Sberbank financial statement. Analysis of the financial statements of JSC "Sberbank"

yearly average	interest income	average return, %	yearly average	interest income	average return, %
Loans and advances to customers
Loans to banks, correspondent accounts and overnight deposits in banks
Allowance for impairment loan portfolio
Assets that do not generate interest income
TOTAL ASSETS

The net profit of the Sberbank of Russia Group under IFRS in 2011 increased to 315.9 billion rubles, which is 74% higher than in 2010 (181.6 billion rubles) (Ex. No. 3). Profit before tax amounted to 395.7 billion and 230.1 billion rubles. respectively.

The increase in the Group's net profit in 2011 occurred against the backdrop of an increase in operating income before provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio (742.8 billion rubles in 2011 and 649.8 billion rubles in 2010), as well as the recovery of the provision for impairment of the loan portfolio in the amount of 1.2 billion rubles. in 2011 against deductions to the reserve in the amount of 153.8 billion rubles.

In 2011, net interest income increased by 17.1% and amounted to RUB 561.0 billion. (479.1 billion rubles in 2010), the Group's net fee and commission income increased by 13.8% to 140.6 billion rubles.

Administrative and operating expenses amounted to RUB 348.3 billion. (265.9 billion rubles a year earlier).

Interest income and expenses.

Interest income

Interest income of the Group in 2011 amounted to RUB 850.6 billion, which is 6.9% higher than in 2010. The growth in interest income is primarily associated with the growth of the main operating assets and the increase in the share of the most profitable assets, mainly loans.

The table below shows the average annual values ​​of the Group's assets by balance sheet items, as well as the interest income and yields generated by each balance sheet item.

Interest income on loan portfolio

Interest income on loans to customers amounted to RUB 741.8 billion, up 8.8% year-on-year. The growth in interest income was driven by a 35% increase in the Group's loan portfolio before provisions.

Interest income on securities

In 2011, interest income from operations with securities amounted to RUB 101.8 billion, down 3.6% compared to 2010 (RUB 105.6 billion). This change is primarily due to a decrease in the Group's securities portfolio by 10.8% in 2011. An analysis of changes in securities portfolios is presented in the Analysis of the balance sheet structure section.

Interest income on funds placed with banks

Interest income on funds placed with banks (including interbank loans, nostro accounts and overnight loans) in 2011 amounted to RUB 7.0 billion, down 13.6% year-on-year.

Interest and similar expenses of the Group (hereinafter referred to as interest expenses) in 2011 decreased by 8.5 to 289.6 billion rubles. Price borrowed money consistently decreased during 2011 - from 4.1% in the IV quarter of 2010 to 3.5% in the IV quarter of 2011. The main component of the Group's interest expense is interest expense on funds individuals. The cost of raising funds from individuals steadily declined during 2010 and 2011 as a result of the repayment of long-term deposits with high interest rates, attracted during the financial crisis.

The table below shows the average annual values ​​of the Group's liabilities by balance sheet items, as well as the volume of interest expenses in respect of these items and their average annual cost.

	yearly average	interest and similar expenses	average cost, %	yearly average	interest and similar expenses	average cost, %
COMMITMENTS
Funds of individuals
Subordinated debt
Other borrowed funds
Own securities
Bank funds
Liabilities that do not generate interest and similar expenses
TOTAL LIABILITIES

Interest expenses on attracted customer funds

Interest expenses on funds due to individuals and corporate clients decreased by 8.8% in 2011 to RUB 247.6 billion. The cost of raising funds from individuals steadily declined during 2010 and 2011 as a result of the repayment of long-term deposits with high interest rates, attracted during the financial crisis.

Dynamics of the value of customer funds for 2010-2011

	average liability	interest and similar expenses		average liability	interest and similar expenses	average cost of attraction, %
Funds of corporate clients
Deposits
Current accounts
Deposits of individuals
Deposits
Current accounts

Interest expense on subordinated liabilities

The decrease in interest expenses and the average cost of subordinated loans in 2011 was due to the repayment in May 2010 of a part of the subordinated loan (RUB 200 billion) received from the Bank of Russia, as well as to a decrease in interest rate on this subordinated loan from 8% to 6.5% in July 2010.

Interest expenses on borrowed funds from banks

Interest expenses on borrowed funds from banks increased by more than 3 times, which is primarily due to an increase in the volume of funds raised from the Bank of Russia in 2011 Q4. The Group made these borrowings in order to meet the growing demand for loans from customers.

Net interest income

The Group's net interest income in 2011 amounted to RUB 561.0 billion, which is 17.1% higher than in 2010. The table below shows returns on assets and liabilities, as well as interest spread and interest margin for 2010 and 2011.

	yearly average			yearly average	interest income/ (interest and similar expenses)	average yield/cost, %
Interest generating assets
Liabilities generating interest and similar expenses
Net interest income
Net interest spread
Net interest margin

Below are the factors affecting margins in 2011 and 2010:

Margin for the previous year
Loan yield in legal entities
Profitability of a loan to individuals
Profitability of funds in banks
Return on securities
Structure of operating assets
Cost of funds of legal entities
The value of funds of individuals
The value of bank funds
Cost of own securities and subordinated loans
Structure of attracted funds
The ratio of working assets to borrowed funds
Margin for the reporting year

The margin remained stable throughout 2011 at 6.4%.

The interest spread* in 2011 was 6.1%, showing an increase of 20 basis points, which is explained by an increase in the volume of operating assets, as well as a decrease in the cost of borrowings.

The table below shows a factorial analysis of the change in interest income and expenses in 2011 compared to 2010, based on the impact of:

	volume factor	Interest rate factor	Change in interest income/expenses
Loans and advances to customers
Debt securities available-for-sale
Loans to banks, correspondent accounts and overnight deposits with banks
Debt investment securities to maturity
Other debt securities at fair value through profit or loss
Debt trading securities
Change in interest income
COMMITMENTS
Funds of individuals
Funds of corporate clients
Subordinated debt
Other borrowed funds
Own securities
Bank funds
Change in interest expenses
CHANGES IN NET INTEREST INCOME

As can be seen from the presented table, four main factors had a decisive influence on the dynamics of net interest income:

• · Growth in lending, the impact of which was partially offset by a decrease in the profitability of the loan portfolio in 2011 compared to 2010;
• · a steady decline in the cost of attracting funds from individuals during 2010 and 2011 as a result of the repayment of long-term deposits with high interest rates attracted during the financial crisis;
• · a significant increase in interest income on securities held to maturity due to the growth of the portfolio of these securities;
• · decrease in the portfolio of debt investment securities available for sale, mainly due to the redemption of bonds of the Bank of Russia in the first half of 2011.
• * Interest spread -- the difference between the return on assets that generate interest income and the value of liabilities that generate interest expenses.

Net fee and commission income

			Change, %
Fee and commission income
Settlement- cash service legal entities
Settlement and cash services for individuals
Operations with plastic cards
Agency agreements
Operations with foreign currency
Collection
Guarantees issued
Operations with securities
Commission expenses
NET FEE AND FEE INCOME

The Group's fee and commission income in 2011 increased to RUB 151.9 billion, which is 16% higher than the income received in 2010. The growth of this indicator was provided by the expansion of the volume of transactions that generate commission income, especially transactions with bank cards. At the same time, the bulk of the Group's commission income traditionally comes from settlement and cash services for legal entities and individuals. The largest item of commission income in terms of settlement and cash services for legal entities - cash services for accounts, individuals - Money transfers. At the same time, the Group is actively developing other areas for obtaining commission: commissions under agency agreements in terms of the implementation of insurance policies, operations with plastic cards, foreign currency, securities, which allows diversifying the structure of commission income.

Commission expenses mainly relate to settlement transactions.

Financial result from operations with securities

The total losses from operations with securities in 2011 amounted to 33.0 billion rubles. (including a negative financial result on available-for-sale securities in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income in the amount of RUB 39.8 billion). The result of 2010 is revenues in the amount of 55.2 billion rubles. (RUB 31.3 billion -- positive financial result on securities available for sale, reflected in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income). Decrease in income from trading operations and revaluation of securities due to high volatility Russian market securities against the backdrop of an unstable economic situation in Europe and the United States in 2011.

Income from operations with foreign currency

In 2011, the total income from foreign exchange transactions amounted to 9.5 billion rubles. (14.1 billion rubles in 2010). Financial result from operations with derivatives financial instruments in foreign currency is primarily associated with the Group's use of derivative financial instruments for liquidity management and is received primarily as a result of FX swap transactions. These operations are considered together with income from foreign currency revaluation. Also in the reporting period, the Group increased the volume of transactions with derivative financial instruments as part of the expansion of client business.

Operating expenses

The Group's operating expenses increased in 2011 by 31.0% to RUB 348.3 billion. The main item of operating expenses is staff costs, which accounted for 58.5% of operating expenses in 2011. Growth in personnel costs amounted to 26.4% - up to 203.8 billion rubles. -- and is associated with the planned implementation of a program to bring employees' salaries in line with the market level, as well as an increase in investment in improving the level of professional qualifications and competence of personnel and an increase in the bonus fund in connection with high rates activities of the Group in 2011. Detailed information on investments in the Group's personnel is presented in the Investments in Human Capital section.

Other items of operating expenses in aggregate increased by 38%. The largest increases were in depreciation and maintenance of fixed assets, administrative expenses and information Services in connection with investments in infrastructure development information technologies and reformatting the office network in accordance with the Group's development strategy. Detailed information on the development of information technologies, as well as the Group's branch network, is presented in the Bank Development section and in the Ensuring the Availability of Services section.

Costs of creation/income from the recovery of provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio

In 2011, net income from the recovery of provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio amounted to 1.2 billion rubles, while in 2010 the net expenses for creating provisions amounted to 153.8 billion rubles. This indicates an improvement in the quality of the loan portfolio as a whole against the backdrop of improved Russian economy. In addition, the Group's performance was positively affected by the optimization of the system for managing problem and non-performing loans, which led to the sale or repayment of a number of non-performing loans. The amount of loans written off as bad increased in 2011 by 19.6%. A significant portion of write-offs results from the Group's sale of non-performing loans.

Methodology for generating the report “Report on financial results(f. 0409807)"

"Report on financial results (f. 0409807)" is formed according to form 0409102 and allows you to receive reliable information on the financial results of a credit institution on an accrual basis from the beginning of the year. The report is generated quarterly.

Starting from the Report as of 04/01/2019, these lines are calculated in accordance with the Development Table for compiling the Statement of Financial Results (published form) given in the Instruction of the Bank of Russia dated 10/08/2018 No. 4927-U.

In the period from 04/01/2016 to 01/01/2019, the Development Table is used to generate the Report in accordance with the Instruction of the Bank of Russia dated 11/24/2016 No. 4212-U.

When compiling the Report as of 01/01/2016 and earlier dates, the Development Table and symbols of form 0409102 are used, which are used before the Regulations on the procedure for determining income, expenses and other things come into force total income credit organizations No. 446-P dated December 22, 2014

At the same time, adjustments are used to ensure comparability of data throughout any analyzed period.

When compiling the Report, adjustments are also used due to the lack of access of third-party analysts to form 0409110 “Transcription of individual indicators of the credit institution's activity” and data analytical accounting credit organization.

I. Significant adjustments in the Statement of Financial Performance as of April 1, 2016 and later:

1. Gains/expenses from the use of embedded derivatives that are inseparable from the host contract (symbols 25601, 45601) are included in other operating income/operating expenses, respectively.

2. The item “Expenses for the formation of (-) / Income from the restoration of (+) reserves for possible losses on loans, loan and equivalent debt, funds placed on correspondent accounts, as well as accrued interest income”, including changes in reserves for possible losses on operations of credit institutions with residents of offshore zones.

3. The item "Change in the provision for other losses" includes a change in reserves - estimated liabilities non-credit nature (symbols 293**, 485**), change in reserves for possible losses from assets transferred to trust management(symbols 28201, 47301), change in reserves for contingent credit related liabilities (symbols 28202, 47302), as well as change in reserves for other assets, including claims and liabilities that do not bring interest income (symbols 28204, 47304)

II. Significant adjustments in the Statement of Financial Performance as of January 1, 2016 and earlier:

1. Income/Expenses from operations with precious metals and precious stones (symbols 12403, 22203), as well as income/expenses from the revaluation of precious metals (symbols 15103, 24103) are reflected in the item “Net income from operations with precious metals”. Accordingly, these symbols are not used to calculate Other Operating Income. (operating expenses).

2. The item “Net income from operations with financial assets estimated at fair value through profit or loss” is calculated using symbols 16101, 25101 “Income/Expense on derivative financial instruments”.

3. The item “Net income from operations with securities available for sale” is calculated using symbols 15101, 24101 “Positive/Negative revaluation of securities”.

4. The item “Net income from operations with securities held to maturity” is calculated using symbols 131**, 231** “Income/Expenses from operations with securities, except for interest, dividends and revaluation”.

5. The item “Costs for the formation of (-) / Income from the recovery (+) of reserves for possible losses on loans, loan and equivalent debt, funds placed on correspondent accounts, as well as accrued interest income” is calculated using symbols 16305, 25302 “Income from recovery/Expenses on deductions to reserves for possible losses, except for reserves - estimated liabilities of a non-credit nature” less changes in reserves for securities available-for-sale and held-to-maturity. In turn, the change in reserves for securities is calculated as a change from the beginning of the year in the balances on balance accounts reflecting the corresponding reserves.

6. The item “Change in reserves for other losses” is calculated using symbols 17307, 27309 “Income from restoration / expenses for the deduction of amounts of reserves - estimated liabilities of a non-credit nature”.

The net profit of the Sberbank of Russia Group under IFRS in 2016 increased to 541.9 billion rubles, which is 143.1% higher than in 2015. The Group's operating income before provisions increased by 18.7% in 2016 to RUB 1,697.5 billion, mainly due to net interest income and net fee and commission income. In 2016, the cost of creating provisions for the impairment of debt financial assets decreased by 27.9% to RUB 342.4 billion against RUB 475.2 billion in 2015.

Operating expenses in 2016 slowed down the growth rate compared to the previous year and increased by 8.7% to RUB 677.6 billion. As of the end of 2016, the Group carried out a revaluation of office real estate, the results of which had a negative effect on operating income in the amount of RUB 25 billion.

Net interest income

The Group's net interest income increased in 2016 by 37.9% to RUB 1,362.8 billion. This growth was mainly due to a reduction in interest expenses against the backdrop of a decrease in the level of interest rates on borrowed funds in 2016. The Group's interest income increased by 5.2%, mainly due to the growth in the volume of operating assets.

Interest income of the Group Factor analysis of changes in the Group's net interest income in 2015-2016

billion rubles	Factor		Change in interest income/expenses
	volume	interest rate
Assets
	55,9	(26,1)	29,8
Loans to private clients	23,6	7,3	30,9
	2,0	24,6	26,6
Debt securities	43,3	(11,2)	32,1
Change in interest income	124,8	(5,4)	119,4
Commitments
Funds of private clients	(96,0)	69,1	(26,9)
	(18,3)	111,3	93,0
Subordinated debt	0,8	(0,8)	–
Other borrowed	3,4	(1,3)	2,1
Own securities	2,1	2,7	4,8
Bank funds	142,8	39,6	182,4
Change in interest expenses	34,8	220,6	255,4
Change in net interest income	159,6	215,2	374,8

Factor analysis of the Group's interest income

billion rubles	2015			2016
	yearly average	interest income	average return, %	yearly average	interest income	average return, %
Loans to corporate clients	13 786,3	1 371,3	9,9	14 348,7	1 401,1	9,8
Loans to private clients	4 829,3	713,7	14,8	4 989,3	744,6	14,9
Loans to banks, correspondent accounts and overnight deposits in banks	1 583,5	25,8	1,6	1 705,3	52,4	3,1
Debt securities	2 300,0	168,8	7,3	2 889,9	200,9	7,0
Working assets, total	22 499,1	2 279,6	10,1	23 933,2	2 399,0	10,0
Provisions for impairment of debt financial assets	(1 042,9)			(1 272,6)
Assets that do not generate interest income	3 570,9			3 402,6
Total assets	25 027,1			26 063,2

Profitability of loans, %

Interest expense of the Group

Interest expenses decreased in 2016 by 19.8% compared to 2015 and amounted to RUB 1,036.2 billion. This decrease is the result of the optimization of the structure of liabilities in favor of cheaper resources, as well as the downward dynamics of the cost of borrowed funds in 2016. The decrease in interest expenses occurred mainly in interest expenses on due to banks (by 81.5%), mainly due to a reduction in the amount of these funds raised, mainly from the Bank of Russia. Also, a decrease in interest expenses was recorded for funds of corporate clients (by 27.1%), mainly due to the impact of falling interest rates on time deposits. The main component of interest expense remains interest expense on due to private customers, which is the Group's key source of funding. The share of these expenses amounted to 57.9% of the total interest expenses compared to 44.4% at the end of 2015, which confirms the redistribution of funds raised towards cheaper resources.

Factor analysis of the Group's interest expenses

billion rubles	2015			2016
	yearly average	interest expenses		yearly average	interest expenses	average cost of attraction, %
Funds of private clients	10 268,7	(573,3)	5,6	11 988,0	(600,2)	5,0
Funds of corporate clients	6 639,6	(343,3)	5,2	6 993,0	(250,3)	3,6
Subordinated debt	791,5	(47,0)	5,9	778,6	(47,0)	6,0
Other borrowed	431,8	(12,8)	3,0	316,5	(10,7)	3,4
Own securities	1 330,0	(91,5)	6,9	1 299,0	(86,7)	6,7
Bank funds	2 098,7	(223,7)	10,7	758,7	(41,3)	5,4
Total	21 560,3	(1 291,6)	6,0	22 133,8	(1 036,2)	4,7
Liabilities that do not generate interest expense	1 291,1			1 319,7
Total liabilities	22 851,4			23 453,5

Against the backdrop of a decrease in interest rates in 2016, the cost of funding decreased throughout the year for almost all of the Group's funds raised. The downward trend in interest rates had the greatest impact on the cost of attracting time deposits from private and corporate clients. Thus, for time deposits of private clients, the cost of funding decreased by 1.2 percentage points over the year: from 6.7% in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 5.5% in the fourth quarter of 2016. At the same time, a significant increase in the volume of attracted funds from private clients in 2016 led to an increase in interest expenses on funds from private clients by 4.7%. For time deposits of corporate clients, the cost of funding decreased by 0.7 percentage points over the year: from 5.0% in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 4.3% in the fourth quarter of 2016. The factor of falling interest rates played a decisive role in reducing interest expenses on funds of corporate clients: in 2016, the decrease was 27.1%. In general, the cost of borrowings consistently decreased over the year by 0.8 percentage points: from 5.3% in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 4.5% in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Cost of borrowed funds, %

The net interest margin increased consistently throughout 2016 from 4.9% in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 6.1% in the fourth quarter of 2016. The increase in margins was primarily driven by the decrease in the Group’s funding costs observed in 2016. At the same time, the yield on interest-bearing assets increased slightly in 2016: by 0.2 percentage points from 9.9% to 10.1%.

Factors affecting the net interest margin in 2016

	Meaning, %
Net interest margin for 2015	4,4
Profitability of loans to corporate clients	–0,1
Profitability of loans to private clients	0,0
Profitability of funds in banks	+0,1
Return on securities	0,0
Structure of operating assets	–0,1
The cost of funds of corporate clients	+0,5
The cost of funds of private clients	+0,3
The value of bank funds	+0,2
Cost of own securities and subordinated loans	0,0
Structure of attracted funds	+0,2
The ratio of working assets to paid liabilities	+0,2
Net interest margin for 2016	5,7

Profitability of working assets and cost of paid liabilities, %

Fee and commission income and expenses

In 2016, the Group's fee and commission income increased by 13.6% to RUB 436.3 billion. The Group's net fee and commission income increased by 9.4% to RUB 349.1 billion. The main driver of growth in fee and commission income was fee and commission income received from settlement and cash services for private and corporate clients. Over the year, they increased by 18.9% to 350.4 billion rubles. The share of these incomes in the Group's fee and commission income was 80.3%. Also growth was shown by commission income from documentary operations and received agency commissions.

Fee and commission income and expenses of the Group

billion rubles	2015	2016	change
			billion rubles	%
Settlement and cash services for corporate clients	205,0	248,7	43,7	21,3
Settlement and cash services for private clients	89,8	101,7	11,9	13,3
Commissions on documentary operations	23,1	25,7	2,6	11,3
Operations with foreign currency and precious metals	40,1	22,0	(18,1)	–45,1
Agency commissions received	8,4	12,5	4,1	48,8
Collection	7,1	7,8	0,7	9,9
Fee and commission income from client transactions in financial markets and investment banking	5,0	5,6	0,6	12,0
Other	5,6	12,3	6,7	119,6
Commission expenses on settlement transactions	(60,2)	(80,9)	(20,7)	34,4
Other commission expenses	(4,9)	(6,3)	(1,4)	28,6
Net fee and commission income	319,0	349,1	30,1	9,4

In 2016, the cost of creating provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio decreased by 27.6%: from RUB 473.1 billion in 2015 to RUB 342.4 billion in 2016. The main reasons for the significant decrease in loan portfolio provisioning costs were the improvement in the quality of the Group's loan portfolio due to the slowdown in the recession in the Russian economy and the strengthening of the ruble, which led to a decrease in the amount of reserves in ruble terms for foreign currency loans.

The value of the cost of credit risk decreased by 110 basis points. p. during 2016: from 230 b.p. p. in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 120 b.p. in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Expenses from the creation of provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio

Cost of credit risk b. P.

Other operating income/expenses

Other net operating expenses, which include net income / expenses from operations with securities, derivative financial instruments, foreign exchange, as well as net income / expenses from insurance activities, activities pension fund, amounted to 14.4 billion rubles in 2016. In 2015, other net operating income amounted to RUB 122.8 billion. Other net operating expenses include a RUB 25 billion negative effect of office real estate revaluation, without which other net operating income would have amounted to RUB 10.6 billion. The fall in other operating income was also affected by a decrease in income from operations with foreign exchange and foreign exchange interest rate derivative financial instruments in 2016.

Operating expenses

In 2016, the Group's operating expenses grew by 8.7%. The most significant increase was demonstrated by personnel costs (11.1%), which is the main component of operating expenses. Mostly this growth is associated with indexation. wages personnel. Also in 2016, advertising and marketing expenses (by 19.2%) and operating lease expenses (by 17.8%) showed an increase. At the same time, the ratio of operating expenses to operating income before impairment provisions for 2016 improved significantly: from 43.7% in 2015 to 39.7% in 2016 (by 4.0 p.p.).

Operating expenses

billion rubles	2015	2016	Change
			billion rubles	%
Staff costs	346,0	384,3	38,3	11,1
Depreciation of fixed assets	60,2	62,8	2,6	4,3
Expenses associated with the repair and maintenance of fixed assets Expenses associated with the repair and maintenance of fixed assets	39,9	42,5	2,6	6,5
Administrative expenses	38,3	39,7	1,4	3,7
Taxes other than income tax	36,0	34,1	(1,9)	–5,3
Operating lease expenses	28,1	33,1	5,0	17,8
Information service costs	27,1	29,4	2,3	8,5
Depreciation intangible assets	20,6	20,2	(0,4)	–1,9
Consulting and audit costs	10,5	12,1	1,6	15,2
Advertising and marketing	7,3	8,7	1,4	19,2
Other	9,4	10,7	1,3	13,8
Total operating expenses	623,4	677,6	54,2	8,7

The net profit of the Sberbank of Russia Group under IFRS in 2017 increased to 748.7 billion rubles, which is 38.2% higher than in 2016. The Group's operating income before impairment provisions increased by 12.1% in 2017 to RUB 1,903.3 billion, driven both by net interest income and net fee and commission income. In 2017, the cost of creating provisions for the impairment of debt financial assets decreased by 16.1% to RUB 287.3 billion against RUB 342.4 billion in 2016. Operating expenses in 2017 showed a decrease of 0.7% to RUB 672.8 billion, mainly due to a change in the methodology for calculating depreciation charges on fixed assets and expenses on information services. Without taking into account these changes, the amount of operating expenses would have amounted to 694.1 billion rubles, an increase over the year would have amounted to 2.4%.

Net interest income

The Group's net interest income increased in 2017 by 6.6% to RUB 1,452.1 billion. This growth was mainly due to a reduction in interest expenses against the backdrop of lower interest rates for raising funds. The Group's interest income decreased by 2.6%, mainly due to lower market interest rates.

Interest income of the Group, billion rubles

	2016	2017	Change
Net interest income	1 362,8	1 452,1	6,6%
Interest income	2 399,0	2 335,8	-2,6%

Factor analysis of changes in the Group's net interest income in 2017, RUB bn

	volume factor	Interest rate factor	Change in interest income/expenses
Assets
Loans to legal entities	(60,2)	(94,7)	(154,9)
Loans to individuals	40,7	(26,4)	14,3
	16,8	47,7	64,5
Debt securities	2,7	10,2	12,9
Change in interest income	–	(63,2)	(63,2)
Commitments
Funds of individuals	(36,6)	86,3	49,7
	31,1	30,0	61,1
Subordinated debt	2,5	0,1	2,6
Other borrowed	2,8	(3,9)	(1,1)
Own securities	21,1	1,8	22,9
Bank funds	9,3	8,0	17,3
Change in interest expenses	30,2	122,3	152,5
Change in net interest income/expense	30,2	59,1	89,3

Factor analysis of the Group's interest income, RUB bn

	2016			2017
	Yearly average	Interest income	Average return, %	Yearly average	Interest income	Average return, %
Loans to legal entities	14 348,7	1 401,1	9,8	13 731,9	1 246,2	9,1
Loans to individuals	4 989,3	744,6	14,9	5 261,8	758,9	14,4
Loans to banks, correspondent accounts and overnight deposits in banks	1 705,3	52,4	3,1	2 253,2	116,9	5,2
Debt securities	2 889,9	200,9	7,0	2 928,7	213,8	7,3
Working assets, total	23 933,2	2 399	10,0	24 175,6	2 335,8	9,7
Provisions for impairment of debt financial assets	(1 272,6)			(1 376,9)
Assets that do not generate interest income	3 402,6			2 919,0
Total assets	26 063,2			25 717,7

Profitability of loans (quarterly), % Interest expenses of the Group, billion rubles

Interest expenses decreased in 2017 by 14.7% compared to 2016 and amounted to RUB 883.7 billion. This decrease is most of all the result of the downward dynamics of the cost of funds raised in 2017. The decrease in interest expenses occurred mainly in interest expenses on due to corporate clients (by 24.4%), equally due to a decrease in average balances of corporate clients in 2017, and due to a decrease in the cost of these resources. Also, a decrease in interest expenses was recorded for own securities (by 26.4%), mainly due to the redemption in 2017 of several issues raised under the MTN program of Sberbank. The main component of interest expense remains interest expense on due to individuals, which is the Group's key source of funding. The share of these expenses amounted to 62.3% of the total interest expenses compared to 57.9% at the end of 2016. At the same time, interest expenses on funds due to individuals showed a decrease in 2017 by 8.3%, mainly due to a decrease in the cost of term deposits. Partially, this decrease was offset by an increase in interest expenses due to an increase in the volume of deposits raised from individuals.

Factor analysis of changes in the Group's interest expenses, RUB bn

	2016			2017
	Yearly average	Interest expenses		Yearly average	Interest expenses	Average acquisition cost, %
Funds of individuals	11 988,0	(600,2)	-5,0	12 719,0	(550,5)	-4,3
Funds of corporate clients	6 993,0	(250,3)	-3,6	6 123,1	(189,2)	-3,1
Subordinated debt	778,6	(47,0)	-6,0	737,4	(44,4)	-6,0
Other borrowed	316,5	(10,7)	-3,4	234,4	(11,8)	-5,0
Own securities	1 299,0	(86,7)	-6,7	982,2	(63,8)	-6,5
Bank funds	758,7	(41,3)	-5,4	587,4	(24,0)	-4,1
Total	22 133,8	(1 036,2)	-4,7	21 383,5	(883,7)	-4,1
Liabilities that do not generate interest expense	1 319,7			1 235,4
Total liabilities	23 453,5			22 618,9

Against the backdrop of a decrease in interest rates in 2017, the cost of funding decreased throughout the year for almost all of the Group's funds raised. The cost of borrowings decreased by 0.6 percentage points over the year from 4.5% in the fourth quarter of 2016 to 3.9% in the fourth quarter of 2017, mainly due to a decrease in the cost of term corporate and retail deposits (-0, 9 p.p. to 3.4% and -0.5 p.p. to 5.0%, respectively). The decrease in interest expenses was influenced not only by the interest rate factor, but also by the volume factor. For retail accounts, the volume factor somewhat compensated for the fall in interest expenses due to the increase in average balances for retail accounts in 2017. The share of the decrease in interest expenses due to individuals amounted to 32.6% of the total decrease in the Group's interest expenses.

Cost of borrowed funds (quarterly), %

The net interest margin for 2017 was 6.0%, up 0.3 p.p. exceeds the net interest margin for 2016. The increase in the net interest margin was accompanied during the year by a significant decrease in the cost of borrowings, which significantly exceeded the decrease in the yield on interest-bearing assets. Thus, the yield on interest-bearing assets decreased in 2017 by 0.3 p.p. from 10.0% in 2016 to 9.7% in 2017, the cost of borrowings - by 0.6 p.p. from 4.7% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2017.

Factors that affected the net interest margin in 2017 Return on operating assets and cost of paid liabilities (quarterly), %

Fee and commission income and expenses

In 2017, the Group's fee and commission income increased by 15.8% to RUB 505.1 billion. The Group's net fee and commission income increased by 12.9% to RUB 394.2 billion. The main driver of fee and commission income growth was fee and commission income received from operations with bank cards. Over the year, they increased by 24.3%, or by 46.0 billion rubles, to 235.1 billion rubles. The share of these incomes in the Group's commission income was 46.5%. A significant share in fee and commission income is also made up of fee and commission income from settlement and cash services for legal entities and individuals - 36.2%. Their growth in 2017 was 8.0%.

Fee and commission income and expenses of the Group, RUB bn

			Change
	2016	2017	billion rubles	%
Operations with bank cards,	189,1	235,1	46,0	24,3
including:
– Acquiring, payment systems fees and other similar fees	145,3	182,0	36,7	25,3
– Fees related to servicing bank cards	43,5	52,3	8,8	20,2
– Other	0,3	0,8	0,5	166,7
Settlement and cash services	169,1	182,7	13,6	8,0
Operations of clients with foreign currency and precious metals	22,0	28,0	6	27,3
Commissions on documentary operations	25,7	26,1	0,4	1,6
Agency commissions received	12,5	16,9	4,4	35,2
Commissions on brokerage operations with securities and commodities, according to depository services, commissions associated with investment business(including syndication fees)	5,6	6,3	0,7	12,5
Other	12,3	10,0	(2,3)	-18,7
Fee and commission income	436,3	505,1	68,8	15,8
Commission expenses on operations with bank cards	(72,4)	(99,2)	(26,8)	37,0
Other commission expenses	(14,8)	(11,7)	3,1	-20,9
Commission expenses	(87,2)	(110,9)	(23,7)	27,2
Net fee and commission income	349,1	394,2	45,1	12,9

Expenses from creating provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio, billion rubles

In 2017, the cost of creating provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio decreased by 16.1% from RUB 342.4 billion. for 2016 to 287.2 billion rubles. for 2017. The decrease was mainly due to the stabilization of the quality of the Group's loan portfolio due to the gradual recovery of the Russian economy after the recession. The value of the cost of credit risk decreased by 26 b.p. during 2017 from 177 b.p. in 2016 to 151 b.p. in 2017.

Cost of credit risk (annual data), b.p.

Cost of credit risk (quarterly), b.p.

Other operating income/expenses

Other net operating income, which includes net income / (expenses) from operations with securities, derivative financial instruments, foreign exchange, as well as net income / expenses from insurance activities, activities of the pension fund, amounted to 57.0 billion in 2017 rub. In 2016, other net operating expenses were recorded, which amounted to RUB 14.4 billion. The growth of other operating income in 2017 was affected by a significant increase in income from operations with foreign currency, foreign currency derivative financial instruments and foreign currency revaluation. In addition, in 2016 other net operating expenses included a negative effect of the revaluation of office real estate in the amount of RUB 25 billion.

Operating expenses

In 2017, the Group's operating expenses decreased by 0.7%. The largest decrease was demonstrated by the cost of depreciation of fixed assets (-31.5%), caused by a change in the assessment of the useful life of fixed assets. Also, a significant decrease is noted in the costs of information services (-13.9%) due to a change in the classification of costs for SMS alerts. The decrease in operating expenses was also supported by the decrease in expenses of foreign subsidiaries, caused by the effect of currency revaluation. Without taking into account methodological changes in accounting for depreciation and information services costs, the amount of operating expenses would have amounted to 694.1 billion rubles, the growth of operating expenses for the year would have amounted to 2.4%, which corresponds to the growth rate at the inflation rate. Staff costs - the main component of operating expenses - increased by 4.8% in 2017 compared to 2016 due to salary indexation. The ratio of operating expenses to operating income before impairment provisions continued its downward trend and amounted to 35.2% in 2017 compared to 39.7% in 2016 (a decrease of 4.5 p.p.). The decrease in this indicator was mainly caused by the growth of operating income.

Operating expenses, billion rubles

			Change
	2016	2017	billion rubles	%
Staff costs	384,3	402,7	18,4	4,8
Depreciation of fixed assets	62,8	43,0	(19,8)	-31,5
Costs associated with the repair and maintenance of fixed assets	42,5	40,5	(2,0)	-4,7
Administrative expenses	39,7	40,4	0,7	1,8
Taxes other than income tax	34,1	36,8	2,7	7,9
Operating lease expenses	33,1	30,9	(2,2)	-6,6
Information service costs	29,4	25,3	(4,1)	-13,9
Amortization of intangible assets	20,2	22,9	2,7	13,4
Consulting and audit costs	12,1	12,3	0,2	1,7
Advertising and marketing	8,7	7,8	(0,9)	-10,3
Other	10,7	10,2	(0,5)	-4,7
Total operating expenses	677,6	672,8	(4,8)	-0,7

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Chapter 1 Creation unified system estimates financial condition commercial bank

1.3 Comparative analytical balance - the basic information model of the financial condition of a commercial bank

2.2 Analysis of assets and liabilities

2.3 Economic return on capital

Conclusion

Bibliography

Applications

Introduction

The general socio-economic and political situation in Russia has led to extreme instability of the financial market, which has given rise to an ever-growing process of bank failure. Recent events on financial market Russia confirm the correctness of the conclusions of experts World Bank who warned that commercial banks in Russia would inevitably face serious problems, including the problem of a competent assessment of the financial condition of a commercial bank.

The situation on the financial market is complicated by the fact that the growing inability of commercial banks to make payments and issue long-term loans for the development of real capital will inevitably affect the solvency of enterprises and provoke a further decline in production. In the setting economic downturn commercial banks operate in a high-risk area. This is evidenced by the most common causes of bank failure:

L unsuccessful search for new capital participants;

ь provision of "bad" loans;

ü unsuccessful trading in mortgage securities;

b bond trading operations;

ь corruption in the ranks of the top management;

l unqualified management, unable to recognize in time the risk of loss of assets, the growth of banking costs;

excess of opportunities over demand;

l poor-quality analysis of information about the situation in the financial market and bank customers.

In the context of ongoing market instability and the crisis in banks, which has taken hidden forms, the problem of identifying their reliability becomes especially relevant, it is necessary to correctly assess the position of a particular bank, make the banking system more “transparent” and predictable.

The protracted nature of the crisis is causing more and more problems. Many banks are reviewing their development policy, restructuring their work, and shifting the focus of their activities. The banking system is in motion. The wave of non-payments continues to "plant" banks.

In addition to the fact that the results of the ongoing analysis allow us to warn consumers banking services from troubled banks, themselves credit institutions need an objective and reliable system for assessing the current (and possibly future) situation.

The purpose of this thesis consists in reviewing and studying aspects of the financial condition of a credit institution, as well as in conducting an analysis financial reporting bank on a specific example.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

1) to consider in general terms the banking system of the Russian Federation;

2) identify factors affecting banking activities;

3) determine the goals and types of analysis of the financial condition of a commercial bank;

4) learn about the shortcomings of Russian methods for assessing the financial condition of a commercial bank;

5) to analyze the financial condition of a particular commercial bank on the basis of its financial statements, the balance sheet - form No. 101 (Appendix 1) and the profit and loss statement - Form No. 102 (Appendix 2), having calculated the main financial indicators.

The object of the study is the general financial condition of the credit institution OJSC Sberbank.

The subject of the study is the legislative and methodological issues of assessing the financial condition of the bank.

Chapter 1. Creation of a unified system for assessing the financial condition of a commercial bank

1.1 Disadvantages of Russian methods for assessing the financial condition of a commercial bank

Recently, the problem of remote analysis of the financial condition of the bank has been updated in order to increase the liquidity of the banking system.

The means of banking supervision include analysis on the spot, in the bank and external monitoring of it (the so-called remote analysis). Increasingly, opinions are being heard that “rating systems” based on the calculation of coefficients based solely on balance sheet data without analyzing the internal quality of accounts can give a large share of the error, and the balance sheet in the form of account balances does not allow an adequate assessment of the quality of a bank’s assets and liabilities. One of the possible ways to solve problems can be adaptation international standards accounting and reporting to Russian practice.

Since the main goal of banking supervision (and, consequently, analysis) is to maintain the security and reliability of the banking system and try to make it “transparent” for consumers of banking services, the main attention should be paid to the unification and standardization of approaches to analysis.

In Russian practice, there are shortcomings in the methodological apparatus of credit institutions, which I would like to pay special attention to (using the example of a conventional bank):

§ the analyzed bank is considered as a separately existing financial institution;

§ Banks that are incomparable in terms of initial conditions are approached with a “single yardstick;

§ an analysis carried out from three different positions (Central Bank, intrabank, rating) indicates a different amount of available information, and, as a result, a discrepancy in the definition of the same type of indicators, which are the main ones when analyzing the financial condition of a commercial bank;

§ practically no attention is paid to trends in the bank's indicators, all calculations are carried out on the basis of already accumulated figures;

§ many articles that require deciphering remain "faceless";

§ there is no way to assess the level of banking management (there are simply no well-established methods for this);

§ there is no unified system for assessing the financial condition of a bank.

Therefore, despite these shortcomings, the modern methodological apparatus of credit institutions needs to be improved in terms of assessing the financial condition, while using the accumulated experience of the foreign (European) banking system.

Meanwhile, the calculations carried out in the second chapter of this work show the shortcomings of the methodological apparatus existing in Russia, which I would like to pay special attention to.

The analyzed bank is considered as a separately existing financial institution: the “weight” of a particular bank in financial system country (of a particular region), the possible influence of shareholders (their strength), customers are not taken into account.

Banks that are incomparable in terms of initial conditions are approached with a “single yardstick”, for example: a bank’s assessment is not ranked depending on belonging to a region, although it is clear to everyone that banks in the Moscow region have much more powerful potential, if only because more than 60% of the country's financial resources. Therefore, a unified methodology should be developed that weighs the performance of a particular bank depending on its affiliation to a particular region.

The analysis carried out from three different positions (Central Bank, intrabank, rating) indicates a different amount of available information, and, as a result, a discrepancy in the definition of the same type of indicators that are the main ones when analyzing the financial condition of a commercial bank, for example: risky assets, capital composition , bank liabilities, etc. These inconsistencies lead to a difference in the assessment of key ratios and, as a result, a mismatched assessment of the financial condition of the bank.

Practically no attention is paid to the trends of the bank's indicators, all calculations are carried out on the basis of already accumulated figures.

Many articles that require deciphering remain “faceless”. For example, the composition (quality) of income is not broken down, although such a breakdown of income items could tell a lot about the orientation of the bank.

There is no way to assess the level of banking management (there are simply no well-established methods for this).

There is no unified system for assessing the financial condition of a bank.

1.2 Foreign experience assessment of the financial condition of a commercial bank

In industrialized countries, banking supervision and analysis methodology have evolved depending on financial crises, changes in the economy and political events.

Developed countries have already found the methodological unity of the process of assessing the state of the bank. The focus is on 5 key areas, the so-called "CAMEL" components, which include:

b C (capital adequacy) - capital adequacy indicators that determine the amount of the bank's own capital required to guarantee depositors, and compliance actual size capital needed;

ь A (asset quality) - asset quality indicators that determine the degree of "recovery" of assets and off-balance sheet items, as well as the financial impact of problem loans;

ь M (menegement) - indicators for assessing the quality of management (management) of the bank's work, the policy pursued, compliance with laws and instructions;

ь E (earnings) - indicators of profitability or profitability in terms of its sufficiency for the future growth of the bank;

ь L (liquidity) - indicators of liquidity that determine whether the bank is liquid enough to fulfill ordinary and completely unexpected obligations.

In the United States, the three main institutions for banking supervision are the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller monetary circulation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - initially used their own systems to assess the health of commercial banks. Since 1978, there has been an agreement reached by these institutions on the standardization of approaches to assessing the reliability of banks (what the Russian banking system is currently lacking). So the CAMEL system was established abroad. It includes all the most important components of the bank's stability, assessed by bank auditors. Although the CAMEL rating system is a standardized method for assessing the performance of banks, its effectiveness depends on the skill and objectivity of the analysts who evaluate banks, since the results of the on-site supervisory review form the basis for the analysis. Only a part of the CAMEL indicators can be determined on the basis of the bank's external reporting. Let us consider in more detail the main components of this rating system.

Capital adequacy ratios. In the interpretation of CAMEL, the main functions of capital are:

o providing an adequate base for growth (for example, if less capital is needed for conservative activities, then for activities with a higher share of risky loans, the same level of capital is no longer sufficient);

o absorption of possible losses (of course, incomes allow absorbing current losses, but they may not be enough in the long run);

o protection of non-guaranteed depositors and creditors in the event of liquidation (that is, the ability to secure amounts in excess of the limits of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation).

Before calculating the capital, it is necessary to determine the composition of the capital.

Paid-in capital, share premium, retained earnings, general reserves, and statutory reserves are generally considered capital and are sometimes referred to as core capital.

Other types of capital are called additional capital. These include: reserves for the revaluation of fixed assets, free reserves covering future expenses from loans, and different kinds debt instruments that can be subordinated to the interests of depositors.

After the capital is determined, it is necessary to choose what to compare it with. This is usually either deposits or total assets, but it all boils down to the fact that capital must be contrasted with an indicator weighted by banking risks both on balance sheet and off balance sheet items.

The most important of the calculated coefficients that determine capital adequacy is the indicator of risky assets. It allows you to objectively assess the ratio of total capital to assets that contain the possibility of losses (that is, risky assets).

The risk asset ratio is calculated from the bank's latest consolidated statement of financial position (including domestic and foreign branches, if available) and is determined as follows:

It includes total share capital, provision for possible credit losses, as well as subordinated notes and debt obligations.

Risk assets are defined as total assets minus credit loss allowance, minus cash and nostro accounts with correspondent banks, US Treasury securities, US government bonds, commercial accounting securities traded federal funds and securities purchased under a resale agreement.

Since the risk asset ratio does not determine the degree of risk associated with different asset mixes, it should be used in conjunction with the asset quality index to arrive at a final assessment of bank capital. The following tables set out the performance criteria and limiting conditions that are used to derive the aggregate capital estimate.

Table 1

Scale of coefficients of risky assets:

For ratings 1-4, the risk assets ratio must equal or exceed the special standard indicator associated with a separate capital assessment; for grade 5 available upper limit, below which the risk asset ratio guarantees a low capital rating. A sub-standard capital rating does not necessarily preclude a more favorable assessment of assets as 'strong' or 'satisfactory'. And, according to the analyst's assessment, a more favorable assessment is confirmed and consistent with the overall financial condition of the bank. If regulatory conditions are not met, then the assessment of capital should be reduced to a level appropriate to the size and risk of the classified assets.

The standards used in the analysis process do not provide clear and unshakable criteria and do not exclude the element of evaluation; however, any withdrawal must be recorded and explained in the discussion of equity in the confidential section of the analyst's report.

In the process of evaluating capital, the analyst needs to consider a number of factors:

1. Bank size - local, regional or multinational bank:

o compare initial capital ratios with the minimum level;

o to determine the zone of fall of the total capital ratio;

o compare ratios with the average for a group of equivalent banks;

o take trends into account;

2. Volume of risky assets:

o compare the coefficient of risky assets with the average for the group;

o take into account trends;

3. The volume of critical and low-quality assets:

o weighted classified indicator;

o classified indicator, trend and mixed classifications;

4. Expected growth of the bank, plans and prospects:

o compare the capital formation rate with the asset growth rate;

o previous trends;

o expansion plans or master plans for building and rebuilding;

5. Quality of capital:

o the ratio of borrowed capital to equity capital should not exceed 50% in accordance with the standards of the board of directors;

6. Retained earnings:

o compare dividend payments with the respective group average;

o past trends and prospective returns;

7. Access to capital markets:

o strength of parent companies;

o ability to inject capital by owners;

o earnings per share - trend and group average;

8. Off-balance sheet assets and funds not reflected in the ledger:

o fixed capital at par;

According to the results of the analysis, the capital is estimated from 1 to 5 points as follows: Score 1 (strong). The capital is strong in relation to: the volume of risky assets, the volume of critical and defective assets, the expected growth of the bank, plans and prospects, the quality of management.

Typically, a bank with strong or satisfactory assets, or a bank whose asset risk ratio equals or exceeds the corresponding percentage in the table, has a capital score of 1.

Grade 2 (satisfactory). The capital is satisfactory in relation to: the volume of risky assets, the volume of critical and defective assets, the expected growth of the bank, plans and prospects for the quality of management.

If a management with sufficient competence can satisfactorily resolve the small difficulties in points a, b and c, then banking capital should be rated 2 if asset quality is at least 3 and relative indicator risk assets is equal to or greater than the corresponding percentage in the table below.

Grade 3 (mediocre). The capital is not quite sufficient in relation to the points listed earlier.

Bank capital should be assigned a score of 3, if the ratio of capital to the points under consideration is unfavorable, management plays a mitigating role. These conditions usually prevail where the asset quality is below 4 and the risk asset ratio equals or exceeds the appropriate percentage in the table below.

Grade 4 (critical). The capital is not sufficient. This is usually the case for banks whose weighted asset classifications are detrimental to equity capital or whose asset risk ratio is within the appropriate limits shown in the capital adequacy table.

Grade 5 (unsatisfactory). This rating is assigned in cases where the loss of classified assets is detrimental to share capital or when the relative exposure of the bank's risk assets is below the prescribed level in the table:

table 2

Capital adequacy assessment

	Total capital ratio	Initial capital ratio	Restrictions
			Quality of assets not less than 2. Ratio of risky assets not less than 11%.
			Asset quality over 3. Risk assets ratio is not limited.
			Asset quality over 4. Risk asset ratio is unlimited.
			Weighted classifications exceed initial capital.
			Loss classifications exceed initial capital.

Asset quality indicator. Usually, on-site verification is necessary to assess the quality of assets. Analysts well versed in evaluating loans and other lending services base the classification for problem loans on the basis of a "recovery" analysis.

The classification system for standard, doubtful assets and losses allows the auditor to quantify the rating of all assets within the CAMEL system, as well as assess the adequacy of the provision for credit losses.

It should be noted that while the reports provided do provide some indication of the assets, a true and complete valuation can be obtained through on-the-spot checks by credit analysts.

Determination of asset quality is the best known and, apparently, the longest stage of the supervisory review. This procedure involves most of the personnel performing the inspection. At the same time, subjective judgment is required from each analyst.

Assets are divided into several groups according to the degree of risk. In order to further more accurately determine the degree of impact of risk on the capital of the bank, each category of assets is given a certain weight:

Table 3

Share of various asset categories

The total amount of weighted assets is an aggregate consisting of 20% of assets - substandards, 50% - "doubtful" and 100% of assets of losses.

The ratio of the amount of weighted assets to total capital is the main indicator that determines the quality of assets.

Thus, banking system Russia already has an improved system of remote financial analysis, which uses elements of generally accepted methods of monitoring international banking supervision (trend analysis, which allows you to determine the dynamics of changes, and group analysis, by which the bank is compared with others), which can also be used in everyday banking practice.

1.3 Comparative analytical balance - the basic information model of the financial condition of a credit institution

Comparative analytical balance, otherwise called "aggregated", is built on the basis of balance sheet, but different from it. It is based on the principle of aggregation: assets of the balance sheet are grouped according to the signs of liquidity, and liabilities - according to the signs of urgency of obligations.

The comparative analytical balance sheet covers many important indicators that characterize the statics and dynamics of the financial condition, including indicators of horizontal and vertical analysis used in the practice of AHD of enterprises. In the course of horizontal analysis, absolute and relative changes in various balance sheet items for a certain period are determined, and the purpose of vertical analysis is to calculate the net weight. All indicators of the comparative balance can be divided into three groups:

balance structure indicators;

indicators of balance dynamics;

indicators of the structural dynamics of the balance.

At the same time, indicators of the structural dynamics of the balance sheet are extremely important for assessing the financial condition of the organization. Comparing changes in assets and liabilities, we can conclude through which sources the inflow of new funds was mainly carried out and in which assets these new funds were mainly invested.

Distinctive features of analytical balance:

where possible, balance sheet items are aggregated to obtain overall assessment condition of property and simplification of work;

in addition to the absolute (cost) indicators of aggregated items, the share of these items in the balance sheet structure is presented;

the dynamics of aggregated items for the period is presented:

in absolute (monetary) terms;

in relative (structural) terms.

Mandatory indicators of the comparative analytical balance are:

absolute values ​​for items of the original balance at the beginning and end of the period;

specific weights of balance sheet items in the balance sheet currency at the beginning and end of the period;

changes in their absolute values;

changes in their specific gravity;

percentage changes to the values ​​at the beginning of the period (balance sheet item growth rate);

changes in percentage terms to the change in the balance sheet (the growth rate of structural changes is an indicator of the dynamics of structural changes);

the price of one percent increase in the balance sheet currency and each balance sheet item to the ratio of the magnitude of the absolute change in the corresponding indicator at the beginning of the period.

The comparative analytical balance is obtained from the original balance by supplementing it with indicators of structure, dynamics and structural dynamics. Mandatory indicators of the comparative analytical balance are:

Absolute values ​​for items of the initial balance at the beginning and at the end of the reporting period (periods being compared);

Specific weights of items in the balance sheet at the beginning and end of the reporting period (periods being compared);

Changes in absolute values;

Changes in specific gravity;

Changes in percent to the values ​​at the beginning of the period (growth rate of the balance sheet item);

Changes as a percentage of changes in the balance sheet currency;

The price of one percent growth of the balance sheet and each item is the ratio of the magnitude of the absolute change to the percentage.

Analytical balance is useful in that it brings together and systematizes those calculations that an analyst usually performs when familiarizing himself with a balance sheet. The analytical balance sheet scheme usually covers a lot of important indicators that characterize the statics and dynamics of the organization's financial condition.

Analyzing the comparative balance, it is necessary to pay attention to the change in the share of the value of own working capital in the value of property, the ratio of the growth rates of equity and borrowed capital, as well as the ratio of the growth rates of receivables and payables.

The form of the comparative analytical balance sheet is as follows:

Table 4

Comparative analytical balance of the bank

	Name balance sheet items		Specific weight, %	Changes
Changes
Specific gravity	In percentages	As a percentage of the change in the balance sheet total
						Amount for column 9	Amount for gr.10	Amount for column 11

Table 4.1

Non-income assets:	Gross own funds:
	Cash Corr. Nostro accounts Reserves of the Central Bank Interest free loans Capital investments and fixed assets Intangible assets and expenses on leased buildings Household materials Future spending Other debtors Other assets		Charter capital Bank funds Revaluation of foreign currency Retained earnings of previous years Other income revenue of the future periods Own funds in settlements Funds from the sale of securities
Income generating assets:	Involved funds:
	Loan debt Interbank loans Factoring Participation rights Government securities Non-government securities		Term deposits Demand deposits Other creditors CBR loans Loans from other banks Bank debt Funds in settlements Bank debt Corr. Loro accounts

Net own funds = gross own funds - immobilized assets.

The comparative analytical balance sheet includes:

Indicators of the balance structure (columns 3-8);

Balance dynamics indicators (columns 9-17);

Indicators of the structural dynamics of the balance sheet (columns 12-20).

Columns 3, 4 and 5 reflect the absolute values ​​of the items and totals of the asset and liability sections of the balance sheet at the beginning and end of the analyzed periods;

Columns 6,7 and 8 reflect the specific weights of the value of articles and sections as a result of the balance sheet at the beginning and end of the analyzed periods;

Columns 9, 10 and 11 show changes in the absolute values ​​of articles and sections for the analyzed periods;

Columns 12, 13 and 14 show changes in the proportions of articles and sections for the analyzed periods;

Columns 15, 16 and 17 show changes in the absolute values ​​of articles and sections to the values ​​of the compared periods;

Columns 18, 19 and 20 show changes in the absolute values ​​of articles as a percentage of the change in the balance sheet results.

The balance sheet structure of a bank consists of three parts:

Assets that do not generate income;

Income generating assets:

immobilized assets.

The bank's balance sheet structure consists of two parts:

Gross own funds;

Involved funds.

A separate line behind the balance sheet presents the bank's own net funds.

Comparative analytical balance sheet is remarkable in that it brings together and systematizes those calculations that any analyst usually performs during the initial acquaintance with the balance sheet. The comparative analytical balance actually includes indicators sufficient for both horizontal and vertical analysis. In the course of horizontal analysis, absolute and relative changes in the values ​​of various balance sheet items for a certain period are determined, and the purpose of vertical analysis is to calculate the net weight.

The structure of the comparative analytical balance allows:

Identify separate active and passive types of operations and assess their significance in the structure of liabilities and assets;

Track the movement of balances on individual balance accounts;

Determine the degree of change in the scale of specific types of banking operations;

Determine the causes and extent of the impact of dynamic changes and deviations by items on the stability, profitability, profitability and liquidity of the bank's operations;

Allocate own and borrowed resources of the bank;

Allocate profitable, liquid and immobilized assets;

Distribute customer funds attracted in the form of deposits by maturity.

Comparing the structures of changes in the asset and liability, one can draw conclusions about through which sources the cash inflow is mainly carried out and into which assets these cash mostly invested.

Chapter 2. Analysis of the financial statements of Sberbank OJSC based on financial ratios

2.1 Aggregation of balance sheet and income statement

Within the framework of this chapter, we will first aggregate the balance sheet and income statement of this bank for 3 periods based on external financial statements.

Table 6

	Article title	Meaning		Article title	Meaning
	Interest income			including opera income. with c.b.
	Interest expenses			Non-interest expenses
	Interest margin (d1-r1)			Gross income (d1+d2)
	Non-interest income			Gross expenses (r1+r2)
				Gross profit (d3-r3)

Table 7. Aggregated balance as of 01.01.2012 (for 2011), (Appendix 5).

Table 8

Aggregated profit and loss account as of 01.01.2012

	Article title	Meaning		Article title	Meaning
	Interest income			including opera income. with c.b.
	Interest expenses			Non-interest expenses
	Interest margin (d1-r1)			Gross income (d1+d2)
	Non-interest income			Gross expenses (r1+r2)
				Gross profit (d3-r3)

Table 10

Aggregated profit and loss account as of 01.01.2012

	Article title	Meaning		Article title	Meaning
	Interest income			including opera income. with c.b.
	Interest expenses			Non-interest expenses
	Interest margin (d1-r1)			Gross income (d1+d2)
	Non-interest income			Gross expenses (r1+r2)
				Gross profit (d3-r3)

2.2 Analysis of bank assets and liabilities

Next, we will analyze the assets and liabilities of the bank based on the modified balance equation. To determine the quality of assets, which allow them to be assessed in relation to the bank's resource base, the following indicators are calculated, presented in the table.

Table 11

Analysis of bank assets

Definition of indicator	Optimal coefficient value	The actual value of the coefficient
K1= Income assets / Assets
K2= Income assets / Paid liabilities
Commitments	> 0.7 (aggressive politics < 0,6 (осторожная politics)
K4=Bank loans / Bank loans	1.0 (borrower) 1.0 (creditor)
K5=Loans/Equity
K6=Delinquent Loans/Loans
K7=Loan reserves/Loans

K 1 - the share (share) of income-generating assets in total assets. To 1 in 2011 was equal to 0.69, in 2012 it decreased and amounted to 0.642, and in 2013 it did not change and also amounted to 0.643. This indicates a decrease in assets that generate income for the bank and an increase in the liquid position, which also indicates an untargeted policy of the bank to improve the overall financial condition of the bank. It can also be said that the share of income generating assets is 69%, 64% and 64% respectively.

To 2 - the ratio of profitable assets to paid liabilities. The value of the coefficient must be greater than or equal to 1. This bank has K 2 in 2011. Its value was 0.943, in 2012 it decreased and amounted to 0.762, and in 2013 it almost did not change and amounted to 0.761. The decrease in this indicator was due to the fact that both income-earning assets and paid liabilities grew, but paid liabilities grew faster. Consequently, the bank has increased its paid liabilities by a large amount compared to income-generating assets, and has become inefficient in managing its paid liabilities; from this it follows that the bank's interest expenses for 3 years were not covered by interest income, since the value of the indicator was less than 1 for all periods.

K 3 - the ratio of loans to the total liabilities of the bank. This indicator makes it possible to determine the nature credit policy jar. By 3 in 2011 it was 2.012, in 2012 it was 4.193, and in 2013 it was 3.8. This suggests that the bank has been practicing an extremely aggressive credit policy for all 3 periods, increasing the volume of loans and advances. In order to form a more cautious credit policy, the bank needs to increase its liabilities, otherwise a further increase in the coefficient may lead to the risk of loss in the formation of the stability of the resource base and problems with current liquidity.

To 4 - shows the possibility of a credit policy. It is calculated as the ratio of received interbank credits to provided ones. In 2011 and 2013, there were no interbank loans, so the value of this coefficient is 0. And in 2012, K 4 was only 0.1%. It means that given bank is a lender in the interbank credit market.

K 5 - shows the riskiness of the credit policy in relation to capital. The values ​​of the indicator are 8.6, 11.12 and 11.662, respectively, for 3 periods. There is insufficient capital in terms of the loan portfolio; in this case the bank needs to reduce the amount of borrowed funds. And the discrepancy between this coefficient and the norm indicates an increasing risk of repayment of loans and credits this bank, as well as a decrease in the efficiency of the bank.

K 6 - the share of overdue debt in the bank's loan portfolio. For Sberbank, this figure for three years was 0.002; 0.005; and 0.007, respectively. This is a positive trend, since the value of this coefficient is within the normal range, i.e. the share of overdue debt should not exceed 4% of the total amount of loans issued.

K 7 - reserves to cover losses on loans. The value of the coefficient should not be less than K 6, and in our case it is equal to 0.014, 0.013 and 0.015, respectively, and has not changed much. The greater value of K 7 compared to K 6 (0.002<0,014 в 2005 г; 0,005<0,013 в 2006 г; 0,007<0,014 в 2013г.) демонстрирует наличие в кредитном портфеле банка не только низкокачественных кредитов, но и просроченных процентов по кредитам.

Table 12

Bank liquidity analysis

K 8 - the degree of coverage of the most unstable liabilities with liquid assets. The value of K 8 in 2011 was 28.62; in 2012 - 568.7; and in 2013 - 1665.5, which is much higher than the norm and indicates that the bank had excess liquidity. It follows from this that the bank had reserves to increase its on-call liabilities. This suggests that the bank fully covers the most unstable liabilities with liquid (cash) assets.

K 9 - the degree of coverage of non-deposit and deposit sources with liquid assets. The actual values ​​of the indicator - 1.081; 1.639 and, respectively, 1.627 - exceed the limits of the optimal value (0.05-0.3). This suggests that the bank has enough liquid assets to cover non-deposit and deposit assets, which ensures a very high degree of liquidity.

K 10 - potential stock of liquidity. The value of the coefficient in 2011 - 0.207, in 2012 - 0.247, in 2013. - 0.233, which is quite consistent with the norm (0.15-0.4) for all periods. In this case, the bank has a minimum liquidity risk when using secondary liquid resources (securities portfolio).

Table 13

Analysis of bank liabilities

Definition of indicator	The optimal value of the coefficient	actual value
K11=Own Capital/Assets
K12=Call and Term Liabilities / Assets
K13=Loans/Assets
K14 = On-call obligations / All obligations
K15=Term deposits / All obligations
K16=Loans in all liabilities
K17=Other liabilities / All obligations	tends to min
K18 = Core capital / Equity

K 11 - an indicator of the financial stability of the bank. The coefficient values ​​are 0.099; 0.083 and 0.092 respectively. At the time of analysis, the balance sheet has a high capital adequacy, which is ensured by the high share of equity in the balance sheet structure, since the actual values ​​correspond to the norm for all periods. The Bank uses potential opportunities to attract additional resources to generate profit due to the high capital multiplier (capital multiplier is defined as the ratio of assets to equity), which characterizes the effective management of the resource base. Thus, the compliance of the values ​​with the norm testifies to the ultra-high financial stability of the bank.

To 12 - the level of urgency and reliability. For this bank, the values ​​of this coefficient are equal to 0.19; 0.135; and 0.154, respectively, which does not correspond to the norm. This suggests that the level of provision with term and demand obligations is not sufficient, which entails the risk of the bank's current liquidity and forces it to direct additional resources to cash assets.

K 13 - the level of urgency and reliability. The value of this coefficient at Sberbank is significantly below the norm and amounts to 0.141 in 2011, 0.009 in 2012 and 0.007 in 2013. The decrease in the indicator was due to a decrease in bank loans, debt and other liabilities and an increase in total assets. This means that the bank has a lack of borrowed funds. It also suggests that the funds raised from this bank are not enough to manage balanced liquidity.

K 14 - the degree of minimization of the risk of sustainability or costs. The actual values ​​of this coefficient are 0.021, 0.002 and 0.001. This indicates the minimization of transaction costs on demand obligations.

K 15 - the degree of minimization of the risk of sustainability or costs. For Sberbank, the value of this indicator for two years in 2012 increased greatly and decreased in 2013, and nevertheless, over 3 periods it was significantly higher than the optimal value (0.1-0.3). The calculated values ​​of the indicator determine the minimization of the stability risk, as well as a high level of deposits and deposits in all liabilities.

This coefficient is calculated only for 2012 and amounted to 0.0006. For 2011 and 2013, the coefficient is 0, since in these years the bank had no bank loans. Thus, in 2012 the share of bank loans in the total amount of bank liabilities was less than 1%. This is a positive trend, indicating low costs of liabilities to other credit institutions.

K 17 - the degree of passive stability and quality of management of other obligations. The optimal value of this coefficient should tend to a minimum. The actual value in 2011 was 0.424; in 2012 - 0.063; and in 2013 - 0.043. The actual decrease in this indicator over the periods indicates the effective management of liabilities, i.e. in 2013 the bank paid less fines, penalties, forfeits compared to 2011.

Core capital = authorized fund + bank funds;

Equity capital = authorized capital + bank funds + additional capital.

K 18 - the level of core capital adequacy. The share of core capital should not be less than 50%. The share of the core capital of Sberbank OJSC in 2011 is 69%; in 2012 - 69%; and in 2013 - 67%. It follows from this that this bank has enough core capital to carry out its activities.

Table 14

Bank performance analysis

Definition of indicator	Optimal value in %	Actual Value in %
K19=Profit/Assets
K20=Profit/Income
K21=Income/Assets
K22=Profit/Stock Capital
K23=Equity Multiplier: Assets / Equity

K 19 - the efficiency of the assets. The optimal value of this coefficient is 1-4%. The actual value for Sberbank in 2011 was 2.14%, in 2012 it was 1.77% and in 2013 it was 1.94%. Actual values ​​for all periods correspond to the norm. This suggests that for 3 years the bank has been pursuing an effective policy in the field of asset management.

By 20 - how much profit is received from each ruble of income. In 2011, the value of this coefficient was 9.7%. This suggests that in 2011, 97 kopecks of profit were received from each ruble of income, in 2012. from each ruble of income, 84 kopecks of profit were received, and in 2013 - 83 kopecks of profit. Within 3 years, there was a decrease in this indicator due to the fact that gross income and profit were growing, but gross income grew faster. This is a negative trend, which means that the bank had less and less profit for each ruble of income, despite the fact that the bank has been increasing it for 3 years.

By 21 - how much income is received from each ruble of assets. The optimal value of the coefficient is 14-22%. In our case, in 2011, the value of the coefficient was 22.12%, which is slightly above the norm, in 2012 - and began to equal 21.02%, which is within the normal range, and in 2013 - 23.43% - which again above the norm. This means that the bank manages assets to some extent effectively, while increasing income per ruble of assets.

K 22 - efficiency of use of own capital. In 2011, the value of this coefficient corresponded to the norm (15.0-40.0) and amounted to 31.02%, in 2012 the value of this coefficient was also normal and equal to 30.57%, and in 2013 it also corresponded to the norm and amounted to 31.32%. This means that Sberbank has been effectively using its own capital for 3 years, managing it competently.

K 23 is the capital multiplier. It means how much assets can be obtained from each ruble of equity capital. At Sberbank, the value of this coefficient for three years corresponds to the norm (8-16 times) and amounts to 10.01 times, respectively; 11.92 times; and 10.84 times. This indicates that the bank skillfully uses the multiplier effect of capital and professionally manages the structure of debt and equity capital, receiving the maximum possible income (profit) with available resources.

For a more thorough analysis, you can use additional performance indicators and detail the factors that affect the efficiency of the bank.

Table 15

Additional performance indicators of the bank

Definition of indicator	Optimal value in %	Actual value in %
K24=Interest margin / Income assets
K26=Interest income / Interest expense

K 24 - the efficiency of profitable assets. This bank's value of this coefficient is higher than the norm (1.0-3.0%) and amounts to 3.7% in 2011, 3.1% in 2012 and 3.4% in 2013. This once again proves the above conclusion that the bank is pursuing an effective asset management policy. It can also be said that the level of net interest income from earning assets decreased slightly, because. in 2011 it was 3.7%, which is above the norm, in 2012 it was 3.1% and in 2013 - 3.4%.

K 25 - the spread of interest rates between investments and attraction of resources. As can be seen from the calculations, the actual values ​​of the coefficient in 2011 are -0.076; in 2012 -0.139; and in 2013 -0.126. This means that the bank has been pursuing an inefficient interest rate policy for 3 years, and this also indicates the unprofitability of banking activities.

K 26 - the degree of coverage of interest expenses by interest income. The optimal value should be in the range of 110-125%; at Sberbank from 2011 to 2012. the value of this coefficient decreased by 18% and amounted to 171% and did not change in 2013, which is higher than the optimal value. This suggests that this credit institution's interest expenses for three years were fully covered by interest income, which is a positive trend.

The reasons for the change in key performance indicators can be determined using financial ratios that reflect the qualitative and quantitative parameters that affect the efficiency of banking.

Table 16

Financial ratios

Definition of indicator	Optimal value in %	Actual Value in %
K27=Interest Margin/Income
K28=Interest income/Assets
K29= Non-interest income/Assets
K30=Non-earning assets/Equity	0.5 - 2.0 times
K31= Income assets/Equity

K 27 - the level of net interest income. The optimal value is 6.0-18.0%, the actual values ​​for three years were within this range. In 2011 - 11.53%, in 2012 - 9.54% and in 2013 - 9.36%. This indicates that the bank's interest rate policy is conservative.

K 28 - the amount of interest income per ruble of assets; at Sberbank, the values ​​of this indicator are below the norm (10.0-18.0%) and amount to 5.41%, 4.82% and 5.26%, respectively. This indicates that the efficiency of the bank's investments is low, while the bank does not seek to minimize the riskiness of its investments, because for 3 years the value of the indicator remained almost at the same level.

K 29 - the possibility of using intrabank reserves. The coefficient changed differently during three years: in 2011 - 16.72%, in 2012 it was 16.2% and in 2013 - 18.16%. This indicates that the bank has too high intra-bank reserves; and also that the bank has a simple means by which it could obtain a higher income. By the end of 2013, the bank was using its reserves irrationally, increasing them inappropriately.

To 30 - the priority of directions for the use of capital. The optimal value of the coefficient is 0.5-2.0 times; the bank's actual values ​​are respectively equal: in 2011 - 3.1 times, in 2012 - 3.98 times and in 2013 - 3.88 times. This means that the activity on the use of equity capital is carried out properly.

K 31 - the amount of profitable assets that can be obtained from each ruble of capital. The value of this coefficient in 2011 is 69.1%, in 2012 - 76.6% and in 2013 - 69.6%. This suggests that the bank receives from each ruble of equity 69.1%, 76.6% and 69.6% of income-earning assets, respectively, by periods.

Next, we calculate the factors that affect the efficiency of the activity:

Table 17

Detailing factors affecting efficiency

Definition of indicator	Optimal value in %	Actual value in %
		per ruble of assets
K32=Interest Margin / Assets
K33=Non-interest expenses / Assets
		per ruble of income
K34=Non-interest income / Gross income
K35=Non-interest expenses / Gross income
		per ruble of capital
K36=Interest Margin / Core Capital
K37=Income / Capital	1.2 - 1.7 times

K 32 - percentage margin. The value of the coefficient for the bank in 2011 was 2.55%, which is within the optimal value (1.0-4.0) and indicates effective spread management. By 2012, this indicator decreased and became equal to 2%, which is also within the normal range, and in 2013 the value also remains within the normal range. It follows from this that the bank pursues an effective spread management policy.

K 33 - non-interest expenses. The optimal value of the coefficient is 1.0% -4%. For the analyzed credit institution, the value in 2011 was above the norm and equals 17.23%, in 2012 - 16.51% and in 2013 - 18.46%. Since the calculated values ​​for all periods exceed the norm, this means a high level of non-interest costs per 1 ruble of assets.

K 34 - non-interest income. The actual value of the indicator was 75.54% in 2011, 77% in 2012, and 77.5% in 2013, which is much higher than the optimal limit of values ​​(5%-15.0%). But from this we can conclude that Sberbank has an overestimated amount of intra-bank reserves, and because of this, the bank does not receive the amount of income that it could receive by lowering its intra-bank reserves.

K 35 - non-interest expenses; the quality of bank cost management. The value of this coefficient for the analyzed bank in 2011 was 77.8%, in 2012 - 78.5% and in 2013 - 78.8%. This suggests that the bank has high non-interest expenses per 1 ruble of assets. The bank needs to more carefully monitor the areas of expenditure not related to the issuance of loans and attraction of deposits.

K 36 - percentage margin. At Sberbank, the value of this ratio in 2011 exceeded the norm (10.0-35.0) and amounted to 36.96%, in 2012 the value decreased to 34.6% and in 2013 it increased to 35.3%. From this it follows that the amount of economic value added amounted to 37%, 34% and 35%, respectively. This once again confirms the conclusion made in K 32 .

K 37 - income; the number of rubles of income raised per ruble of core capital. The value of the coefficient K 37 is 0.78 rubles. in 2011, 0.83 rub. in 2012 and 0.85 in 2013, which is below the lower limit of this coefficient (1.2 rubles) and indicates that the bank has been irrationally managing its core capital for three years and receiving less income from its use. Therefore, in order to effectively manage the core capital, the bank needs to increase interest income, while ensuring a higher yield per each ruble of core capital.

Similar Documents

Aspects of the financial condition of a credit institution and analysis of bank statements. Factors influencing banking activities, goals and types of analysis of the financial condition of a commercial bank. Disadvantages of Russian methods, the essence of foreign experience.

term paper, added 03/06/2010


Methodology for analyzing the financial condition of a bank. The structure of the banking system of Russia. The main characteristics of the financial condition of banks. Assessment of the financial condition of a commercial bank. Creation of a unified system for assessing the financial condition of the bank.

thesis, added 05/28/2002


The process of comparison, grouping, elimination as methods for assessing the financial condition of a commercial bank. Analysis of the structure of income and expenses of a credit institution. Determining the amount of profit and loss for compiling the financial results of the bank.

term paper, added 12/11/2010


Organization of monitoring of financial stability of counterparty banks. Assessment of the financial condition of a commercial bank on the example of OJSC "State Savings Bank of the KBR", possible ways to improve it. The structure of the balance sheet, the assessment of the bank's profit.

term paper, added 01/17/2014


Structural analysis of the resource base and active operations of a commercial bank. Analysis of the quality of assets and liabilities. Ways to improve the analysis of the financial condition of a commercial bank as the basis for managing its activities, on the example of CB "National Business Bank" (LLC).

thesis, added 12/09/2013


General characteristics of OJSC "Sberbank". The main economic indicators of the bank. Conducting vertical and horizontal analysis of financial statements. Analysis of the standards of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Ways and recommendations for their optimization.

term paper, added 05/26/2015


The financial condition of the bank and the factors that determine it. Directions for assessing the financial condition of the bank. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the bank's activities on the basis of balance generalizations. Financial analysis of the working capital of OAO Industrial and Construction Bank.

thesis, added 12/02/2010


thesis, added 12/08/2008


The balance sheet of a commercial bank, the concept of analysis of the financial activities of the bank. Methods of financial analysis of the balance sheet of a commercial bank, its structure. Analysis of the financial activity of the commercial bank Sovcombank LLC, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, based on its balance sheet.

term paper, added 10/29/2012


Characterization of the theoretical foundations of the analysis of the financial condition of the bank and the features of its management. Functions and mechanism of financial analysis of the bank, its systems and methods. Proposals for increasing the efficiency of the financial activity of JSCB "Rosbank".