This concept is completely logical and truly maximally economic. On the other hand,  in the Czech Republic and elsewhere,  it encounters legislative restrictions. In the case of one company,  this  is not yet such a great problem. However, in the case of the administration of accounts of independent subjects by an internal bank,  this centre has the attributes of a bank. It maintains accounts, accepts deposits, provides loans, and performs spot, timed and other derivative operations. Consequently,  according to Czech legislation,  it should fulfil all the requirements of a bank including a license from  the ČNB (The Czech  Central  Bank). In this case,  it is necessary to establish or purchase a banking institution and create an in-company bank on this basis. This model is applied by some large global (Allianz insurance group) and Czech (PPF group) companies, particularly those that also provide financial services to clients.  For reasons of problems with Czech legislation,  the most often used pooling system within the scope of a holding is notional pooling and dual-directional balancing with a retroactive transfer of the same amount. As already stated,  notional pooling enables simple compensation of credit and debit remainders and its advantage is the non-existence of any mutual loans; consequently,  agreement by the General Meeting or modifications to  the Articles of Association are not necessary. All transactions are only imaginary and in-group receivables and payables do not occur. On the other hand,  some banks do not wish to provide notional pooling with overdraft frames to holding companies  for reasons of the impossibility of netting notional pool positions, which cannot be contractually determined either. The problem would occur in mortgage contracts in the state of accounts of others, which is variable. If one company drawing an overdraft limit became bankrupt, the bank could  only involve this company. Even though thanks to the introductions of cross defaults into contracts for loans of other companies,  it would be possible to partially involve other members of the holding;  the bank would never be restored from the resources of other subjects (naturally with the exception of  the mortgage of other assets of the remaining companies; for example, payables). Cross default would only mean the option of declaring  the  financial means of other companies due payable. The second problem is the problem of bank expenses connected with holding credit remainders, such as statutory minimum reserves and the fund for insuring deposits. Since in a notional pool it is not possible to net positions, the bank’s  expenses for pooling are increased by these items. However,  the higher level of management is zero balancing. Thanks to the overall viewpoint of the group of holding accounts,  this leads to a much more effective administration of money. The advantage for the bank is the monitoring of only one loan exposure.  6. INTERNATIONALIZATION   International cash pooling, as has already been mentioned, is any pooling when  the  transfer of financial means occurs over country borders. The main difference compared to standard national pooling is the need to work with nationally determined exchange rules and rules for payment relations. Furthermore,  it is necessary to deal with the matter of transfer quality, speed and costs between inpidual countries. Due to its complexity and the fact that it is fairly costly,  international cash pooling is only worth it for greater amounts. In spite of this,  most international corporations use  it and treasuries of international companies in the Czech Republic regularly encounter it. The most usual type of international pooling is real pooling and single-directional pooling.
Controlling companies usually prefer  the  real centralisation of resources and their re-pision by means of  a  centrally secured payment of deliveries. In-company loans, which occur within the scope of real pooling, are subject to central management and settlement in international companies.  7. FINDING AN INTERNATIONAL TREASURY CENTRE   In 2005, a Master student Lenka Simkova, under the direct supervision of one of the authors (Polak), produced a case study of how to find an international treasury centre for a holding company (CGS), with its headquarters in the Czech Republic, which has previously established cash pooling on a national basis in three currencies, three banks and three structures. It has subsidiary companies in 12 countries - in Europe (eight European Union countries + Switzerland), North America (the United States) and Latin America (Brazil, Mexico). The company wishes to expand cash pooling on an international basis and is searching for a suitable site for locating its treasury centres. The company has decided to only pool within the Eurozone. This means countries such as the United States, Brazil or Mexico cannot be considered as possible solution alternatives, which means the choice  of  where to establish the treasury centre was between the following countries: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the UK. The target was to locate the treasury centre in a country that enables the best conditions for cash flow controlling and administration.  The treasury centre should be located in a tax advantageous place. The fee for maintaining an account, transaction fees and prices for foreign incoming and outgoing payments, including urgent payments, should be as low as possible. The offered yield from excesses should be as high as possible.  Setting of criteria  Criteria resulting from target requirements are as follows:    Bank transaction fees – to minimize   Prices for foreign incoming and outgoing payments (including urgent payments) - to minimize   Withholding and corporate tax - to minimize   Withholding tax for intra-group yield - to minimize 现金池英文文献和中文翻译(4):http://www.youerw.com/fanyi/lunwen_63536.html