Сайлаубеков Н.Т. Еще об одном методе оценки финансовой устойчивости предприятия / Н.Т. Сайлаубеков, А.Ж. Далабаева // Экономика и бизнес: теория и практика – 2017. – №8. – С. 68-71
ЕЩЕ ОБ ОДНОМ МЕТОДЕ ОЦЕНКИ ФИНАНСОВОЙ
УСТОЙЧИВОСТИ ПРЕДПРИЯТИЯ
Н.Т. Сайлаубеков, д-р экон. наук, профессор
А.Ж. Далабаева, магистр
Казахский университет международных отношений и мировых языков имени Абылай хана
(Казахстан, г. Алматы)
Аннотация. Финансовая устойчивость и финансовое состояние компании испытываются методом динамического норматива. Метод позволяет производить анализ отличных друг от друга показателей. Показатели сначала ранжируются и затем сравниваются с нормативным порядком показателей. На основании отклонений от нормативных ожидаемых значений делается вывод и дается заключение о фиксированности позиции компании на рынке, которую она удерживает.
Ключевые слова: финансовая устойчивость, показатели прибыльности, метод динамического норматива, ранжирование показателей, нормативная матрица.
Company financial stability will be reviewed from the viewpoint of dynamic norms method as per the profitability indices. All calculations will be made based on the financial reports indices, indicated below. The table shows the nominal designation of the index, its description and the way it is calculated. [1]
Table 1. Profitability indices
|
Index |
Designation |
Definition |
|
PoS |
Profit on sales |
Sales revenue – Cost of goods sold |
|
SR |
Sales revenue |
Shall be defined as the multiplication of manufactured goods (performed services) scope on selling price of goods (services) |
|
A |
Assets |
Land + Buildings and structures + Machinery and plants + Transportation means + Other main assets |
|
B |
Balance |
Long term assets + Short term assets |
|
F |
Shareholder fund (Capital and reserves) |
Registered capital + Additional contributed capital + Sum of re-evaluation (additional contributed capital) + Reserve capital + Retained income (Retained loss) |
|
AP |
Accounts payable |
Accounts and bills payable + Advances received + Tax debts + Dividends to be paid + Debts on inter-group operations between the main company and its affiliate companies + Debts to executive officers + Other debts |
|
PBT |
Profit before tax |
PoS – Period expenditures + Income (Loss) on core operations + Income (Loss) on non-core operations |
|
LTL |
Long term liabilities |
Loans + Suspended corporate income tax + Debts on inter-group operations between main company and its affiliate companies + Other long-term obligations |
|
NP |
Net profit |
Profit before tax – Corporate income tax + Income (Loss) on emergencies + Income on participation interest in other companies |
|
CoGS |
Cost of goods sold |
Includes nominal-variable and nominal-fixed costs on manufacturing |
Further we need to input the selected values into the table for initial ranges calculation. The table includes the indices of three reporting periods: for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016 and for the 1st quarter of 2017. Further the tempos of changes are calculated for the 4th quarter of 2016 and the 1st quarter of 2017 and their ranges are output. These ranges will be used further in the calculations.
Table 2. Company input data
|
Index |
3 quarter, 2016 |
4 quarter, 2016 |
1 quarter, 2017 |
Tempo of 4th quarter 2016 |
Tempo of 1st quarter 2017 |
Range of 4th quarter 2016 |
Range of 1st quarter 2017 |
|
PoS |
12 103 029 |
6 106 989 |
25 527 596 |
0,5046 |
4,1801 |
10 |
3 |
|
SR |
17 470 319 |
100 473 190 |
142 738 967 |
5,7511 |
1,4207 |
5 |
6 |
|
A |
1 |
1 |
462 619 |
1,0000 |
462619,00 |
8 |
1 |
|
B |
5 347 290 |
40 275 367 |
106 038 738 |
7,5319 |
2,6328 |
4 |
4 |
|
F |
20 000 |
19 219 533 |
19 219 533 |
960,9767 |
1,0000 |
1 |
9 |
|
AP |
5 461 784 |
60 333 492 |
65 562 647 |
11,0465 |
1,0867 |
3 |
8 |
|
PBT |
3 642 937 |
6 106 988 |
25 527 605 |
1,6764 |
4,1801 |
7 |
2 |
|
LTL |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1,0000 |
1,0000 |
8 |
9 |
|
NP |
3 548 443 |
6 945 581 |
15 286 484 |
1,9574 |
2,2009 |
6 |
5 |
|
CoGS |
5 367 290 |
106 580 179 |
117 211 371 |
19,8574 |
1,0997 |
2 |
7 |
Below is the norms matrix, taken as default as a sample. With values, set in this matrix, we will compare the actual received data. The accuracy of this norms matrix was not checked by the author of this report and research. It was taken into the research in accordance with existing scientific researches of other scientists. [2]
Table 3. Norms matrix
|
Index |
PoS |
SR |
A |
B |
F |
AP |
PBT |
LTL |
NP |
CoGS |
Sum |
|
PoS |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
|
SR |
-1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
9 |
|
A |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
6 |
|
B |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
8 |
|
F |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
6 |
|
AP |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
5 |
|
PBT |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
|
LTL |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
8 |
|
NP |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
|
CoGS |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
0 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
Now we shall look at ranging, received as per our actual data for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2016 and the 1st quarter of 2017. We shall remember that ranging is made based on the indices of the two reporting periods. In our case the indices of the basic period and 4th quarter of 2016, and then data of basic period and the 1st quarter of 2017.
Table 4. Ranging of basic period and 4th quarter of 2016 data.
|
Index |
Range |
10 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
|
PoS |
10 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
SR |
5 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
|
A |
8 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
B |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
|
F |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
AP |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
|
PBT |
7 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
LTL |
8 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
NP |
6 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
-1 |
|
CoGS |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Table 5. Ranging of basic period and 1st quarter of 2017 data.
|
Index |
Range |
3 |
6 |
1 |
4 |
9 |
8 |
2 |
9 |
5 |
7 |
|
PoS |
3 |
0 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
SR |
6 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
|
A |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
B |
4 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
F |
9 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
AP |
8 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
0 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
PBT |
2 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
LTL |
9 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
0 |
-1 |
-1 |
|
NP |
5 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
CoGS |
7 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
-1 |
1 |
1 |
-1 |
1 |
-1 |
0 |
Further we will review the coincidences matrix and accumulated amount of coincidences. Nearby we will show the coincidence percent with normative values.
Table 6. Matrix of indices coincidences for basic period and 4th quarter of 2016.
|
Index |
PoS |
SR |
A |
B |
F |
AP |
PBT |
LTL |
NP |
CoGS |
Sum |
|
PoS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
SR |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
A |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
|
B |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
F |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
AP |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
PBT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
LTL |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
|
NP |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
CoGS |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
32% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
Table 7. Matrix of indices coincidences for basic period and 1st quarter of 2017.
|
Index |
PoS |
SR |
A |
B |
F |
AP |
PBT |
LTL |
NP |
CoGS |
Sum |
|
PoS |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
|
SR |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
|
A |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
B |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
F |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
|
AP |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
|
PBT |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
|
LTL |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
|
NP |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
|
CoGS |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
|
Total |
77% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
To evaluate the effect of indicators on financial stability of company, we shall perform the factorial analysis. Factorial analysis will demonstrate the absolute and relative effect of indicators and their changes on company financial stability [3].
Table 8. Factorial analysis of company indices
|
Index PoS SR |
№ |
Coincidence |
Violation |
Effect on: |
||||
|
4 quarter 2016 |
1 quarter 2017 |
1 quarter 2017 |
Increase of stability |
Value of stability |
||||
|
Absolute |
% |
Absolute |
% |
|||||
|
A |
1 |
0 |
6 |
1 |
0,091 |
11,765 |
0,015 |
6,667 |
|
B |
2 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
0,076 |
9,804 |
0,030 |
13,333 |
|
F |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
-0,030 |
-3,922 |
0,061 |
26,667 |
|
AP |
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
0,045 |
5,882 |
0,045 |
20,000 |
|
PBT |
5 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
0,045 |
5,882 |
0,015 |
6,667 |
|
LTL |
6 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0,061 |
7,843 |
0,000 |
0,000 |
|
NP |
7 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
0,045 |
5,882 |
0,015 |
6,667 |
|
CoGS |
8 |
6 |
7 |
1 |
0,015 |
1,961 |
0,015 |
6,667 |
|
Index |
9 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
0,045 |
5,882 |
0,030 |
13,333 |
|
PoS |
10 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0,061 |
7,843 |
0,000 |
0,000 |
|
Total |
|
21 |
51 |
15 |
0,455 |
58,824 |
0,227 |
100,00 |
Coincidences of normative and actual indicators are equal to 21 points and 51 points in the 4th quarter of 2016 and the 1st quarter of 2017 relatively. Violations are represented by 15 points in the 1st quarter of 2017. At that the positive dynamics of the growth from 32% in the 4th quarter of 2016 to 77% in the 1st quarter of 2017 is proved. As per the results of Company operations the growth of financial stability is equal to 58.8% in the 1st quarter of 2017.
As a historical reference: at the beginning of executing their contractual obligations, the Company managed to get advance payments under their contracts. Company managed received advance payments in a right way for financing of procurement and beginning of construction, thus creating the background for future intermediary payments. In such a way the company, without using own significant means and loans, managed to start construction-assemblage activities and successfully entered the market of construction subcontractors of oil and gas industry.
References
1. Syroezhin I.M. Improving efficiency and quality indicators’ system. – M.: Economics, 1980. – 191 p.
2. Sailaubekov N.T. Analysis, evaluation and forecast of enterprise financial-economic operations based on dynamic norms. Monograph. – Almaty, 2011. – 218 p.
3. Sailaubekov N.T. Method of complex analysis of enterprise financial-economic operations based on dynamic norms // “Turan” university journal. – №3 (39). – 2008. – P. 64-66.
ONE MORE METHOD FOR EVALUATION OF ENTERPRISE
FINANCIAL STABILITY
N.T. Sailaubekov, doctor of economic sciences, professor
A.Zh. Dalabayeva, master
Kazakh university of international relations and world languages named after Aby-lai Khan
(Kazakhstan, Almaty)
Abstract. Financial stability and financial state of the company are tested using dynamic norms method. The method enables analysis using various indices. Indices then are ranged and compared with the normal range. Based on the violations of normal expected ranges, the conclusion is made on whether the company holds fixed position in the market.
Keywords: financial stability, profitability indices, dynamic norms method, indices ranging, normative matrix.