Optimising ‘cash flows’:Converting corporate finance to hard currency

Following recent works that have underlined the increasing search for liquidity in economic exchange, this article studies how illiquid forms of money are converted into liquid forms by corporate finance actors. In the name of ‘shareholder value’, the various forms of value generated by companies (such as ‘trade credit’) tend to be increasingly transformed into liquid forms of money that are easily distributable to shareholders (‘cash flows’). Describing this phenomenon as an example of what anthropologists of money call ‘conversion’, this paper highlights how such a conversion process was necessary for the historical development of ‘shareholder value’ policies in corporate finance. Considering documentary sources and interviews with consultants, auditors, and private equity fund managers involved in ‘cash flow’ optimisation practices, this paper details this conversion phenomenon and shows how it has relied on the historical elaboration of specific metrological, technical, legal, and moral norms

The Critics of Modern Money Theory (MMT) are Right

Eric Tymoigne and Randall Wray's (T&W, 2013) defense of MMT leaves the MMT emperor even more naked than before (excuse the Yogi Berra-ism). The criticism of MMT is not that it has produced nothing new. The criticism is that MMT is a mix of old and new, the old is correct and well understood, while the new is substantially wrong. Among many failings, T&W fail to provide an explanation of how MMT generates full employment with price stability; lack a credible theory of inflation; and fail to justify the claim that the natural rate of interest is zero. MMT currently has appeal because it is a policy polemic for depressed times. That makes for good politics but, unfortunately, MMT's policy claims are based on unsubstantiated economics

Risk factors for changing test classification in the Danish surveillance program for Salmonella in dairy herds

A surveillance program in which all cattle herds in Denmark are classified into Salmonella infection categories has been in place since 2002. Dairy herds were considered test negative and thus most likely free of infection if Salmonella antibody measurements were consistently low in bulk tank milk samples collected every 3 mo. Herds were considered test positive and thus most likely infected if the 4-quarter moving average bulk tank milk antibody concentration was high or if there was a large increase in the most recent measurement compared with the average value from the previous 3 samples. The objective of this study was to evaluate risk factors for changing from test negative to positive, which was indicative of herds becoming infected from one quarter of the year to the next, and risk factors for changing from test positive to negative, which was indicative of herds recovering from infection between 2 consecutive quarters of the year. The Salmonella serotypes in question were Salmonella Dublin or other serotypes that cross-react with the Salmonella Dublin antigen in the ELISA (e.g., some Salmonella Typhimurium types). Two logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measurements at the herd level and controlled for herd size and regional effects were used. Data from 2003 was used for the analyses. A change from test negative to positive occurred in 2.0% of the quarterly observations (n = 21,007) from test negative dairy herds. A change from test positive to negative occurred in 10.0% of quarterly observations (n = 6,168) available from test positive dairy herds. The higher the number of test-positive neighbor herds in the previous year-quarter, the more likely herds were to become test positive for Salmonella. The number of purchased cattle from test-positive herds was also associated with changing from test negative to positive. The bigger the herd, the more likely it was to change from negative to test positive. The effect of herd size on recovery was less clear. Large herds consisting mainly of large breeds or having test-positive neighbors in a 2-km radius were less likely to change from test positive to negative, whereas the breed and neighbor factors were not found to be important for small herds. Organic production was associated with remaining test positive, but not with becoming test positive. The results emphasize the importance of external and internal biosecurity measures to control Salmonella infection