The 2008-2009 crisis also affected the East Asian region, although to a lesser extent than, for example, Central and Eastern Europe and many developed Western countries. Compared to the 1997-1998 Asian crisis, its impact on economic growth in the top five ASEAN countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines) was not critical, as evidenced by the dynamics of their real GDP (Table 1).

Domestic demand has been a lifeline in Indonesia's economy, while Singapore and Malaysia have managed to overcome the effects of the 2008-2009 global crisis primarily by reviving exports. At the same time, the foreign trade component of economic growth remains high in all these countries, so their national economies remain significantly dependent on cyclical fluctuations in the global environment.

The purpose of this article is to study the competitiveness of specific companies from the ASEAN-5 countries in the crisis, to conduct a comparative assessment of the situation during the Asian crisis and the crisis of 2008-2009. ¹

APPROACH TO ASSESSING COMPETITIVENESS

Based on the approach of M. Porter, a recognized expert in the field of competition and competitive strategies, we consider competitiveness as the property of a product, service, or subject of economic relations to act in the market on an equal basis with similar goods, services, or competing subjects of market relations present there.²

According to Porter, a company's competitiveness is defined as a combination of two main characteristics - operational efficiency and strategic positioning. The first characteristic gives an idea of the company's performance in the short term; the second-reflects the company's strategy for the medium and long term, its ability to achieve significant competitive advantages and a unique position in the market.

The crisis period, when the main competitors are weakened, can often be a favorable time for the accelerated implementation of new development strategies, gaining a larger market share or new market niches, but not every company can take advantage of this chance. Usually, in times of crisis, the task of ensuring operational efficiency comes to the fore. Management horizons are significantly narrowing, and investment in upgrading production facilities is sharply reduced. Companies seek to optimize costs through special programs to reduce costs, achieve break-even, and / or maintain business profitability.

To assess operational efficiency, we use a set of the following indicators::

1) net profit margin, which characterizes the company's performance. If the reporting period is closed with a profit, then the company can be considered effective regardless of the specifics of its business processes;

Dmitry A. MYNKIN, PhD student at the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies, IMEMO RAS (dmynkin@mail.ru).

¹ Calculations were based on data from the Thomson Reuters Knowledge information and analysis system, the IMF, and national statistics of the ASEAN-5 countries. See: IMF Country Report N 09/230. W., July 2009, P. 4-18; N 09/253. August 2009. P. 4-22; N 09/261. August 2009. p. 4-15; N 09/62. February 2009. P. 3-20; N 09/269. August 2009. P. 4-14; N 10/90. April 2010. P. 6-10; N 10/265. August 2010. P. 4-19; Enterprises in Asia: Fostering Dynamism in SMEs. Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2009. P. 15-29; Economic Survey of Singapore 2009. Ministry Trade and Industry, Republic Singapore, February 2010. P. 9-29.

² See: M. Porter. Konkurentsiya [Competition], Moscow, 2010, p. 57.

Table 1. Real GDP growth rates in the leading ASEAN countries, %

Источники: http://www.imf.org/extemal/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/weoselagr.aspx; http://www.bsp.gov.ph/statistics/spei_new/tab61a.htm; http://www.singstat.gov.sg/news/news/advgdp3q2010.pdf

2) current liquidity and financial dependency ratios that characterize the company's solvency and financial stability. The first one reflects the company's ability to repay current debt at the expense of its own current assets, and the second one reflects its debt load.

The higher the current liquidity ratio, the better the solvency of the enterprise. Its normal value is considered to be in the range from 1.5 to 2.5, depending on industry ³. If the indicator is less than 1, this indicates a high financial risk, when the company is not able to consistently pay current accounts, if more than 3-about an irrational capital structure.

The financial dependency ratio shows how much borrowed funds the company has raised for 1 ruble of its own. A stable enterprise is considered if this coefficient does not exceed 1.5-⁴.

A key indicator of the company's performance is its net profit margin. If an enterprise with all its technological and managerial achievements cannot make a profit for a long time or is not able to increase it, then it is quite likely that there is a systemic defect in its activities that seriously limits the growth potential. However, it should be borne in mind that in order to minimize tax payments, companies may intentionally underestimate the amount of net profit in their financial statements. However, the regular use of such practices is unlikely to be ignored by the State, which will want to find out the true state of affairs.

Two other indicators (current liquidity ratios and financial dependency ratios) characterize the company's financial stability in the short term. Even a profitable company can become so insolvent and burdened with debt that instead of focusing on long-term development goals, it will have to pay off its creditors and replenish its working capital. In other words, its competitiveness will be significantly limited.

DYNAMICS OF NET PROFIT MARGIN

To analyze the net profit margin, we used the corporate financial statements of companies for 1997-2009 reflected in the Thomson Reuters Knowledge information system. The sample includes 69 enterprises of the ASEAN-5 countries with total assets of $ 128.2 billion. and the number of employees is 327.6 thousand people. These are large public companies that attract increased attention from regulators, investors, and business partners. Their securities are listed on the stock exchanges of Southeast Asia (Singapore and Thailand). Such companies, according to the exchange's rules, are required to regularly publish audited financial statements, which reduces the risk of unreliability of the information they provide.

The selected firms represent 5 key industries for their home countries:

³ See: Dontsova L., Nikiforova N. Analysis of Financial statements, Moscow, 2004.

⁴ See: ibid.

1. Real estate development and operations.

2. Construction, engineering and production of building materials.

3. Telecommunications.

4. Production of semiconductors, computers, microchips.

5. Transport.

It is worth noting that the industry affiliation of business in this case plays a more important role than the country one, since the public companies under consideration are active in the international market and open enterprises abroad. They have already reached a certain scale of production and can afford to defend their interests in many countries of the world. We will describe in more detail the companies of each of these industries.

Development and real estate operations in the sample are represented by 19 companies with total assets (at the end of 2009-beginning of 2010) of $ 28.66 billion. and the number of employed people is 19.4 thousand (Table 2).

The global economic crisis triggered by the financial bubble in the US real estate market also affected the development business of the ASEAN countries, but to a lesser extent than the Asian crisis. So, if in 1997-1998 the drop in profitability to unprofitability was recorded in 11 of the 19 companies included in the sample, then in 2008-2009 - only in two. In general, the dynamics of average net profitability indicators for the period 1997-2009. This indicates that developers in ASEAN-5 have learned to respond adequately to external challenges (Figure 1).

Table 2. Real estate development and operations

Here and all subsequent source tables: http://www.knowledge.reuters.com/RK/Pages/Public/Login.aspx?targetURL=%2fDefault.asp x

Figure 1. Dynamics of average net profitability indicators of development companies, 1997-2009, %

All drawings are calculated using: http://www.knowledge.reuters.com/RK/Pages/Public/Login.aspx?targetURL=%2fDefault.asp x

During the last crisis, they managed to maintain a fairly high level of profitability. In 2009, the median value of net profitability of development companies was 19.5%, while in 1998 this indicator was negative (-39.45%). Against the background of the countries of Eastern Europe and many developed countries of the West, where developers were forced to make large-scale staff cuts, freeze projects, close representative offices in other countries and withdraw from promising markets, the situation in the leading ASEAN countries can be considered quite successful.

Participants in the real estate market, which has a large number of players, operate in a highly competitive environment, both from established businesses and from new companies. Moreover, newcomers are often backed by large-scale resources from China, Japan and South Korea - countries where the benefits of investing in development projects in the ASEAN countries are well understood. That is why those firms that managed to stay in such a competitive market for many years and successfully pass through the crisis have every right to be considered competitive.

The competitiveness of development companies in the leading ASEAN countries is largely determined by the state of the construction industry. For the purposes of this article, construction, engineering and construction materials production represent 13 companies with total assets of $ 18.61 billion. and the number of employed 75.84 thousand people (Table 3).

Just as in the development business, the impact of the crisis in construction in 2008-2009 was less noticeable than in 1997-1998. During the period of

Table 3. Construction, engineering and production of building materials

Figure 2. Dynamics of average net profitability indicators of construction companies, 1997-2009, %

During the Asian crisis, 8 out of 13 construction companies from the ASEAN-5 countries showed net losses. Two years later, the number of unprofitable firms decreased to 6. At the same time, in 2009, only one company (Italian-Thai Development Public Co Ltd) recorded a net loss. At the same time, it has already turned out to be unprofitable 7 times in 12 years, which speaks more about the specifics of the business, and not about the impact of the crisis. In 2008, 4 out of 13 companies recorded a deterioration in their performance, but in general, construction companies were able to cope with the difficulties of the crisis period.

At the same time, the performance of construction companies was unstable. Six of the 13 companies included in the sample showed losses at least twice in 2000-2007 , a period characterized by rapid growth in the global economy and the economies of South Asian countries in particular.

The dynamics of average net profitability indicators clearly demonstrates the instability of the financial situation of construction companies in the ASEAN-5 countries in 1997-2009. (Figure 2).

It is worth noting that the average profitability decreased significantly (to 5.27%) in 2008, which can obviously be attributed to the impact of the crisis in the US construction industry. However, this level of profitability cannot be considered low in comparison with the indicators of European and American construction companies, which continue to feel the negative effects of the crisis until now. Already in 2009, the median net profit margin of the 13 construction companies of the ASEAN-5 countries included in the sample increased to 12.16% , which is quite a good indicator for the crisis year. The rapid recovery in profitability can be seen as a sign of strengthening the financial position of South Asian companies, which will help them focus on their strategic development goals and gain new niches in the construction market.

Table 4. Telecommunications

Figure 3. Dynamics of average net profitability indicators of telecommunications companies, 1997-2009, %

A special place in the economies of the ASEAN-5 countries is occupied by the telecommunications sector. The growing demand for the services of companies in this sector (providing mobile and fixed-line communications, connecting to the Internet and digital television, implementing complex telecommunications projects in corporations, etc.) is an important indicator of dynamically developing economies. In this study, the telecommunications sector is represented by 11 companies with total assets of $ 27.88 billion. and the number of employed 73.45 thousand people (Table 4).

Like the other ASEAN-5 economic sectors discussed earlier, the telecommunications sector has been affected by crises. During the Asian crisis, 6 out of 11 companies showed losses, and five of them became unprofitable in 1997, and then for a short time managed to improve their performance (in 1998, the number of unprofitable companies was reduced to two). In 2008, five out of 11 companies were listed as unprofitable, but a year later only three remained unprofitable.

As the graphs in Figure 3 clearly demonstrate, the depth of decline in the profitability of telecommunications companies during the last two crises was not comparable. If in 1997-1998 there were sharp fluctuations in the average indicators of net profitability, then in 2008-2009. they gradually declined, but remained in the zone of positive values. The median value of net profit margin for the analyzed period increased from -15.33% in 1997 to 8.15% in 2009.

In general, the indicators of the analyzed group of companies indicate a relatively favorable situation in the telecommunications sector during the global economic crisis of 2008-2009, which, apparently, may be due to its predominant focus on domestic demand.

One of the key industries not only for the ASEAN-5 countries, but also for other Asian countries is the production of semiconductors and computers. Companies from Japan, South Korea, China and Southeast Asian countries have developed strong and multi-level business relationships in this sector. Firms from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines not only fulfill orders from technologically advanced countries, but also have formed their own production chains. They are mainly focused on the foreign market, which means that their profitability is highly dependent on fluctuations in the global market environment.

In this study, the production of semiconductors and computers in the ASEAN-5 countries is represented by 13 companies with total assets of $ 7.88 billion. and the number of employed people is 98.16 thousand (Table 5).

During the Asian crisis, 4 out of 13 companies in the industry showed losses, but already in 1999, three of them were able to finish the year with a profit. In 2008-2009, five companies were unprofitable, and one of them (Psi Technologies Holdings Inc) suffered losses since 2001. At the same time, the decline in profitability and losses of individual enterprises during the global economic crisis did not lead to a negative shift in the sample's average net profitability indicators (Figure 4). In 2009, the median value of net profitability for 13 companies reached 1.71%.

It is worth noting that manufacturers of semiconductors and computer equipment in ASEAN-5 experienced the most serious problems in 2000-2002 during the dot-com crisis in the United States. Then the drop in income was more noticeable than in 1997-1998 and 2008-2009.

Transport infrastructure, primarily sea and air transport (both passenger and cargo), is of particular importance for the ASEAN countries separated by sea. In this study, transport is represented by 14 companies of various specializations with total assets of $ 45.58 billion.

Table 5. Semiconductor and computer manufacturing

Figure 4. Dynamics of average net profitability indicators of companies in the semiconductor and computer manufacturing industry, 1997-2009, %

and the total number of employed people is 65.59 thousand (Table 6).

The crises of the past fifteen years did not pass by the transport sector enterprises. Six of the 14 companies in the ASEAN-5 countries ended with losses in 1997, and three - in 1998. During the last crisis, the picture was slightly better - five companies turned out to be unprofitable, and in relation to one of them (Aboitiz Transport System Corp), the term "sustainable unprofitability" can be used, which can hardly be explained only by the negative impact of the external environment.

The graphs in Figure 5 show that during the global economic crisis, the average profitability indicators for the group of transport enterprises remained at an acceptable level. During the Asian crisis, the collapse did not happen either. In 1997-1998, the median net profit margin of 14 companies was 2.97%, and in 2008-2009 it increased to 4.81%. However, after continuous growth for eight years, the business efficiency of transport companies began to decline markedly.

A total of 69 large companies representing five key economic sectors of the leading ASEAN countries in the period 1997-1998. losses were recorded by 35 enterprises, while in 2008-2009 - only 22. In other words, the global crisis of 2008-2009 affected the competitiveness of companies from the ASEAN-5 countries to a lesser extent than the Asian crisis, although in some industries, in particular in transport, its impact was quite noticeable.

FINANCIAL STABILITY AND SOLVENCY

A consistently profitable company is more likely to maintain high solvency and financial stability during a crisis period. Was it possible to do this

Table 6. Transport

Figure 5. Dynamics of average net profitability indicators of transport companies, 1997-2009, %

To answer this question, we analyzed the situation in 20 companies in various industries with total assets of $ 60.69 billion. and the number of employees over 183 thousand people (Table 7).

In this group, during the entire specified period, the indicators of net profitability, firstly, were positive, and secondly, relatively stable (without extreme values and sharp fluctuations). During the Asian crisis, 8 out of 20 companies recorded a decrease in the current liquidity ratio to an unfavorable level (less than 1.5). During the last crisis, the number of companies with low solvency decreased to five, and in three of them (Malaysian Airline, Mahachai Hospital PCL and Sri Trang-Agro Industry PCL), the current liquidity ratio did not exceed 1 throughout the entire time period under consideration, which means that financial problems here were most likely caused not so much crises, as much as industry-specific or individual business features.

In 1997-1998, 5 out of 20 firms significantly increased their dependence on borrowed funds - the amount of their debt exceeded their own capital by more than 1.5 times. In 2008-2009, the number of such companies increased to six, but one of them (Sri Trang-Agro Industry PCL) increased its debt burden long before the crisis. In other firms, its increase, in one way or another, was associated with crisis trends. Thus, the financial dependence of Malaysian Airline increased 12-fold in 2009. It is worth noting that most of the companies included in the sample still did not go beyond the threshold value of the debt burden, so as not to endanger their business.

This is also evidenced by the dynamics of average indicators of current liquidity and financial stability.-

Table 7. Companies with consistently positive net profitability indicators in the period 1997-2009

6). In general, their values for the group of companies under consideration were in a favorable range. Only in 2005 was the current liquidity ratio slightly below the threshold (1.5), while the financial dependency ratio never approached the critical value for the entire period under review.

Relatively successful results should not be overestimated, since, as already noted, the sample includes 20 consistently profitable companies. In all other cases, the indicators of solvency and financial stability may vary greatly depending on the industry, business size, regional characteristics, etc. However, even among these profitable companies, the following factors are considered:

Figure 6. Dynamics of average indicators of current liquidity and financial dependence, 1997-2009

There were several companies that showed a significant deterioration in their results during the crisis, in particular in terms of the level of debt burden. These include, for example, Malaysian Airline, Malaysia's largest airline and one of the largest airlines in the ASEAN countries after Singapore and Thai Airlines.

* * *

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the operational efficiency of companies and the overall macroeconomic situation in the ASEAN-5 countries.

1. The leading ASEAN countries have managed to maintain their positions in global competition in terms of economic growth and potential for further development. However, the case of specific companies shows that the impact of crises has not gone unnoticed. In 2008-2009, 22 of the 69 firms reviewed in this study were unprofitable, but overall the decline was less profound than during the Asian crisis. Average net profitability indicators in 2009 did not move into the negative zone for any of the analyzed industries. This means that, in general, the economies of the ASEAN-5 countries have managed to maintain the prerequisites for achieving long-term goals and gaining new competitive advantages.

2. During the recession, the financial situation in different industries varied significantly. The ASEAN-5 countries managed to quickly eliminate losses in the development business and construction. As early as in 2009, the average net profit margin here increased. At the same time, such industries as telecommunications, semiconductor and computer manufacturing, although they remained profitable during the crisis, but then did not show any noticeable positive changes.

For transportation, construction and real estate development companies, the decline in profitability began in 2007, which means that they were most sensitive to negative trends in the US mortgage market. At the same time, the lowest rates in the period 2008-2009 were observed in the most export-oriented sector of semiconductor and computer production. At the same time, companies in this area were more affected by the dot-com crisis in the United States in 2000-2002 than by the actual crises of 1997-1998 and 2008-2009.

3. Consistently profitable companies in the ASEAN-5 countries proved to be more resilient during the crisis. However, even among them, there were those who had to resort to additional borrowing, which led to an increase in risks associated with the deterioration of current liquidity indicators and financial dependence. In this sense, the situation in the ASEAN-5 countries corresponds to global trends. At the same time, there was no threat to sustainable development, since in general the values of these indicators did not exceed the critical level.

4. Despite the desire of Governments to develop the domestic market and find new growth points, foreign trade and international investment cooperation remain the most important sectors of the ASEAN economies, which means that these countries are still highly dependent on the external environment.

5. Recent crises have stimulated the search for new development models at both the micro and macro levels. For specific companies in the ASEAN-5 countries, this means further diversification of production, expansion of the range of consumers, and further expansion of the market.-

developing new markets, creating reserves in case of market conditions deterioration; for governments - the need to continue structural reforms, create a business environment that contributes to improving the competitiveness of firms, industries and, as a result, the ASEAN countries themselves.

Keywords: ASEAN-5, competitiveness, economic growth, Asian crisis of 1997-1998, global economic crisis of 2008-2009, operational efficiency, business scale, profitability, solvency, financial stability, debt burden.

Permanent link to this publication: