网络品牌资产理论研究

对网络品牌资产的研究正得到越来越多的关注。本文对国内外和网络品牌资产相关的理论文献进行了简单介绍和梳理,并指出了目前研究中存在的问题,最后展望了未来的研究方向。     

焦点

消费者信心指数6季度来首次回落 国家统计局中国经济景气监测中心与尼尔森公司近期联合开展的中国消费者信心调查显示,2010年三季度中国消费者信心指数为104,比二季度下降5点,是6个季度以来的首次出现回落。下降原因为通胀担忧。不过,整体信心水平仍处于乐观区间,大多数消费者对国民经济运行状况表示满意,对未来走势表示乐观。近八成消费者认为未来12个月食品价格将“上升”。超过六成的消费者预期,在未来12个月里,个人收入状况将处于“好”或“非常好”的状态。     

网络购物对社会经济及消费者知情权的影响

随着社会经济的繁荣发展,网络技术的普及以及应用,网络购物作为一种新型的消费形式,在中国市场近年来如火如荼地发展。网络购物的迅速发展在改变消费者的生活方式、促进国民经济发展的同时,也出现了虚假信息等损害消费者知情权的情况。本文结合现阶段我国网络购物的现状,分析网络购物行为对经济社会的影响,并从经营者、消费者、监管者等方面探析网络购物行为对消费者知情权的挑战。     

网络社区顾客参与对品牌评价的影响研究

互联网的深入发展使得网络社区顾客参与对企业品牌评价至关重要,本文将小米社区作为案例,深入分析和讨论了网络社区顾客参与对品牌评价的影响,得到如下结论:一是不同的网络社区顾客参与主体对品牌评价产生不同影响;二是不同的网络社区顾客参与形式会导致不同的品牌评价。     

另类网络新职业

红客：维护国内网络的安全,并对外来进攻进行还击的人。网络团长：聚集网络消费者和资金,加大与商家的谈判能力,以求得最优的价格。     

网络购物促销行为全面规范

2011年1月7日,国家商务部下发《关于规范网络购物促销行为的通知》,强调要杜绝各种价格欺诈和虚假促销行为,严禁虚构原价打折、使用误导陛标价形式或价格手段,欺骗、诱导消费者,不得降低促销商品（包括有奖销售的奖品、赠品）的售后服务水平,不得以促销为由拒绝退换货或者为消费者退换货设置障碍,不得以保留最终解释权为由,损害消费者的合法权益。     

基于第三方支付平台公信力的网络品牌建设

随着电子支付平台积极而踏实的深耕和拓展,中国的第三方支付行业最近几年在保持快速增长的同时,正在全面迅速的融入到人们生产生活的各个环节中。第三方支付平台是产生于网络环境并逐渐发展壮大的,在激烈的行业竞争中,首先就是要建立自己独特的网络品牌。本文从第三方支付平台公信力入手,然后分析了网络品牌与公信力的关系,由此得出网络品牌对公信力的重要性,最后提出建设第三方支付平台网络品牌的一些参考意见。     

网络消费心理浅析

当今企业正面临前所未有的激烈竞争,市场正由卖方垄断向买方垄断演变,消费者主导的营销时代已经来临.在买方市场上,消费者将面对更为纷繁复杂的商品和品牌选择,这一变化使当代消费者心理与以往相比呈现出一种新的特点和趋势.     

农村支付结算网络建设势在必行

农村地区支付结算存在着网络建设滞后、方式单一、手段陈旧、非现金支付工具应用比重低等突出问题。使得农村地区资金汇划、汇兑困难,     

网络与信息安全新动向及思考

一、网络的发展及网络与信息安全的特点网络泛在化使网络与信息安全问题愈加突出,已经成为事关国家政治安全、经济安全、社会稳定及决定战争胜负的重要问题。     

做空闸门可再大一些

如果A股市场做空机制齐备,就一定会有机构来做空垃圾股和问题股,直到股价回归到合理水平。虽然有时可能会有错杀。但问题公司一定逃不过做空者的视线。     

货币政策报告的“弦外之音”

近日,中国央行发布了第二季度货币政策执行报告,为下一阶段的货币政策确定了基调,即“坚定不移地继续落实适度宽松的货币政策,根据国内外经济走势和价格变化,注重运用市场化手段进行动态微调。”但短期内央行在“适度宽松”和“动态微调”之间,究竟会如何取舍和操作,仍是一团迷雾。     

FINANCING NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS

Most large firms are not large, single station facilities… Large size is the result of joining a series of stations within a single administrative entity…The interfaces between stations could instead be mediated by market exchanges.
—Oliver Williamson ¹ —     

THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE PUZZLE: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE

Since the formulation of the M & M irrelevance propositions 40 years ago, financial economists have been debating whether there is such a thing as optimal capital structure—a proportion of debt to equity that maximizes current firm value. Some finance scholars have followed M & M by arguing that both capital structure and dividend policy are largely “irrelevant” in the sense that they have no significant, predictable effects on corporate market values. Another school of thought holds that corporate financing choices reflect an attempt by corporate managers to balance the tax shields and disciplinary benefits of greater debt against the increased probability and costs of financial distress. Yet another theory says that companies do not have capital structure targets, but instead follow a financial pecking order in which retained earnings are preferred to outside financing, and debt is preferred to equity when outside funding is required. In reviewing the evidence that has accumulated since M & M, the authors argue that taxes, bankruptcy (and other “contracting”) costs, and information costs (the main factor in the pecking order theory) all appear to play an important role in corporate financing decisions. While much if not most of the evidence is consistent with the argument that companies set target leverage ratios, there is also considerable support for the pecking order theory's contention that firms are willing to deviate widely from their targets for long periods of time. According to the authors, the key to reconciling the different theories—and thus to solving the capital structure puzzle—lies in achieving a better understanding of the relation between corporate financing stocks (leverage ratios) and flows (specific choices between debt and equity). Even if companies have target leverage ratios, there will be an optimal deviation from those targets—one that will depend on the transactions and information costs associated with adjusting back to the target relative to the costs of deviating from the target. As the authors argue in closing, a complete theory of capital structure must take account of these adjustment costs and how they affect expected deviations from the target.