盈利能力分析报告外文翻译

1、在斯里兰卡和马来西亚的上市公司的盈利能力分析阿努拉德索伊萨阿努拉曼纳乌阿尼尔川科库瑞澳大利亚伍伦贡大学 摘要：本文采用在斯里兰卡和马来西亚在 2006年至2008年期间 161上市制造业 公司的经验数据，并比较了这些公司对两种常用的财务业绩指标的表现：资产（ROA和净资产收益率回报（ROE。结果表明，在此期间，斯里兰卡制造企业 在更有利可图的ROA但在利润较低的ROE方面均大大高于他们在马来西亚的同 行。它还确定股票投资的相对较弱的地位， 斯里兰卡公司的制造业和属性这许多 因素，其中包括：有相对不佳的股票市场，高利率和过度恐惧高风险的投资。公 司的盈利能力和资产行业分析也可以观察到类似的趋势。

2、关键词： 盈利能力分析，上市，制造，企业，斯里兰卡，斯里兰卡，马来西亚， 经验，调查简介斯里兰卡和马来西亚有许多共同点在五十年以前。 这两个国家是英国殖民地， 并 脱离英国独立 9年分开 - 在1957年斯里兰卡在 1948年和马来西亚。 这两个国家开 始了独立后的时期， 资源，雄厚的英国的法律和政治制度， 以及类似的教育系统 的丰富多样。I960年，马来西亚有一个国民总收入（GNI）每280美元的人均和斯 里兰卡在 1960年的每152美元的人均国民总收入。“由于 1970年，斯里兰卡和马 来西亚也有类似的生活标准”（莎莉，2009年, P1）。经过五十年的独立性，马 来西亚现在远远领先于斯

3、里兰卡的许多方面，包括经济和工业发展。今天， “马 来西亚被广泛接受为一个大发展的成功故事在发展中世界。尽管有1997-1998年金融危机期间的大规模经济收缩经验丰富， 马来西亚的经济表现一直贯穿独立后 期间令人印象深刻。持续高增长（平均近 6年息百分之过去四十年），一直伴 随着生活水平的提高与收入的相对平等分配 “ （ Athukorala ， 2005年，第19页）。 数据和理论：本研究的数据来自统计局范戴克的 OSIRIS数据库，提供财政和其他相关数据超过 34000在130个国家的上市公司获得。 由于在这项研究中用来测量在斯里兰卡和马 来西亚上市公司的盈利能力数据的主要来源是出版公司账

4、户， 本次研究的结果应 谨慎对待。 被公账户披露的数据通常与继承一定的局限性， 尤其是用于比较的公 司在不同国家的表现。 其中一个主要的限制是， 在公司帐目确定的利润是在此基 础上可能会有所不同， 从公司到公司的公司会计实务。 例如， 如折旧的量和库存 价值物品受到任意估值一个相当宽的范围内。 此外，特别是在固定资产， 基于历 史成本会计的概念数字可能并不代表通货膨胀期间实际值。 在该公司账目计算的 利润也受到企业和税务法规也不同国家之间变化的影响。在跨国公司的情况下， 利润的计算可能会容易通过实践各种操作，如转让定价（Robbi ns和Stobaugh，1974年）。虽然符合国际财务报告准则

5、（ IFRS） - 这是使用超过 100个国家，包 括斯里兰卡和马来西亚 - 方便可比性，还存在会计实务一些不同之处，这使得它难以评估和比较一个企业的盈利能力现实的态度，尤其是当这些企业都来自不同的国家。公司样本：这项研究的样本公司制造的科伦坡股票上市公司交易所（CSE及马来西亚交易所（MYX，只从公司选择了与完整的财务数据为 三年，从2006年至2008年的OSIRIS数据库的筛选过程，然后将其应用于企业符合 上述标准。首先，样本中所有剩余的公司进行分类的全球行业分类标准（GICS代码作为识别他们的GICS弋码，以消除非制造业公司。其次，由于本研究的主要 目的是考察制造业两国企业的盈利能力，

6、它被认为是适当的，以消除企业与负的平均RO为近三年来，由于样品中有这样的公司扭曲的结果该分析。这个筛选过 程留下62制造企业斯里兰卡样本。第三，这些62家公司的GICS弋码，然后用剩下 的马来西亚公司样本中匹配，消除了马来西亚公司不匹配的公司GICS弋码斯里兰 卡样本。这种匹配过程中离开，99家马来西亚公司，然后将其选定为马来西亚公 司的样本。经济实力：斯里兰卡vs马来西亚双方斯里兰卡和马来西亚位于亚洲其中拥有世界人口的 60%。这两个地区，东亚, 其中马来西亚位于和南亚，其中斯里兰卡所在，也是占世界人口的30%。然而，相较于一些亚洲国家，如中国和印度具有巨大的人口， 这两个国家的人口，斯里

7、兰卡（20亿美元）和马来西亚（27亿美元）是比较小的，因为他们占了不到 1% 总亚裔人口。下面的表2提供了有关这两个国家在过去50年的经济表现一些有用 的信息。表2在斯里兰卡和马来西亚人口与发展的一些指标19602007斯里 兰卡马来西亚%斯里 兰卡马来西亚%人口总计（百万）108.1818120.026.6133人均GNI （美元）15228018415406540425GDP（十亿美兀）1.52.315332.4186.7577GD增长（每年%4.66.51416.86.393农业增长（GDP%3236113121083工业增长（GDP%2018903048160服务业增长（GDP%484

8、696584272表2清楚地表明，在此期间一九六零年至2007年对一些重要的经济指标，两国之 间的差距已经拉大。如人均国民总收入 -widely作为一个国家的经济表现的一个 基本指标-斯里兰卡远远落后于马来西亚，2007年与1540美元其国民总收入的 人均收入相比，马来西亚6540美元。1960年马来西亚的人均国民总收入收入仅 为1.84倍斯里兰卡的人均国民总收入的收入，但到2007年这一差距扩大到4.25倍斯里兰卡的人均国民总收入的收入。类似的情况是观察两国的GDP 1960 年,为23十亿马来西亚的GD只是1.53倍斯里兰卡为15十亿GDP然而，2007年马来西 亚GDE增至美元的巨额18

9、6.7十亿，这是近6倍，斯里兰卡在2007年达32.4十亿 GD两国之间的另一个值得注意的区别是，这两个国家都按比例减少其农业产出，同时增加他们的工业产值之间的两个时期显著。引人注目的是，通过在I960年斯里兰卡的工业产值（占GD的20%）,约10%叔比马来西亚高。然而，虽然斯里 兰卡已经从国内生产总值1960年20%的贡献提高到占GD的30%, 2007年（同比 增长50%）取得了工业产出的增长显著的进步，马来西亚从18%增加了其工业产 值国内生产总值在1960年国内生产总值的48%, 2007年 （同比增长167%）。总 体而言，上述数据清楚地表明，在此期间马来西亚已经由显著保证金外进行斯

10、里 兰卡的经济和工业发展方面。盈利能力：斯里兰卡VS马来西亚净资产收益率（ROA表3显示盈利率的分散，由ROAM得的，其中斯里兰卡和马来西亚的制造企业 2006 年至2008年,平均R0为三年期限在一起。如表3所示，斯里兰卡公司的期间为2006 年至2008年的平均利润率从10%到11.4 %，与3年的平均水平10.9 %。总体而言， 样本公司中49%已经能够实现R0大于10%，比3年。而该公司的16%已取得的ROA 小于5%效果差，该公司的23%已在3年内达到15%以上，平均ROA表3资产回报率（ROA的分布R0A范围斯里兰卡马来西亚200620072008平均值200620072008平均

11、值%5以下27162916323135305-10152339 135：4138324410-15273515261512201615-2023188187128520-25686 :3133325以上2032：3311总计100100100100100100100100无公司6262626299999999统计平均10.911.410.07.67.7最小-4.5-0.3-5.40.3-9.3-4.6-7.9-3.1最大46.023.193.3 146.832.829.727.826.8STD8.15.9马来西亚公司的平均利润率由7.5

12、 %在3年内7.7 %的总体平均变化为8.7 %。仔细 看看3年的平均盈利能力的分散显示，99家马来西亚公司的25%达到10%以上， 而R0只有9%的企业已经能够实现高于15%的ROA用5%以下比较低盈利的公司 占全部马来西亚公司的30%。什么是显而易见的，主要从R0两国数字是斯里兰卡的生产盈利能力比所有的马 来西亚制造企业相对较高。更具体地说，斯里兰卡公司在三年内的R0是在10%至11%的范围内有10.9 %的整体平均水平。相反，马来西亚公司的 R0为同一时 期是在7%到9%的范围内以7.7 %的总体平均水平。这是斯里兰卡公司的R0和42% 赞成斯里兰卡公司的差的72%。仔细看看居留权的两国

13、间的分散也表明，斯里兰卡制造企业都在实现更高的盈利能力方面表现比马来西亚制造企业更好。从下端，只有16%的斯公司已经作为对马来西亚公司获得了类似的结果的30%达到R0的小于 5。的情况也是类似的刻度的上端。而斯里兰卡的公司23都取得了超过15%的ROA只有9%的马来西亚公司能够实现这一结果。先前的研究，审查了在亚洲的制造企业的盈利能力还透露， 在斯里兰卡制造企业的盈利能力比一些亚洲 国家，包括日本，香港，泰国，韩国，马来西亚，中国，印度尼西亚，新加坡和 更高巴基斯坦。根据这项研究，这些国家在1995年的RO从2.4 % （韩国）范围为 11.1 % （巴基斯坦）。马来西亚制造企业的 ROA被认

14、为是9.6 %（Wijewardena和 De德索伊萨，2000）。结论：本文的主要目的是评估斯里兰卡制造企业的业绩相比， 这对马来西亚制造企业获 得了一些见解改善他们目前的性能水平。 为了实现这一目标， 这项研究分析了 161 的制造企业，包括62斯里兰卡企业，99家马来西亚公司从OSIRIS数据库选择的财 务数据。在研究中使用的数据涵盖了为期三年，从2006年至2008年使用的两个性能测量常用，RO和ROE计算和分析的样品本公司的财务数据。这一分析表明，在此期间 2006至08年的斯里兰卡制造企业均大大高于他们的同行 在马来西亚更有利可图，这表明一个积极的结果斯里兰卡。当盈利被业界分析，

15、据透露，所有在斯里兰卡六大行业录得较高的 RO比他们的同行在马来西亚。从 在斯里兰卡制造企业高盈利水平的主要观察的是， 这已经渗透到投资在未来更高 水平的能力。与此相反，以ROA马来西亚公司已经整体表现比斯里兰卡企业稍好 RO方面。然 而，行业间的分析表明， 除了在农产品和种植园部门， 斯里兰卡的所有其他制造 业已经分别取得了较高的净资产收益率比同行的马来西亚。 尽管如此， 似乎仍然 是需求和机会，为公司在斯里兰卡，以改善他们的ROE提高RO水平是斯里兰卡 重要的，如果它要吸引更多的股权投资进入其制造业。 这项研究的另一个主要发现是，斯里兰卡的相对位置差 - 尤其是制造业的股权 投资方面 -

16、相比，马来西亚公司 60%的斯里兰卡公司的股权资本仅为 46%。类 似的趋势在这两个国家的所有六个行业观察时股权的水平是由行业分析。 究其原 因，在斯里兰卡公司股本较低水平可以归结为几个因素， 如：比较差的股票市场， 提供给非股权投资， 过度担心高风险的投资， 而在高利率制造商的不足， 相应的 投资机会剥削。然而，股权投资水平高是至关重要的斯里兰卡制造业是成功的在其努力实现更高 的经济和工业发展。 未来这方面的研究还需要考察多方面因素的影响 - 如大小， 年龄，位置，出口，资产和资本结构， 劳动力成本， 员工的工作效率和管理效率， 等等 - 在斯里兰卡公司公司的盈利能力。出于这个原因，一个纵向

17、分析具有较 大的样品是理想的。本文摘自 Anura De Zoysa, Athula S. Manawaduge, Palli Mulla K AChandrakumara， PROFITABILITYANALYSISOFLISTED MANUFACTURINCGOMPANIES IN SRI LANKA AND MALAYSI，A University of Wollongong, Australia.PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS OF LISTED MANUFACTURINGCOMPANIES IN SRILANKA AND MALAYSIAAnura De Zoysa,

18、Athula S. Manawaduge, Palli Mulla K AChandrakumaraUniversity of Wollongong, AustraliaAbstractThis paper uses empirical data on 161 listed manufacturing companies in Sri Lankaand Malaysia over the period of 2006 to 2008, and compares the performance of thesecompanies against two commonly used financi

19、al performance indicators: Return onAssets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE). The results indicate that during this periodSri Lankan manufacturing companies were considerably more profitable than their counterparts in Malaysia in terms of ROA but less profitable in terms of ROE. It alsoidentifies a r

20、elatively weaker position of equity investments in the manufacturing sectorof Sri Lankan companies and attributes this to a number of factors, including: arelatively poor equity market, high interest rates, and excessive fear of highriskinvestment. A similar trend was observed when the profitability

21、 and equity ofcompanies were analysed by industry.KeywordsProfitability, analysis, listed, manufacturing, companies, Sri, Lanka,Malaysia, empirical, investigationINTRODUCTIONSri Lanka and Malaysia had many things in common five decades ago. Both countries were British colonies and gained independenc

22、e from Britain nine years apart Sri Lanka in 1948 and Malaysia in 1957. Both coun tries started the post-independence period with a rich mix of resources, strong British legal and political institutions, and similar educational systems. In 1960, Malaysia had a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita

23、of about $280 and Sri Lanka had a GNI per capita of US$152 in 1960.“As of 1970,Sri Lanka and Malaysia had similar living standards ” (Sally, 2009, p1.). After five decades of independence, Malaysia is now far ahead of Sri Lanka in many fronts, including economic and industrial development. Today,“ M

24、alaysia is widely held as a great development success story in the developing world. Not withstanding the massive economic contraction experienced during the 1997-98 financial crisis, Malaysia s economic performance has been impressive throughout the postindependence period. Sustained high growth (a

25、veraging to nearly 6 per cent per annum for the past four decades) has been accompanied by rising living standards with a relatively equal distribution of income ” (Athukorala, 2005, p.19). DATA AND METHODOLOGYThe data for this study were obtained from Bureau Van Dijk s OSIRIS Database which provide

26、s financial and other related data for over 34,000 listed companies in 130 countries. Since the main source of data used in this study for measuring the profitability of listed companies in Sri Lanka and Malaysia is published company accounts, the results of this study should be viewed with caution.

27、 Data disclosed in public accounts are generally inherited with some limitations, especially if used to compare the performance of companies in different countries. One of the major limitations is that profits determined in companyaccounts are based on company accounting practices which may vary fro

28、m company to company. For example, items such as the amount of depreciation and the value of inventory are subject to arbitrary valuation within a fairly wide range. Moreover, particularly in respect of fixed assets, accounting figures based on the historical cost concept may not represent realistic

29、 values in a period of inflation. Profits calculated in the companyaccounts are also influenced by business and tax regulations which also vary between different countries. In the case of multinational companies, profit calculation maybe liable to various manipulations through practices such as tran

30、sfer pricing (Robbins and Stobaugh, 1974). Although compliancewith Intern ati onal Finan cial Report ing Stan dards (IFRS) which areused by more tha n 100 coun tries in clud ing Sri Lanka and Malaysia-facilitate comparability, there are still some inconsistencies in accounting practices which makes

31、it difficult to assess and compare the profitability of firms in a realistic manner, particularly when those firms are from different countries.SAMPLE OF COMPANIESThe sample companies of this study are manufacturing companies listed on the Colombo StockExchange (CSE) and the Malaysia exchange (MYX),

32、 chosen from only the companies on the OSIRIS database with complete financial data for the three years from 2006 to 2008. A screening process was then applied to companies matching the above criteria. First, all remaining companies in the sample were classified by the Global Industry Classification

33、 Standard (GICS) codes to eliminate nonmanufacturing companies as identified bytheir GICS codes. Second, since the main objective of this study is to exam ine the profitability of manu facturi ng compa nies of bothcoun tries,it was con sidered appropriate to elimi nate compa nies with a n egative av

34、erage ROA for the past three years, since having such companies in the sample distorts the results of the analysis. This screening process left 62 manufacturing companies in the Sri Lankan sample. Third, the GICScodes of these 62 compa nies were the n matched with the remai ning Malaysia n compa nie

35、s in the sample, elim in at ingthe Malaysia n compa nies that did notmatch the GICS codes of the compa nies in the Sri Lankan sample. This match ing process left, 99 Malaysia n compa ni es, which were the n selected as the sample of Malaysia n compa ni es.ECON OMY: SRI LANKA VERSUS MALA YSIABoth Sri

36、 Lanka and Malaysia are located in Asia which hosts 60% of the world s population. The two regions, Eastern Asia where Malaysia is located and Souther n Asia where Sri Lanka is located, also acco unt for 30%of the world s population.However, in comparison to somecountriesin Asia such as China and In

37、dia with enormous populations,the populationof these two coun tries, Sri Lanka (20milli on) and Malaysia (27 millio n) is relatively small as they acco unt for less tha n 1% of the total Asia n populatio n. Table 2 below provides some useful in formati on about the econo mic performa nee of the two

38、coun tries in the last 5 decades.TABLE 2Some indicalurs of ck in ograp hicrtn dcvelopmept iu Sri Lnnku and Alnlavsia19602007SLMALSLMAL%Popiilarian, tatal (millions)10SA8120026.61菇GNI per capita ($)S2280i.5106.540125GDP ($ in billions)L52.315332 41K6.7577GDP Ei omli (annual %)4 66.5bll6.86.393AyiLCii

39、ltiue. vahir addrtl (% olGDF*)32361131210S3ludiistn valiK added I % ? GDP I2018304SuoService vslue(% of GDP)484696584272Table 2 clearly shows that during the period from 1960 to 2007 the gap betwee n the two coun tries on some importa nt econo mic in dicators has widened. Like the GNI per capita- wi

40、dely used as a basic indicator ofeconomic performanee of a country - Sri Lanka lagged far behind Malaysia in 2007 with its GNI per capita in come of $1,540 in comparis on to Malaysia s $6,540. In 1960 Malaysia s GNI per capita in come was just 1.84 times Sri Lanka s GNI per capita in come but by 200

41、7 this gap wide ned to 4.25 times Sri Lan ka s GNI per capita in come. A similar situati on is observed for the GDP between the two countries. In 1960, Malaysia s GDP of $2.3billion is just 1.53 timesSri Lanka s GDPof $1.5 billion. However, by2007 Malaysia s GDPhas increased to a massive $186.7 bill

42、ion, which is almost 6 times Sri Lankas GDPof $32.4 billion in 2007. Another noteworthy difference between the two countries is that both countries have proportionately decreased their agricultural output while increasing their industrial output significantly between the two periods. Strikingly thro

43、ugh, in 1960 Sri Lanka s industrial output (20% of GDP)is about 10%t higher than that of Malaysia. However, while Sri Lanka has made significant progress in the growth of industrial output by increasing its contribution from 20% of GDP in 1960 to 30% of GDP in 2007 (an increase of 50%), Malaysia has

44、 increased its industrial output from 18% of GDP in 1960 to 48%of GDPin 2007 (an increase of 167%). Overall, the above data clearly shows that over this period Malaysia has out-performed Sri Lanka in terms of economic and industrial development by a significant margin.PROFITABILITY: SRI LANKA VERSUS

45、 MALAYSIAReturn on Assets (ROA)Table 3 demonstrates the dispersion of profitability rates, as measured by ROA,amongSri Lankan and Malaysian manufacturing companies from 2006 to 2008, together with the average ROAfor the three year period. As Table 3 shows, the average profitabilityof Sri Lankan comp

46、anies for the periodfrom 2006 to 2008 ranged from 10%to 11.4% with a 3 year average of 10.9%. Overall, 49% of the sample companies have been able to achieve an ROA greater than 10% over the 3 year period. While 16% of the companies have achieved poor results of less than 5% of ROA, 23% of the compan

47、ies have achieved an average ROA of above 15% over the 3 year period.The average profitabilityof Malaysian companies varied from 7.5% to 8.7%during the 3 year period with an overall average of 7.7%. A closer look at the dispersion of 3 year average profitability reveals that 25%of the 99 Malaysian c

48、ompanies achieved more than 10% ROA while only 9% of the companies have been able to achieve ROAof higher than 15%. The companies with relatively low profitability of below 5% accounted for 30% of all Malaysian companies.TABLE 3Dhp总r*iS%Below 527U291632ii35305-JO152339354138324410 - 1521351526I?1220

49、1615-2023USU128520-25&g631333Above 25Q31331ITotal10010010010UWO100100100nr c62sr62999999SiutiUicMean10 911.4)0.0ia.97.5S.77.67.7MuiimLiBi-45-030.3-9.3*4.6-7.9Maxiniimi46 O23.193.346.X32.829.727.826.SSTD8.15.9117Ttr6.66T5.5What is primarily apparent from the ROAfigures between the two countries is th

50、at the manufacturing profitability of Sri Lanka is relatively higher than that of all of the Malaysian manufacturing companies. More specifically, the ROAof Sri Lankan companies over the three year period was in the range of 10%to 11%with an overall average of 10.9%. Contrarily, the ROA of Malaysian

51、 companies for the same period was in the range of 7% to 9% with an overall average of 7.7%. This is 72% of the ROA of SriLankan companies and a differenee of 42%in favour of Sri Lankan companies. A closer look at the dispersion of the ROAbetween the two countries also reveals that Sri Lankan manu f

52、acturi ng compa nies have fared better tha nMalaysia n manu facturi ng compa nies in terms of achiev ing higher profitability. From the lower end, only 16% of the Sri Lankan companies have achieved less tha n 5% of ROA as aga inst 30% of Malaysia n compa nies achieving similar results. The situation

53、 is also similar for the top end of the scale. While 23% of the Sri Lankan companies have achieved more than 15% ROA, only 9% of Malaysian companies were able to achieve this result. A previous study that examined the profitability of manufacturing compa nies in Asia also revealed that the profitabi

54、lity of manu facturi ng compa nies in Sri Lanka was higher tha n that of some Asia n coun tries in clud ing Japa n, Hong Kong, Thaila nd, South Korea, Malaysia, China,Indon esia, Sin gapore and Pakista n. Accord ing to this study, the ROA of these countries in 1995 ranged from 2.4% (South Korea) to

55、11.1% (Pakistan). The ROA of Malaysia n manu facturi ng compa nies was found to be 9.6% (Wijewarde na and De Zoysa, 2000).CONCLUSIONSThe major objective of this paper was to assess the performa nee of SriLankan manufacturingcompanies in comparison to that of Malaysian manufacturing companies to obta

56、in some insights into improving their current level of performance. In order to achieve this objective, this study analysed the financial data of 161 manufacturing companies consisting of 62 Sri Lankan companies and 99 Malaysian companies selected from the OSIRIS Database. The data used in the study cover a three-year period from 2006 to 2008. Using this financial data of the sample companies two commonlyused performance measures, ROAand ROE, were calculated and analyse