THE TIME is ripe for a fresh, modern look at the concept of complementarity. Whatever the intrinsic merits of the concept, forty years ago it helped motivate Hicks and Allen to perform their classical reconsideration of ordinal demand theory. And, as I hope to show, the last word has not yet been said on this ancient preoccupation of literary and mathematical economists. The simplest things are often the most complicated to understand fully. For this reason, I have redrafted the present paper along the following lines: The main discussion is primarily literary. Then comes a mathematical section. Finally, I give a brief survey of the history of the subject.

APB opinions, CPA, Accounting Principles, Attitude change

Journal Article The Existence of a Two-class Economy in the Kaldor and Pasinetti Models of Growth and Distribution Get access A. Maneschi A. Maneschi Vanderbilt University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 41, Issue 1, January 1974, Pages 149–150, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296405 Published: 01 January 1974

Estimation Problem, Capital allocation, Verifiability, Decomposition Model

The problem of what to teach in investments courses can hardly have any one answerbecause teachers, students, levels, and purposes are too diverse. Even subject matter is debatable these days when one must make up his mind whether gold and antiques should be covered along with stocks and bonds, bills, and deposits. Thus what I offer here is one man's viewpoint, what seems most plausible to me out of 20 years' experience in brokerage and teaching: an opinion–no more, no less.

The financial management area has come a long way since Fred Weston in 1954 (Journal of Finance) called for more research in and application of financial theory. Now, Neuberger and Hammond advance investment theory by empirical studies in an area which has received little direct attention. Their researching of new issues' price behavior provides application of observed facts to substantiate policy recommendations framed within a certain investment psychology structure.

In considering trade credit, we need to ask three questions:1. Why do nonfinancial firms commonly participate in the process of financial intermediation by extending credit to their customers?2. What explains differences in credit periods between firms and industries as well as over time for specific firms and industries?3. How do changing monetary conditions affect the credit that firms extend to their customers?To answer these questions, we first identify two reasons for credit sales: the first we might call a financing motive, and the second a transactions motive. The transactions motive can readily be understood—it costs something to match the time pattern of payment for goods with the time pattern of receipt of goods. Buyers benefit if bills are allowed to accumulate for periodic payment. Furthermore, trade credit gives buyers time to plan for the payment of unexpected purchases, enables them to forecast future cash outlays with greater certainty, and simplifies their cash management. To the extent that buyers benefit, sellers have an opportunity to sell credit. It is likely that, to a large extent, the aggregate stock of trade credit is explained by the transactions motive.

Selection of funding levels for research and development (R & D) projects is a major problem facing the firm. Models for selecting funding levels have frequently been formulated under the assumptions that the projects can be evaluated independently (Aldrich [1], Hess [4], Lucas [6]) or that the projects are interrelated only in terms of requirements for specialized input resources (Asher [2]). In fact, the projects of a given firm are likely to be highly interdependent, either in the sense that progress on one project eases work on another (research interdependency) or in the sense that completion of one project alters the market situation of another (output interdependency). While Weingartner [8] discusses these interdependencies, he does so under the assumption that the project funding level is fixed.