盈利能力分析外文翻译

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。

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。1960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（Robbins和Stobaugh，1974年）。虽然符合国际财务报告准则（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代码，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，它被认为是适当的，以消除企业与负的平均ROA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代码，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代码斯里兰卡样本。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 人口总计（百万） 人均GNI（美元） GDP（十亿美元） GDP增长（每年%） 农业增长（GDP%） 工业增长（GDP%） 服务业增长（GDP%） 斯里兰卡 10 152 1.5 4.6 32 20 48 1960 马来西亚 8.1 280 2.3 6.5 36 18 46 % 8181 184 153 141 113 90 96 斯里兰卡 20.0 1540 32.4 6.8 12 30 58 2007 马来西亚 26.6 6540 186.7 6.3 10 48 42 % 133 425 577 93 83 160 72 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GDP只是1.53倍斯里兰卡为15十亿GDP。然而，2007年马来西亚GDP已增至美元的巨额186.7十亿，这是近6倍，斯里兰卡在2007年达32.4十亿GDP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1960年斯

里兰卡的工业产值（占GDP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GDP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ROA测得的，其中斯里兰卡和马来西亚的制造企业2006年至2008年，平均ROA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ROA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 ROA 范围 斯里兰卡 马来西亚 2006 2007 2008 平均值 2006 2007 2008 平均值 % % % % % % % % 5以下 27 16 29 16 32 31 35 30 5-10 15 23 39 35 41 38 32 44 10-15 27 35 15 26 15 12 20 16 15-20 23 18 8 18 7 12 8 5 20-25 6 8 6 3 1 3 3 3 25以上 2 0 3 2 3 3 1 1 总计 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 无公司 62 62 62 62 99 99 99 99 统计 平均 10.9 11.4 10.0 10.9 7.5 8.7 7.6 7.7 最小 -4.5 -0.3 -5.4 0.3 -9.3 -4.6 -7.9 -3.1 最大 46.0 23.1 93.3 46.8 32.8 29.7 27.8 26.8 STD 8.1 5.9 12.7 7.1 6.6 6.7 6.2 5.5 马来西亚公司的平均利润率由7.5％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ROA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ROA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ROA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ROA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ROA和42％赞成斯里兰卡公司的差的72％。仔细看看居留权的两国间的分散也表明，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ROA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ROA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，ROA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，据透露，所有在斯里兰卡六大行业录得较高的ROA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ROE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ROE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 - 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 A

Chandrakumara，PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS OF LISTED MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN SRI LANKA AND MALAYSIA，University of Wollongong, Australia.

PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS OF LISTED MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN SRI

LANKA AND MALAYSIA

Anura De Zoysa, Athula S. Manawaduge, Palli Mulla K A

Chandrakumara

University of Wollongong, Australia

Abstract

This 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 financial 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 relatively 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 and equity ofcompanies were analysed by industry.

Keywords

Profitability, analysis, listed, manufacturing, companies, Sri, Lanka, Malaysia, empirical, investigation

INTRODUCTION

Sri Lanka and Malaysia had many things in common five decades ago. Both countries were British colonies and gained independence from Britain nine years apart – Sri Lanka in 1948 and Malaysia in 1957. Both countries 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 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, “Malaysia 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 (averaging 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 METHODOLOGY

The data for this study were obtained from Bureau Van Dijk’s OSIRIS Database which provides 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. 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 company accounts are based on company accounting practices which may vary from 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 values in a period of inflation. Profits calculated in the company accounts are also influenced by business and tax regulations which also vary between different countries. In the case of multinational companies, profit calculation may be liable to various manipulations through practices such as transfer pricing (Robbins and Stobaugh, 1974). Although compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) – which are used by more than 100 countries including Sri Lanka and Malaysia – facilitate comparability, there are still some inconsistencies in accounting practices which makes it difficult to assess and compare the profitability of firms in a realistic manner, particularly when those firms are from different countries.

SAMPLE OF COMPANIES

The sample companies of this study are manufacturing companies listed on the Colombo Stock

Exchange (CSE) and the Malaysia exchange (MYX), 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 Standard (GICS) codes to eliminate nonmanufacturing companies as identified by their GICS codes. Second, since the main objective of this study is to examine the profitability of manufacturing companies of both countries, it was considered appropriate to eliminate companies with a negative average 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 GICS codes of these 62 companies were then matched with the remaining Malaysian companies in the sample, eliminating the Malaysian companies that did not match the GICS codes of the companies in the Sri Lankan sample. This matching process left, 99 Malaysian companies, which were then selected as the sample of Malaysian companies.

ECONOMY: SRI LANKA VERSUS MALAYSIA

Both Sri 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 Southern Asia where Sri Lanka is located, also account for 30% of the world’s population. However, in comparison to some countries in Asia such as China and India with enormous populations, the population of these two countries, Sri Lanka (20million) and Malaysia (27 million) is relatively small as they account for less than 1% of the total Asian population. Table 2 below provides some useful information about the economic performance of the two countries in the last 5 decades.

Table 2 clearly shows that during the period from 1960 to 2007 the gap between the two countries on some important economic indicators has widened. Like the GNI per capita –widely used as a basic indicator of economic performance of a country – Sri Lanka lagged far behind Malaysia in 2007 with its GNI per capita income of $1,540 in comparison to Malaysia’s $6,540. In 1960 Malaysia’s GNI per capita income was just 1.84 times Sri Lanka’s GNI per capita income but by 2007 this gap widened to 4.25 times Sri Lanka’s GNI per capita income. A similar situation is observed for the GDP between the two countries. In 1960, Malaysia’s GDP of $2.3 billion is just 1.53 times Sri Lanka’s GDP of $1.5 billion. However, by 2007 Malaysia’s GDP has increased to a massive $186.7 billion, which is almost 6 times Sri Lanka’s GDP of $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 through, 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 increased its industrial output from 18% of GDP in 1960 to 48% of GDP in 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 MALAYSIA

Return on Assets (ROA)

Table 3 demonstrates the dispersion of profitability rates, as measured by ROA, among Sri Lankan and Malaysian manufacturing companies from 2006 to 2008, together with the average ROA for the three year period. As Table 3 shows, the average profitability of Sri Lankan companies for the period from 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 companies have achieved an average ROA of above 15% over the 3 year period.

The average profitability of 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 companies achieved more than 10% ROA while only 9% of the companies have been able to achieve ROA of higher than 15%. The companies with relatively low profitability of below 5% accounted for 30% of all Malaysian companies.

What is primarily apparent from the ROA figures between the two countries is that the manufacturing profitability of Sri Lanka is relatively higher than that of all of the Malaysian manufacturing companies. More specifically, the ROA of 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 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 Sri Lankan companies and a difference of 42% in favour of Sri Lankan

companies. A closer look at the dispersion of the ROA between the two countries also reveals that Sri Lankan manufacturing companies have fared better than Malaysian manufacturing companies in terms of achieving higher profitability. From the lower end, only 16% of the Sri Lankan companies have achieved less than 5% of ROA as

against 30% of Malaysian companies achieving similar results. The situation 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

companies in Asia also revealed that the profitability of manufacturing companies in Sri Lanka was higher than that of some Asian countries including Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Singapore and Pakistan.

According to this study, the ROA of these countries in 1995 ranged from 2.4% (South Korea) to 11.1% (Pakistan). The ROA of Malaysian manufacturing companies was found to be 9.6% (Wijewardena and De Zoysa, 2000).

CONCLUSIONS

The major objective of this paper was to assess the performance of Sri Lankan manufacturing companies in comparison to that of Malaysian manufacturing companies to obtain 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 commonly used performance measures, ROA and ROE, were calculated and analysed.

This analysis revealed that during the period from 2006 to 2008 Sri Lankan manufacturing companies were considerably more profitable than their counterparts in Malaysia, indicating a positive result for Sri Lanka. When profitability was analysed by industry, it was revealed that all of the six industries in Sri Lanka recorded a relatively higher ROA than their counterparts in Malaysia. The primary observation from a high profitability level for manufacturing companies in Sri Lanka is that this has the capacity to penetrate into a greater level of investment in the future. On the contrary to ROA, Malaysian companies have overall performed slightly better than Sri Lankan companies in terms of ROE. However, inter-industry analysis shows that except in the agricultural products and plantations sector, all other manufacturing sectors in Sri Lanka have individually achieved a higher ROE than their Malaysian counterparts. Nevertheless, there still seems to be the need and the opportunity for companies in Sri Lanka to improve their ROE. Increasing the level of ROE is vital for Sri Lanka if it is to attract increased equity investment into its manufacturing sector. Another major finding of this study is that Sri Lanka’s relative position is poor – particularly in terms of equity investment in manufacturing – as the equity capital of Sri Lankan companies is only 46% compared to 60% for Malaysian companies. A similar trend is observed in all six industries in both countries when the equity levels are analysed by industry. The reason for the lower level of equity capital in Sri Lankan companies can be attributed to several factors such as: the relatively poor equity market, the high interest rates available to non-equity investors, the excessive fear of high-risk investment, and the manufacturers’ inadequate exploitation of appropriate investment opportunities.

Nevertheless, a high level of equity investment is crucial for the Sri Lankan manufacturing sector to be successful in its endeavour to achieve higher economic and industrial development. Future research in this area also needs to examine the impact of various factors – such as size, age, location, exports, asset and capital structure, labour costs, employee productivity and managerial efficiency, etc. – on company profitability of Sri Lankan companies. For this reason, a longitudinal analysis with a larger sample is desirable.

Note: Anura De Zoysa, Athula S. Manawaduge, Palli Mulla K A

Chandrakumara，PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS OF LISTED MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN SRI LANKA AND MALAYSIA，University of Wollongong, Australia.

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/wn2t.html