A note on the existence of unique equivalent martingale measures in a Markovian setting

Simple sufficient conditions for the existence of a unique equivalent martingale measure are provided. Furthermore, these conditions give us a handle on situations where an equivalent martingale measure cannot exist. The existence of a unique equivalent martingale measure is of relevance to problems in mathematical finance. Two examples of models for which the question of existence was unresolved are studied. By means of our results existence of a unique equivalent measure up to an explosion time is proved.     

《技术制图》新旧标准对照

以对照方法介绍了《技术制图》与《机械制图》中三个基础标准的适用范围、采标情况及基本内容。     

第三方物流企业内部控制要素的建立策略

第三方物流企业作为一种新型行业，企业的发展已越来越受到企业内部控制薄弱瓶颈的制约．借鉴企业内部控制理论最新成果——企业风险管理框架（ERM）八要素理论建立和完善第三方物流企业内部控制，对该行业做优做强有着深刻的现实意义。     

Analysis on Sourcing Cost under E-commerce ＆ Sole Supplier

Supplier problem is a hotspot on the field of supply chain management. This paper makes hypotheses on supplier＇s delivery and the course of customers＇ ordering under the mode of e-commerce trade. Based on the existing （S, Q） model, this paper proposes the sourcing cost model with sole supplier under the situation of c-commerce, and analyzes the solving scheme in detail. This paper has established the foundation for further research.     

建立静脉物流系统推进循环经济发展

本文立足于静脉物流,引入循环经济的理念,阐述静脉物流与循环经济的关系.通过静脉物流系统的建立,发展我国循环经济,实现从传统线性经济模式向循环经济模式的转变,使我国经济得以可持续发展,同时有利于人类与环境、自然资源的共生.     

Optimal investment with fixed financing costs

Models with a premium on external finance produce counterfactual predictions about liquidity management. We address this shortcoming by introducing a fixed cost of increasing external finance into an otherwise standard investment/financing problem. This additional financial friction is well-motivated by case studies and our analysis shows that it generates more realistic predictions about liquidity management: firms hold external finance and idle cash simultaneously, and may invest an additional dollar of cash flow in liquidity rather than repaying external funds or investing in productive capital. In addition to better fitting the stylized facts about the time-series and cross-sectional pattern of liquidity holding, these results may help shed light on the fragility of estimates of investment–cash flow sensitivities.     

The Cost of Capital of Cross‐listed Firms

This paper analyses the cost of capital of firms with foreign equity listings. Our purpose is to shed light on the question whether international and domestic asset pricing models yield a different estimate of the cost of capital for cross‐listed stocks. We distinguish between (i) the multifactor ICAPM of Solnik (1979) and Sercu (1980) including both the global market portfolio and exchange rate risk premia and (ii) the single factor domestic CAPM. We test for the significance of the cost of capital differential in a sample of 336 cross‐listed stocks from nine countries in the period 1980–99. Our hypothesis is that the cost of capital differential is substantial for firms with international listings, as these are often large multinationals with a strong international orientation. We find that the asset pricing models yield a significantly different estimate of the cost of capital for only 12% of the cross‐listed companies. The size of the cost of capital differential is around 50 basis points for the US, 80 basis points for the UK and 100 basis points for France.     

电子商务条件下我国物流模式的选择——综合物流代理模式

本文针对电子商务条件下现代物流的新特点和我国物流现状,提出在新的条件下选择适合我国国情的物流模式,即综合物流代理模式。它是由一家在物流管理经验、人才和技术上均有一定优势的企业通过建立一个综合物流代理的管理体系,对电子商务交易中供求双方的所有物流活动进行全权代理的业务活动模式。     

A Comparison of Cost of Equity Estimates of Local and Global CAPMs

Cost of equity estimates are compared for three pricing models: the traditional local CAPM, the single (market) factor global CAPM, and the two‐factor global CAPM, with both market and currency index factors. For 2989 US stocks, the average difference in the cost of equity estimates is about 48 basis points between the local CAPM and the single‐factor global CAPM, and is about 61 basis points between the two global models. For 70 developed‐market ADRs, the corresponding average differences are 76 and 47 basis points, respectively. For 48 emerging‐market ADRs, the corresponding average differences are 57 and 70 basis points.