3.4. оценка финансовой устойчивости коммерческого банка

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.