Report on the financial results of pjsc sberbank. Analysis of the financial statements of sberbank

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

"Report on financial results (form 0409807)" is formed according to the data of 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 formed quarterly.

Starting from the Report as of April 1, 2019, the row data is calculated in accordance with the Development Table for the preparation of the Financial Results Report (published form) given in the Ordinance of the Bank of Russia dated October 8, 2018 No. 4927-U.

In the period from 01.04.2016 to 01.01.2019, the Development Table is used to generate the Report in accordance with the Bank of Russia Ordinance No. 4212-U dated 24.11.2016.

When compiling the Report as of 01.01.2016 and earlier dates, the Development table and symbols of the form 0409102 are used, which are applied before the entry into force of the Regulation on the procedure for determining income, expenses and other comprehensive income credit institutions No. 446-P dated December 22, 2014

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

When generating the Report, adjustments are also used due to the lack of access of third-party analysts to the form 0409110 "Decoding of certain indicators of the activity of a credit institution" and data analytical accounting credit institution.

I. Significant adjustments in the Statement of Financial Performance as of 01.04.2016 and later dates:

1. Income / expenses from the use of embedded derivatives that are not separable from the host contract (symbols 25601, 45601) are reflected 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 indebtedness, 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 the change in reserves - estimated liabilities non-credit character (symbols 293 **, 485 **), change in provisions for possible losses from assets transferred to trust management(symbols 28201, 47301), change of reserves for contingent liabilities credit character (symbols 28202, 47302), as well as changes in provisions for other assets, including claims and liabilities that do not generate interest (symbols 28204, 47304)

II. Significant adjustments in the Statement of Financial Results as of 01.01.2016 and earlier dates:

1. Income / expenses from operations with precious metals and precious stones (symbols 12403, 22203), as well as income / expenses from 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 transactions with financial assets at fair value through profit or loss” is calculated using symbols 16101, 25101 “Income / expenses on derivative financial instruments”.

3. The item “Net income from transactions 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 "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" is calculated using symbols 16305, 25302 "Income from recovery / Expenses for deductions to provisions for possible losses, other than reserves - estimated liabilities of a non-credit nature" less changes in provisions for securities available for sale and held to maturity. In turn, the change in securities reserves is calculated as the change from the beginning of the year in balances on balance sheet accounts to reflect the corresponding reserves.

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

Net profit of 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 provisions for impairment losses in 2017 increased by 12.1% to RUB 1,903.3 billion, driven by both net interest income and net fee and commission income. In 2017, the cost of creating provisions for impairment of debt financial assets decreased by 16.1% to 287.3 billion rubles against 342.4 billion rubles 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 for fixed assets and expenses for 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 is mainly due to a decrease in interest expenses against the background of a decrease in interest rates for raising funds. The Group's interest income decreased by 2.6%, mainly due to a decrease in interest rates in the market.

Interest income of the Group, RUB bln

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

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

Against the background of a decrease in interest rates in 2017, the cost of funding decreased during the year for almost all of the Group's attracted funds. Price borrowed money decreased over the year by 0.6 p.p. 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 fixed-term corporate and retail deposits (-0.9 p.p.) 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 households 'funds, the volume factor somewhat compensated for the drop in interest expenses due to an increase in average balances on households' funds in 2017. The share of the decrease in interest expenses on deposits from individuals amounted to 32.6% of the total decrease in interest expenses of the Group.

Cost of borrowed funds (quarterly),%

The net interest margin for 2017 was 6.0%, down 0.3 pp. exceeds the value of the net interest margin for 2016. The growth in the net interest margin was accompanied during the year by a significant decrease in the cost of borrowed funds, which significantly exceeded the decline in the profitability of interest-earning assets. Thus, the profitability of assets earning interest income decreased in 2017 by 0.3 percentage points. from 10.0% in 2016 to 9.7% in 2017, the cost of borrowed funds - by 0.6 p.p. from 4.7% in 2016 to 4.1% in 2017.

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

Fee and commission income and expense

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 transactions 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 this income in the Group's fee and commission income was 46.5%. A significant share in commission income is also made up of 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 billion

The expense of creating allowances for impairment losses loan portfolio, RUB bln

In 2017, the cost of creating provisions for loan impairment 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 Russian economy after the recession. Value value credit risk decreased by 26 bp. during 2017 from 177 bp in 2016 up to 151 bp in 2017.

Cost of credit risk (annual data), bp

Cost of credit risk (quarterly), bp

Other operating income / expenses

Other net operating income, which includes net income/ (expenses) from operations with securities, derivatives financial instruments, foreign currency, as well as net income / expenses from insurance activities, activities pension fund, amounted to 57.0 billion rubles in 2017. In 2016, other net operating expenses were recorded, which amounted to RUB 14.4 billion. The growth of other operating income in 2017 was influenced by a significant increase in income from operations with foreign exchange, foreign exchange derivatives and revaluation foreign currency... In addition, in 2016 other net operating expenses included a negative effect of 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 depreciation expense of fixed assets (-31.5%), caused by a change in the assessment of the term useful use fixed assets. Also, a significant decrease was noted in expenses for information services (-13.9%) due to a change in the classification of expenses for SMS notifications. The decrease in operating costs was also facilitated by a decrease in the costs of foreign subsidiaries caused by the effect of foreign exchange revaluation. Excluding methodological changes in accounting for depreciation and information services costs, operating expenses would have amounted to 694.1 billion rubles, while operating expenses would have grown by 2.4% over the year, which is in line with the inflation rate. Staff costs - the main component of operating expenses - increased by 4.8% in 2017 compared to 2016 due to indexation wages... The ratio of operating expenses to operating income before deducting provisions for impairment losses continued the downward trend and amounted to 35.2% at the end of 2017 compared to 39.7% at the end of 2016 (a decrease by 4.5 p.p.). The decrease in this indicator was mainly caused by the growth of operating income.

Operating expenses, RUB bln

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 appraisals 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 the extreme instability of the financial market, which has given rise to an ever-growing process of bank bankruptcies. Recent events on financial market Russia confirms the correctness of the conclusions of experts The World Bank, who warned that commercial banks in Russia would inevitably face serious problems, including the problem of competently assessing the financial condition of a commercial bank.

The situation in the financial market is complicated by the fact that the growing inability of commercial banks to make payments, to 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 an economic downturn, commercial banks operate in a high-risk area. This is evidenced by the most common reasons for bank bankruptcies:

ь unsuccessful search for new capital participants;

ь providing "bad" loans;

ь unsuccessful trade in mortgage securities;

ь bond trading operations;

ь corruption in the ranks of top management;

ь unqualified management who does not know how to timely recognize the risk of loss of assets, increased banking costs;

ь excess of opportunities over demand;

ь low-quality analysis of information about the situation in the financial market and the bank's clients.

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

The protracted nature of the crisis is causing new problems. Many banks are revising their development policy, reorganizing their work, shifting the focus in their activities. The banking system was set in motion. The wave of non-payments continues to "add" the banks.

In addition to the fact that the results of the analysis carried out can warn consumers banking services from problem 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 examining and studying aspects of the financial condition of a credit institution, as well as in analyzing the financial statements of a bank using a specific example.

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

1) 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, balance sheet - Form No. 101 (Appendix 1) and Profit and Loss Statement - Form No. 102 (Appendix 2), having calculated the main financial indicators.

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

The subject of the research is legislative and methodological issues for 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 actualized in order to increase the liquidity of the banking system.

Banking supervision tools include on-site, in-bank analysis and external supervision (so-called remote analysis). There are more and more opinions that “rating systems” based on calculating ratios based solely on the balance sheet without analyzing the internal quality of accounts can give a large amount of error, and the balance in the form of account balances does not allow adequately assessing the quality of the bank's assets and liabilities. One of the directions possible solution adaptation can become a problem international standards accounting and reporting to Russian practice.

Since the main goal of banking supervision (and, therefore, analysis) is to maintain the safety and reliability of the banking system and to try to make it transparent to consumers of banking services, the main focus should be on 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 conditional bank):

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

§ banks that are not comparable 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 volume 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 the trends in the bank's indicators, all calculations are carried out on the already accumulated figures;

§ many articles requiring decryption remain "faceless";

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

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

Therefore, despite these shortcomings, the modern methodological apparatus of credit institutions must be improved in terms of assessing the financial condition, 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 existing methodological apparatus 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) and customers are not taken into account.

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

An analysis carried out from three different positions (Central Bank, intrabank, rating) indicates a different amount of available information, and, as a consequence, 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, for example: risky assets, capital composition , bank liabilities, etc. These inconsistencies lead to a difference in the assessment of key ratios and, as a consequence, a mismatch in the assessment of the bank's financial condition.

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

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

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

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

1.2 Foreign experience in assessing the financial condition of a commercial bank

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

The developed countries have already found methodological unity in 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 size of equity capital bank, necessary to guarantee depositors, and the correspondence of the real amount of capital to the required;

b A (asset quality) - indicators of asset quality, which determine the degree of “recovery” of assets and off-balance sheet items, as well as the financial impact of problem loans;

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

b E (earnings) - indicators of profitability or profitability from the standpoint of its sufficiency for the future growth of the bank;

ь L (liquidity) - liquidity indicators 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 Backup system, Controller money circulation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - originally 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 (something that is currently lacking in the Russian banking system). This is how the CAMEL system was established abroad. It includes all the most important components of a 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 assessing banks, as the analysis is based on the results of on-site supervisory reviews. Only a part of the CAMEL indicators can be determined on the basis of the bank's external reporting. Let's take a closer look at the main components of this rating system.

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

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

o absorption of possible losses (of course, income allows you to absorb current losses, but they may not be enough in the long term);

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

Other types of capital are called complementary capital. These include: reserves for revaluation of fixed assets, free reserves to cover 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. Usually these are either deposits or total assets, but it all comes down to the fact that capital must be opposed to an indicator weighted by banking risks, both on balance sheet and off-balance sheet items.

The most important of the calculated ratios that determine the capital adequacy is the ratio 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 assets ratio is calculated according to the consolidated statement of financial situation bank as of the last date (including branches within the country and abroad, if relevant data are available) and is determined as follows:

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

Risk assets are defined as total assets less provision for potential credit losses, less cash and nostro accounts with correspondent banks, US Treasury securities, US government bonds, commercial accounting securities sold federal funds and securities purchased under a resale agreement.

Since the risk assets ratio does not determine the degree of risk associated with different asset structures, it should be used together with the asset quality indicator to obtain the final assessment of bank capital. The following tables summarize the performance criteria and constraints that are used to derive the aggregate equity estimate.

Table 1

Scale of ratios of risky assets:

For ratings 1-4, the ratio of risky assets must be equal to or higher than a special normative indicator associated with a separate assessment of capital; for score 5 there is an upper limit below which the risk assets ratio guarantees low rating capital. A capital rating below the normative does not necessarily preclude a more favorable assessment of assets as strong or fair. And, according to the analyst's assessment, a more favorable assessment is confirmed and consistent with the overall financial condition of the bank. If the regulatory conditions are not met, then the capital valuation should be reduced to a level commensurate with 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 assessment; however, any departure must be recorded and explained in the capital discussion in the confidential section of the analyst's report.

In the process of assessing capital, the analyst needs to take into account a number of factors:

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

o compare odds initial capital with a minimum level;

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

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

o take into account trends;

2. The volume of risky assets:

o compare the ratio 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 indicator of capital formation with the indicator of asset growth;

o previous trends;

o expansion plans or major construction and redevelopment plans;

5. Capital quality:

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

6. Retained earnings:

o compare dividend payments with the corresponding group average;

o past trends and prospective profits;

7. Access to capital markets:

o strength of parent companies;

o the ability to inject capital by the owners;

o earnings on shares - trend and average for the group;

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). Capital is strong in relation to: the volume of risky assets the volume of critical and inferior 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 with a risky asset ratio equal to or greater than the corresponding percentage in the table, has capital with a rating of 1.

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

If management with sufficient competence can satisfactorily resolve minor difficulties in points a, b and c, then bank capital should be rated 2, if the asset quality is not lower than 3 and the relative indicator of risky assets is equal to or exceeds the corresponding percentage in the table below.

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

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

Score 4 (critical). The capital is not sufficient. This usually applies to banks whose weighted asset classifications are detrimental share capital or whose ratio of risky assets is within the appropriate limits reflected in the capital adequacy assessment table.

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

table 2

Capital Adequacy Assessment

Asset quality indicator. An on-site inspection is usually required to assess asset quality. Analysts well versed in the valuation of loans and other credit services, establish a classification for problematic loans based on a "recovery" analysis.

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

It should be noted that while the reports provided provide some indication of assets, a true and complete valuation can be carried out through on-site reviews by credit analysts.

Determining asset quality is the most well-known and probably the longest phase of a supervisory review. Most of the inspection personnel are involved in this procedure. At the same time, subjective judgment is required from each analyst.

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

Table 3

Share of various categories of assets

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

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

In this way, banking system Russia already has an improved system of remote financial analysis, using elements of generally accepted methods for monitoring international banking supervision (trend analysis, which allows you to determine the dynamics of changes, and group analysis, which compares the bank 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 based on balance sheet but different from it. It is based on the principle of aggregation: balance sheet assets are grouped according to liquidity, and liabilities - according to the urgency of liabilities.

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

balance sheet structure indicators;

balance dynamics indicators;

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 an 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:

if possible, the balance sheet items are enlarged to obtain a general assessment of the condition of the property and to simplify the work;

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

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 initial balance at the beginning and end of the period;

the proportions of balance sheet items in the balance sheet at the beginning and end of the period;

changes in their absolute values;

changes in their specific weights;

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

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

the price of one percent of the 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.

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 ​​by items of the initial balance at the beginning and at the end of the reporting period (compared periods);

The proportions of items in the balance sheet at the beginning and end of the reporting period (compared periods);

Changes in absolute values;

Changes in specific weights;

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

Changes in percentage to changes in the balance sheet currency;

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

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

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

The form of the comparative analytical balance is as follows:

Table 4

Comparative analytical balance sheet of the bank

Table 4.1

Net equity = gross equity - immobilized assets.

The comparative analytical balance sheet includes:

Balance sheet structure indicators (columns 3-8);

Balance dynamics indicators (columns 9-17);

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

Columns 3, 4 and 5 reflect the absolute values ​​of 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 in 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 the changes specific weights values ​​of articles and sections for the analyzed periods;

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

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

The structure of the bank's asset balance consists of three parts:

Non-income generating assets;

Income-generating assets:

Immobilized assets.

The structure of the bank's liabilities balance 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 is notable for the fact that it brings together and systematizes those calculations that are usually performed by any analyst at the initial acquaintance with the balance sheet. Comparative analytical balance actually includes indicators sufficient for both horizontal and vertical analysis. In the course of horizontal analysis, the absolute and relative changes in the values ​​of various balance sheet items for a certain period are determined, and the purpose of the vertical analysis is to calculate the net share.

The structure of the comparative analytical balance allows:

Select individual active and passive types of transactions and assess their importance in the structure of liabilities and assets;

Track the movement of balances on individual balance sheet accounts;

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

Determine the reasons 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 the bank's own and borrowed resources;

Allocate profitable, liquid and immobilized assets;

Distribute clients' funds attracted in the form of deposits by maturity.

Comparing the structures of changes in assets and liabilities, it is possible to draw conclusions about the sources through which cash inflows are mainly carried out and into which assets these cash mostly nested.

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

2.1 Aggregating Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Statement

Within the framework of this chapter, we will first carry out the aggregation of the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement of this bank for 3 periods based on external financial statements.

Table 6

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

Table 8

Aggregated profit and loss account as of 01.01.2012

Table 10

Aggregated profit and loss account as of 01.01.2012

2.2 Analysis of assets and liabilities of the bank

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

Table 11.

Analysis of bank assets

K 1 - the specific weight (share) of income-generating assets in total assets. By 1 in 2011 it 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 the assets that generate income for the bank and an increase in the liquid position, which also indicates the bank's non-targeted policy 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.

K 2 - the ratio of earning assets to liabilities to pay. 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 remained almost unchanged and amounted to 0.761. The decrease in this indicator was due to the fact that both earning assets and paid liabilities grew, but paid liabilities grew faster. Consequently, the bank has increased its paid liabilities by large amount compared to income-generating assets and became ineffective in managing their paid liabilities; from this it follows that the bank's interest expenses were not covered for 3 years 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 extremely aggressive credit policy for all 3 periods, increasing the volume of loans and borrowings. To form a more cautious credit policy, the bank needs to increase its liabilities, otherwise a further increase in the ratio may lead to the risk of loss in the formation of the stability of the resource base and problems with current liquidity.

K 4 - shows the possibility of carrying out credit policy. It is calculated as the ratio of interbank loans received to those provided. 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 this bank is a lender in the interbank credit market.

K 5 - shows the riskiness of credit policy in relation to capital. The indicator values ​​are 8.6, 11.12 and 11.662, respectively, for 3 periods. There is a lack of capital in terms of the loan portfolio; in this case, the bank needs to reduce the amount of borrowed funds. And the inconsistency of this ratio with 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 total amount issued loans.

K 7 - provisions for coverage of 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, accordingly, 0.015, and almost did not change. A 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

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

K 9 - the degree of coverage by liquid assets of non-deposit and depository sources. Actual values ​​of the indicator - 1.081; 1.639 and, accordingly, 1.627 - exceed the limits of the optimal value (0.05-0.3). This suggests that the bank has sufficient liquid assets to cover non-depository and depository assets, which provides a very high degree of liquidity.

By 10 - potential liquidity reserve. The value of the coefficient in 2011 is 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 minimal liquidity risk when using secondary liquid resources (securities portfolio).

Table 13

Analysis of bank liabilities

K 11 - an indicator of the financial stability of the bank. The coefficient values ​​are equal to 0.099; 0.083 and 0.092, respectively. At the time of the analysis, the balance sheet has a high capital adequacy, which is ensured by a high share of equity capital 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 (the capital multiplier is defined as the ratio of assets to equity), which characterizes the efficient management of the resource base. Thus, the compliance of the values ​​with the norm indicates the super-high financial stability of the bank.

K 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 collateral with term liabilities and demand liabilities is not sufficient, which entails a risk of the bank's current liquidity and forces additional resources to be directed to cash assets.

K 13 - the level of urgency and reliability. The value of this coefficient at Sberbank is significantly lower than 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 operating costs for demand liabilities.

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 strongly 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 was calculated only for 2012 and amounted to 0.0006. For 2011 and 2013, the coefficient is 0, since during these years the bank did not have bank loans. Thus, in 2012, the share of bank loans in the total amount of the bank's liabilities was less than 1%. This is a positive trend, indicating low costs on obligations 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 was in 2011 - 0.424; in 2012 - 0.063; and in 2013 - 0.043. The actual decrease in this indicator for the periods indicates the effective management of liabilities, that is, the bank paid less fines, penalties, and penalties in 2013 compared to 2011.

Core capital = authorized capital + bank funds;

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

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

Table 14

Analysis of the effectiveness of the bank

By 19 - the efficiency of the assets. The optimal value of this ratio is 1-4%. The actual value for Sberbank in 2011 was 2.14%, in 2012 it was 1.77% and in 2013 - 1.94%. Actual values ​​for all periods are in line with 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 was received from each ruble of income. In 2011, the value of this ratio was 9.7%. This suggests that in 2011, 97 kopecks of profit were received from each ruble of income, in 2012. 84 kopecks of profit were received from each ruble of income, and in 2013 - 83 kopecks of profit. Over the course of 3 years, this indicator has decreased due to the fact that gross incomes and profits have grown, but gross incomes have grown faster. This is a negative trend, which means that the bank had less and less profit for every ruble of income, despite the fact that the bank has been increasing it over the course of 3 years.

By 21 - how much income was 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 higher than the norm, in 2012 - and it began to equal 21.02%, which is within the normal range and in 2013 - 23.43% - which is again above the norm. This means that the bank to some extent effectively manages its assets, while increasing the income attributable to each ruble of assets.

K 22 - the efficiency of using equity 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 effectively used its equity 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. For Sberbank, the value of this coefficient for three years corresponds to the norm (8-16 times) and is, respectively, 10.01 times; 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 the available resources.

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

Table 15

Additional indicators of the bank's performance

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

By 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 are -0.076 in 2011; in 2012 -0.139; and in 2013 -0.126. This means that the bank has been pursuing an ineffective interest rate policy for 3 years, and this also indicates that banking activities are unprofitable.

To 26 - the degree of coverage of interest expenses by interest income. The optimal value should be in the range of 110-125%; Sberbank from 2011 to 2012 the value of this ratio decreased by 18% and amounted to 171% and in 2013 did not change, 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 the main 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

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; for Sberbank, the values ​​of this indicator are below the norm (10.0-18.0%) and amount to 5.41%, 4.82% and, respectively, 5.26%. 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 in different ways during the three: 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 such a simple means, with the help of which it could receive a higher income. By the end of 2013, the bank was using its reserves irrationally, increasing them inappropriately.

By 30 - the priority of the areas of capital use. 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 activities for the use of equity capital are carried out properly.

By 31 - the size 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 capital 69.1%, 76.6% and 69.6% of earning assets, respectively, by period.

Next, we will calculate the factors that affect the efficiency of activities:

Table 17

Detailing the factors affecting efficiency

K 32 - the 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 speaks of 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 has an effective spread management policy.

K 33 - non-interest expenses. The optimal value of the ratio is 1.0% -4%. For the analyzed credit institution, the value in 2011 was higher than the norm and equal to 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.

By 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 too overestimated the 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 the bank's cost management. The value of this ratio 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 closely monitor the directions of expenses not related to the issuance of loans and attracting deposits.

K 36 is the percentage margin. For 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%. It follows from this that the size of the economic value added was 37%, 34% and, respectively, 35%. This once again confirms the conclusion drawn in K 32.

K 37 - income; the number of rubles of income raised per ruble of core capital. The value of the K 37 coefficient is 0.78 rubles. in 2011, 0.83 rubles. in 2012 and 0.85 in 2013, which is beyond the lower limit of this ratio (1.2 rubles) and indicates that the bank has been irrationally managing its core capital for three years and has received less income from its use. Consequently, for the effective management of core capital, a bank needs to increase interest income, while providing a higher rate of return per ruble of core capital.

Similar documents

Aspects of the financial condition of the credit institution and analysis of the bank's statements. Factors affecting banking, 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 the 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 on 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. Determination of the volume of profits and losses for drawing up the financial results of the bank.

term paper, added 12/11/2010


Organization of monitoring of the financial stability of counterparty banks. Assessment of the financial condition of a commercial bank on the example of JSC "State Savings Bank of KBR", possible ways to improve it. Balance sheet structure, 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 KB "National Business Bank" (LLC).

thesis, added 12/09/2013


General characteristics of Sberbank OJSC. 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 bank's performance based on balance sheet generalizations. Financial analysis of the working capital of the Industrial and Construction Bank OJSC.

thesis, added 12/02/2010


thesis, added 12/08/2008


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

term paper, added 10/29/2012


Characteristics 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 to improve the efficiency of financial activities of OJSC AKB "Rosbank".

Net profit of 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 impairment of debt financial assets decreased by 27.9% - to 342.4 billion rubles - against 475.2 billion rubles in 2015.

Operating expenses in 2016 slowed down the growth rate compared to last year and increased by 8.7% to RUB 677.6 billion. As of the end of 2016, the Group performed 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 is mainly due to a decrease in interest expenses against the background 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 an increase in the volume of operating assets.

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

Factor analysis of the Group's interest income

Loan yield,%

Interest expenses of the Group

Interest expenses decreased in 2016 by 19.8% compared to 2015 and amounted to 1,036.2 billion rubles. This decrease is the result of 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 was mainly related to interest expenses on funds from banks (by 81.5%), mainly due to a decrease in the volume of funds raised, mainly from the Bank of Russia. Also, a decrease in interest expenses was recorded on funds of corporate clients (by 27.1%), mainly due to the impact of the fall in interest rates on time deposits. The main component of interest expense remains interest expense on deposits from individuals, which are the Group's key source of financing. The share of these expenses amounted to 57.9% in the total amount of interest expenses compared to 44.4% at the end of 2015, which confirms the redistribution of attracted funds towards cheaper resources.

Factor analysis of the Group's interest expense

Against the background of a decrease in interest rates in 2016, the cost of funding decreased during the year for almost all the funds raised by the Group. The downward trend in interest rates had the greatest impact on the cost of attracting term deposits from private and corporate clients. Thus, the cost of funding for fixed-term deposits of individuals 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 funds raised from private clients in 2016 led to an increase in interest expenses on funds from private clients by 4.7%. The cost of funding for time deposits of corporate clients 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 the fall in 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 borrowed funds has 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,%

NIM grew consistently throughout 2016 from 4.9% in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 6.1% in the fourth quarter of 2016. The growth in the margin was primarily due to the decrease in the Group's funding costs observed in 2016. At the same time, the profitability of interest-earning assets increased insignificantly in 2016: by 0.2 pp from 9.9% to 10.1%.

Factors affecting the net interest margin in 2016

Profitability of working assets and the cost of paid liabilities,%

Fee and commission income and expense

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 commission income received from cash settlement services for private and corporate clients. Over the year, they increased by 18.9% - up to 350.4 billion rubles. The share of this income in the Group's fee and commission income was 80.3%. Also, growth was shown by fee and commission income from documentary operations and received agency fees.

Group fee and commission income and expense

In 2016, the cost of creating provisions for loan impairment decreased by 27.6%: from 473.1 billion rubles in 2015 to 342.4 billion rubles 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 affected the reduction in the amount of reserves in ruble terms on foreign currency loans.

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

Expenses from creating provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio

Credit risk cost, 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, pension fund activities, 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 the negative effect of revaluation of office real estate by RUB 25 billion, excluding which other net operating income would have amounted to RUB 10.6 billion. The drop in other operating income was also affected by a decrease in income from operations with foreign exchange and foreign exchange interest rate derivatives 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. This growth is mainly associated with the indexation of staff salaries. Also in 2016, there was an increase in advertising and marketing expenses (by 19.2%) and operating lease expenses (by 17.8%). At the same time, the ratio of operating expenses to operating income before deducting provisions for impairment in 2016 improved significantly: from 43.7% at the end of 2015 to 39.7% at the end of 2016 (by 4.0 p.p.).

Operating expenses

The net profit of the Sberbank of Russia Group under IFRS in 2011 increased to 315.9 billion rubles, which is 74% more than in 2010 (181.6 billion rubles) (project number 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 was driven by an increase in operating income before provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio (RUB 742.8 billion in 2011 and RUB 649.8 billion in 2010), as well as the recovery of the provision for loan impairment 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 grew by 17.1% and amounted to RUB 561.0 billion. (RUB 479.1 billion in 2010), the Group's net fee and commission income grew by 13.8% to RUB 140.6 billion.

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

Interest income and expense.

Interest income

The Group's interest income in 2011 amounted to RUB 850.6 billion, which is 6.9% higher than the 2010 result. The growth in interest income is primarily associated with the growth of basic working assets and an increase in the share of the most profitable assets in them, mainly loans.

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

Interest income on loan portfolio

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

Interest income on securities

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

Interest income on funds placed with banks

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

Interest and similar expenses of the Group (hereinafter interest expenses) in 2011 decreased by 8.5 - to 289.6 billion rubles. The cost of borrowed funds 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 deposits from individuals. The cost of attracting funds from individuals has steadily decreased 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 broken down by balance sheet items, as well as the amount of interest expenses in relation to these items and their average annual value.

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 attracting funds from individuals has steadily decreased 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

Interest expense on subordinated obligations

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

Interest expenses on attracted funds from banks

Interest expenses on borrowed funds from banks increased more than 3 times, which is primarily due to an increase in the volume of funds attracted from the Bank of Russia in the 4th quarter of 2011. The Group carried out these borrowings due to the need 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 the values ​​of the return on assets and the cost of liabilities, as well as the indicators of the interest spread and interest margin for 2010 and 2011.

Factors affecting the margin in 2011 and 2010 are presented below:

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 working assets, as well as a decrease in the cost of borrowed funds.

The table below presents a factor analysis of changes in interest income and expenses in 2011 compared to 2010, based on the influence:

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 yield 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 profitability of assets that generate interest income and the value of liabilities that generate interest expenses.

Net fee and commission income

The Group's fee and commission income in 2011 increased to RUB 151.9 billion, which is 16% higher than the amount of income received in 2010. The growth of this indicator was due to the expansion of the volume of transactions that generate commission income, in particular, transactions with bank cards. At the same time, the bulk of the Group's fee and commission income traditionally falls on 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 is cash services for accounts, for individuals - money transfers. At the same time, the Group is actively developing other areas of receiving commissions: commissions under agency agreements regarding the sale of insurance policies, operations with plastic cards, foreign currency, and securities, which makes it possible to diversify the structure of commission income.

Fee and commission expenses primarily relate to settlement transactions.

Financial result from operations with securities

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

Foreign exchange income

In 2011, the total income from foreign exchange transactions amounted to RUB 9.5 billion. (14.1 billion rubles in 2010). The financial result from transactions with derivative financial instruments in foreign currencies is primarily associated with the Group's use of derivative financial instruments for liquidity management and is obtained primarily from currency swaps. These transactions are considered in conjunction with foreign exchange revaluation gains. Also in the reporting period, the Group increased the volume of transactions with derivative financial instruments as part of expanding its 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 personnel costs, which account for 58.5% of operating expenses for 2011. The increase in personnel costs amounted to 26.4% - up to 203.8 billion rubles. - and is associated with the planned implementation of the program to bring the salaries of employees in line with the market level, as well as with an increase in investment in raising the level of professional qualifications and competence of personnel and an increase in the bonus fund in connection with the high performance of the Group in 2011. Detailed information on investments in the Group's personnel is presented in the section “Investments in human capital”.

Other items of operating expenses in aggregate increased by 38%. The biggest increase was seen in depreciation and maintenance of fixed assets, administrative expenses and information services costs in connection with investments in the development of information technology infrastructure and reformatting of the office network in accordance with the Group's development strategy. Detailed information on the development of information technologies, as well as the branch network of the Group, is presented in the section "Development of the Bank" and in the section "Ensuring the availability of services".

Costs for creation / income from restoration of provisions for loan impairment

Net income from the restoration of provisions for impairment of the loan portfolio in 2011 amounted to 1.2 billion rubles, while in 2010 the net cost of creating provisions amounted to 153.8 billion rubles. This indicates an improvement in the quality of the loan portfolio as a whole against the background of the improvement in the Russian economy. In addition, the Group's performance was positively affected by the work to optimize the management system for 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 uncollectible increased in 2011 by 19.6%. A significant part of the write-downs occurs as a result of the sale of non-performing loans by the Group.