3.4. оценка финансовой устойчивости коммерческого банка
advertisement
1’2012 . 3.4. ( - ) « » [4] , [2, . 221-229], . - . . ., ., ., - . ( 2010 . 19% 2009 .) . , . « ( - 1 », , , « , 20102011 . 20%). - », . 2010 . 5% 20% 44% . 2008 2009. - . 51% 2010 . - , . - . 25%. , - . . « - » - . 10,5% . « 8,1% » . - - . 2010 . : – 10 - , 2, . 66 ; , , , ( 3, . 123 ; , , . - , - , . , , , ), - - , . , « - -2014». , , - , 1, . 50 . . , - . . , , . 2008-2010 . 87%, , – 13%, . , , . , , , , - , . , - . . , - , , - , , - , - , 15%, : ; . - ; , , 0 ; ; . 74,4% . . - - 61,2%. . . 1, 6 - 32,6% – 13,9%. . , . 2008 , ( - 2011 . 1,26. . 1,26 . . 9%). , , , 7,4% 1 2010 . , , 16 - , - , . . 20% 1 2011 . - , , , 2009 . 70% 2010 . , - , ( . .1 , , , - . . - ). - ( 80%). , - . , 7. - . , – , . , , , . , - . 1 « 6– 7– 8( 9( 2008 . 5 945 517 726 217 3 047 314 27 644 5 471 781 602 252 1,10 9,87 0,88 0,94 .1 0,8) – . 0,7) – » , . 2009 . 6 227 343 718 229 3 687 165 31 372 540 8131 1331 262 1,15 4,68 0,87 0,92 2008-2010 . 2010 . 2009 . 2008 . 7 471 557 104,74 752 152 98,90 4 689 494 121,00 32 398 113,49 5 950 729 98,84 2 159 523 221,05 1,26 0,05 3,46 -5,19 0,88 -0,01 0,90 -0,02 . ,% 2010 . 2009 . 119,98 104,72 127,18 103,27 110,03 162,22 0,11 -1,22 0,01 -0,02 2 « 2008 . 6 924 536 6 074 033 602 252 5 471 781 89 194 503 899 3 527 243 740 0,84 0,12 0,10 0,07 – , 10 (max 0,75) – 11 – 12 – 13 (max 0,5) – 1 , . 2009 . 7 741 832 6 739 393 1 331 262 5 408 131 236 006 495 633 3 527 623 577 0,79 0,17 0,20 0,20 » . 2010 . 9 237 591 8 110 252 2 159 523 5 950 729 305 521 662 605 3 527 706 538 0,80 0,17 0,27 0,30 2008-2010 2009 . 2008 . 111,80 110,95 221,05 98,84 264,60 98,36 100,00 255,84 -0,05 0,05 0,10 0,13 . ,% 2010 . 2009 . 119,32 120,34 162,22 110,03 129,45 133,69 100,00 113,30 0,01 0,00 0,07 0,10 . 1 1’2012 8 . , - , . , , , . , - . - , , , . , - , . - , . . - - , . , . ( . . 2). . 2, - , 80% - , , . ( . 3). .3 10. , . 11 , 17% 5% 2010 . , . 2009- , 5% , 14. 5% . - 3 2010 ., . . 15 12 . 10% , . 2011 . 27%. . , - , , . . , 30%. , 14%, , - . 16 . . - 30% , . - , , , 13. , - . 3 « » , 14 (0,05-0,20) – 15 (0,15-0,20) – 16 (max 2 1,0)- . 2008-2010 . . ,% 2010 . 2009 . 153,49 123,13 90,92 169,28 123,66 119,98 123,52 91,87 120,24 0,00 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 979 820 306 260 160 502 513 058 5 439 400 5 945 517 3 773 531 935 542 5 806 244 0,08 1 493 170 236 311 161 603 1 095 256 5 859 257 6 227 343 4 405 394 643 381 6 098 453 0,05 2 291 893 290 963 146 928 1 854 002 7 245 274 7 471 557 5 441 646 591 089 7 332 717 0,05 2009 . 2008 . 152,39 77,16 100,69 213,48 107,19 104,74 116,74 68,77 105,03 -0,03 0,16 0,24 0,30 0,08 0,06 0,94 0,97 0,99 0,03 0,02 . 4 « » 2008-2010 . , . . ,% 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 2009 . 2008 . 2010 . 2009 . 979 019 1 514 489 1 766 034 154,69 116,61 6 074 033 6 739 393 8 110 252 110,95 120,34 573 104 762 070 738 036 132,97 96,85 241 617 311 513 293 827 128,93 94,32 278 637 91 946 65 732 32,10 71,49 37 467 53 684 22 177 143,28 41,31 1,38 0,98 -0,40 0,23 1,13 0,10 1,03 1,03 0,00 17 ( 1) – 18.1 18.2 – 5 « » , . . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 979019 1514489 1766034 503899 495633 662605 6 924 536 7 741 832 9 237 591 5471781 5408131 5950729 540062 703619 629963 0,10 0,13 0,11 0,07 0,06 0,07 0,51 0,33 0,36 19 – 20 – 21 – , - 110 . . . , 2008-2010 ,% 2010 . 2009 . 116,61 133,69 119,32 110,03 89,53 -0,02 -0,57 0,03 2009 . 2008 . 154,69 98,36 111,80 98,84 130,28 0,03 -0,09 -0,18 1 . . . – 2009 . , 2011 . – . , . , , , , . 20 7%, . – . - - . . , , , . – , 70 . . . - . , . 4. 17 , 2009 . – , - 2008 . 33%, 2010 . 51%, – 36%. . , - 38%. , . 40% - 1 2%. . 2010 . 360 . . . , , , - , - . , . 18.1 , , 18.2 – . - . - . , - . . 6. . , , 14%. . 5. 19, . 5, 2011 . 1 2009 . 19%. , , . , 2010 . . 3 1’2012 6 « » , – 1 (min 0,10) – 2 (min 0,25)3 (min 20-30%)4 (min 0,5) – 5– « 1– » . 2008-2010 . 2008 . 2009 . 2010 . 6 924 536 979 019 681 045 67 760 3 527 503 899 5 945 517 6 074 033 0,14 0,16 0,16 0,70 0,07 14,80 7 741 832 1 514 489 671 708 67 760 3 527 495 633 6 227 343 6 739 393 0,20 0,24 0,22 0,44 0,04 20,15 9 237 591 1 766 034 65 8281 67 760 3 527 662 605 7 471 557 8 110 252 0,19 0,23 0,22 0,38 0,04 23,22 . ,% 2010 . 2009 . 119,32 116,61 98,00 100,00 100,00 133,69 119,98 120,34 -0,01 -0,01 0,00 -0,06 0,00 3,07 2009 . 2008 . 111,80 154,69 98,63 100,00 100,00 98,36 104,74 110,95 0,05 0,08 0,06 -0,26 0,03 5,35 1 ( 2 . , 23%. 2008 . . , , 23,22%. . 2 2010 . , , - , . , - , , . - . 7%. , - ) 2010 . - , - , 22%. . - 3 . , - , , , . - . , - . : 6 . 3 - , . ; , 4 , ( , , - - . . , 2008 , - , ). 2010 . - . 70%, 2008 . 2011 . 38%. , , , . - , . , - . , - . 5 , . 7% , 4%. , . - 2009-2010 . 2008 , 2011 . , ( 4 . - , ). . - . - . , . - . ( , : , , , - ). , ; . ; , , , . . , . - , - . , - , , , . . , - ( - ) . , . . . , , . : – ; . ; , , , . - . ; . 1. [ : , 2. , , - ( . , . . ; 3. . / .: . . , 2006. [ . .– .: [ ]/ , 2007. – 123 . [ .– 4. ); ] : .– . . ]/ , 2008. – 66 . .– - .: ] : : http://www.sbrf.ru. ; - ( ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . ); ; . . ( - , - . ). - . . , , - , , - , ). - : . , , . . . « - », « » , , . , , - . - , . , , - . . . . - , , , ., , ., « . , - . - » - . 5 1’2012 3.4. ESTIMATION OF FINANCIAL STABILITY OF COMMERCIAL BANK ON THE BASIS OF ANALYTICAL FACTORS N.V. Klimov , Professor, Manager Faculty of the Economic Analysis and Taxes of Academy of Marketing and Socially-Information Technologies, Krasnodar Author's definitions «financial stability of commercial bank» are generalized, results of the analysis of quality of passives and actives are stated, to sufficiency of the capital, liquidity, profitableness of Open Society «Sberbank of Russia», conclusions are formulated and recommendations about increase of financial stability of bank are developed Literature 1. Banking: The textbook / Under the editorship of G.N. Beloglazovoj, L.P. Krolivetsky. – SPb.: Peter, 2006. 50 p. 2. U.G. Veshkin. omplex the analysis of commercial bank / J.G. Veshkin, G.L. Avagjan – : the Economist, 2008. – 66 p. 3. A.J. Petrov. The complex analysis of financial activity of bank / A.J. Petrov. – the finance and statistics. – 2007. – 123 p. 4. www. sbrf. ru Keywords Bank; actives; the capital; financial stability; sufficiency; liquidity; profitability; management; the credit policy. 3.5. PROBLEM ISSUES OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN AIRLINES O.N. Kuzmina, Applicant the Degree of Candidate of Economic Sciences, Department of Accounting and Economic Analysis Samara State Economic University. The article deals with the problematic issues of management accounting and economic analysis of cost airlines. The authors investigated the feasibility of using the marginal approach and the benefits of economicmathematical methods. Literature 1. B.I. Vaisblat, M.G. Nazarov. Economic-mathematical modeling [Text] / B.I. Vaisblat Nazarov, M.G Nazarov // Economic analysis: theory and practice. – 2008. – 13. – P. 29-32. 2. I.A. Krasnobokaya. Analysis of the formation of product cost manufacturing facility using multivariate econometric models [Text] / I.A. Krasnobokaya // Economic analysis: theory and practice. – 2011. – 5. – P. 38-47. 3. N.V. Kuprienko. Statistical methods for studying relationships. Correlation and regression analysis [Text] : tutorial / Kuprienko N.V, Ponomareva O.A., Tikhonov D.V. – SPb : SpbGPU, 2008. – 118 p. 4. V.F. Paly. Theory of Accounting: current problems [Electronic resource] / V.F. Paly // National organization for financial accounting and reporting. URL : http : // www.nsfo.ru / docs / Theory. 5. R.G. Smelik, I.V. Kalnitskaya. Improving accounting and analytical support for management of the organization [Text] / 6 R.G. Smelik, I.V. Kalnitskaya // Economic analysis: theory and practice. – 2011. – 8. – P. 17-27. Keywords Management accounting; contribution approach; costs; total cost; financial account; profit; contribution margin; economic analysis; economic and mathematical methods; correlation analysis, regression analysis, econometric model.
