Time Value of Money Application for the Asymmetric Distribution of Payments and Facts of Economic Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is devoted to the applied aspects of using the concept of the time value of money for the purpose of determining the present value of cash flows in conditions of asymmetric distribution of payments and facts of economic life over time. Currently, such situation is standard when doing business and should be thoroughly studied. The purpose of the study is to prove that the method of distribution of payments affects the result of discounting, and that this information is essential when making management decisions and should be disclosed to the user of the information. Based on the basic provisions of the theory of the time value of money and analyzing the specifics of the asymmetric distribution of the described events, the authors come to the conclusion that it is necessary to supplement the cost discounting methodology by including in it a description of the basic approaches to distribution. As such approaches, the use of distribution methods that were called First Payment First Sale (FPFS), First Payment Last Sale (FPLS), and Current Payment Current Sale (CPCS) are proposed. Use of these methods in certain calculations is the main novelty of this article. The difference that arises as a result of the use of different approaches to assessment in the conditions of asymmetric distribution is illustrated with the simulated data. Taking into account a specific approach to the distribution of cash flows leads to a better understanding of the basis for discounting indicators, improves the quality of information and the validity of management decisions based on it, and reduces the risks of choosing the wrong financing strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".