1.INTRODUCTIONThe primary objective of financial managers is commonly defined through their role in maximizing the wealth of shareholders in the long term. The complexity of this objective determines the conflicting relationship of the financial manager with all other functional centres in the company, even the owners. Within the framework of the financial crisis from 2007 onwards, the role of the financial professionals has become more complex. Once the moral hazard and ethics of financial industry boosted the credit bubble, sharp curtail led to economic downturns. On the other hand, financial management appeared to solve internal imbalances arising from bad financial decisions and unrealistic sales objectives on a macroeconomic level. Financial management was relying more on flexibility instead on controllable decision-making process. The changes reflect the growing impact of globalization process in the World and the leading role of technology. Thus, faster pace of business required integrated financial management through redistribution of responsibilities. In times of crisis, financial management gains ground because it affects the stability of the company's liquidity and solvency, and ultimately the existence and preservation of owners' capital. There is a clear commitment of financial managers with wider range of issues and this increases the legal burden of regulations, control and bureaucratic costs for the company.Crisis management places high importance on liquidity due to the lack of access to capital or higher cost of financing. In times of economic growth and stability, the excessive access to low cost capital sources facilitates the matching of cash inflows and outflows. Liquidity requires withdrawal of profitable funds for the need of liquidity balance to ensure stability. On the other hand, the liquidity might be easily secured by higher rates of profitability and substantial increase in invested working capital. Liquidity has always been a specific priority area for financial managers. The difficulty of managing liquidity is strengthened by the need to compensate all detracted sources from the operating cycle and the likely reduction of turnover and profitability. Liquidity-related risks can often lead to deterioration of the financial situation and even bankruptcy. Under the circumstances of the recent crisis after 2007, with falling sales and clients' failure, the financial management is entrusted with minimizing the impact of higher liquidity requirements on profitability potential of the business. The main objective of this study is to specify appropriate measures in terms of the liquidity-profitability trade-off to assess the changed financial management scope of impact under crisis environment. In view of that, the following three hypotheses will be verified and considered:H1: The relationship between liquidity and profitability for the selected Bulgarian companies during the recent financial and economy crisis is negative in the long run.H2: The liquidity influences profitability but not vice versa.H3: In terms of the recent financial and economic crisis, the financial managers in Bulgaria did not trade off liquidity for profitability.2.LITERATURE OVERVIEWPaul Krugman (2010) and Argandona (2012) qualified the recent financial and economic crisis as a combination of "moralism and complacency" and "ethical issues", leading to a failure in the patterns of leadership and management and collapse of the existing economic and social model. Salhman (2009) qualified the crisis in the following way: "The macroeconomic problems were the result of bad microeconomic decisions". Pereira (2010) and Azkunaga et al (2013) analysed the process of "financialization" and creating massive artificial financial wealth through deregulation of existing financial operations and reducing control in order to maximize and expand the potential risks for investors. The transformation of financial management into a leading concept for economic and corporate governance is a trend that undoubtedly affected the potential for economic growth and development of companies. …

中文翻译：

---

保加利亚在危机期间财务管理职能变化方面的流动性-盈利能力权衡

1，引言财务经理的主要目标通常是通过其长期发挥股东最大财富的作用来定义的。这个目标的复杂性决定了财务经理与公司所有其他职能中心，甚至所有者之间相互矛盾的关系。在2007年以来的金融危机框架内，金融专业人员的角色变得更加复杂。一旦金融业的道德风险和伦理道德助长了信贷泡沫，急剧缩减将导致经济下滑。另一方面，财务管理似乎可以解决因不良财务决策和不切实际的销售目标而在宏观经济水平上引起的内部失衡。财务管理更多地依赖灵活性而不是可控的决策过程。这些变化反映了全球化进程在世界范围内日益增长的影响以及技术的主导作用。因此，要加快业务发展速度，就需要通过重新分配职责来进行综合财务管理。在危机时期，财务管理之所以能获得发展，是因为它影响了公司流动性和偿付能力的稳定性，并最终影响了所有者资本的存在和保存。财务经理的明确承诺涉及更多问题，这增加了公司的法规，控制和官僚成本的法律负担。由于缺乏资金或更高的融资成本，危机管理高度重视流动性。在经济增长和稳定的时期，过度获得低成本资本来源有利于现金流入和流出的匹配。流动资金需要提取可盈利资金，以确保流动资金平衡以确保稳定性。另一方面，较高的利润率和大量增加的营运资金可以轻松确保流动性。流动性一直是财务经理的特定优先领域。由于需要补偿运营周期中所有分散的资源，并可能减少营业额和盈利能力，因此增加了管理流动性的难度。与流动性相关的风险通常会导致财务状况恶化甚至破产。在2007年之后的最近危机的情况下，由于销售下降和客户失败，财务管理部门负责将较高的流动性要求对业务盈利潜力的影响降至最低。这项研究的主要目的是根据流动性-获利性的折衷确定适当的措施，以评估危机环境下影响的变化的财务管理范围。有鉴于此，以下三个假设将得到验证和考虑：H1：从长远来看，在最近的金融和经济危机期间，选定的保加利亚公司的流动性与获利能力之间的关系长期为负。H2：流动性影响获利能力，但没有影响H3反之亦然：就最近的金融和经济危机而言，保加利亚的财务经理并没有以流动性为代价来换取盈利。2。文献综述保罗·克鲁格曼（Paul Krugman（2010）和阿尔甘多纳（2012））将最近的金融和经济危机定义为“道德和自满”与“道德问题”的结合，导致领导和管理模式的失败以及现有经济的崩溃。和社会模式。Salhman（2009）通过以下方式对危机进行了限定：“宏观经济问题是不良的微观经济决策的结果”。Pereira（2010）和Azkunaga等人（2013）分析了“金融化”过程，并通过放松对现有金融业务的管制和减少控制来创造大量的人造金融财富，以最大程度地扩大和扩大投资者的潜在风险。将财务管理转变为经济和公司治理的领先概念的趋势无疑会影响公司经济增长和发展的潜力。…