Lam, K C; Runeson, G; Tam, C M and Lo, S M (1998) Modelling loan acquisition decisions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(4), pp. 359-375. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The present research explores capital requirement models used in medium-size, private construction firms. The decision-maker of a contracting firm can implement a cash flow forecasting model as an early warning system by using a model to identify likely cash-flow problems in advance of the occurrence of these difficulties. Arrangements for acquiring any needed funds from other sources can then be made to avoid the possibility of financial problems in the corporation. In the present research, a model for financial decisionmaking is developed which, as demonstrated in a case study, provides a method of solving borrowing decision problems. The model includes the ability to evaluate qualitative and fuzzy circumstances. The model also assists in the selection of sources of funding, taking into consideration the capital structure ratio, the period of cash requirements, the borrowing limits and the tax conditions of the firm. The purpose of the model is to provide the decision-maker with a tool kit to analyse her/his financial options.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy system; finance; loan; optimization; qualitative |
| Index terms: | construction firm, acquisition, cash flow forecasting, funding, early warning, capital structure, modelling, option, case study |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, financial and cost management, financial risk, decision analysis, data collection methods, business, economic analysis, organization |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here