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
2012
FY
2011
FY
2010
100% 100%
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
x 100% 100%
100% 133%
x 100% 100%
100% 105%
Tax Burden
x -5% 102% 101% -3% x 101% 101% 102% -7% x 112% -5% -1% 111%
Net Inc to
Comn/Pre-Tax
FY
2009
Ratio
Profit %
Adjustment Factor
Normlzd Net
x 100% 100%
Inc/Net Inc to
x 101% -11% 117% -29% x 108% -9% 110% -20% x 115% -1% 129% -4%
Cmn
Interest Burden
Pre-Tax
Profit/EBIT %
Operating Margin
x 108% 114% -29% 112% x -8% -4% -10% -12% x 114% -23% -26% -9%
EBIT/
Revenue %
Asset Turnover
x 106% 11% -10% -1% x 117% 120% -4% -7% x 21% -2% -3%
Revenue/
Avg Assets
Leverage Ratio
x -3% -4% 100% -1% x 0% -2% -2% 102% x -5% 101% 125%
x 107% 114% -22% -14% x 119% 104% -5% -14% x -8% 101% 120%
Avg Assets/
Avg Equity
Adjusted
Return on
Equity
61
For more in-depth analysis of companies to see the similarities (or
differences) held DuPont analysis.
All results are presented in Table 18.
Changes in DuPont Components are presented in Table 19.
So, the analysis shows that ratio (Adjusted return on equity)
decreased in four companies except Rosneft OAO and ConocoPhillips.
(Figure 11). There ratios increased (ConocoPhillips -118% and Rosneft
OAO – 120%).
30,0
Adjusted Return
on Equity
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
ConocoPhillips
Adjusted Return
on Equity Chevron
Adjusted Return
on Equity
ExxonMobil
Adjusted Return
on Equity Rosneft
Adjusted Return
on Equity Lukoil
5,0
-
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
Adjusted Return
on Equity
Gazprom Neft
Figure 11. Changes in Adjusted Return on Equity
After financial analysis of companies, we will test the hypothesis.
Testing Hypothesis
H1. Historical ratio values are good predictors of companies own
future values, so ratio analysis is useful in predicting future
performance of Russian and U.S. firms in the oil and gas industry.
H2: The usefulness of certain ratios in the oil and gas industry is
different in the US and in Russia.
Correlation matrix of all variables included in the analysis is
presented in Tables 19-22 which is calculated based on data of firms.
62
This shows the usefulness year-by-year for all ratios six companies in
the data base.
Table 20. Results of Correlation matrix
a) Cash ratio
U.S. companies
Cash ratio FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009 1
FY 2010 0,190274 1
FY 2011 0,682666 0,847274 1
FY 2012 0,736642 0,804091 0,997061 1
FY 2013 0,04265 0,988953 0,759181 0,707085 1
Russian companies
Cash ratio FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009 1
FY 2010 0,216266 1
FY 2011 -0,13785 0,9372 1
FY 2012 -0,92846 0,161846 0,495876 1
FY 2013 0,22272 0,999978 0,934872 0,155314 1
b) Current Ratio
U.S. companies
Current Ratio FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009 1
FY 2010 0,721237 1
FY 2011 0,868938 0,969536 1
FY 2012 0,583019 0,983276 0,908711 1
FY 2013 0,559016 0,97753 0,896118 0,999572 1
Russian companies
Current Ratio FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009 1
FY 2010 -0,67589 1
FY 2011 0,157958 0,620988 1
FY 2012 -0,49603 0,975206 0,779051 1
FY 2013 0,821087 -0,97565 -0,43394 -0,90292 1
63
c) Quick Ratio
U.S. companies
Quick Ratio FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Quick Ratio FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
1
0,621709 1
0,806362 0,964553 1
0,87871 0,920191 0,990877 1
0,336481 0,946771 0,828262 0,745191 1
1
0,970702 1
0,842014 0,946969 1
-0,0439 0,197438 0,501968 1
0,925149 0,806829 0,574208 -0,41986 1
In this analyse, you can see that Cash ratio, Current ratio, Quick
ratio of 2012 year of U.S. companies have a correlation of 0.71, 0.99,
0.75.
In this analyse, you can see that Cash ratio, Current ratio, Quick
ratio of 2012 year of Russian companies have a correlation of 0.15, -0.9,
-0.42.
So, the predictive power of the historical Liquidity Ratios is bigger
in U.S. companies.
Table 21. Correlation matrix for solvency ratios based on data of firms
a) Long-Term Debt/Equity
U.S. companies
Long-Term
Debt/Equity FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Long-Term
Debt/Equity FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
1
0,999773 1
0,99899 0,99972 1
0,999786 1 0,999706 1
0,990758 0,987643 0,983662 0,987741 1
1
0,981913 1
0,996779 0,993935 1
0,993849 0,99684 0,999529 1
0,972017 0,998912 0,987726 0,992052 1
64
b) Long-Term Debt/Capital
U.S. companies
Long-Term
Debt/Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009 1
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Long-Term
Debt/Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
c) Long-Term Debt/Total Assets
U.S. companies
Long-Term Debt/Total
Assets FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Long-Term Debt/Total
Assets FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
0,999327 1
0,998253 0,999748 1
0,999663 0,999943 0,99945 1
0,985377 0,978462 0,973586 0,98062 1
1
0,980637 1
0,995399 0,994889 1
0,993382 0,99664 0,999817 1
0,969853 0,998797 0,988741 0,991425 1
1
0,999899 1
0,998891 0,999459 1
0,999555 0,999878 0,999851 1
0,984572 0,981987 0,975241 0,97891 1
1
0,961765 1
0,984883 0,994667 1
0,978586 0,997544 0,999448 1
0,95684 0,999848 0,992716 0,99617 1
65
d) Total Debt/Equity
U.S. companies
Total Debt/Equity FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Total Debt/Equity FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
e) Total Debt/Capital
U.S. companies
Total
Debt/Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Total
Debt/Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
0,998470184 1
0,980623592 0,989955353 1
0,999413163 0,999778238 0,986758515 1
0,998111689 0,999981132 0,990805157 0,999630013 1
0,953173537 1
0,998251944 0,969381218 1
0,998206998 0,969566501 0,999999714 1
0,965603257 0,999023702 0,979283046 0,979435784 1
1
0,999248 1
0,988042 0,993276 1
0,999647 0,999926 0,991791 1
0,999001 0,999982 0,993944 0,999836 1
1
0,964908 1
0,998755 0,976808 1
0,99764 0,98066 0,999823 1
0,969281 0,999852 0,980346 0,983881 1
1
1
66
f) Total Debt/Total Assets
U.S. companies
Total Debt/Total
Assets FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Total Debt/Total
Assets FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
1
0,999407647 1
0,984882447 0,990260459 1
0,999182232 0,99998186 0,991081095 1
0,999546593 0,999990726 0,989651658 0,999946646 1
1
0,933705518 1
0,994197154 0,966803125 1
0,992163344 0,971124861 0,999846999 1
0,957650283 0,997255758 0,983067192 0,986122154 1
In this analyse, you can see that Long-Term Debt/Equity, LongTerm Debt/Capital, Long-Term Debt/Total Assets, Total Debt/Equity,
Total Debt/Capital, Total Debt/Total Assets of 2012 year have a
correlation of 0.94, 0.97, 0.99, 0.88, 0.92.
In this analyse, you can see that that Long-Term Debt/Equity,
Long-Term Debt/Capital, Long-Term Debt/Total Assets, Total
Debt/Equity, Total Debt/Capital, Total Debt/Total Assets of 2012 year
of U.S. companies have a correlation of 0.99, 0.98, 0.98, 0.99, 0.99,
0.99.
In this analyse, you can see that that Long-Term Debt/Equity,
Long-Term Debt/Capital, Long-Term Debt/Total Assets, Total
Debt/Equity, Total Debt/Capital, Total Debt/Total Assets of 2012 year
of Russian companies have a correlation of 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.98, 0.98,
0.99.
So, the predictive power of the historical Liquidity Ratios is the
same in U.S. and Russian companies.
67
Table 22. Correlation matrix for activity ratios
(Accounts Receivable Turnover) based on data of firms
U.S. companies
Accounts Receivable
Turnover FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Accounts Receivable
Turnover FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
1
0,999743 1
-0,84375 -0,85571 1
-0,84027 -0,85235 0,999979 1
-0,74856 -0,76341 0,98749 0,988487 1
1
11
1 0,99609 1
1 0,942165 0,96809 1
1 0,904895 0,93896 0,995212 1
The Accounts Receivable Turnover of 2012 year of U.S.
companies has a correlation of 0.99.
The Accounts Receivable Turnover of 2012 year of Russian
companies has a correlation of 0.99.
So, the predictive power of the historical Liquidity Ratios is the
same in U.S. and Russian companies.
Table 23. Correlation matrix for activity ratios based on data of firms
a) Return on Common Equity
U.S. companies
Return on Common
Equity FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Return on Common
Equity FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
1
0,989745 1
0,471503 0,592638 1
0,645693 0,748148 0,977835 1
0,920804 0,855647 0,090211 0,296734 1
1
0,981913 1
0,996779 0,993935 1
0,993849 0,99684 0,999529 1
0,972017 0,998912 0,987726 0,992052 1
68
b) Return on Assets
U.S. companies
Return on Assets FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Return on
Assets FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
1
0,96853 1
-0,27052 -0,50162 1
0,05855 -0,19176 0,945224 1
0,278445 0,030628 0,849316 0,975107 1
1
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
c) Return on Capital
U.S. companies
Return on Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Return on Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
-1 1
1 0,911758 1
-1 0,882808 0,611974 1
1 -0,72748 -0,38148 -0,96452 1
1
11
1 0,26929 1
1 0,508634 0,966148 1
1 0,839155 0,749777 0,895105 1
1
-1 1
1 0,427743 1
-1 0,999781 0,446562 1
1 -0,99834 -0,47916 -0,99932 1
69
d) Return on Invested Capital
U.S. companies
Return on Invested
Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Russian companies
Return on Invested
Capital FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
1
11
1 -0,53247 1
1 -0,20017 0,935902 1
1 0,103346 0,786887 0,953828 1
1
11
-1 0,313836 1
1 0,870872 0,739989 1
-1 -0,16349 0,885395 0,342523 1
In this analyse, you can see that ROE, ROA, ROC, ROIC of 2012
year of U.S. companies have a correlation of 0.29, 0.97, 0.89, 095.
In this analyse, you can see that ROE, ROA, ROC, ROIC of 2012
year of Russian companies have a correlation of 0.99, -0.96, -0.99, 0.34.
So, the predictive power of the historical Profitability Ratios is
bigger in U.S. companies.
After our correlation analysis we can say, that Liquidity Ratios and
Profitability Ratios are good predictors in U.S. So, ratio analysis is
useful in predicting future performance for U.S. firms in the oil and gas
industry.
70
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]