Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Сравнительный анализ финансового состояния международных нефтяных компаний. Учебное пособие
.pdf
FY
2013
FY
2013
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2012
2011
2010
2009
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2013
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2012
2011
2010
2009
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2013
Table 14. Liquidity Ratios of U.S and Russian companies in financial years 2009-2013
ConocoPhillips Chevron ExxonMobil
FY
FY
FY
FY
Ratio
2012
2011
2010
2009
0.02 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.06
Cash Ratio
0.9 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8
0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5
Current Ratio
Quick Ratio
FY
2012
FY
2011
Gazprom Neft OAO Lukoil OAO Rosneft OAO
FY
2010
FY
2009
Ratio
Cash Ratio 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.4
Current Ratio 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.2
Quick Ratio 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.6
51
The firms with higher liquidity ratios are better able to meet their
short-term obligations. From Table 13, we can see that in 2013 the
liquidity ratios were decreased in four companies. In Gazprom OAO all
ratios were increased including Cash Ratio – 73%, Current Ratio – 27%,
Quick Ratio – 43%. The largest decrease was occurred in “Rosneft”
including Cash Ratio – 135%, Current Ratio – 81%, Quick Ratio –
104%. Most of the Chevron’s Liquidity Ratios were increased, except
Current Ratio. It decreased 9%. (Figure 9).
Also, in this analysis in 2012 Chevron and Rosneft OAO have
significantly higher liquidity ratios; in 2013 Chevron and Gazprom Neft
OAO have significantly higher liquidity ratios across the board
compared to others. For 2009 and 2013, ExxonMobil has a cash ratio of
just 0.02 and 0.06, meaning that it only has enough cash on hand to
cover 2% and 6% of its short-term obligations. So, ExxonMobil has an
awfully weak liquidity position due to low cash ratio.
Cash Ratio
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
-
FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013
Quick Ratio
1,4
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
-
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Figure 9. Changes of Liquidity Ratios U.S and Russian
companies
Solvency ratios are presented in Table 15.
Current Ratio
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
-
FY
2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013
ConocoPhillips
Chevron
ExxonMobil
Rosneft
Lukoil
Gazprom Neft
52
FY
2013
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
ConocoPhillips Chevron ExxonMobil
FY
2010
Table 15. Solvency Ratios of U.S and Russian companies in 2009-2013
43.0 32.8 32.9 42.9 40.1 10.9 10.7 8.0 8.8 13.3 5.8 4.6 5.8 4.6 3.8
FY
2009
Ratio
29.5 24.4 24.5 29.6 28.4 9.8 9.6 7.4 8.0 11.7 5.2 4.3 5.2 4.3 3.4
Long-Term
Debt/Equity
Long-Term
Debt/Capital
Long-Term
17.7 14.5 14.1 17.7 17.8 6.2 6.1 4.7 5.2 7.9 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.0
FY
2012
FY
2011
Gazprom Neft OAO Lukoil OAO Rosneft OAO
FY
2010
45.8 34.1 34.4 44.9 41.3 11.5 10.8 8.3 8.8 13.6 10.6 6.7 10.6 6.7 12.6
31.4 25.4 25.6 31.0 29.2 10.3 9.8 7.7 8.1 12.0 9.6 6.3 9.6 6.3 11.2
18.8 15.1 14.8 18.5 18.3 6.4 6.2 4.8 5.2 8.1 5.1 3.5 5.1 3.5 6.5
Debt/Total Assets
Total Debt/Equity
Total Debt/Capital
Total Debt/Total
Assets
FY
21,1 17,2 15.1 13.9 15.3 16.4 15.2 10.8 8.0 12.0 31.4 30.8 29.0 36.4 53.2
16,4 14,3 12.6 11.8 12.9 13.7 12.8 9.5 7.4 10.6 21.3 22.0 21.3 25.5 30.4
14,2 12,2 10.8 9.9 10.9 11.7 10.8 8.0 6,0 8.7 17.4 18.3 17.8 21.3 22.3
28,8 20,1 19.8 17.7 18.7 20.1 18.8 13.5 8.9 13.7 47.1 40.2 36.4 42.7 74.9
22,4 16,8 16.6 15.0 15.8 16.7 15.8 11.9 8.2 12.1 32.0 28.7 26.7 29.9 42.8
Total Debt/Equity
Total Debt/Capital
Total Debt/Total
19,4 14,2 14.1 12.6 13.4 14.3 13.3 10.0 6.7 9.9 26.2 23.9 22.3 25.0 31.5
Assets
2009
Ratio
Long-Term
Debt/Equity
Long-Term
Debt/Capital
Long-Term
Debt/Total Assets
53
FY
2013
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY 2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY 2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
ConocoPhillips Chevron ExxonMobil
Table 16. Activity Ratios of U.S and Russian companies in 2009-2013
Ratio
54
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
12.0 13.7 4.5 4.9 6.3 9.5 9.9 11.1 10.4 9.9 10.5 11.4 12.2 11.4 11.5
30.5 26.6 80.8 74.4 57.7 38.4 37.0 32.9 35.2 36.7 34.7 32.0 29.9 32.2 31.9
27.4 31.3 9.6 15.1 37.2 22.5 28.7 34.8 31.0 28.4 20.0 23.2 25.9 23.9 21.8
13.3 11.7 38.1 24.3 9.8 16.2 12.7 10.5 11.8 12.8 18.2 15.7 14.1 15.3 16.7
10.2 10.3 2.7 2.8 4.4 8.3 8.9 9.3 8.1 7.8 10.2 10.4 11.3 10.4 10.4
Payable
Turnover
35.9 35.4 135.8 129.0 83.1 43.7 41.2 39.3 45.2 46.7 35.7 35.1 32.4 35.1 35.1
Days Payables
Outstanding
FY
2009
Accounts
Receivable
Turnover
Days Sales
Outstanding
Inventory
Turnover
Days
Inventory
Outstanding
Accounts
FY
2012
FY
2011
Gazprom Neft OAO Lukoil OAO Rosneft OAO
FY
2010
7.6 9.1 9.9 8.0 7.5 17.3 15.5 16.0 17.1 19.1 n/a 17.0 16.7 15.6 16.1
Receivable
Turnover
48.1 40.3 36.9 45.7 48.9 21.1 23.6 22.9 21.5 19.09 n/a 21.4 21.9 23.5 22.7
Days Sales
Outstanding
FY
2009
Ratio
Accounts
FY
2013
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
ConocoPhillips Chevron ExxonMobil
FY
2010
7.5 17.4 23.8 20.3 15.0 11.7 19.3 18.6 14.9 18.3 17.3 23.7 27.3 28.0 19.2
Table 17. Profitability Ratios of U.S and Russian companies in 2009-2013
FY
2009
3.0 7.4 13.6 11,8 8.8 6.4 10.9 8.0 6.2 7.8 8.4 11.4 13.0 13.5 9.6
N/A 13.2 21.6 18.7 13.5 10.6 17.4 14.3 11.2 13.2 15.9 21.6 24.5 26.5 17.3
N/A 7.3 17.0 14.1 10.4 8.6 13.7 6.4 6.6 8.2 11.4 14.4 15.6 16.4 12.7
-3.7 7.7 16.2 15.7 12.9 9.0 13.4 23.1 22.1 21.5 9.5 11.7 16.1 15.7 10.3
3.2 6.5 11.4 11.8 10.1 6.6 10.0 19.4 14.5 16.8 7.0 8.9 9.5 10.7 8.3
Ratio
Return on
Common Equity
Return on Assets
Return on
Capital
Return on
Invested Capital
Operating
Margin
Net Income
Margin
FY
2012
FY
2011
Gazprom OAO Lukoil OAO Rosneft OAO
FY
2010
FY
15.7 16.7 19.1 15.7 13.0 13.2 15.6 16.3 15.6 10.3 N/A 18.0 16.7 16.8 20.2
10.0 11.0 13.0 10.7 9.0 9.3 11.0 11.8 11.6 7.5 N/A 10.2 9.9 9.9 9.5
12.6 13.6 16.0 13.3 11.2 11.8 14.0 14.0 14.4 9.4 N/A 13.2 12.5 12.2 13.3
10.4 12.1 15.4 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.7 14.7 13.8 10.5 N/A 12.2 11.8 9.2 9.7
29.9 32.1 36.6 28.3 31.5 14.9 13.8 1.3 12.1 10.8 17.8 20.2 16.4 13.0 11.9
26.1 26.9 28.2 25.7 21.7 10.3 10.5 9.3 9.5 6.6 10.7 15.6 11.9 12.2 12.0
Operating
Margin
Net Income
Margin
Ratio
2009
Return on
Common Equity
Return on Assets
Return on
Capital
Return on
Invested Capital
55
From this analysis, we can see that all indicators of ConocoPhillips
and ExxonMobil were decreased in 2013 year, except three ratios of
ExxonMobil.
The indicator (Total Debt/Equity) is higher in ConocoPhillips and
it is 41.3. It is means that for every dollar of ConocoPhillips owned by
the shareholders, Company owes $41.3 to creditors.
In Rossneft OAO this indicator is in 2013 74.9. This means that
Company owes $74.9 to creditors.
Activity ratios are presented in Table 16.
Since the receivables turnover ratio measures a business' ability to
efficiently collect its receivables, it only makes sense that a higher ratio
would be more favorable. Higher ratios mean that companies are
collecting their receivables more frequently throughout the year.
The best indicator in 2013 has ExxonMobil from US companies
(11.5) and Lukoil from Russian companies (19.1). This means that
ExxonMobil collects his receivables about 11.5 times a year or once
every 32 days. For Lukoil, it takes 19 days to collect the cash from sale.
Profitability ratios are presented in Table 17.
Dynamics of probability ratios are shown in figure 10.
As you can see, ConocoPhillips ratios increased from 2009 to 2011
but then declined from 2012 to 2013.
Chevron ratios improved from 2009 to 2010, then four indicators
declined from 2011 to 2012 (ROE; ROA; ROC, ROIC) but then
increased except operating margin.
ExxonMobil ratios increased from 2009 to 2012 but then declined
in 2013.
Gazprom Neft’s ratios increased from 2009 to 2011, and then
ratios decreased from 2012 to 2013.
Lukoil’s ratio increased from 2009 to 2011, and then ratio
decreased from 2012 to 2013.
Rosneft’s ratio decreased from 2010 to 2012, and then ratio
increased in 2013.
The higher the net income margin, the more stable a company is
considered. Moreover, a higher net income margin indicates a company
is more profitable, after all expenses and taxes have been paid. On the
other hand, the lower a company's net profit margin, the less money it
will have to pay for taxes and expenses, and therefore the less stable the
company appears.
56
Return on Common Equity
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
-
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Return on Assets
16,0
14,0
12,0
10,0
8,0
6,0
4,0
2,0
-
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Return on Capital
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Return on Invested Capital
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FY
2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013
ConocoPhillips
Chevron
ExxonMobil
Rosneft
Lukoil
Gazprom Neft
Figure 10. Changes of Profitability Ratios U.S and Russian companies
The best indicators are shown Chevron (21.5) and Gazprom Neft’s
(31.5).
The profitability ratios were decreased in four companies and two
companies were increased in 2013:
ConocoPhillips – ROA (34%); ROC (39%); ROE (35%); ROIC
(35%);
ExxonMobil - ROA (41%); ROC (53%); ROE (46%); ROIC
(30%);
Lukoil - ROA (54%); ROC (54%); ROE (51%); ROIC (31%);
Gazprom Neft - ROA (19%); ROC (19%); ROE (20%); ROIC
increased (5%);
Chevron – all indexes were increased ROA (25%); ROC (19%);
ROE (23%); ROIC (25%);
Rosneft OAO - all indexes were increased ROC (10%); ROE
(20%); ROIC (6%); ROA decreased (4%);
57
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
58
Table 18. DuPont analysis
ConocoPhillips Chevron ExxonMobil
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Ratio
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Revenue %
Asset Turnover
0.9 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1
Revenue/
-117.9 57.5 80.8 54.6 63.4 56.6 59.3 56.5 56.5 59.7 55.4 57.5 56.0 57.0 56.5
Tax Burden
Net Inc to
Comn/Pre-Tax
Profit %
1.1 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0,9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Adjustment Factor
Normlzd Net
Inc/Net Inc to
74.7 145,3 103.9 120.3 123.5 129.4 126.3 124.4 132.3 131.9 132.5 132.0 135.4 157.8 143.2
Cmn
Interest Burden
Pre-Tax
-3.7 7.7 23.1 22.1 21.5 9.0 13.4 16.2 15.7 12.9 9.5 11.7 12.5 11.9 10.3
Profit/EBIT %
Operating Margin
EBIT/
2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0
Avg Assets
Leverage Ratio
Avg Assets/
Avg Equity
8.1 12.4 11.8 12.0 14.1 11.1 19.3 23.5 19.6 14.4 17.4 23.7 27.3 28.0 19.2
Adjusted
Return on
Equity
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
FY
2013
FY
2012
FY
2011
Gazprom OAO Lukoil OAO Rosneft OAO
FY
2010
FY
2009
Ratio
79.6 76.0 77.8 78.6 76.7 77.4 78.5 78.9 80.2 74.9 73.1 81.6 78.0 77.4 86.2
Tax Burden
Net Inc to
Comn/Pre-Tax
Profit %
Adjustment Factor
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Normlzd Net
Inc/Net Inc to
Cmn
Interest Burden
109.6 110.2 99. 115.6 89.8 89.2 96.4 88.5 97.7 81.7 82.5 94.5 93.5 120.6 116.4
Pre-Tax
29.9 32.1 36.6 28.3 31.5 14.9 13.8 13.3 12.1 10.8 17.8 20.2 16.4 13.0 11.9
Profit/EBIT %
Operating Margin
EBIT/
0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 N/A 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
Revenue %
Asset Turnover
Revenue/
1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 N/A 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.1
Avg Assets
Leverage Ratio
Avg Assets/
Avg Equity
15.7 16.7 19.1 15.6 13.7 13.2 15.6 16.3 15.6 13.7 N/A 18.0 16.7 16.8 20.2
Adjusted
Return on
Equity
59
FY
2013
FY
2012
Table 19. Changes in DuPont Components
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2011
2010
2009
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2013
2012
-3% 102% -1%
104%
x
60
ConocoPhillips Chevron ExxonMobil
FY
2011
FY
2010
FY
2009
Ratio
Tax Burden
-49% 29% -48% 116% x 105% -5% 100% 106%
x
Net Inc to
Comn/Pre-Tax
Profit %
-51% 89% 127% -4% x 105% -1% -2% 100% x -1% 100% 100% 100%
x
Adjustment Factor
Normlzd Net
Inc/Net Inc to
x
Avg Assets
Leverage Ratio
-7% 98% 103% -2% x -3% -2% -1% -1% x 101% 101% -1% -4%
153% 95% 102% 118% x 173% 122% -20% -36% x 136% 115% 103% -46%
x
x
Avg Assets/
Avg Equity
Adjusted
Return on
Equity
195% 72% 116% 103% x -2% -2% 106% 100% x 100% 103% 117% -10%
Cmn
Interest Burden
Pre-Tax
210% 66% -4% -3% x 149% 121% -3% -22% x 123% 106% -5% -15%
x
Profit/EBIT %
Operating Margin
EBIT/
124% 36% 103% 108% x 111% 110% -19% -16% x 107% 107% -9% -10%
x
Revenue %
Asset Turnover
Revenue/
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]