术风险防范,建立融资风险预警机制,提高融资风险管理水平,优化融资结构,合理确定融资规模,提高资金使用效率,提高企业社会声誉,改善盈利能力,以期有效降低QJ文化旅游公司的融资风险。 |
论文外文摘要: |
In the new century, China's tourism industry has developed rapidly, the scale has continued to expand, and the service capacity has been significantly enhanced. However, the covid-19 pneumonia epidemic has a significant negative impact on the development of tourism. As an important carrier of tourism, the financing risks faced by tourism enterprises are aggravated. Financing risk refers to the risk of changes in expected income caused by changes in enterprise financing scale and financing structure due to the influence of uncertain factors in enterprise financing activities, which affects the realization of business objectives and sustainable development of tourism enterprises. Scientific and accurate evaluation of the financing risk of tourism enterprises is the premise of effectively controlling the financing risk. Therefore, the research on the financing risk of QJ cultural tourism company has certain theoretical value and practical significance. This paper takes QJ cultural tourism company as the research object. Firstly, according to the concept of financing risk, drawing on the relevant research of domestic and foreign scholars, and combined with the interview results, this paper constructs a financing risk evaluation index system including 7 primary indicators and 27 secondary indicators, then uses the analytic hierarchy process to measure the weight of each evaluation index, and then uses the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation method to measure the financing risk of QJ cultural tourism company. The results show that QJ cultural tourism company belongs to the evaluation level of higher financing risk; The comprehensive scores of the first level evaluation indicators are different, with the highest comprehensive score of profitability and the lowest comprehensive score of cash flow capacity; There is a large difference in the score range of secondary evaluation indicators. Among the secondary indicators included in the policy risk of primary indicators, the score of legal policy risk is the highest and the score of land policy risk is the lowest; Among the secondary indicators of financial risk, the score of stock price risk is the highest and the score of interest rate risk is the lowest; Among the secondary indicators included in operation and management risk, the score of enterprise strategic risk is the highest and the score of manager quality risk is the lowest; Among the secondary indicators included in solvency, the score of interest cover ratio is the highest and the score of current ratio is the lowest; Among the secondary indicators included in operating capacity, the score of accounts receivable turnover rate is the highest and the score of inventory turnover rate is the lowest; Among the secondary indicators included in profitability, the score of sales net interest rate is the highest and the score of operating profit margin is the lowest; Among the secondary indicators included in cash flow capacity, the score of cash to maturity debt ratio is the highest and the score of cash inflow and outflow ratio is the lowest. Finally, based on the analysis results, the following countermeasures and suggestions are put forward: strengthen the prevention of policy risk and technical risk, establish the early warning mechanism of financing risk, improve the level of financing risk management, optimize the financing structure, reasonably determine the financing scale, improve the efficiency of capital use, improve the corporate social reputation and improve the profitability, so as to effectively reduce the financing risk of QJ cultural tourism company. |
参考文献: |
[17]Myers S, Nicholas S M.The Capital Structure Puzzle[J].Journal of Finance,2012(9): 575- 592. [23]朱荣.企业财务风险评价与控制研究[M].大连:东北财经大学出版社,2008. [24]李素红,陈立文,王树强.基于模糊层次分析法的融资风险评价——以河北省房地产开发企业为例[J].企业经济,2013(2):137-140. [25]潘子春,张家春.基于模糊神经网络的项目融资风险[J].科学管理,2015(5):148-150. [26]李九妮.企业负债融资风险管理存在的问题及对策[J].山西财经大学学报,2015,37(2): 30+47. [27]吴雪琴.保利房地产融资风险与控制研究[J].企业技术开发,2016,35(5):116-117. [28]谭超.文化企业融资风险的识别、度量与预警研究[D].中国财政科学研究院博士学位论文,2016. [29]舒涛.双创背景下中小企业融资风险评价指标筛选体系初探[J].金融经济,2017(2):109- 111. [30]孙怡瑶.基于大数据视角的商贸流通企业融资风险测度[J].商业经济研究,2018(23): 156-158. [31]赖丹,吴睿.货币政策影响下矿企债务融资风险研究[J].财会通讯,2018,(32):12-16+131. [32]罗兆希.企业融资风险分析—以乐视为例[J].商业经济,2018,(12):92-95. [33]张修普.企业融资风险控制的应用研究[J].中国商论,2019(1):42-43. [34]张艾莲,潘梦梦,刘柏.过度自信与企业融资偏好:基于高管性别的纠偏[J].财经理论与实践,2019,40(4):53-59. [35]刘屹轩,闵剑,刘忆.“三权分置”下农地经营权抵押融资风险辨识与评价—基于结构方程模型的实证研究[J].宏观经济研究,2019(1):158-175. [36]徐宁,冯路.基于层次分析法的科技型小微企业网络融资风险模糊综合评价[J].科技管理研究,2019,39(20):30-38. [37]王岚.基于MGCE的中小企业融资风险综合评价[J].商业时代,2013(22):88-89. [38]顾家明,汪霄.基于熵权法-CIM的公租房REITs融资风险评价[J].建筑经济,2019,40(7): 116-120. [39]张友棠,曹耀威.信息设备制造业上市公司融资风险预警监控研究[J].财会月刊,2020 (14):50-57. [40]邢苗,董兴林.中小科技企业知识产权质押融资风险评价研究—基于供应链金融视角[J].科技管理研究,2020,40(18):196-202. [41]耿成轩,李晓汨.基于样本加权SVM的科技型企业融资风险预警研究[J].工业技术经济, 2020,39(7):56-64. [42]尹夏楠,鲍新中,朱莲美.基于融资主体视角的知识产权质押融资风险评价研究[J].科技管理研究,2016,36(12):125-129. [43]曾莉,王明.基于BP神经网络的科技型中小企业知识产权质押融资风险评价[J].科技管理研究,2016,36(23):164-167. [44]周首华,杨济华,王平.论财务危机的预警分析—F分数模式[J].会计研究,1996(8): 8-11. [45]王海英.电力企业融资风险评价[J].时代金融,2009(7):145-146. [46]尹阿东,何海凝.基于模糊综合评价的煤炭企业信托融资风险评估研究[J].金融理论与教学,2012(2):8-11. [47]李娟芳,张雅兰,何亚伯.基于相对熵的建筑垃圾处理PPP项目融资风险评价[J].数学的实践与认识,2018,48(5):164-170. [48]赵明明.基于灰色理论的PPP融资风险评价研究—以西部地区城市轨道交通项目为例[J].征信,2019, 37(10):83-87. [49]宋瑞敏,周楚.基于累积前景理论—VIKOR方法的知识产权质押融资企业风险评价[J]. 数学的实践与认识,2020, 50(22):299-308. [50]谢文静,鲍新中,董文妍.B2B电商平台供应链融资风险的影响因素识别与评价[J].财会月刊,2020(1):118-126. [51]林志宏,董学晨,乔宏.基于粗糙集和熵模型的电力企业融资风险评价[J].科技和产业, 2008(10):67-70+85. [52]李君.房地产融资风险分析[J].中国商贸,2013(11):83-84. [53]倪玲.房地产开发的融资风险及防范[J].上海企业,2014(5):72-74. [54]代岑颖,许竹.我国房地产企业融资风险的成因与控制研究[J].现代经济息,2015(3): 90-91. [55]赵佳,覃英豪,王建波,牛发阳.城市地下综合管廊PPP模式融资风险管理研究[J].地下空间与工程学报,2018,14(2):315-322+331. |
中图分类号: | F592.6 |
开放日期: | 2022-06-17 |