Method of comparison (comparison) in economic analysis

Conditions for using the comparison method and scope

Comparison is an action through which the similarity and difference between the phenomena of objective reality is established. With the help of this method, the following main tasks are solved: identification of cause-and-effect relationships between phenomena; conducting evidence or rebuttals; classification and systematization of phenomena.

The comparison can be qualitative (“it was warmer yesterday”) or quantitative (20 is always more than 10).

The comparison procedure in the analysis of the financial and economic activities of an enterprise includes several stages: the choice of objects to be compared; selection of the type of comparison (dynamic, spatial, in relation to planned values); the choice of comparison scales and the degree of significance of differences; the choice of the number of features by which the comparison should be made; the choice of the type of features, as well as the definition of criteria for their materiality and insignificance; choice of base of comparison.

When making a comparison, it is necessary that certain requirements are met:

• * Phenomena must be qualitatively comparable with each other, i.e. have something in common that serves as a basis for comparison (for example, the question “Which is longer, the road or the night?” is absurd, since these phenomena are incomparable). The possibility of comparison is ensured by the homogeneity of the objects or phenomena included in the analysis;
• * it is necessary to observe the identity of the formation of compared indicators (meaning the same methods of organizing the collection of initial information, its generalization, methods for calculating indicators, etc.);
• * the objects being compared should belong to sets of phenomena that are at the same stage of development (for example, it is hardly possible to compare spring and autumn prices on the vegetable market, the yield of government bonds and junk, or junk, bonds, cost indicators in dynamics under inflation, etc. );
• * compared phenomena must be measured in the same units of measurement;
• * objects or phenomena should be compared according to a comparable set of units (for example, if a trade organization acquired or, conversely, closed several of its stores, a comparison in time of the absolute indicators of its activities before and after such a reorganization, of course, cannot be considered eligible), with spatio-temporal comparisons, information on the compared objects should be taken on the same date (momentary data) or for the same time interval (interval data).

If the objects of analysis do not satisfy some of these requirements, in some cases the data can still be brought to a comparable form. There are several ways to do this: division into homogeneous groups according to quantitative or qualitative criteria, reduction to the same units of measurement, recalculation of incomparable indicators using one algorithm, discounting, etc. For example, when comparing the efficiency of several financial transactions, it is advisable to express all rates in the form of an annual interest rate or as an effective rate. Another option to ensure comparability would be to bring the indicators to the same time base. So, for example, delacat when evaluating the effectiveness of investment projects with different implementation periods.

Comparison can be based on one or more criteria. In the first case, the following methods and types of comparison are used:

comparison of the fact with the plan (the analysis of deviations is based on this method);

comparison according to this criterion in dynamics, calculation of the average growth rate (decrease) of the value of this indicator per unit of time;

comparison with a standard (standard, competitor, etc.);

ranking using relative indicators (for example, ranking by profitability);

the use of special statistical indicators together with their characteristic values ​​(for example, the assessment of the risk of securities is carried out using variation indicators).

To conduct a comprehensive assessment of the financial and economic activities of an enterprise, comparison according to one criterion is clearly not enough. In a detailed analysis, economic entities are compared at once according to several criteria (for example, in terms of profitability, turnover, sales growth, etc.). At the same time, not all indicators are equivalent - many of them are incommensurable or can act in different directions. In this case, some ranking method should be used. The most commonly used method is the sum of places and the taxonometric method. The ratings compiled using these methods provide a comprehensive assessment of the activities of economic entities, making it possible to identify the best in a number of indicators.

Multivariate Comparisons

Another important issue of comparisons is multivariate comparison, i.e. comparison of economic values ​​for several indicators. Comparison of objects by a set of indicators is generally unacceptable. In some cases, it is possible by constructing a generalizing indicator.

In economic research, it is widely used comparison method.

Comparison is an action by which the similarity and difference between the phenomena of objective reality are established.

The comparison procedure in economic analysis includes several stages:

Selection of compared objects;

Selection of the type of comparison;

Selection of the base of comparison (previous period, plan, reference enterprise);

Select the number of indicators by which objects will be compared.

There are the following methods of comparative analysis:

1.Horizontal Analysis- it is used to determine the absolute and relative deviations of the actual level of the studied indicators from the baseline (planned, average, etc.);

2.Vertical Analysis- he studies the structure of economic phenomena and processes, the ratio of parts of the whole to each other, as well as the influence of factors on the level of performance indicators by comparing their magnitude before and after changing the corresponding factor;

3.trend analysis characterizes the trend of changes in the analyzed indicators over a number of years in dynamics in relation to its basic value (basic trend) or to the value of the previous year (chain trend);

4.Dynamic Comparisons used to study changes in the studied indicators over time;

5.Static Comparisons used to assess the level of indicators of one period for various business entities;

6.When univariate comparative analysis comparisons are made according to one or several indicators of one object or several objects are compared according to one indicator;

7.Using multivariate benchmarking the performance results of several enterprises are compared on a wide range of indicators.

Depending on the base of comparison, the following types of comparisons are used in the economic analysis of the enterprise:

1. Comparison of actual levels of indicators with planned data. The purpose of this comparison is to control and evaluate the degree of implementation of the plan for the month, quarter or year.

2. Comparison of actual levels of indicators with approved norms and standards.

Such comparisons are necessary to identify savings or overexpenditure of resources for the production of products, to assess the effectiveness of their use in the production process, to identify unused opportunities to increase output and reduce its cost.

3. Comparison of the level of indicators of the analyzed enterprise with the performance indicators of the leading enterprises in the industry, which have the best results under the same initial economic conditions.

The purpose of this comparison is to assess the competitiveness of the enterprise and identify reserves for improving the results of its activities.

4. Comparison of various options for management decisions; comparison of the indicators of the analyzed enterprise with the achievements of science and best practices of other enterprises or departments to look for reserves.

5. Comparison of the indicators of the analyzed economy with the average indicators for the district, zone, region to assess the results achieved and identify unused reserves.

6. Comparison of parallel and dynamic series to study the relationship of the studied indicators. For example, by simultaneously analyzing the dynamics of changes in the volume of gross output, fixed assets and capital productivity, it is possible to substantiate the relationship between these indicators.

7. Comparison of various options for management decisions in order to select the best one among them.

8. Comparison of performance results before and after a change in any factor when calculating the influence of factors and calculating reserves.

An important condition that must be observed when conducting a comparative analysis is to ensure the comparability of indicators, for this the compared indicators must be brought to a single base.

The baseline should be comparable for all analyzed cases:

By the unity of volume, cost, quality, structural factors;

By the unity of the intervals or moments of time for which the compared indicators were calculated;

According to the comparability of the initial conditions of production (technical, natural, climatic);

By the unity of the methodology for calculating indicators and their composition;

By equality of production effects;

Comparability of prices when calculating costs and effects.

The main ways to bring indicators into a comparable form are the neutralization of the impact of cost, volume, quality and structural factors.

1. Neutralization of the influence of the volume factor.

The discrepancy between the volume factor can significantly worsen the assessment of the enterprise's activities to reduce costs for the production of gross output. If we compare the actual amount of costs with the planned one, then the difference between these indicators is due not only to a change in the cost of individual types of products, but also to changes in the volume of production. In order for the indicators to have a comparable form, it is necessary to neutralize the influence of the volume factor. To do this, the planned amount of costs must be recalculated for the actual volume of production and then compared with the actual amount of costs.

Example:

To bring the indicators into a comparable form, it is necessary to neutralize the influence of the volume factor on the amount of the enterprise's costs and evaluate the enterprise's activities in terms of changes in production costs.

Table 5.1. Initial data

Conclusion: Taking into account the neutralization of the influence of the volume factor, the amount of production costs actually increased by 5.1% compared to the plan.

2. Neutralization of the influence of the cost factor.

When assessing changes in the volume of gross output, the problem of inconsistency may also arise, only not the volume factor, but the cost one. To neutralize the influence of the cost factor, it is necessary to express the actual volumes of output in a planned estimate and compare it with the planned volume of gross output in the same estimate. .

Example:

To bring the indicators into a comparable form, it is necessary to neutralize the influence of the cost factor and analyze the change in the actual volume of gross output compared to the plan.

Table 5.2. Initial data

Conclusion: Taking into account the neutralization of the influence of the cost factor, the volume of production actually increased by 40% compared to the plan.

3. Neutralization of the influence of the qualitative factor.

To neutralize the impact of the quality factor, most often the volume of products obtained is brought to standard quality, respectively, reducing or increasing its quantity.

Example:

To bring the indicators into a comparable form, it is necessary to neutralize the influence of milk quality and determine how the volume of its production and the unit cost of production have changed.

Table 5.3. Initial data

Conclusion: Taking into account the neutralization of the influence of the qualitative factor, the volume of milk production in the reporting year increased by 13.1% compared to the base year, the unit cost of production increased by 16.6%.

4. Neutralization of the structural factor.

In cases where there is no basic quality indicator and it is determined by the distribution of the products obtained by varieties (for example, the fatness of the animal), then the problem of neutralizing qualitative differences can be solved as the neutralization of the structural factor .

To achieve comparability, the same prices should be used, for example, planned ( C pl.). Then the volume of production, both according to the plan and actually, must be determined in the same composition. The latter is obtained by distributing the actual total output by type according to the planned structure. Comparison of the indicators of gross output obtained in this way and, after excluding the influence of structural and cost factors, makes it possible to more correctly assess the increase in output.

The first universal logical method of economic analysis, which allows us to give a preliminary assessment of the achieved results of the economic and financial activities of the organization and its financial condition, is a comparison. With the help of comparison, general and specific features in economic phenomena (processes) are determined, changes in economic indicators are studied.

Comparison- this is an action by which the similarity and difference of phenomena of objective reality are established.

In economic analysis, comparisons are used to solve all problems as the main or auxiliary method. As a result of applying the comparison method, a value is obtained that characterizes absolute deviation the investigated state of the object from a given base . The absolute deviation is indicated by the icon " D". If the main task is to evaluate the implementation of the plan for any indicator, then as a basis for comparison, use the planned data of the reporting period. The calculation is represented by the following formula:

DT \u003d T f n- T pl n,

where T f - the actual state of the studied indicator T in the reporting period; T pl - the planned value of the indicator T in the same period; n- period.

To identify a trend in any indicator, the actual data of the previous period or the base period can also serve as a basis for comparison:

DT \u003d T f n– T f ( n-1) ,

where ( n–1) – previous period;

DT \u003d T f n– T f 0,

where 0 is the base period.

There can be a lot of bases for comparison, and the more of them the analyst uses, the more opportunities he has to search for internal reserves to improve the results of the object of study. At the same time, the choice of a base for comparison is determined by the nature and content of the tasks set.

Economic analysis uses several types of comparison:

1. One-dimensional comparison- comparison by one or more indicators of one object or several objects by one indicator. Such analytical comparisons are divided into the following types according to the aspect and purpose of the comparison:

- comparison of actual indicators with planned, forecast or standard (planned or standard comparisons);

- comparison of actual indicators of the reporting period with the previous one (periodic comparisons);

- comparison of the indicators of the analyzed enterprise with the achievements of science, best practices of other enterprises and divisions, with average indicators for the region or industry, etc. (intra-economic, intra-industry, inter-industry comparisons);

- comparison of various indicators of the economic and financial activities of a single enterprise in order to establish the proportions of dynamic development;

- comparison of various options for management decisions in order to select the most optimal of them.

2. Multivariate comparison– comparison of the performance results of several enterprises (divisions) for a wide range of indicators, which is carried out as part of a comprehensive analysis (with a rating assessment) or when summarizing the performance results of enterprises. Multivariate comparison can be represented in the following ways:

- comparison of some indicators of the economic and financial activities of several enterprises or divisions (comparison of parallel series);

- comparison of the results of the activity of the object of analysis in time (comparison of time series);

– comparison of parallel and dynamic series to study the relationship between indicators.

Comparison presents certain requirements for comparable values: they must be commensurate and qualitatively homogeneous. To do this, the following requirements must be met:

- comparability of the studied calendar periods of time and units of measurement;

- elimination of the influence of the price factor;

– elimination of differences in the methodology for calculating indicators;

– elimination of the influence of differences in volume, cost, quality and structural factors.

Comparison is the earliest and most common method of analysis. It begins with the correspondence of phenomena, i.e., with a synthetic act by means of which the compared phenomena are analyzed, the common and the different are distinguished in them. The general that appears as a result of analysis, in turn, unites, i.e., synthesizes, generalized phenomena.

In economic analysis, the method of comparison is considered one of the most important: the analysis begins with it. There are several forms of comparison with the plan, comparison with the past, comparison with the best, comparison with the average data.

Comparative (spatial) analysis is both an on-farm analysis of summary reporting indicators for individual indicators of a company, subsidiaries, divisions, workshops, and an inter-farm analysis of the indicators of a given company with those of competitors, with average industry and average business data;

In economic analysis, comparison is used to solve all its problems as the main or auxiliary method. We list the most typical situations when comparison is used, and the goals that are achieved in this case.

1. Comparison of actual levels of indicators with planned ones is used to assess the degree of implementation of the plan.

Comparison of the actual levels of indicators with the normative ones allows to control costs and promotes the introduction of resource-saving technologies.


Comparison of actual levels of indicators with data from previous years is used to determine trends in the development of economic processes.


Comparison of the level of indicators of the analyzed enterprise with the achievements of science and best practices of other enterprises or departments is necessary to search for reserves.


5. Comparison of the level of indicators of the analyzed enterprise with their average values ​​for the industry is carried out in order to determine the position of the enterprise in the market among other enterprises of the same industry or sub-sector.


6. Comparison of parallel and dynamic series is used to study the relationship of the studied indicators. For example, by simultaneously analyzing the dynamics of changes in the volume of gross output, fixed assets and capital productivity, it is possible to substantiate the relationship between these indicators.


A comparison of various options for management decisions is made in order to select the most optimal of them.


Comparison of performance results before and after a change in any factor is used in calculating the influence of factors and calculating reserves.


An important task of the analysis of economic activity is, as noted above, a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the business plan. This determines the importance of the method of comparing actual indicators with the plan. An indispensable condition for such a comparison should be comparability, similarity in the content and structure of planned and reporting indicators (in terms of planned and accounted objects; in terms of prices, if cost indicators are analyzed; in terms of the structure of output and its sales, if the cost of industrial products and the level of production costs are analyzed ). The deviations revealed as a result of comparing the reporting indicators with the planned values ​​are the object of further analysis. This establishes the circumstances related to the quality of the planning itself. In particular, significant positive deviations from the plan can sometimes occur as a result of an underestimated or insufficiently stressed plan. Estimated adjustments to planned indicators are allowed to ensure comparability. Thus, it is possible and should recalculate the planned amount of costs for cost items that depend on the volume of manufactured and sold industrial products.


Comparison with the previous time, with the past is also widely used in economic analysis. It is manifested in the comparison of economic indicators of the current day, decade, month, quarter, year with similar previous periods, with pre-war and pre-perestroika times.


Comparison with the past is associated with great difficulties, which are caused by significant violations of the conditions of comparability. It would be economically illiterate, for example, to compare gross, marketable and sold output for a number of years in current pennies; the dynamic series that characterizes the level of costs for 3-5 or more years (and sometimes for adjacent years), built without the necessary adjustments, will also be incorrect. Comparison with the previous period requires recalculation of turnovers in the same prices (most often, in figures of the base period), recalculation of a number of cost items using a price index, tariffs, rates, and comparison with the pre-perestroika period makes it necessary to take into account a number of other factors: social, ethnographic, natural.


Comparison with the best - with the best methods of work and indicators, best practices, new achievements in science and technology - can be carried out both within the enterprise and outside it. Within the enterprise, the performance of the best workshops, sections, departments, and the most advanced workers are compared. An economic analysis of the indicators of a given enterprise gives a great effect by comparing them with the indicators of the best enterprises of this system, operating in approximately the same conditions, with the indicators of enterprises of other departments (owners).


In AHD, a comparison of different options for solving economic problems is also used, which makes it possible to choose the most optimal one and thereby more fully use the opportunities for improving the efficiency of activities. It is especially widely used in preliminary analysis when substantiating plans and management decisions.


Comparison of parallel and dynamic series is used to determine and justify the form and direction of the relationship between different indicators. To this end, the numbers characterizing one of the indicators must be arranged in ascending or descending order and consider how other studied indicators change in connection with this: increase or decrease, and to what extent.


In economic analysis, the following types of comparative analysis are distinguished: horizontal, vertical, trend, as well as one-dimensional and multidimensional.


Horizontal comparative analysis is used to determine the absolute and relative deviations of the actual level of the studied indicators from the baseline (planned, past period, average level, scientific achievements and best practices).


With the help of vertical comparative analysis, the structure of economic phenomena and processes is studied by calculating the proportion of parts in the general whole (the share of equity in its total amount), the ratio of parts of the whole to each other (for example, equity and borrowed capital, fixed and working capital), and also the influence of factors on the level of performance indicators by comparing their values ​​before and after the change in the corresponding factor.


Trend analysis is used in the study of the relative growth rates and growth of indicators over a number of years to the level of the base year, i.e. in the study of the series of dynamics.


In a one-dimensional comparative analysis, comparisons are made for one or more indicators of one object or several objects for one indicator.


With the help of multivariate comparative analysis, the performance results of several enterprises (divisions) are compared for a wide range of indicators. Its essence is considered in more detail in the next paragraph.


Multivariate comparative analysis is necessary for a comprehensive assessment of the results of managing production units, enterprises, etc. Such a task always arises when it is necessary to give a general rating assessment of the results of management of several enterprises. This is done by higher authorities, as well as investors and banks to assess the degree of financial risk.


A generalized assessment of the performance of enterprises is usually carried out according to a whole range of indicators. In this regard, the task usually becomes more complicated, since the subordination of enterprises according to different indicators will be different. For example, in terms of productivity, the enterprise will take first place, in terms of cost - third, and in terms of profitability - fifth, etc.


Another direction of a comprehensive assessment is the development of algorithms for computational procedures that, based on a set of indicators, would provide an unambiguous assessment of the results of economic activity.


To solve this problem, algorithms for calculating integral indicators based on the methods of "sum of places", geometric mean, etc. are widely used. But these methods have a significant drawback, because they do not take into account the weight of certain indicators and the degree of differences in their level. The most promising approach is the use of multivariate comparative analysis based on the method of Euclidean distances, which allows taking into account not only the absolute values ​​of the indicators of each enterprise, but also the degree of their proximity (range) to the indicators of the benchmark enterprise. In this regard, it is necessary to express the coordinates of the compared enterprises in fractions of the corresponding coordinates of the standard enterprise, taken as a unit.


An important condition that must be observed in the analysis is the need to ensure the comparability of indicators, since (only qualitatively homogeneous values ​​can be compared.


When comparing various indicators, the analyst must be sure of their comparability, especially if different periods, different enterprises are considered.


The incompatibility can be caused by changes in cost, volume, quality and structural factors, different periods of time for which the compared indicators were calculated, different initial conditions of activity (technical, natural, climatic, etc.), different methods for calculating indicators and others. To ensure comparability, the compared indicators must be brought to a single base for the factors listed above.


First of all, it is necessary to take into account the rise in prices due to inflation, which affects the value of all cost indicators (the cost of manufactured and sold products, revenue, cost, profit, the amount of material costs, stocks, fixed assets, etc.). To neutralize the influence of this factor, the compared indicators are expressed in the same prices.


Many indicators may not be comparable due to the volume factor. To neutralize the impact of the quality factor, most often the volume of products obtained is brought to standard quality, respectively, reducing or increasing its quantity.


Comparability of indicators in a number of cases can be achieved if average or relative values ​​are used instead of absolute values. It is impossible, for example, to compare such absolute indicators as the volume of production, the amount of profit, etc., without taking into account the production base of the enterprise. But if instead of absolute indicators we take relative indicators, for example, production per employee, the amount of profit per ruble of assets, then they can be compared.


In some cases, correction factors are used to ensure comparability of indicators.


Particular attention should be paid to the methodological inconsistency of indicators. It can not only distort the results of the comparison, but generally change the meaning.


For example, capital productivity can be calculated for the entire amount of fixed assets, for fixed production assets, or only for their active part. Therefore, without checking the identity of the methodology for calculating indicators in the plan and report of the current year, as well as for previous periods, one can give an incorrect assessment of the dynamics, since the change in the indicator under study will be based on the difference in the method of its calculation. To ensure the correctness of the conclusions, it is necessary to achieve the identity of the indicators according to the method of their calculation.


It is also very important when comparing indicators to ensure their comparability in terms of natural and climatic conditions. This is especially true for agriculture. Finding businesses in different natural and economic zones has a significant impact on the output, the level of variable and fixed costs, the labor intensity of products, etc. To ensure the comparability of indicators for this factor, the share of the increase in indicators due to climatic and territorial features is singled out, with the subsequent elimination of their influence.


It is necessary to pay attention to the seasonal nature of some indicators. For example, stocks of goods are accumulated for the season, feed stocks are created for the winter period, the capital turnover ratio increases during the period of business activity of the enterprise, etc.


It is also impossible to allow the compared indicators to be heterogeneous in terms of the composition of costs, the number of objects taken into account, etc. It is impossible, for example, to compare the indicators of a workshop with those of the plant as a whole, the cost of gross and cost of sales, the balance sheet and net profit of an enterprise, etc.


Thus, the main ways to bring indicators into a comparable form are to neutralize the impact of cost, volume, quality and structural factors by bringing them to a single basis, as well as the use of average and relative values, correction factors, recalculation methods, etc.


27. STAGES OF COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS


Analysis is one of the main functions of management and consists of separating the whole set into separate parts, studying which they get an idea of ​​the development of the whole set under the influence of both internal and external factors. Analysis of the financial and economic activities of an enterprise (firm) allows you to explore the interaction of elements of the productive forces (tools, objects of labor and labor) at the stages of production and sale of labor products, understand and objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the work of the enterprise's personnel with the existing production potential. The analysis reveals reserves, causal relationships and factors that can be used to increase the efficiency of the company. Analysts develop methods for the implementation of the identified reserves and factors, the practical use of the results of the analysis in the current and future management activities of the company.


When performing a complex AHD, the following stages are distinguished.


At the first stage, the objects, purpose and tasks of the analysis are specified, and a plan of analytical work is drawn up.


At the second stage, a system of synthetic and analytical indicators is developed, with the help of which the object of analysis is characterized.


At the third stage, the necessary information is collected and prepared for analysis (its accuracy is checked, it is brought into a comparable form, etc.).


At the fourth stage, the actual results of management are compared with the indicators of the plan for the reporting year, the actual data of previous years, with the achievements of leading enterprises, the industry as a whole, etc.


At the fifth stage, factor analysis is performed: factors and their influence on performance are established.


At the sixth stage, unused and promising reserves for increasing production efficiency are identified.


At the seventh stage, the results of management are assessed, taking into account the action of various factors and the identified unused reserves, and measures are developed for their use.


Such a sequence of analytical studies is the most appropriate from the point of view of the theory and practice of ACD.


37. ANALYSIS OF EQUIPMENT USE


In practice, indicators are calculated that characterize: extensive loading of equipment, i.e. use of the planned fund of equipment operation time; intensive loading of equipment, i.e. output per unit of time on average per machine (machine-hour). An indicator of the intensity of equipment operation is its intensive load factor.


In the process of analysis, the following groups of equipment are considered: available and installed (commissioned); actually used in production (working); being under repair and modernization; backup. The greatest effect is achieved when the first three groups of equipment are approximately the same in size.


To characterize the degree of involvement of equipment in production, the following is calculated:


utilization rate of available equipment:





utilization rate of installed equipment:





equipment fleet utilization rate:





The difference between the amount of available and operating equipment, multiplied by the planned average annual output per unit of equipment, is a potential reserve for increasing production by increasing the amount of operating equipment.


To characterize the degree of extensive loading of the Equipment, the balance of its operation time is studied, which includes:


calendar fund of time - the maximum possible operating time of the equipment (the number of calendar days in the reporting period is multiplied by 24 hours and by the number of units of installed equipment);


regime fund of time (the number of units of installed equipment is multiplied by the number of working days of the reporting period and the number of hours of daily work, taking into account the shift ratio);


planned fund - equipment operation time according to the plan;


differs from the regime by the time the equipment is in scheduled repairs and upgrades;


actual fund of hours worked.


Comparison of the actual and planned calendar funds of time allows you to establish the degree of implementation of the plan for putting equipment into operation in terms of quantity and timing;


calendar and regime - the possibility of better use of equipment by increasing the shift ratio, and regime and planned - time reserves by reducing the time spent on repairs.


To characterize the use of equipment operation time, the coefficients of the time fund are used:


calendar - ;


regime -;


planned -;


The share of downtime in the calendar fund:


where T f, T p, T r, T k- respectively, the actual, planned, regime and calendar funds of the working time of the equipment;


ETC- equipment downtime.


The next stage of the analysis is the evaluation of indicators characterizing the use of equipment, its loading. In order to judge the operating time of the equipment, they make up the balance of the time of its use. The elements of this balance are:


calendar fund of time - the maximum possible operating time of the equipment. For a piece of equipment, the amount of the fund is determined as the product of the number of calendar days in a year (quarter, month) by 24 hours;

regime fund of time - for each piece of equipment is determined as the product of the number of workers by the number of work shifts in accordance with the operating mode of the organization and the number of working hours per shift;


the available time fund is calculated by excluding from the regime fund the time the equipment is in scheduled repair and modernization;


actually worked time is the sum of the time of useful operation of the equipment (including the time for the performance of auxiliary and preparatory and final operations). The actual time worked is less than the available fund for the time of equipment downtime;


total machine time - the time the machine is running under load and idling - consists of the actual hours worked; useful machine time spent on the production of suitable products; machine time spent on marriage; loss of time due to idle work.


On the basis of this balance, in practice, indicators are calculated that characterize:


extensive loading of equipment, i.e. use of the planned fund of equipment operation time. The quantitative assessment of these factors is carried out using the coefficient of extensive loading of equipment, which is found by the formula:


,

• intensive loading of equipment, i.e. output per unit of time on average per machine (machine-hour). An indicator of the intensity of equipment operation is its intensive load factor:
  

  where SW f, NE pl- respectively, the actual and planned average hourly output.
  

  A generalizing indicator that comprehensively characterizes the use of equipment is the integral load factor, which is the product of the coefficients of extensive and intensive equipment loading.
  

  In the process of analysis, the dynamics of these indicators, the reasons for their change and the implementation of the plan are studied.
  

  For groups of homogeneous equipment, the change in the volume of production is calculated due to its quantity, extensiveness and intensity of use according to the following formula:
  

  K i- amount i th equipment;
  

  D i- the number of days worked by a piece of equipment;
  

  K cm i– coefficient of shift of equipment operation;
  

  P i- average shift duration;
  

  C wi- production output for 1 machine-hour per i- m equipment.
  

  Calculation of influence of these factors is made by means of chain substitution, absolute and relative differences.
  

  The next stage of the analysis is the study of the provision of the organization with basic production assets. The availability of certain types of machines, mechanisms, equipment, premises is established by comparing their actual availability with the planned demand necessary to fulfill the production plan. Generalizing indicators characterizing the level of providing the organization with basic production assets are the capital-labor ratio and the technical equipment of labor. The indicator of the total capital-labor ratio ( PV total) is calculated by the ratio of the average annual cost of industrial production assets ( F cf) to the average number of workers in the longest shift ( H slave) (meaning that workers on other shifts use the same tools).
  

  The level of technical equipment of labor is determined by the ratio of the cost of production equipment to the average number of workers in the largest shift. Its growth rates are compared with the growth rates of labor productivity. It is desirable that the rate of growth in labor productivity outstrip the rate of growth in the technical equipment of labor.
  

  7. ANALYSIS OF MOVEMENT OF LABOR RESOURCES. ANALYSIS OF OVERHEAD COSTS
  

  The investigated enterprise "LEGION-M" was organized on November 16, 1990. LEGION-M Limited Liability Company, hereinafter referred to as the "Company", is a legal entity that operates on the basis of the charter and legislation of the Russian Federation. The Company was established in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Russian Federation "On Limited Liability Companies" on the basis of the current legislation. The company is registered by the Registration Chamber of Krasnodar.
  

  Location of the company: 350020, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, st. Odessa, 41. Legal address: 350004, Krasnodar, st. North, 223
  

  The purpose of the Company's activities is to make profit. The Company has civil rights and bears civil obligations necessary for the implementation of any types of activities not prohibited by federal laws.
  

  LEGION-M LLC carries out the following activities:
  

  — supply, storage, release and sale of consumer goods;
  

  - creation of subsidiary industries;
  

  — foreign economic activity;
  

  – warehouse rental services;
  

  — provision of various types of household services;
  

  — production of consumer goods;
  

  – organization of freight transportation and provision of transport services to the population;
  

  - the company may also carry out other types of activities not prohibited by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
  

  The number of employees is 16 people.
  

  LEGION-M LLC is a legal entity. The Company acquires the rights and obligations of a legal entity from the moment of its state registration. The legal status of the Company is determined by the current legislation and the Charter. The Company owns property recorded on its independent balance sheet, can acquire and exercise property and personal non-property rights on its own behalf, bear obligations, be a plaintiff and defendant in court.
  

  The Company shall be liable for its obligations with all its property. The state and its bodies are not liable for the obligations of the Company, just as the Company is not liable for the obligations of the state and its bodies.
  

  The Company may create branches and open representative offices on the territory of the Russian Federation and abroad. Branches and representative offices operate on behalf of the Company, which is responsible for their activities.
  

  The supreme body of the company is the general meeting of participants in the company. The general meeting of participants may be regular or extraordinary.
  

  The audit commission is the body of control over the financial and economic activities of the Company.
  

  Management of the Company's current activities is carried out by the sole executive body of the Company. The executive body is the director accountable in his activities to the general meeting of the company's participants. The sole executive body without a power of attorney acts on behalf of the Company, including representing its interests, making transactions, approving states, issuing orders and giving instructions binding on all employees of the Company.
  

  The organizational chart of the enterprise is shown in Figure 1.
  

  
  

  Control over the financial and economic activities of the Company is carried out by the Audit Commission. Members of the audit commission can be both a member of the Company and any person proposed by the member.
  

  LLC "LEGION-M" is obliged to store the following documents: constituent documents, amendments and additions made to the constituent documents; documents confirming the Company's rights to property on the balance sheet; internal documents of the company; accounting documents; accounting documents; minutes of meetings of the founders of the company; other documents stipulated by the internal documents of the company;
  

  The main economic indicators of the enterprise LEGION-M LLC and their analysis are presented in Table. one.
  

  Table 1 - Main economic indicators of LEGION-M LLC for 2004 - 2006
  

  Name of indicator	2004	2005	2006	Structure change, %		(+,-)		Pace growth, %
  				2005 to 2004	2006 To 2005	2005 To 2004	2006 to 2005	2005 to 2004	2006 to 2005
  Revenue (net), thousand rubles	14935	23602	20999			8667	2603	58,0	11,0
  including from sales, thousand rubles, including: - from sale	14683	23196	20199			8667	2603	58,0	11,0
  – services, thousand rubles								61,1
  Cost, thousand rubles	11505	17592	16223			6087	1369	52,9
  Gross income profit, thousand rubles	3430	6010	4776			2580	1234	75,2	20,5
  Distribution costs, thousand rubles	2438	5590		7,14	3,44	3085	1260	229,3
  Profit (loss) from sales, thousand rubles								57,8	38,4
  Interest payable, thousand rubles									54,3
  Other operating expenses, thousand rubles									35,9
  Non-operating income, thousand rubles				0,04	0,03				55,6
  Non-operating expenses, thousand rubles				0,26	0,09			79,2
  Profit (loss) before taxation, thousand rubles				5,58	1,08			80,4	111,3
  Current tax, thousand rubles				0,64	0,14			44,4	10,6
  Net profit, thousand rubles								87,3	196,0
  Turnover turnover of current assets, rev.	3,43		3,41			0,02	0,01	99,4	100,3
  Turnover of current stocks, rev.	5,53	6,38	5,91			0,85	0,38	115,4	92,6
  Accounts receivable turnover, turnover	12,36	10,89	12,31			1,47	0,05	88,1	113,0

  After analyzing the indicators given in table 1, the studied enterprise LEGION-M LLC, we can draw the following conclusion. Revenue at the enterprise compared to the base year 2004 in the reporting year 2006 increased by 6064 thousand rubles. At the same time, the analysis shows a significant increase in revenue in 2005 to 23,602 thousand rubles. and then its decrease by 2603 thousand rubles. At the same time, there is a decrease in gross profit in 2005 compared to the previous year, or in absolute terms by -1234 thousand rubles. At the same time, during the analyzed period, there is a significant decrease in net profit. If in 2004 the amount of net profit was 797 thousand rubles, then in 2005 it was already 101 thousand rubles, i.e. the decrease in profit amounted to 87.3% or -696 thousand rubles, and in 2006 - only 299 thousand rubles, which, despite an increase in comparison with the previous year by 198 thousand rubles, was approximately 2.7 times less than the reporting year. In 2006, the company had no revenue from the services provided, which accounted for a small share in 2005 and 2004 - 1.7%. The enterprise has a rather high share of distribution costs. Their share for the analyzed period ranged from 16.3 to 20.0%. In addition, since 2005, the company has been paying interest on loans, the share of which is very small - 0.7 (in 2004) and 0.4 (in 2005). G.)%.
  

  Let us analyze the labor resources of the enterprise under study for 2004 and 2006. (table 2 and 3).
  

  Table 2 - Dynamics and composition of labor resources of LEGION-M LLC
  

  Index	2004	beats the weight,	2006	beats the weight,	Deviation
  					structures, %	absolute	relates, %
  Average headcount, people							23,8
  sales staff, people		76,2		68,8			31,3
  top management personnel, people				25,0
  service personnel, people

  Thus, during the study period, the number of employees decreased by 5 people from 21 people in 2004 to 16 people in the reporting year. At the same time, the personnel structure changed due to a decrease in the number of sales personnel by 7.4%, respectively, the share of managerial and service personnel increased by 6% and 1.4%.
  

  Table 3 - Characteristics of the movement of labor, pers.
  

  Index	2004	2006	Deviation
  			absolute, thousand rubles	relative, %
  Average headcount, total including				23,8
  number of recruited personnel
  Turnover ratio for hiring employees	0,095	0,06	0,035	36,8
  The total number of people who quit, including
  resigned of their own accord
  Retirement rate	0,191	0,375	0,181	96,3
  Staff turnover rate	0,191	0,375	0,181	96,3
  Number of employees who worked the whole year
  The coefficient of constancy of the composition of the personnel of the enterprise	0,714	0,563	0,151	21,2

  As you can see, most of the employees work constantly. At the same time, there was a high number of people who quit their jobs in the reporting year 2006, as well as in the base year 2004. The turnover ratio for hiring employees decreased by -0.035. Retirement and staff turnover rates increased by +0.181. There is a trend towards an increase in staff turnover and a decrease in the number of employees.
  

  Let's analyze the dynamics of distribution costs of the enterprise under study.
  

  Table 4 - Distribution costs of LEGION-M LLC, p.
  

  Thus, the total value of distribution costs increased in 2005 and decreased by the end of 2006, but still their value at the end of the reporting year increased by 4,079,848 - 2,411,596 = 1,668,252 rubles. The largest increase in distribution costs in almost all indicators was observed in 2005, and in 2006, positive dynamics compared to 2005 is observed only in the amount of depreciation deductions for fixed assets and the cost of paying for communication services - by 111.6 and 104.1%, respectively . Compared to 2004, in 2005 the most significant growth was observed in rental fees - by 714.4% and travel expenses - 319.3%. In 2006, the largest decrease compared to 2005 was the reduction in the cost of current repairs of fixed assets -84.2%.
  The main groups of users of economic analysis information and their interests Classification of types of economic analysis

  2013-11-12

Characteristic

The essence of the comparison method is to compare data. This means that an analyst can take several values ​​of one indicator or several values ​​of absolute and relative indicators and compare them with each other. This method can be applied in all cases of financial analysis: both in the process of forming a comprehensive assessment of the financial condition and efficiency of the company, and in the study of some aspect of the company's activities.

The method of comparing data in analysis is used, for example, when studying the dynamics and structure of a process or phenomenon, when determining the market position of a company, when identifying the direction of development of an enterprise, etc.

Examples of using the comparison method:

• comparison of the value of some indicator for a period of time(comparison with the base value, with the value for the previous period, etc.). For example, if in 2016 the company sold 10 thousand units of products (Table 1), and in 2014 - 2 thousand units, then we can talk about an increase in sales over the study period;

Table 1. Sales performance comparison example

• comparison of indicator value with competitors. For example, if a company sold 10 thousand units of products, and the main competitor only 5 thousand units, then we can conclude that the company under study has a high level of competitiveness and market power;
• indicator comparison with industry averages. For example, if the average return on equity in the industry was 10%, and in the company under study - 18%, then we can conclude that the wealth of shareholders is growing, high investment attractiveness and effective activity in the interests of owners;
• comparison of the indicator with some basis for determining the share. For example, if the amount of financial investments was 600 million rubles, and the total amount of assets was 1000 million rubles, then using the comparison method in this case will allow us to conclude that financial activity plays a key role for the company under study and forms about 60% of all assets;
• comparison with normative or reference values. For example, if the normative indicator of financial autonomy for enterprises of this group was 60%, and the value of the coefficient for the company under study is 20%, then we can talk about a high level of financial risk and possible bankruptcy in case of limited access to the credit resources market.

In general, any values ​​of the same indicator or different indicators can be compared with each other if this allows one to form additional conclusions about the object under study.

Comparison with competitors and alternatives

The operating conditions in each industry or market segment are special and are formed under the influence of a large number of mesofactors. As a result, the maximum efficiency limit will differ in different situations. It cannot be said that the management of an enterprise that operates in a declining market will be less effective if its profitability indicator is lower than the identical indicator of an enterprise that operates in a growing market. Therefore, it is obvious that in order to form an unambiguous conclusion about the quality of financial activity in a company, it is necessary to compare key indicators of profitability, liquidity, financial stability and business activity with the values competitors.

Comparison should be with enterprises that operate in the most similar conditions. The best option is to compare with direct competitors that compete for the same customers, offer identical products and services. The same opportunities are available to these market participants, so comparing financial ratios allows one to understand the competence of the management of each individual competitor.

The difficulty in solving this problem may be the absence of these competitors. In this case, you can compare the performance with the average in the industry. The size of the enterprise should also be taken into account, because, for example, small companies have much more opportunities to adapt to new conditions and are more flexible in this regard.

In the absence of these data, it is possible to compare the company's financial performance with the average values ​​in the economy, although the result obtained will not have the same value and will not allow drawing accurate conclusions about the financial performance of the company.

Resources for obtaining the necessary information can be:

1. Official sites companies

2. Sites on which it is published financial statements for example, for potential investors

3. Data Federal State Statistics Service(online and offline)

4. Data of various industry associations, associations, organizations

A special indicator is the return on equity. Its value speaks about the efficiency of using the funds of the owners and allows you to get an answer to the question "Is it worth investing in the company?". If the owners could get more profit if they invested in alternative instruments, for example, in a deposit in a commercial bank, then investing in the enterprise was a mistake. Therefore, in the case of using the return on equity indicator, it is worth comparing it with deposit rates, average returns on the stock market, returns with investment funds comparable in terms of risks, and with any other financial instruments in which the owners could invest.

Thus, taking into account the financial performance of competitors will improve the quality of the financial analysis of the enterprise, will allow to formulate more accurate conclusions about the current situation and performance during the study period.

List of sources used

Thomas R. Robinson, International financial statement analysis / Wiley, 2008, 188 pp.

Kogdenko VG, Economic analysis / Textbook. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Unity-Dana, 2011. - 399 p.

Buzyrev V.V., Nuzhina I.P. Analysis and diagnostics of financial and economic activities of a construction company / Textbook. - M.: KnoRus, 2016. - 332 p.