This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2021 Volume 19 Issue 2: 303–336 https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.14255 *Corresponding author. E-mail: lorad@bigmir.net FINANCIAL SECURITY OF THE ENTERPRISE: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT Larysa DOKIIENKO * Department of Finance, International University of Finance, Kyiv, Ukraine Received 19 January 2021; accepted 22 June 2021 Abstract. Purpose  – The main purpose of the article is to justify an alternative approach to assessing the level of financial security of the enterprises based on use the model of modified and adjusted financial statements. Research methodology – The following methods of general theoretical and empirical research were used in the writing of the article: abstract-logical (when systematizing scientific publi- cations on the problems of financial security management of enterprises), comparisons and grouping (when developing and validating a model of modified financial statements), coeffi- cient (when considering and using models for adjusting modified financial statements), group- ing (when clustering enterprises depending on the results of the analysis), formalization (when developing a matrix for diagnosing the level of financial security of enterprises), generalization (when formulating research findings). Findings – Based on an established sample from nine of sunflower oil production enterprises of Ukraine their modified financial statements have been developed, it was adjusted to the consumer price index, key financial indicators of the model have been identified and the level of their financial security over the past 7 years have been assessed. The research identified a direct relationship between the level of financial security of enterprises and key financial indicators: financial stability, solvency and financial risk. Also, the proposed methodological approach can be not only an important tool for diagnosing the level of financial security of enterprises, but also its forecasting. Research limitations – The research limitation is associated with sampling size and geographi- cal scope. Also, the diagnostic results may differ depending on the chosen adjustment base, determination of adjustment method and selection of inflation measurement method for the modification financial statements. Practical implications  – Practical use of the proposed model proves that it is a convenient, simple, understandable and effective tool for diagnosing the financial security level of enter- prises in terms of the main components: financial stability, solvency, and risk. The use of the proposed approach to the assessment of the financial security of the enterprise can serve as an indicator of the overall efficiency of its management at sunflower oil production enterprises and as an informative tool for factor analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00091-2 https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.14255 mailto:lorad@bigmir.net https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6528-6810 304 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Originality/Value  – Consideration of a significantly different, alternative approach that allows en- terprises to quickly and easily diagnose the level of their financial security; to manage it effectively during the current period, and can also become the basis for the formation of strategic directions of financial development and forecasting of the level of financial security for prospective period. Keywords: financial security, modified and adjusted financial statements model, financial stability scale, solvency scale, financial risk scale. JEL Classification: G32, M2, Q10, Q14. Introduction Financial security is a complex, multi-level economic category characterized by the interac- tion and interrelatedness of all its elements: the level of financial security of the state is one of the main general prerequisites for ensuring the financial security of its components; con- versely, the effectiveness of financial security management at each level and each component affects the overall financial security of the state. In general, the financial security of an enterprise is the level of the financial security of the enterprise sufficient to meet its needs and meet its obligations which characterized of balance, resilience to internal and external negative impacts, ability to reverse external financial expan- sion, financial sustainability, efficient functioning and economic growth (Baranovs’kyy, 2004). One of the most problematic and debatable processes for today is the process of diagnos- ing and assessing the financial security of an enterprise. In the various spheres of activity of enterprises, a comprehensive assessment of the level of their financial security is very com- plex from a methodological point of view and almost always raises controversial questions among scientists and practitioners. Research on this issue suggests that the methodological approaches used as a basis for financial security analysis and management have not lost their relevance for today but need further improvement. Scientific works are devoted to the justification of modern methodological approaches to the assessment of the level and position of the financial security of an enterprise are: Azarenkova et al. (2018), Britchenko et al. (2018), Khudoliei (2018), Hryhoruk et al. (2019), Kosaynova et  al. (2019), Drobyazko et  al. (2020), Franchuk et  al. (2020), Kharchuk et  al. (2020), Kondratenko et al. (2020), Sylkin et al. (2020). The main approaches to estimating the level of financial security of the enterprise, which are currently presented in the professional literature  – are the coefficient, which involves the calculation of a set of financial indicators (Delas et  al., 2015; Yeletskykh, 2017; Pera, 2017; Kharchuk et al., 2020); integrated, based on the definition of an integrated indicator of financial security (Ganushchak, 2017; Khudoliei, 2018; Azarenkova et  al., 2018; Kosaynova et al., 2019; Kharchuk et al., 2020); based on the diagnosis of the probability of bankruptcy (Valaskova et al., 2020; Sylkin et al., 2018, 2019, 2020; Koleda & Lāce, 2008; Bilomistniy et al., 2017; Britchenko et al., 2018; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2020; Franchuk et al., 2020). There are also several author’s methods for assessing financial security: Hryhoruk et al. (2019) – model for assessment of the financial security level of the enterprise based on the desirability scale; Zwolak (2017) – empirical model based on the Cobb-Douglas power function. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 305 In our opinion, the establishment and implementation of an effective financial security management process in enterprises require new approaches to their organization. The quality and soundness of the management decisions made at each stage of an enterprise’s financial security management depend to a large extent not only on the reliability, completeness, ac- cessibility and timeliness of the information as well as the effectiveness of evaluation and analytical methods and methodologies used. Accordingly, the improvement of methodological approaches to diagnosing the level of financial security of an enterprise is one of the key points for improving the efficiency of the whole process of its management which in turn will enable to ensure its competitiveness and investment attractiveness and raise market costs. The author’s previous research has established that the following methodological ap- proaches are useful for diagnosing the financial security level of an enterprise at the pres- ent stage: classical financial analysis tool, financial stability assessment tool and value-based management tools (Dokiienko et al., 2020). This article focuses on improving the direction “financial stability assessment tools” – justification the information and methodological support for the diagnostic and financial security management process of an enterprise through the use of a modified and adjusted financial statements model. Abryutina’s work was used as a basis for structuring  the assets and capital of the enter- prise and determining the overall level of financial stability of the enterprise on this basis of Abryutina (2002). Since financial sustainability is an essential component and a prerequisite for the financial security of an enterprise, it is proposed that this model be adapted precisely to diagnose the level of financial security of an enterprise. Besides, the methodology has been brought into line with modern financial reporting standards in Ukraine and has been improved through the implementation of an inflation factor adjustment, is supplemented by a scheme for assessing the level of financial security on the basis of the enterprise’s position on the scale “financial sustainability – solvency – risk”. So, the main objectives of the study are: – to establish a methodology for the development of modified financial statements of an enterprise, taking into account the peculiarities of Ukrainian standards for the compilation and presentation of information in financial statements; – consideration of the methodology for adjusting the modified financial statements model required by the high inflationary impact on the performance and financial performance of Ukrainian enterprises; – testing of the proposed methodology for the diagnosis of financial security level with the example of Ukrainian sunflower oil production enterprises. The modified and adjusted financial statements model tested sunflower oil production enterprises as the oil-and-fat industry of Ukraine is one of the leading and mobile in the agribusiness complex of the country. Ukraine ranks first in the world in the production of sunflowers covering one-third of the world market. The largest share is in the production of raw sunflower oil, 95% of which is exported. 64 processing plants, 48 oil production plants, exports to more than 120 countries and $350 million in investments – all this is the oil-and- fat industry today. Ukraine produces an average of 6,400,000 tons of oil per year, 6 million of which are exported and this is 60% of world exports (GrowHow.in.ua, 2020). 306 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... According to the author, one of the most important conditions for the formation of posi- tive results of operating activities of sunflower oil production enterprises and ensuring their sustainable growth while maintaining the desired financial condition is the existence of an effective system of financial security. The problem of ensuring the financial security of sunflower oil production enterprises has become extremely important in recent years. This is due not only to the financial crises and the unstable financial and economic situation in the country but also to the constant variation in energy prices and the high dependence on agriculture which is seasonally based, environmental, climatic and biological factors; high resource intensity of the industry; ex- port-commodity orientation, which makes external market positions unstable, as demand for commodities is volatile and subject to high price volatility; increasing the cost of banking services, etc. Therefore, the executives of sunflower oil production enterprises faced the search for the most convenient, fast and easy to use approaches to diagnose their financial security level. At the same time, out of the attention of scientists is the question of formation of appro- priate methodological tools for assessing the financial security of sunflower oil production enterprises. In the previous study, the author tested the classical financial analysis tool, namely the coefficient model for assessing the financial security level of sunflower oil production enter- prises (Dokiienko, 2020), which is the most popular in modern financial diagnostic practice. The advantage of this model, along with simplicity and ease of calculation is that the con- solidation of the results achieved has led to the development of a strategic financial position matrix for the domestic financial environment of sunflower oil production enterprises, as well as a matrix of possible strategic directions of their financial development, identifying the desired financial strategy within the framework of the desired level of financial security. But on the other hand, its use has also revealed a significant drawback – the different focus and even the contradictory results of the assessment of major groups of financial indicators make it very difficult to assess the financial security of the enterprise as a whole. Accordingly, the importance of this study is that a model has been proposed for diag- nosing the financial security level of an enterprise, which makes it possible to avoid this shortcoming. In addition, the uniqueness of the study is that empirically proven, that the proposed model of modified and adjusted financial statements makes it possible to assess the financial security of enterprise in a timely, convenient, accurate and as comprehensible manner as possible. 1. Literature review Ukrainian scientists (Baranovs’kyy, 2004; Blank, 2004; Donets & Vashchenko, 2008; Yer- moshenko & Horyacheva, 2010; Delas et  al., 2015; Davydenko, 2015; Vergun & Topenko, 2016; Bilomistniy et al., 2017; Blakyta & Ganushchak, 2018; Ramskyi & Solonko, 2018; Khu- doliei, 2018; Kondratenko et al., 2020 and others) and authors from other countries (Koleda & Lāce, 2008; Cernavskis, 2012; Pera, 2017; Zwolak, 2017; Mbatha & Ngibe, 2017; Safargaliev, 2019; Sylkin et  al., 2020; Valaskova et  al., 2020; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2020) have devoted a Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 307 considerable amount of their work to the issues of the substance of financial security as an economic category and the problems of its evaluation and provision. In fact, there has been increased interest in this category over the past few decades and remains relevant. The most profound and thorough works for today are Baranovs’kyy (2004), who identi- fies several levels and dimensions of financial security: as a component of the economic security of the state; as a degree of security and security of financial interests at all levels of financial relations; as a state of financial, monetary, exchange rate, banking, budjet, fiscal, investment and other systems; the state of financial flows in the economy; the quality of financial instruments and services; Blank (2004), who considered in a comprehensive man- ner the main range of issues, both theoretical and methodological in managing the financial safety of the enterprise in the present circumstances; and Yermoshenko (2001), Yermoshenko & Horyacheva (2010), who have defined the methodological bases of financial security in the system of economic security at two levels of economic management of a country: states and enterprises. Two key approaches to defining the nature of an enterprise economic security are high- lighted in the current professional literature, which can be divided into two groups: as one of the components of an enterprise economic security (Yermoshenko & Horyacheva, 2010; Delas et al., 2015; Vergun & Topenko, 2016; Ganushchak, 2017; Blakyta & Ganushchak, 2018) and as an independent subject of financial management (Baranovs’kyy, 2004; Blank, 2004; Donets & Vashchenko, 2008; Koleda & Lāce, 2008; Davydenko, 2015; Bilomistniy et al., 2017; Rushchyshyn et  al., 2017; Britchenko et  al., 2018; Ramskyi & Solonko, 2018; Sylkin et  al., 2018, 2019, 2020). For the most part, scientists define the financial security of an enterprise as: the certain financial state of the enterprise characterized by appropriate resistance to external and in- ternal threats (Blank, 2004; Delas et  al., 2015; Bilomistniy et  al., 2017; Davydenko, 2015; Rushchyshyn et  al., 2017); the state of protection of the financial interests of the enterprise against various threats (Baranovs’kyy, 1999, 2004; Ramskyi & Solonko, 2018; Khudoliei, 2018; Franchuk et  al., 2020); the risk management activities, i.e., in the context of crisis manage- ment of the enterprise (Sylkin et  al., 2018, 2019, 2020; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2020); in the context of factors determining the financial security of the enterprise (Koleda & Lāce, 2008; Britchenko et al., 2018; Mbatha & Ngibe, 2017). In the author’s view, the most appropriate definition was made by Blank (2004), accord- ing to which the financial security of an enterprise is the quantitatively and qualitatively determined level of its financial state, which ensures stable protection of its priority balanced financial interests from identified real and potential threats of external and internal nature, the parameters of which are determined on the basis of its financial philosophy and create the necessary prerequisites for financial support for its sustainable development in the cur- rent and prospective period. Scientists concerned with the financial security of an enterprise justify different method- ologies and propose different sets of partial and aggregates indicators for assessing financial security depending on the level of application of this concept. The main approaches to as- sessing the financial security of an enterprise which are now presented in the professional literature, can be presented as follows. 308 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Authors, which assessing the financial security of the enterprise based on the overall fi- nancial state of an enterprise, that is calculates and analyses key groups of financial indicators: profitability, business activity, solvency, financial stability, the efficiency of cash flow manage- ment (Blank, 2004; Delas et al., 2015; Yeletskykh, 2017; Pera, 2017; Kharchuk et al., 2020). Ganushchak (2017), Khudoliei (2018), Azarenkova et al. (2018), Kosaynova et al. (2019), Kharchuk et  al. (2020) offer to assess the financial security of the enterprise based on the definition of a generic integral measure of the financial security of an enterprise, based on the use of the different set of financial indicators and the determination of the relevant weights (limit values) for each of them. Valaskova et al. (2020) and Sylkin et al. (2018, 2019, 2020) use to diagnose the financial security of the enterprise classical methods of assessing the probability of bankruptcy, but modify and improve them. A significant group of authors offer to assessing the financial security of the enterprise in the context of factors (potential internal and external threats) that affect the financial se- curity of enterprises (Koleda & Lāce, 2008; Bilomistniy et al., 2017; Mbatha & Ngibe, 2017; Britchenko et al., 2018; Safargaliev, 2019; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2020; Franchuk et al., 2020). Other author’s approaches are usually based on one of the above or combine several of the previous ones, e.g.: empirical model based on the Cobb-Douglas power function used to examine the regressive dependency of profit on sales upon the EU operational fund and the EU fund for the support of the market and capital. The model has also been used to calculate the marginal and average profitability for the aforesaid funds as measures of the efficiency of their financial security with small- and medium-sized enterprises (Zwolak, 2017). And as- sessment of the level of financial security of enterprises based on the theory of comprehensive assessment; creating a composite index of financial security and determining its level based on the dual use of the Harrington Desirability Scale (Hryhoruk et al., 2019). It should be noted that all the above methods of assessing the financial security of the enterprise are based on the use of official financial statements of the enterprise and do not provide for any adjustment. And it is this shortcoming that will be taken into account in the methodology proposed for consideration in this article. Thus, in general, in order to diagnose the level of financial security of an enterprise, it is advisable to use the methodological approaches that will make it possible to identify potential threats and risks in the activity of the enterprise and to quickly find effective ways of coun- teracting that guarantee a stable financial state and the possibility of further development. 2. Methodology Given the crucial role of basic information in the process of diagnosing the financial secu- rity of an enterprise, it is useful to consider a number of policy questions concerning the methodology for modifying its financial statements. In recent years, Ukraine has undergone fundamental changes in the composition of financial statements which now meet the re- quirements of international standards. This has significantly changed the information base for diagnosing and managing the financial security of enterprises which has had an impact on their methodology. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 309 Thus, the first step in improving the process of diagnosing the financial security of an enterprise should be to change its information base, namely to modify the financial state- ments. For this purpose, the methodology of Abryutina (2002) was chosen as a basis, because today it is the only one that provides for the structuring of assets and capital of the enterprise in order to assess the overall level of financial stability of the enterprise. Accordingly, it is proposed to modify the standard structure of economic assets (non-current and current as- sets) and capital (equity and liabilities) to assess the financial condition of the enterprise as follows (Figure 1). That is, in addition to the standard division of economic assets by the nature of participa- tion in the economic process (current and non-current) it is proposed to use other classifica- tion features of enterprise assets: by the level of liquidity (liquid and non-illiquid assets), by the form of functioning (financial and non-financial assets), by the level of mobility (mobile and non-mobile assets) and their combination (non-mobile financial, liquid non-financial, non-financial illiquid, non-mobile financial and liquid non-financial assets). Structuring the amount of capital of the enterprise (liabilities from the balance sheet) under the model of modified financial statements, can be represented as follows (Figure 2). Accordingly, for diagnostic purposes, it is envisaged to group financial capital not only on the basis of equity and liabilities, but to allocate a separate component of equity in revalua- tions, and to divide liabilities not into long-term and short-term liabilities, but external and internal liabilities. Economic assets, ЕА Financial assets, FA Non-financial assets, NFA Non-mobile assets, NMA Liquid assets, LA Non- illiquid assets, NLA Mobile financial assets, MFA Non-mobile financial assets, NMFA Liquid non-financial (current) assets, LNFA Non-financial illiquid assets, NLNFA Non-mobile financial and liquid non-financial assets, NMFANLNFA Financial capital, FC Equity, E Debt or liabilities, D Equity without capital in revaluations, EWCR Capital in revaluations, CR External liabilities, EL Internal liabilities, IL Figure 1. Scheme of economic assets modifications of the enterprise (source: compiled by the authors on the basis of Abryutina, 2002) Figure 2. Scheme of financial capital modifications of the enterprise (source: compiled by the authors on the basis of Abryutina, 2002). 310 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... However, this methodology was developed in 2002 for Russian companies and for old forms of financial reporting, which is unsuitable for use in Ukrainian enterprises in modern conditions. That is why it is proposed, first of all, to bring the methodology into line with modern financial reporting standards in Ukraine which are close to international standards. And calculation of the above components economic assets and financial capital should be carried out according to the following formulas (Table 1). Table  1. Algorithm for calculating the main components of modified financial statements model (source: compiled by the author) Algorithm for calculating Components of economic assets Components of financial capital EA = FA + NFA or EA = MFA + NMA or EA = LA + NLA FC = E + D FA = MFA + NMFA E = EWCR + CR NFA = LNFA + NLNFA D = EL + IL LA = MFA + NMFA + LNFA EL = BCLT + OLLT + BCST + APC + FPI +CLO NMFANLNFA = NMFA + LNFA IL = LTS +TF + CS + SL NMA = NMFANLNFA + NLNFA NLA = NLNFA = NCA – LTFI +NCFS MFA = C + CFI NMFA = LTFI + R + FPE + CAO LNFA = IN Legend NСА – non-current assets BCLT – long-term bank credit (loan) LTFI – long-term financial investment OLLT – other long-term liabilities NCFS – non-current assets for sale BCST – short-term bank credit (loan) С – cash APC – current accounts payable CFI – current financial investments FPI – future period incomes LTFI – long-term financial investments CLO – other current liabilities R – receivables LTS – long-term software FPE – future period expenses TF – targeted financing CAO – other current assets CS – current software IN – inventories SL – stable liabilities (current accounts payable for calculations with the budget, payroll, insurance) The modification of the financial statements made in this way allows to provide the enter- prise with a modern tool of financial and economic analysis and to form a complete source information for a comprehensive diagnosis of financial security. Accordingly, in the symbols we have adopted, the balance sheet formula of the modified financial statements model will be as follows: A AF NF E EL IL+ = + + . (1) Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 311 Assuming, as confirmed by practice, that long-term credit and loans are directed pri- marily towards the capital acquisition and capital investment (NLNFA), we can convert the original balance formula as follows: ( )FA A LT A ST C ONLN F E D NL BC AP CL   + = + − + + +   , (2) where DLT – long-term debt (borrowed capital). With the model thus transformed, the following conclusions can be drawn: if stocks are limited in size [LNFA ≤ (E+DLT) – NLA] the financial soundness of the enterprise will be ensured; and the financial soundness condition will ensure the solvency of the enterprise, i.e., the financial assets will cover current liabilities [FA ≥ BCST + APC + CLO]. The generalization of the financial security system of an enterprise should be considered as the assessment of its position on the scale “financial stability – solvency – risk” based on the use of the modified financial statements model, which involves the calculation of indica- tors of financial stability (IFS), solvency (IS), and financial safety or risk (IR). Accordingly, an assessment of the financial stability of an enterprise should be begun by determining the adequacy of equity to secure non-financial assets. The excess of equity over this requirement forms the capital that accumulates in financial assets and serves as a tool for managing financial stability. Therefore, a financial equilibrium point can be defined for each enterprise where equity provides non-financial assets and financial assets cover the liabilities of the enterprise. In practice, there is always a deviation in one direction or another and the size of the deviation is the indicator of financial stability (IFS): – –FS A AI E NF F D= = . (3) The main indicator of an enterprise’s solvency is the indicator (ІS), which shows the ad- equacy, excess or insufficiency of funds in relation to the enterprise’s current liabilities: – –S FA FAI M D E NM= = . (4) Accordingly, it is possible to distinguish the following states of solvency of an enterprise: absolute solvency where all obligations can be covered by the mobile assets of the enterprise; guaranteed solvency, if all liabilities are covered by the financial assets of the enterprise; potential solvency provided that not only the financial assets of the enterprise but also the non-financial (liquid) assets of the enterprise are covered; insolvency where the enterprise has a liquidity shortfall to meet the liability. The safety or risk scale is based on the comparison of an enterprise’s equity with non- financial illiquid assets. Safety or risk indicator (IR) identifies reserves of its own working assets that, when available, create financial and economic security and is determined by the formula: IR = E – NLNFA. (5) In general, based on the modified financial statements model, it is proposed to diagnose the financial security of an enterprise using three scales: financial stability, solvency, risk, and their relationships (Table 2). 312 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Table 2. Financial security diagnosis matrix of an enterprise based on the modified financial statements model (source: compiled by the authors on the basis of Abryutina, 2002) Financial stability scale Solvency scale Financial risk scale Level of financial securityGeneral Differentiated Financial stability Perfect stability NMA < E < EA NMFA < IFS < FA Absolute solvency 0 < D < MFA NMA < E < EA 0 < IS < MFA Maximum independence NMA < E < EA NMFA NLNFA < IR < LA Absolute Sufficient stability 0 < NFA < E < NMA 0 < IFS < NMFA Guaranteed solvency MFA < D < FA NFA < E < NMA –NMA < IFS < 0 Optimal reliability 0 < NFA < E < NMA LNFA < IR < NMFA NLNFA High Financial equilib- rium 0FSI = , 0SI < , 0RI > Normal Financial instability Tension 0 < NLNFA < E < NFA –LNFA < IFS < 0 Potential solvency FA < D < LA NLNFA < E < NFA –NMFA NLNFA < IS < –NMA Relative security NLNFA < E < NFA 0 < IR < NLNFA Acceptable Risk area 0 < E < NLNFA –NFA < IFS < –LNFA Insolvency LA < D < EA 0 < E < NLNFA –NMA < IS < –NMFA NLNFA Crisis risk 0 < E < NLNFA –NLNFA < IR < 0 Low Secondly, in contrast to the method of Abryutina, which proposes to assess on the basis of three scales only the overall level of financial stability of the enterprise, author proposes depending on the location of the enterprise in one of three states: stability, equilibrium, and instability, to define the limits of its security and the risk of operating from absolute to low. That is, an enterprise that has “perfect stability  – absolute solvency  – maximum indepen- dence” will have an absolute level of financial security; the provision “sufficient stability  – guaranteed solvency – optimal reliability” will correspond to a high level of financial security; the state of financial equilibrium is the normal level of financial security; the provision “ten- sion – potential solvency – relative security” corresponds to an acceptable level of financial security; and the position “risk area – insolvency – crisis risk” characterizes the low level of financial security. Thirdly, the author proposes to improve this methodology it in order to increase accuracy, full reliability and comparability of the initial information, namely, to supplement it with a mechanism for adjusting financial statements for inflation. In our view, the proposed by Abryutina methodology for modifying financial statements apart from certain advantages, has a significant drawback – it does not ensure full reliability and comparability of the initial information in the process of managing the financial security of an enterprise. After all, it is based on the use of values derived from the original valua- tion. The original cost of the assets is the cost of their acquisition and the amount received on credit for the liabilities. Historical values are expressed in actual prices at the time of the transaction. However, the valuation of many items in the financial statements of an enterprise Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 313 and the accounting data, which is the information base, is subject to considerable distortion over time as a result of inflationary processes of any economy and especially of Ukrainian enterprises (Appendix, Table A.1). Therefore, the next step in improving the method of diagnosing the financial security of an enterprise is to adjust the indicators of modified financial statements. It should be noted that the methodological issues involved in carrying out such adjustment in order to achieve a greater degree of reliability and objectivity have not found the necessary expression in the national scientific and economic literature. The solution to this problem, in our view, requires a more detailed examination of the following main points relating to the definition: – inflation adjustment methods for modified financial statements; – methods and indicators for measuring inflation; – adjustment factors for modified financial statements. The choice of the method of adjusting the modified financial statements is important as the choice of the adjustment method will determine to a large extent the reliability of the results and the validity of the conclusions reached. First of all, it should be noted that the choice of the adjustment base, i.e., the use of data of the reporting period (the inflation method) or past (the deflation method) as a base for comparison will influence the mecha- nism of calculation of the indicators. In this case, it is recommended to use the actual value of the accounting period – the inflation method. The justification for determining the adjustment method is more complex than the choice of base: according to currency fluctuations or price levels (based on a base or chained price index, valuation in monetary units of equal purchasing power, revaluation in present value and combined method). An examination of the analytical work of domestic enterprises has shown that the lack of uniform methodological approaches to adjusting financial reporting under conditions of in- flation affects the soundness of the definition of their financial security and most enterprises do not make any adjustments at all. In recent years, the currency exchange rate adjustment method has become quite common. Conversions to a more stable currency, such as the United States dollar or the Euro, using a nominal exchange rate, are considered sufficient to ensure the reliability and comparability of financial reporting. We believe that the approach whereby previously modified financial statements can only be presented in a hard currency once they have been adjusted for infla- tion is more methodical to remove distortions and bring their valuation closer to fair value. This adjustment method, despite its limitations, can be considered as auxiliary and least time-consuming as it can be used in the short-term adjustment period. The constant price model is based on the use of a general price index to periodically re- calculate financial statements against changes in the purchasing power of money but does not take into account price movements for individual components of assets or capital. In this method, non-monetary items are adjusted for inflation. The formula for this adjustment when recalculating modified financial statements is as follows: av iv i iiI I P= × , (6) where Iіav – adjusted value of a certain indicator of modified financial statements of the i-th period; 314 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Iіiv – starting value of the indicator of modified financial statements of the i-th period; Pi – price index of the reporting period compared to the i-th period. This formula can be modified depending on whether the adjustment base is chosen: infla- tion or deflation. Thus, the formula for adjusting the modified financial statements according to the method we have chosen inflation will be: r av iv i b p i b PI I I PI = × , (7) where PІr/b – price index of the reporting period compared to the base period; PІp/b – past price index versus base. In general terms for the situation inflation of the constant price approach can be pre- sented through the following changes to the modified financial statements model: A AF NF E EL IL+ = + + . (8) According to the constant price accounting method adjustments will not be made for items of assets and capital of modified financial statements, i.e.: ( ) ( ) ( )1 1 –A A r r A rF NF i E i EL IL NF E i+ × + = × + + + + × , (9) where ir – inflation rate, coefficient. By modifying formula (8), you can get the following: – –( – )A ANF E F EL IL= − , (10) from here: ( ) ( ) ( )1 1 – – –A A r r A rF NF i E i EL IL F EL IL i+ × + = × + + + × or ( ) ( )1 – – –A r r A rEA NF i E i EL IL F EL IL i+ × = × + + + × . (11) It is worth noting that the modified financial statements listed under the constant price accounting model, while reflecting changes in the value of non-financial items do not provide a differentiated assessment of their real market value over a period of time. Given this, the current price accounting model is more accurate, because it involves recalculating modified financial statements items on the basis of sales prices and establishing current estimates of items on the listed assets and liabilities based on their fair market value for a given period. In this case, it is suggested to use adjustments to the modified financial statements on the basis of price indices calculated for each item of assets or liabilities but their level may differ significantly from the overall price index. The sequence of calculations is exactly the same as described above for the constant price method, i.e., recalculated according to the inflation baseline. A significant problem with this method is the determination of the present value of the assets. In this way, it is proposed that such costs be charged at the time of implementation and write-off. At the time of implementation, it is recommended that replacement value (i.e., replacement costs) be used and, at the time of write-off, the net realizable value or the net Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 315 discounted value of the facility be used. In general, the model for adjusting modified current- price financial statements can be presented as follows: 1 1 n n Ai i Ai i i i EA NF ir E EL IL NF ir = = + × = + + + ×∑ ∑ or 1 1 , n n Ai i Ai i i i EA NF ir E EL IL NF ir = = + × = + + + ×∑ ∑ (12) where NFAi – the size of the i-th non-financial indicator of the modified financial statements; irі – rate of inflation of the i-th non-financial indicator of the modified financial statements, coefficient; n – the quantity of non-financial indicators of modified financial statements. In practice, the development of specific methodological approaches and techniques to implement the methods described above may be different depending on the purpose of the adjustment and the desired outcome, for example: a) long-term non-financial items may not be adjusted; b) only items included in the working capital of an enterprise may be adjusted; c) items that have been generated from debt capital may not be adjusted. The combined or mixed method of adjusting modified financial statements involves the use of a general price index to recalculate the sum of equity and individual price indices to recalculate the value of non-financial items of the asset. Accordingly, the model for adjusting modified financial reporting in combination shall be as follows: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 1 1 1 – n n Ai i A r Ai i r A r i i NF ir F E i D NF ir i F D i = =    × + + = × + + + × − − ×   ∑ ∑ . (13) In comparing the previously reviewed methods for adjusting modified financial state- ments, it is worth noting that: 1. The constant price method is the least labor-intensive and simpler because the adjust- ment assumes a single conversion index for all non-financial items. On the one hand, this would reduce the possibility of intentionally distorting the cost estimates of the indicators and would make it easier to verify the correctness of the adjustment proce- dures used and to ensure the comparability of modified financial statements. On the other hand, the use of one for all inflation indices is an additional distorting factor for the reliability and reliability of the data. 2. The current price method is more objective and feasible for practical application in domestic enterprises as experience has shown that the valuation of different indicators of modified financial statements under inflationary conditions changes differently. But, on the other hand, the objective difficulties in applying this method include its high labor intensity and the complexity of the adjustment verification procedure, although this can be avoided by using automated information systems for calculations. 3. The combined method is the most difficult to use in practice. Another aspect of the practical implementation of methods for adjusting modified finan- cial statements under conditions of inflation relates to the choice of the method for measur- ing inflation and statistical indicators reflecting the extent of inflationary processes in the 316 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Ukrainian economy. In this connection, it is worth noting that the analysis of the recommen- dations on the adjustment of financial statements contained in the publications of domestic and foreign authors showed that the absolute majority proposes to use the treatment model in constant prices and the consumer price index as an inflation index for adjustment. 3. Results of research In recent years, Ukraine ranks first in the world in sunflower production, covering a third of the world market. At the same time, the largest share is occupied by the production of unrefined sunflower oil, 95% of which is exported. According to the State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020), the production of sunflower oil and its fractions has been growing steadily over the past 5 years; in 2020 alone, the production of unrefined sunflower oil increased by 3.6% compared to 2019, the production of refined sunflower oil increased by 17.7%, and sunflower meal – by 6%. In 2020, according to the Association “Ukroliaprom” (2021a), Ukraine remained the world leader in the production and export of sunflower oil and meal. During the period from September 2020 to February 2021, the structure of exports of oil and fat products was as follows: 77.7% – sunflower oil, 14.4% – sunflower meal, 2.9% – soybean meal, 2.4% – soybean oil, 1.9% – rapeseed oil, 0.7% – others. In 2020, oil-and-fat products worth $ 7.16 billion were exported (+19% by 2019). The share of exports of oil-and-fat products in total exports of goods from Ukraine is 14.5%; in exports of food products and agricultural products – 32.3%. The main growth in exports of oil-and-fat products was provided by sunflower oil (+12.3% in physical terms and +24.4% in value terms), as well as sunflower meal (+11.4% in physical terms and +16.4% in value expression). However, such positive trends in the industry as a whole, unfortunately, did not always have a positive impact on the financial performance of individual enterprises, as the analysis of financial statements showed that a significant proportion of them suffered losses from operat- ing activities and/or activities as a whole and also had an unsatisfactory financial condition. According to the author, one of the most important conditions for the formation of posi- tive results of operating activities of sunflower oil production enterprises and ensuring their sustainable growth while maintaining the desired financial condition is the presence of an effective system of financial security. In order to validate the methodology proposed above for assessing the financial security of an enterprise on the basis of the modified and adjusted financial statements model, lead- ing enterprises of oil-and-fat industry of Ukraine were selected (Appendix, Table A.2), the reason for the selection of which was as follows: 1. Enterprises were selected and grouped according to their specialization (oil-extrac- tion  – production of vegetable oils and oil-and-fat  – production of animal fats and vegetable oils), size of activity (medium enterprises), organizational and legal form of operation (joint-stock companies). 2. All selected enterprises are joint-stock companies. This condition was important in view of the accessibility and openness of access to financial statements which are the basis for diagnosing the financial security level of enterprises under investigation over the last 7 years. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 317 3. The aim was to select enterprises that have a long-term presence in the market and meet the needs of a large number of consumers and are important in the production of products of oil-and-fat industry. According to the results of the marketing year 2019–2020 (“Ukroliaprom”, 2020), 7 out of 9 selected sunflower oil production enter- prises are among the top-12 largest enterprises producing the main types of edible oil. In 2020, according to the Association “Ukroliaprom” (2021b), the largest producers of unrefined sunflower oil included: PJSC “ADM Illichivsk” (6 position, share 4.2%), PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF” (7 position, share 4.1%), PJSC with foreign investment “Dni- propetrovsk OEP” (9 position, share 3.7%), PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” (11 position, share 3.4%) and PJSC “Pology OEP” (15 position, share 2.7%). The largest producers of refined sunflower oil included: PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk OEP” (2 position, share 16.2%) and PJSC “Pology OEP” (12 position, share 2.2%). And the largest producers of rapeseed oil in 2020 included PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF” (3 position, share 16.9%) and PrJSC “Chernivtsi OSCF” (6 position, share 2.1%). 4. Selected sunflower oil production enterprises are located in different regions of Ukraine. 5. Five of sunflower oil production enterprises (PJSC “ADM Illichivsk”, PJSC “Nizhynsky Zhyrcombinat” , PJSC “Pology OEP”, PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OEP”, PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OFF”) operate as independent entities and four are affiliated to associations or large agribusiness holdings (PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF” and PrJSC “Chernivtsi OSCF” – are the part of “ViOil Industrial Group”; PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk OEP” – is the part of “Bunge Limited” – Bunge Ukraine; PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” – is the part of “Kernel Holding S.A.”). Thus, first of all, based on the methodology described above for the development of the modified financial statements model and its adjustment, each of the enterprises studied, it was developed a modified structure of economic assets and financial capital (Appendix, Tables А.3 – А.11). The next step is calculation the indicators of financial stability (IFS), solvency (IS), and financial safety or risk (IR), which will allow to establish whether the enterprises are in a condition financial equilibrium (Table 3). Financial equilibrium of enterprises is secured if the following conditions are met at the same time: 0 0 0 IFS IS IR  =  <  > , but in none of the periods and in any of the investigated enterprises they were performed. Accordingly, the enterprises were or in a position of a financial stability (that is, they had an absolute or high level of financial security), or in a position of financial instability (that is, they had an acceptable or low level of financial security). The next step is to assess the level of financial security of the surveyed enterprises on the basis of the diagnostic matrix presented above (Table 2). That is, the comparison of the relevant components of economic assets and financial capital will determine the position of each company on the scale “financial stability – solvency – financial risk” in certain periods of time, and their relationship – to establish the level of financial security. 318 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Table 3. Indicators of financial stability, solvency and financial risk sunflower oil production enterprises of Ukraine, thousand UAH (source: authors’ calculations) Evaluation periods Indicator of: Financial stability (IFS) Solvency (IS) Financial risk (IR) PJSC “ADM Illichivsk” 31.12.2013 –9658.0 –42567.0 –3411.0 31.12.2014 –8393.0 –32496.0 2723.0 31.12.2015 –111059.0 –350628.0 –18323.0 31.12.2016 –513197.0 –585801.0 –486476.0 31.12.2017 –554368.0 –607355.0 –516220.0 31.12.2018 –516386.0 –587175.0 –470686.0 31.12.2019 –437569.0 –492267.0 –393211.0 PrJSC “Chernivtsi OSCF” 31.12.2013 –63908.0 –95925.0 –59962.0 31.12.2014 –81333.0 –120527.0 –68447.0 31.12.2015 –66763.0 –111817.0 –52528.0 31.12.2016 –35803.0 –151025.0 –27873.0 31.12.2017 –92764.0 –150510.0 –41876.0 31.12.2018 –67951.0 –119356.0 –57140.0 31.12.2019 –113901.0 –124598.0 –90650.0 PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk OEP” 31.12.2013 175950.0 –45026.0 195519.0 31.12.2014 268506.0 –73450.0 295373.0 31.12.2015 316500.0 –80396.0 357709.0 31.12.2016 375064.0 –106494.0 429496.0 31.12.2017 452596.0 –44511.0 525422.0 31.12.2018 447195.0 –131526.0 558758.0 31.12.2019 х х х PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” 31.12.2013 32455.0 –26072.0 36831.0 31.12.2014 40489.0 –56344.0 47091.0 31.12.2015 119857.0 –79230.0 126236.0 31.12.2016 90123.0 –95203.0 95995.0 31.12.2017 57107.0 –102388.0 66204.0 31.12.2018 –80957.0 –183674.0 –69116.0 31.12.2019 –148300.0 –218589.0 –136241.0 PJSC “Nizhynsky Zhyrcombinat” 31.12.2013 –22757.0 –34775.0 –17729.0 31.12.2014 –29146.0 –46549.0 –21230.0 31.12.2015 –41659.0 –57130.0 –35516.0 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 319 Evaluation periods Indicator of: Financial stability (IFS) Solvency (IS) Financial risk (IR) 31.12.2016 –81993.0 –114314.0 –66406.0 31.12.2017 –147349.0 –226610.0 –117710.0 31.12.2018 –246872.0 –284863.0 –239909.0 31.12.2019 –318662.0 –376099.0 –270902.0 PJSC “Pology OEP” 31.12.2013 –346078.0 –546369.0 17270.0 31.12.2014 –378352.0 –614075.0 11425.0 31.12.2015 –413168.0 –669272.0 131889.0 31.12.2016 –831290.0 –1174928.0 102284.0 31.12.2017 –876746.0 –1358578.0 113118.0 31.12.2018 –576025.0 –965328.0 51173.0 31.12.2019 –628550.0 –994101.0 –75698.0 PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF” 31.12.2013 –581842.0 –632504.0 –558035.0 31.12.2014 –753074.0 –943736.0 –708361.0 31.12.2015 –1585805.0 –1864677.0 –1015474.0 31.12.2016 –1438859.0 –2287086.0 –1121714.0 31.12.2017 –1627311.0 –2171496.0 –1108891.0 31.12.2018 –1264673.0 –1692447.0 –1105383.0 31.12.2019 –1269443.0 –1471683.0 –1071093.0 PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OEP” 31.12.2013 х х х 31.12.2014 х х х 31.12.2015 0.0 0.0 35418.0 31.12.2016 49335.0 –29661.0 49827.0 31.12.2017 74620.0 –2750.0 79434.0 31.12.2018 96239.0 –997.0 101332.0 31.12.2019 63130.0 –34968.0 68474.0 PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OFF” 31.12.2013 –365605.0 –557315.0 –327730.0 31.12.2014 –532359.0 –749369.0 –415562.0 31.12.2015 –369981.0 –688161.0 –313421.0 31.12.2016 –368404.0 –687097.0 –358962.0 31.12.2017 –417976.0 –722764.0 –414389.0 31.12.2018 –423650.0 –728617.0 –395528.0 31.12.2019 –432650.5 –875161.2 –430687.3 End of Table 3 320 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Thus, the results of the financial security diagnosis of sunflower oil production enterprises for the past 7 years shown in Table 4. Table  4. Financial security diagnosis matrix of a sunflower oil production enterprises based on the modified financial statements model (source: authors’ calculations) Evaluation periods Indicator of: Level of financial securityFinancial stability (IFS) Solvency (IS) Financial risk (IR) PJSC “ADM Illichivsk” 31.12.2013 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2014 0 – 0 FA A FA FS NLN E NF LN I < < <  < < Tension – – A A FA FA S A F D L NM NLN I NM < <  < < Potential solvency 0 FA A R FA NLN E NF I NLN < <  < < Relative security Accept- able level 31.12.2015 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 PrJSC “Chernivtsi OSCF” 31.12.2013 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk OEP” 31.12.2013 0 0 A A FS FA NF E NM I NM < < <  < < Sufficient stability – 0 FA A A S M D F NM I < <  < < Guaranteed solvency 0 A A FA R FA FA NF E NM LN I NM NLN  < < <  < <   Optimal reliability High level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 х х х PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” 31.12.2013 0 0 A A FS FA NF E NM I NM < < <  < < Sufficient stability – 0 FA A A S M D F NM I < <  < < Guaranteed solvency 0 A A FA R FA FA NF E NM LN I NM NLN  < < <  < <   Optimal reliability High level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 321 Evaluation periods Indicator of: Level of financial securityFinancial stability (IFS) Solvency (IS) Financial risk (IR) 31.12.2018 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2019 PJSC “Nizhynsky Zhyrcombinat” 31.12.2013 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 PJSC “Pology OEP” 31.12.2013 0 – 0 FA A FA FS NLN E NF LN I < < <  < < Tension – – A A FA FA S A F D L NM NLN I NM < <  < < Potential solvency 0 FA A R FA NLN E NF I NLN < <  < < Relative security Accept- able level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF” 31.12.2013 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OEP” 31.12.2013 х х х х 31.12.2014 х х х х 31.12.2015 0 0 A A FS FA NF E NM I NM < < <  < < Sufficient stability – 0 FA A A S M D F NM I < <  < < Guaranteed solvency 0 A A FA R FA FA NF E NM LN I NM NLN  < < <  < <   Optimal reliability High level 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 Continue of Table 4 322 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Evaluation periods Indicator of: Level of financial securityFinancial stability (IFS) Solvency (IS) Financial risk (IR) PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OFF” 31.12.2013 0 – – FA A FS FA E NLN NF I LN < <  < < Risk area – – A A S FA FA L D EA NM I NM NLN < <  < < Insolvency 0 – 0 FA FA R E NLN NLN I < <  < < Crisis risk Low level 31.12.2014 31.12.2015 31.12.2016 31.12.2017 31.12.2018 31.12.2019 Note: х – no information to calculate the data. The obtained results confirm the existence of a direct correlation between changes in the level of financial stability of a group of selected enterprises and the level of their financial security. The analysis of the situation for 2013–2019 allowed clustering of enterprises, con- ditionally dividing them into several groups. More than half of the surveyed sunflower oil production enterprises had low level of financial security, which characterized as risk area, insolvency and crisis risk. It was ob- served in PJSC “ADM Illichivsk” (in all years except 2014), PrJSC “Chernivtsi OSCF”, PJSC “Nizhynsky Zhyrcombinat”, PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF” and PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OFF” for the whole period of the 2013–2019 study. High level of financial security, that is sufficient stability, guaranteed solvency and optimal reliability, during 2013–2019 had two of sunflower oil production enterprises: PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk OEP” and PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OEP”. The enterprises of this conditional group ensured the stability of financial security at a high level, which is a guarantee of further safe financing of current activities and the continuity of their produc- tion cycle. PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” had high level of financial security in the period of 2013– 2017, but in 2018 and 2019 has already entered a risk zone with a low level of financial security, indicating the high risk of its activities in recent years. The situation was similar at PJSC “Pology OEP”, because it has acceptable level of finan- cial security, that is tension, potential solvency and relative security from 2013 to 2018, and in 2019 the enterprise found itself in the zone of risk and insolvency. In general, the results of testing the proposed model of diagnostics of financial security of the enterprise, according to the author, are a reflection of the effectiveness of management of all operating activities sunflower oil production enterprises, as well as informative tools for factor analysis in managing their financial security in terms of three key factors: financial stability, solvency and financial risk. End of Table 4 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 323 Conclusions Thus, as the results of the research showed, the use of the model of modified and adjusted financial statements proposed by the author is a convenient and effective tool for diagnosing the financial security level of an enterprise in terms of the main components: financial stabil- ity, solvency and risk, ensuring the efficiency of the financial security management process of an enterprise in both the current and the prospective periods. Approbation of the proposed model involved the development of modified financial state- ments for the studied 9 sunflower oil production enterprises, its adjustment based on the model of accounting at constant prices and using the consumer price index as a method of measuring inflation, calculation the indicators of financial stability, solvency and financial risk and diagnosis of financial security level of 9 sunflower oil production enterprises. The research identified a direct dependence of the level of financial security of enterprises on key financial indicators: financial stability, solvency and financial risk. The diagnostic results showed that 5 out of 9 surveyed enterprises PrJSC “Chernivtsi OSCF”, PJSC “Nizhynsky Zhyrcombinat”, PrJSC “Vinnitsa OSCF”, PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OFF” and PJSC “ADM Illichivsk” constantly had a low level of financial security; acceptable level of financial security was at PJSC “Pology OEP” from 2013 to 2018, and in 2019 the enterprise found itself in the zone of risk and insolvency; and high level of financial security during 2013–2019 had two of sunflower oil production enterprises: PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk OEP” and PJSC “Zaporizhzhya OEP”; PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” had high level of financial security in the period of 2013–2017, but in 2018 and 2019 has already en- tered a risk zone with a low level of financial security. That is, most enterprises in the oki-and-fat industry require constant and effective man- agement of financial security in order to improve its level, and the methodological approach proposed in the article can become not only an important tool for diagnosing the level of their financial security, but also its forecasting. In our view, the advantages of this model are: first, it enables a deeper, more compre- hensive diagnosis of the financial security of an enterprise; second, it not only assesses one component of financial security but links several components  – financial stability, solvency and financial risk, thus, it is possible to predict the level of financial security of an enterprise; thirdly, there is no need to impose certain regulatory restrictions on enterprises in different sectors of the economy, specialization, forms of ownership, organizational and legal forms and the extent of their activities; fourth, as the coefficient model it allows you to develop a matrix of the strategic financial position of an enterprise’s domestic financial environment as well as a matrix of possible strategic directions for their financial development, identifying the desired financial strategy within the framework of the desired level of financial security; fifth, the method of adjustment for inflationary processes could be used as a stand-alone instrument for standard (not modified) forms of financial reporting of an enterprise used to diagnose the financial security of an enterprise through other methodological approaches. As for the shortcomings, it is worth noting that since the model is based on the use of financial statements (although modified and adjusted) it has some of the same weaknesses as an enterprise’s financial statements (and all known methodologies for evaluating the finan- cial security today): the diagnostics is instantaneous and refers to the past period; financial 324 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... statements against which the financial security of an enterprise is assessed reflects only those events that can be presented in monetary terms and have already occurred; most indicators do not take into account certain potential liabilities because they are not reflected in the bal- ance sheet which is the main source of information for their determination; the inability to take account of the sectoral characteristics of enterprises; some limitations in the financial security diagnostics that can be derived from this model due to the limited information available in the financial statements. Thus, the alternative approach considered in the article to diagnose the level of financial security by modifying the financial statements, as well as the application of the proposed methods and coefficients of its adjustment, enables enterprises in any economic activity or branch of the economy (except companies from financial sector) to diagnose their financial security quickly and conveniently; to manage it effectively during the current period and could also become a tool for the strategic direction of financial development and forecasting the level of financial security in the future. Future research is planned to focus on substantiation the methodical approaches to the multi-level assessment of the financial security sunflower oil production enterprises, devel- opment of a system for assessing the financial security of operating activities sunflower oil production enterprises; assessment of the impact of operational financing policy and finan- cial security of operational activities on the general state of financial security sunflower oil production enterprises. Funding All studies, the results of which are presented in this article, were carried out by the author on their own at their own expense. Disclosure statement The author declares no conflict of interest. References Abryutina, M. (2002). Financial analysis of commercial activity. Finpress Publishing House. Association “Ukroliaprom”. (2020). The largest producers of basic types of oil and margarine products in 2019/20 MY. https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/naybilshi-vyrobnyky-osnovnyh-vydiv-oliy-ta- margproduktsiy-u-201920-mr-210/ Association “Ukroliaprom”. (2021a). Exports from Ukraine oil-and-fat products. https://ukroilprom.org. ua/news/eksport-z-ukrayny-oliyno-zhyrovoy-produktsiy-253/ Association “Ukroliaprom”. (2021b). Ratings of oil producers in 2020. https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/ reytyngy-vyrobnykiv-oliy-u-2020-rotsi-246/ Azarenkova, G., Golovko, O., & Abrosimova, K. (2018). Management of enterprise’s financial sustain- ability and improvement of its methods. Accounting and Financial Control, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21511/afc.02(1).2018.01 Baranovs’kyy, O. (1999). Financial security. Feniks. https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/naybilshi-vyrobnyky-osnovnyh-vydiv-oliy-ta-margproduktsiy-u-201920-mr-210/ https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/naybilshi-vyrobnyky-osnovnyh-vydiv-oliy-ta-margproduktsiy-u-201920-mr-210/ https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/eksport-z-ukrayny-oliyno-zhyrovoy-produktsiy-253/ https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/eksport-z-ukrayny-oliyno-zhyrovoy-produktsiy-253/ https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/reytyngy-vyrobnykiv-oliy-u-2020-rotsi-246/ https://ukroilprom.org.ua/news/reytyngy-vyrobnykiv-oliy-u-2020-rotsi-246/ https://doi.org/10.21511/afc.02(1).2018.01 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 325 Baranovs’kyy, О. (2004). Financial security in Ukraine (evaluation methodology and support mechanism). KNUTE. Bilomistniy, O., Bilomistna, I., & Galushko, Y. (2017). Influence external and internal factors to financial security of enterprise. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 1(22), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i22.109935 Blakyta, G., & Ganushchak, T. (2018). Enterprise financial security as a component of the economic security of the state. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 15(2), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(2).2018.22 Blank, I. (2004). Financial management of the enterprise security. Nika-Centr, Еl’ga. Britchenko, I., Bohomolova, N., Kravchenko, O., & Pinchuk, S. (2018). Aassessment of the determinats of financial security of railways in Ukraine. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(27), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v4i27.154109 Cernavskis, K. (2012). Financial stability of enterprise as the main precondition for sustainable develop- ment of economy. Regional Formation and Development Studies, 3(8), 36–46. Davydenko, N. (2015). Genesis of enterprise financial security. Economic Processes Management: In- ternational Scientific E-Journal, (2). http://epm.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/download/2015_2/2015_2_3.pdf Delas, V., Nosova, Е., & Yafinovych, O. (2015). Financial security of enterprises. Procedia Economics and Finance, 27, 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00998-3 Dokiienko, L., Hrynyuk, N., Lapko, O., & Kramarev, H. (2020). Financial security diagnostics tools for corporate enterprises. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(34), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v3i34.215477 Dokiienko, L. (2020). Diagnosis of financial security level as the main tool of financial strategy devel- opment of oil-extraction companies. Economic Bulletin of National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, (17), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.20535/2307-5651.17.2020.216335 Donets, L., & Vashchenko, N. (2008). Economic security of company. Сenter of Educational Literature. Drobyazko, S., Barwinska-Malajowicz, A., Slusarczyk, B., Chubukova, O., & Bielialov, T. (2020). Risk management in the system of financial stability of the service enterprise.  Journal of Risk and Fi- nancial Management, 13, 1–15. Franchuk, V., Omelchuk, O., Melnyk, S., Kelman, M., & Mykytyuk, O. (2020). Identification the ways of counteraction of the threats to the financial security of high-tech enterprises.  Business: Theory and Practice, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.11215 Ganushchak, T. (2017). Dynamics of development of financial safety of the enterprise as a complex economic security of the state. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 3(4), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-4-32-37 Hryhoruk, P., Khrushch, N., & Grygoruk, S. (2019). Model for assessment of the financial security level of the enterprise based of the desirability scale. In SHS Web of Conferences, The 8th  International Conference on Monitoring, Modeling & Management of Emergent Economy, 65, 03005. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196503005 Kharchuk, T., Kredisov, V., Melnik, V., & Purdenko, O. (2020) Improved methods of evaluation of financial security for companies in Ukraine. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 1(32), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i32.200300 Khudoliei, L. (2018). Assessment of the level of financial security of machine-building enterprises of Zaporizhzhia region with the help of integral-rating method. EUREKA: Social and Humanities, 1, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5571.2018.00546 Koleda, N., & Lāce, N. (2008, May 23–24). Key factors of financial stability of enterprises: case from Latvia. In Management, Economics and Business Development in the New European Conditions: VI International Scientific Conference, Czech Republic, Brno. Brno University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i22.109935 https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(2).2018.22 https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v4i27.154109 http://epm.fem.sumdu.edu.ua/download/2015_2/2015_2_3.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00998-3 https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v3i34.215477 https://doi.org/10.20535/2307-5651.17.2020.216335 https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2020.11215 https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-4-32-37 https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196503005 https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i32.200300 https://doi.org/10.21303/2504-5571.2018.00546 326 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Kondratenko, N., Doroshenko, H., Ternova, I., Babych, S., & Dorosheko, O. (2020). Organizational and methodical provision of the financial and economic security management of the enterprise. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 1(32), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i32.200301 Kosaynova, V., Seredina, N., & Alexeenko, V. (2019). Development of a methodology for assessing the financial security of construction enterprises. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineer- ing, 698(7), 077037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/698/7/077037 Mbatha, N., & Ngibe, M. (2017). Factors affecting financial stability of small and medium enterprises: A case study of emerging markets.  Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & Institutions, 7(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.22495/rgcv7i1art1 Nguyen, V., & Nguyen, T. (2020). Financial security of Vietnamese businesses and its influencing factors. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no2.75 GrowHow.in.ua. (2020). Oil and fat industry 2020: trends, forecasts, prospects. https://www.growhow. in.ua/oliyno-zhyrova-haluz-2020-tendentsii-prohnozy-perspektyvy Pera, J. (2017). An enterprise’s financial stability and its sustainable growth. A risk-based perspective. International Entrepreneurship Review, 3(2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.15678/PM.2017.0302.04 Ramskyi, A., & Solonko, A. (2018). Mechanism of formation of financial security of an enterprise. Eu- ropean Scientific Journal of Economic and Financial Innovation European Association of Economists, 1, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.32750/2018-0102 Rushchyshyn, N., Nikonenko, U., & Kostak, Z. (2017). Formation of financial security of the enterprise based on strategic planning. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 3, 231–233. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-4-231-237 Safargaliev, E. (2019). Indicators of financial security of small and medium enterprises. Revista San Gregorio, 34, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.36097/rsan.v0i34.1166 State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2020). Consumer Price Index. http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua. Sylkin, O., Shtangret, A., Ogirko, O., & Melnikov, A. (2018). Assessing the financial security of the engineering enterprises as preconditions of application of anti-crisis management: practical aspect. Business and Economic Horizons, 14(4), 926–940. https://doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.63 Sylkin, O., Kryshtanovych, M., Zachepa, A., Bilous, S., & Krasko, A. (2019). Modeling the process of applying anti-crisis management in the system of ensuring financial security of the enterprise. Busi- ness: Theory and Practice, 20, 446–455. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.41 Sylkin, O., Kryshtanovych, M., Bekh, Y., & Riabeka, O. (2020). Methodology of forming model for assessing the level financial security. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infra- structure Development, 42(3), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2020.39 Valaskova, K., Durana, P., Adamko, P., & Jaros, J. (2020). Financial compass for Slovak enterprises: modeling economic stability of agricultural entities. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(5), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13050092 Vergun, A. & Topenko, Yu. (2016). Evolution of views on financial security as a management unit. Economy: Time Realities, 4(26), 122–134. Yeletskykh, S. (2017). Аlternative methods for evaluating financial sustainability of an enterprise. Eco- nomic Bulletin of Donbass, 4(50), 103–106. Yermoshenko, M. (2001). Financial security of the state: national interests, real threats, security strategy Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics. Yermoshenko, M., & Horyacheva, K. (2010). Financial component of economic security: state and enter- prise. National Academy of Management. Zwolak, J. (2017). The financial security of small- and medium-sized enterprises in Poland. Ekonomski Pregled, 68(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v1i32.200301 https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1757-899X https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1757-899X https://iopscience.iop.org/volume/1757-899X/698 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/698/7/077037 https://doi.org/10.22495/rgcv7i1art1 https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no2.75 https://www.growhow.in.ua/oliyno-zhyrova-haluz-2020-tendentsii-prohnozy-perspektyvy https://www.growhow.in.ua/oliyno-zhyrova-haluz-2020-tendentsii-prohnozy-perspektyvy https://doi.org/10.15678/PM.2017.0302.04 https://doi.org/10.32750/2018-0102 https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2017-3-4-231-237 https://doi.org/10.36097/rsan.v0i34.1166 http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua https://doi.org/10.15208/beh.2018.63 https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2019.41 https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2020.39 https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13050092 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 327 Appendix Table A.1. Consumer price index, in  % to the previous year (source: compiled by the author on the basis of State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2020) Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CPI 0.5 24.9 43.3 12.4 13.7 9.8 4.1 5.0 Table A.2. The main sunflower oil production enterprises of Ukraine (source: compiled by the author) * Company Official website / Homepage Trade marks / Brands PJSC “Zaporizhzhya Oil-Extraction Plant” (“Zaporizhzhya OEP”) https://zmez.com.ua PJSC “Zaporizhzhya oil and fat factory” (Zaporizhzhya OFF) http://zmgk.com.ua “Shchedro” PJSC “Nizhynsky Zhyrcombinat” http:/ngk.net.ua “Nizhynska oliya” PJSC “Pology Oil-Extraction Plant” (Pology OEP) https://mezpology.zp.ua “Slaviya”, “Smachna kraplya”, Private Label PJSC “ADM Illichivsk” https://adm.com Private Company “Oliyar” https://oliyar.com.ua “Majola”, “Sonyashna”, “Rodynna” and “Oliyar”. LLC “UkrOliya” https://www.ukroliya.com “EFFO”, “Garna Organica”, “Dikanka” LLC “Swativska Oil”, “Agrex” http://www.agrex.com.ua “Swativska oliya” LLC “Delta Wilmar Ukraine” https://www.deltawilmar.com LLC “JS Cargill” https://www.cargill.com/ worldwide/ukraine-uk Group  “ViOil Industrial Group” PrJSC “Vinnitsa Oil Seeds Crushing Factory” (Vinnitsa OSCF) http://vmzhk.vioil.com PrJSC “Chernivtsi Oil Seeds Crushing Factory” (OSCF) Chernivtsi http://chmzhk.vioil.com “Bunge Limited” LLC “Mykolaiv Oil Extraction Plant” Bunge Ukraine: www.bunge.com https://oleina.ua “Oleyna”, “Rozumnytsya”PJSC with foreign investment “Dnipropetrovsk Oil Extraction Plant” (Dnipropetrovsk OEP) “Kernel Holding S.A.” PJSC “Kropyvnytskyi OEP” http://kirovogradoliya.pat.ua LLC “Poltava Oil Crushing Plant” https://sdar.com.ua “Shchedryi Dar” LLC “Prydniprovsk Oil Crushing Plant” https://www.kernel.ua “STOZHAR”, “CHUMAK Sunflower Oil” LLC “Ukrainian Black Sea Industry” LLC “Starokostiantyniv Oil Crushing Plant” LLC “Bandurka Oil Crushing Plant” LLC “Vovchansk Oil Crushing Plant” LLC “Prykolotne Oil Crushing Plant” Note: * Enterprises highlighted in italics are used as objects of analysis. https://tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/consumer-price-index-cpi https://zmez.com.ua http://zmgk.com.ua http://www.ngk.net.ua https://mezpology.zp.ua http://www.adm.com https://oliyar.com.ua https://www.ukroliya.com http://www.agrex.com.ua https://www.deltawilmar.com https://www.cargill.com/worldwide/ukraine-uk https://www.cargill.com/worldwide/ukraine-uk http://vmzhk.vioil.com http://chmzhk.vioil.com http://www.bunge.com https://oleina.ua http://kirovogradoliya.pat.ua https://sdar.com.ua https://www.kernel.ua 328 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Ta bl e A .3 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C “A D M I lli ch iv sk ”, th ou sa nd U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 33 0 72 .0 24 3 46 .0 25 1 35 5. 0 75 6 05 .0 53 1 57 .0 71 3 22 .0 55 1 43 .0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 16 3. 0 24 3. 0 11 7 86 .0 3 00 1. 0 17 0. 0 53 3. 0 44 5. 0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 32 9 09 .0 24 1 03 .0 23 9 56 9. 0 72 6 04 .0 52 9 87 .0 70 7 89 .0 54 6 98 .0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 11 0 48 4. 0 11 6 60 2. 0 22 7 52 4. 0 57 9 89 6. 0 61 3 10 4. 0 59 3 61 0. 0 59 0 10 3. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 6 24 7. 0 11 1 16 .0 92 7 36 .0 26 7 21 .0 38 1 48 .0 45 7 00 .0 44 3 58 .0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 10 4 23 7. 0 10 5 48 6. 0 13 4 78 8. 0 55 3 17 5. 0 57 4 95 6. 0 54 7 91 0. 0 54 5 74 5. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 39 1 56 .0 35 2 19 .0 33 2 30 5. 0 99 3 25 .0 91 1 35 .0 11 6 48 9. 0 99 0 56 .0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 16 3. 0 24 3. 0 11 7 86 .0 3 00 1. 0 17 0. 0 53 3. 0 44 5. 0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 14 3 39 3. 0 14 0 70 5. 0 46 7 09 3. 0 65 2 50 0. 0 66 6 09 1. 0 66 4 39 9. 0 64 4 80 1. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 39 3 19 .0 35 4 62 .0 34 4 09 1. 0 10 2 32 6. 0 91 3 05 .0 11 7 02 2. 0 99 5 01 .0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 10 4 23 7. 0 10 5 48 6. 0 13 4 78 8. 0 55 3 17 5. 0 57 4 95 6. 0 54 7 91 0. 0 54 5 74 5. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 10 0 82 6. 0 10 8 20 9. 0 11 6 46 5. 0 66 6 99 .0 58 7 36 .0 77 2 24 .0 15 2 53 4. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 10 0 82 6. 0 10 8 20 9. 0 11 6 46 5. 0 66 6 99 .0 58 7 36 .0 77 2 24 .0 15 2 53 4. 0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. D eb t 42 7 30 .0 32 7 39 .0 36 2 41 4. 0 58 8 80 2. 0 60 7 52 5. 0 58 7 70 8. 0 49 2 71 2. 0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 39 4 64 .0 23 1 11 .0 35 6 13 6. 0 57 4 09 8. 0 60 0 13 5. 0 55 2 61 4. 0 48 4 71 7. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 3 26 6. 0 9 62 8. 0 6 27 8. 0 14 7 04 .0 7 39 0. 0 35 0 94 .0 7 99 5. 0 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 329 Ta bl e A .4 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P rJ SC “ C he rn iv ts i O SC F” , t ho us an d U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 32 2 36 .0 39 2 05 .0 45 2 58 .0 11 5 45 2. 0 57 8 87 .0 51 5 74 .0 11 4 44 .0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 21 9. 0 11 .0 20 4. 0 23 0. 0 14 1. 0 16 9. 0 74 7. 0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 32 0 17 .0 39 1 94 .0 45 0 54 .0 11 5 22 2. 0 57 7 46 .0 51 4 05 .0 10 6 97 .0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 25 1 46 9. 0 37 7 50 0. 0 68 3 38 9. 0 75 0 66 5. 0 76 9 89 4. 0 68 6 66 5. 0 67 9 70 0. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 3 94 6. 0 12 8 86 .0 14 2 35 .0 7 93 0. 0 50 8 88 .0 10 8 11 .0 23 2 51 .0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 24 7 52 3. 0 36 4 61 4. 0 66 9 15 4. 0 74 2 73 5. 0 71 9 00 6. 0 67 5 85 4. 0 65 6 44 9. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 35 9 63 .0 52 0 80 .0 59 2 89 .0 12 3 15 2. 0 10 8 63 4. 0 62 2 16 .0 33 9 48 .0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 21 9. 0 11 .0 20 4. 0 23 0. 0 14 1. 0 16 9. 0 74 7. 0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 28 3 48 6. 0 41 6 69 4. 0 72 8 44 3. 0 86 5 88 7. 0 82 7 64 0. 0 73 8 07 0. 0 69 0 39 7. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 36 1 82 .0 52 0 91 .0 59 4 93 .0 12 3 38 2. 0 10 8 77 5. 0 62 3 85 .0 34 6 95 .0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 24 7 52 3. 0 36 4 61 4. 0 66 9 15 4. 0 74 2 73 5. 0 71 9 00 6. 0 67 5 85 4. 0 65 6 44 9. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 18 7 56 1. 0 29 6 16 7. 0 61 6 62 6. 0 71 4 86 2. 0 67 7 13 0. 0 61 8 71 4. 0 56 5 79 9. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 18 7 56 1. 0 19 1 04 5. 0 19 4 19 8. 0 19 4 82 8. 0 15 7 16 4. 0 99 7 83 .0 48 5 90 .0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 0. 0 10 5 12 2. 0 42 2 42 8. 0 52 0 03 4. 0 51 9 96 6. 0 51 8 93 1. 0 51 7 20 9. 0 2. D eb t 96 1 44 .0 12 0 53 8. 0 11 2 02 1. 0 15 1 25 5. 0 15 0 65 1. 0 11 9 52 5. 0 12 5 34 5. 0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 94 3 30 .0 11 8 44 8. 0 10 9 40 9. 0 14 8 18 3. 0 14 6 81 4. 0 11 5 75 0. 0 12 0 88 3. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 1 81 4. 0 2 09 0. 0 2 61 2. 0 3 07 2. 0 3 83 7. 0 3 77 5. 0 4 46 2. 0 330 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Ta bl e A .5 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C w ith fo re ig n in ve st m en t “ D ni pr op et ro vs k O EP ”, th ou sa nd U A H (s ou rc e: a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 22 1 01 5. 0 34 2 57 6. 0 39 6 95 0. 0 48 2 81 6. 0 50 3 34 2. 0 58 0 78 1. 0 x 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 39 .0 62 0. 0 54 .0 1 25 8. 0 6 23 5. 0 2 06 0. 0 x 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 22 0 97 6. 0 34 1 95 6. 0 39 6 89 6. 0 48 1 55 8. 0 49 7 10 7. 0 57 8 72 1. 0 x 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 21 3 81 9. 0 22 5 60 8. 0 21 5 20 1. 0 20 1 59 8. 0 15 8 90 3. 0 16 1 55 7. 0 x 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 19 5 69 .0 26 8 67 .0 41 2 09 .0 54 4 32 .0 72 8 26 .0 11 1 56 3. 0 x 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 19 4 25 0. 0 19 8 74 1. 0 17 3 99 2. 0 14 7 16 6. 0 86 0 77 .0 49 9 94 .0 x 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 24 0 54 5. 0 36 8 82 3. 0 43 8 10 5. 0 53 5 99 0. 0 56 9 93 3. 0 69 0 28 4. 0 x 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 39 .0 62 0. 0 54 .0 1 25 8. 0 6 23 5. 0 2 06 0. 0 x 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 43 4 79 5. 0 56 7 56 4. 0 61 2 09 7. 0 68 3 15 6. 0 65 6 01 0. 0 74 0 27 8. 0 x 6. L iq ui d as se ts 24 0 58 4. 0 36 9 44 3. 0 43 8 15 9. 0 53 7 24 8. 0 57 6 16 8. 0 69 2 34 4. 0 x 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 19 4 25 0. 0 19 8 74 1. 0 17 3 99 2. 0 14 7 16 6. 0 86 0 77 .0 49 9 94 .0 x M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 38 9 76 9. 0 49 4 11 4. 0 53 1 70 1. 0 57 6 66 2. 0 61 1 49 9. 0 60 8 75 2. 0 x 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 38 8 79 1. 0 49 3 13 6. 0 53 0 72 3. 0 57 5 68 4. 0 61 0 52 1. 0 60 8 75 2. 0 x 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 97 8. 0 97 8. 0 97 8. 0 97 8. 0 97 8. 0 0. 0 x 2. D eb t 45 0 65 .0 74 0 70 .0 80 4 50 .0 10 7 75 2. 0 50 7 46 .0 13 3 58 6. 0 x 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 32 5 05 .0 59 3 62 .0 33 1 05 .0 26 3 98 .0 27 9 76 .0 10 0 46 4. 0 x 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 12 5 60 .0 14 7 08 .0 47 3 45 .0 81 3 54 .0 22 7 70 .0 33 1 22 .0 x Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 331 Ta bl e A .6 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C “ K ro py vn yt sk yi O EP ”, th ou sa nd U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 61 9 23 .0 97 0 29 .0 20 0 20 4. 0 18 6 03 6. 0 15 9 55 8. 0 10 2 77 3. 0 70 3 06 .0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 3 39 6. 0 19 6. 0 1 11 7. 0 71 0. 0 63 .0 56 .0 17 .0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 58 5 27 .0 96 8 33 .0 19 9 08 7. 0 18 5 32 6. 0 15 9 49 5. 0 10 2 71 7. 0 70 2 89 .0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 24 7 00 9. 0 23 1 28 7. 0 16 6 68 5. 0 22 4 62 9. 0 28 3 96 9. 0 41 1 87 0. 0 48 7 79 5. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 4 37 6. 0 6 60 2. 0 6 37 9. 0 5 87 2. 0 9 09 7. 0 11 8 41 .0 12 0 59 .0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 24 2 63 3. 0 22 4 68 5. 0 16 0 30 6. 0 21 8 75 7. 0 27 4 87 2. 0 40 0 02 9. 0 47 5 73 6. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 62 9 03 .0 10 3 43 5. 0 20 5 46 6. 0 19 1 19 8. 0 16 8 59 2. 0 11 4 55 8. 0 82 3 48 .0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 3 39 6. 0 19 6. 0 1 11 7. 0 71 0. 0 63 .0 56 .0 17 .0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 30 5 53 6. 0 32 8 12 0. 0 36 5 77 2. 0 40 9 95 5. 0 44 3 46 4. 0 51 4 58 7. 0 55 8 08 4. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 66 2 99 .0 10 3 63 1. 0 20 6 58 3. 0 19 1 90 8. 0 16 8 65 5. 0 11 4 61 4. 0 82 3 65 .0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 24 2 63 3. 0 22 4 68 5. 0 16 0 30 6. 0 21 8 75 7. 0 27 4 87 2. 0 40 0 02 9. 0 47 5 73 6. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 27 9 46 4. 0 27 1 77 6. 0 28 6 54 2. 0 31 4 75 2. 0 34 1 07 6. 0 33 0 91 3. 0 33 9 49 5. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 11 4 51 4. 0 10 7 38 0. 0 12 2 14 6. 0 16 3 04 4. 0 18 9 36 8. 0 17 9 31 5. 0 18 8 13 1. 0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 16 4 95 0. 0 16 4 39 6. 0 16 4 39 6. 0 15 1 70 8. 0 15 1 70 8. 0 15 1 59 8. 0 15 1 36 4. 0 2. D eb t 29 4 68 .0 56 5 40 .0 80 3 47 .0 95 9 13 .0 10 2 45 1. 0 18 3 73 0. 0 21 8 60 6. 0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 27 8 11 .0 53 1 06 .0 77 7 01 .0 93 1 46 .0 98 8 42 .0 12 7 96 1. 0 13 9 17 7. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 1 65 7. 0 3 43 4. 0 2 64 6. 0 2 76 7. 0 3 60 9. 0 55 7 69 .0 79 4 29 .0 332 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Ta bl e A .7 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C “ N iz hy ns ky Z hy rc om bi na t”, th ou sa nd U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 12 6 91 .0 17 9 74 .0 19 2 48 .0 32 3 22 .0 79 9 30 .0 39 1 02 .0 71 7 91 .0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 67 3. 0 57 1. 0 3 77 7. 0 1. 0 66 9. 0 1 11 1. 0 14 3 54 .0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 12 0 18 .0 17 4 03 .0 15 4 71 .0 32 3 21 .0 79 2 61 .0 37 9 91 .0 57 4 37 .0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 36 2 67 .0 42 7 81 .0 45 1 40 .0 77 4 08 .0 14 8 25 9. 0 18 7 28 9. 0 22 2 31 4. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 5 02 8. 0 7 91 6. 0 6 14 3. 0 15 5 87 .0 29 6 39 .0 6 96 3. 0 47 7 60 .0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 31 2 39 .0 34 8 65 .0 38 9 97 .0 61 8 21 .0 11 8 62 0. 0 18 0 32 6. 0 17 4 55 4. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 17 0 46 .0 25 3 19 .0 21 6 14 .0 47 9 08 .0 10 8 90 0. 0 44 9 54 .0 10 5 19 7. 0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 67 3. 0 57 1. 0 3 77 7. 0 1. 0 66 9. 0 1 11 1. 0 14 3 54 .0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 48 2 85 .0 60 1 84 .0 60 6 11 .0 10 9 72 9. 0 22 7 52 0. 0 22 5 28 0. 0 27 9 75 1. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 17 7 19 .0 25 8 90 .0 25 3 91 .0 47 9 09 .0 10 9 56 9. 0 46 0 65 .0 11 9 55 1. 0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 31 2 39 .0 34 8 65 .0 38 9 97 .0 61 8 21 .0 11 8 62 0. 0 18 0 32 6. 0 17 4 55 4. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 13 5 10 .0 13 6 35 .0 3 48 1. 0 –4 5 85 .0 91 0. 0 -5 9 58 3. 0 –9 6 34 8. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 13 5 10 .0 13 6 35 .0 3 48 1. 0 –4 5 85 .0 91 0. 0 -5 9 58 3. 0 –9 6 34 8. 0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. D eb t 35 4 48 .0 47 1 20 .0 60 9 07 .0 11 4 31 5. 0 22 7 27 9. 0 28 5 97 4. 0 39 0 45 3. 0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 34 2 49 .0 46 3 36 .0 60 1 94 .0 11 1 35 8. 0 21 4 03 1. 0 28 3 52 2. 0 35 0 88 2. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 1 19 9. 0 78 4. 0 71 3. 0 2 95 7. 0 13 2 48 .0 2 45 2. 0 39 5 71 .0 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 333 Ta bl e A .8 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C “ Po lo gy O EP ”, th ou sa nd U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 23 9 80 1. 0 27 8 51 0. 0 30 0 59 1. 0 43 6 38 6. 0 52 3 94 0. 0 42 2 57 9. 0 45 0 54 3. 0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 39 5 10 .0 42 7 87 .0 44 4 87 .0 92 7 48 .0 42 1 08 .0 33 2 76 .0 84 9 92 .0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 20 0 29 1. 0 23 5 72 3. 0 25 6 10 4. 0 34 3 63 8. 0 48 1 83 2. 0 38 9 30 3. 0 36 5 55 1. 0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 63 3 77 8. 0 65 2 98 6. 0 82 0 17 0. 0 1 22 1 40 8. 0 1 28 4 01 2. 0 1 56 7 28 4. 0 1 62 6 02 9. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 36 3 34 8. 0 38 9 77 7. 0 54 5 05 7. 0 93 3 57 4. 0 98 9 86 4. 0 62 7 19 8. 0 55 2 85 2. 0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 27 0 43 0. 0 26 3 20 9. 0 27 5 11 3. 0 28 7 83 4. 0 29 4 14 8. 0 94 0 08 6. 0 1 07 3 17 7. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 56 3 63 9. 0 62 5 50 0. 0 80 1 16 1. 0 1 27 7 21 2. 0 1 47 1 69 6. 0 1 01 6 50 1. 0 91 8 40 3. 0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 39 5 10 .0 42 7 87 .0 44 4 87 .0 92 7 48 .0 42 1 08 .0 33 2 76 .0 84 9 92 .0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 83 4 06 9. 0 88 8 70 9. 0 1 07 6 27 4. 0 1 56 5 04 6. 0 1 76 5 84 4. 0 1 95 6 58 7. 0 1 99 1 58 0. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 60 3 14 9. 0 66 8 28 7. 0 84 5 64 8. 0 1 36 9 96 0. 0 1 51 3 80 4. 0 1 04 9 77 7. 0 1 00 3 39 5. 0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 27 0 43 0. 0 26 3 20 9. 0 27 5 11 3. 0 28 7 83 4. 0 29 4 14 8. 0 94 0 08 6. 0 1 07 3 17 7. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 28 7 70 0. 0 27 4 63 4. 0 40 7 00 2. 0 39 0 11 8. 0 40 7 26 6. 0 99 1 25 9. 0 99 7 47 9. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 21 1 81 9. 0 19 8 75 3. 0 33 4 84 5. 0 32 5 40 9. 0 34 6 27 9. 0 28 3 38 5. 0 32 4 17 5. 0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 75 8 81 .0 75 8 81 .0 72 1 57 .0 64 7 09 .0 60 9 87 .0 70 7 87 4. 0 67 3 30 4. 0 2. D eb t 58 5 87 9. 0 65 6 86 2. 0 71 3 75 9. 0 1 26 7 67 6. 0 1 40 0 68 6. 0 99 8 60 4. 0 1 07 9 09 3. 0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 55 7 01 5. 0 24 3 47 5. 0 47 7 42 1. 0 65 5 32 9. 0 68 8 34 8. 0 45 6 83 8. 0 56 8 62 3. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 28 8 64 .0 41 3 38 7. 0 23 6 33 8. 0 61 2 34 7. 0 71 2 33 8. 0 54 1 76 6. 0 51 0 47 0. 0 334 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Ta bl e A .9 . M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P rJ SC “ V in ni ts a O SC F” , t ho us an d U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 50 7 64 .0 19 0 69 9. 0 28 9 91 2. 0 90 5 82 9. 0 56 7 59 9. 0 47 7 87 9. 0 24 5 63 3. 0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 10 2. 0 37 .0 11 0 40 .0 57 6 02 .0 23 4 14 .0 50 1 05 .0 43 3 93 .0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 50 6 62 .0 19 0 66 2. 0 27 8 87 2. 0 84 8 22 7. 0 54 4 18 5. 0 42 7 77 4. 0 20 2 24 0. 0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 1 00 6 78 5. 0 1 76 4 30 2. 0 3 89 0 29 4. 0 4 25 1 85 4. 0 4 35 5 84 4. 0 3 89 5 24 6. 0 3 82 0 02 3. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 23 8 07 .0 44 7 13 .0 57 0 33 1. 0 31 7 14 5. 0 51 8 42 0. 0 15 9 29 0. 0 19 8 35 0. 0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 98 2 97 8. 0 1 71 9 58 9. 0 3 31 9 96 3. 0 3 93 4 70 9. 0 3 83 7 42 4. 0 3 73 5 95 6. 0 3 62 1 67 3. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 74 4 69 .0 23 5 37 5. 0 84 9 20 3. 0 1 16 5 37 2. 0 1 06 2 60 5. 0 58 7 06 4. 0 40 0 59 0. 0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 10 2. 0 37 .0 11 0 40 .0 57 6 02 .0 23 4 14 .0 50 1 05 .0 43 3 93 .0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 1 05 7 44 7. 0 1 95 4 96 4. 0 4 16 9 16 6. 0 5 10 0 08 1. 0 4 90 0 02 9. 0 4 32 3 02 0. 0 4 02 2 26 3. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 74 5 71 .0 23 5 41 2. 0 86 0 24 3. 0 1 22 2 97 4. 0 1 08 6 01 9. 0 63 7 16 9. 0 44 3 98 3. 0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 98 2 97 8. 0 1 71 9 58 9. 0 3 31 9 96 3. 0 3 93 4 70 9. 0 3 83 7 42 4. 0 3 73 5 95 6. 0 3 62 1 67 3. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 42 4 94 3. 0 1 01 1 22 8. 0 2 30 4 48 9. 0 2 81 2 99 5. 0 2 72 8 53 3. 0 2 63 0 57 3. 0 2 55 0 58 0. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 56 5 50 .0 63 8 52 .0 69 6 34 .0 71 2 01 .0 –1 2 71 8. 0 –1 00 0 56 .0 –1 79 7 12 .0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 36 8 39 3. 0 94 7 37 6. 0 2 23 4 85 5. 0 2 74 1 79 4. 0 2 74 1 25 1. 0 2 73 0 62 9. 0 2 73 0 29 2. 0 2. D eb t 63 2 60 6. 0 94 3 77 3. 0 1 87 5 71 7. 0 2 34 4 68 8. 0 2 19 4 91 0. 0 1 74 2 55 2. 0 1 51 5 07 6. 0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 62 9 28 2. 0 93 9 10 9. 0 1 68 2 52 8. 0 2 21 7 34 1. 0 1 64 2 94 1. 0 1 44 2 45 9. 0 1 36 5 18 7. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 3 32 4. 0 4 66 4. 0 19 3 18 9. 0 12 7 34 7. 0 55 1 96 9. 0 30 0 09 3. 0 14 9 88 9. 0 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 303–336 335 Ta bl e A .1 0. M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C “ Z ap or iz hz hy a O EP ”, th ou sa nd U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s х х x 79 0 04 .0 77 8 08 .0 97 2 49 .0 98 2 66 .0 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s х х x 8. 0 43 8. 0 13 .0 16 8. 0 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s х х 0. 0 78 9 96 .0 77 3 70 .0 97 2 36 .0 98 0 98 .0 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s х х 50 3 28 7. 0 45 8 74 4. 0 42 8 16 3. 0 40 3 53 2. 0 43 4 68 4. 0 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s х х 35 4 18 .0 49 2. 0 4 81 4. 0 5 09 3. 0 5 34 4. 0 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s х х 46 7 86 9. 0 45 8 25 2. 0 42 3 34 9. 0 39 8 43 9. 0 42 9 34 0. 0 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s х х 35 4 18 .0 79 4 88 .0 82 1 84 .0 10 2 32 9. 0 10 3 44 2. 0 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s х х x 8. 0 43 8. 0 13 .0 16 8. 0 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s х х 50 3 28 7. 0 53 7 74 0. 0 50 5 53 3. 0 50 0 76 8. 0 53 2 78 2. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts х х 35 4 18 .0 79 4 96 .0 82 6 22 .0 10 2 34 2. 0 10 3 61 0. 0 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts x x 46 7 86 9. 0 45 8 25 2. 0 42 3 34 9. 0 39 8 43 9. 0 42 9 34 0. 0 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity х х 50 3 28 7. 0 50 8 07 9. 0 50 2 78 3. 0 49 9 77 1. 0 49 7 81 4. 0 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns х х 40 5 73 8. 0 41 5 80 7. 0 41 4 78 3. 0 41 1 78 9. 0 40 9 83 2. 0 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns х х 97 5 49 .0 92 2 72 .0 88 0 00 .0 87 9 82 .0 87 9 82 .0 2. D eb t х х x 29 6 69 .0 3 18 8. 0 1 01 0. 0 35 1 36 .0 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s х х x 29 6 64 .0 1 66 2. 0 1 00 4. 0 35 1 32 .0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s х х 0. 0 5. 0 1 52 6. 0 6. 0 4. 0 336 L. Dokiienko. Financial security of the enterprise: an alternative approach to evaluation... Ta bl e A .1 1. M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s an d fin an ci al c ap ita l P JS C “ Z ap or iz hz hy a O FF ”, th ou sa nd U A H ( so ur ce : a ut ho rs ’ c al cu la tio ns ) C om po ne nt s In fa ct o n: 31 .1 2. 20 13 31 .1 2. 20 14 31 .1 2. 20 15 31 .1 2. 20 16 31 .1 2. 20 17 31 .1 2. 20 18 31 .1 2. 20 19 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f e co no m ic a ss et s 1. F in an ci al a ss et s 19 1 75 1. 0 22 2 52 8. 0 32 9 85 7. 0 31 8 75 5. 0 30 4 79 0. 0 30 4 99 1. 0 44 2 51 6. 6 1. 1. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 41 .0 5 51 8. 0 11 6 77 .0 62 .0 2. 0 24 .0 5. 9 1. 2. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 19 1 71 0. 0 21 7 01 0. 0 31 8 18 0. 0 31 8 69 3. 0 30 4 78 8. 0 30 4 96 7. 0 44 2 51 0. 7 2. N on -fi na nc ia l a ss et s 61 9 08 4. 0 76 1 72 0. 0 68 7 93 6. 0 15 0 57 3. 0 13 6 85 4. 0 16 0 78 5. 0 16 6 21 0. 3 2. 1. L iq ui d no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 37 8 75 .0 11 6 79 7. 0 56 5 60 .0 9 44 2. 0 3 58 7. 0 28 1 22 .0 1 96 3. 2 2. 2. N on -fi na nc ia l i lli qu id a ss et s 58 1 20 9. 0 64 4 92 3. 0 63 1 37 6. 0 14 1 13 1. 0 13 3 26 7. 0 13 2 66 3. 0 16 4 24 7. 1 3. N on -m ob ile fi na nc ia l a nd li qu id no n- fin an ci al a ss et s 22 9 58 5. 0 33 3 80 7. 0 37 4 74 0. 0 32 8 13 5. 0 30 8 37 5. 0 33 3 08 9. 0 44 4 47 3. 9 4. M ob ile fi na nc ia l a ss et s 41 .0 5 51 8. 0 11 6 77 .0 62 .0 2. 0 24 .0 5. 9 5. N on -m ob ile a ss et s 81 0 79 4. 0 97 8 73 0. 0 1 00 6 11 6. 0 46 9 26 6. 0 44 1 64 2. 0 46 5 75 2. 0 60 8 72 1. 0 6. L iq ui d as se ts 22 9 62 6. 0 33 9 32 5. 0 38 6 41 7. 0 32 8 19 7. 0 30 8 37 7. 0 33 3 11 3. 0 44 4 47 9. 8 7. N on - ill iq ui d as se ts 58 1 20 9. 0 64 4 92 3. 0 63 1 37 6. 0 14 1 13 1. 0 13 3 26 7. 0 13 2 66 3. 0 16 4 24 7. 1 M od ifi ed s tr uc tu re o f fi na nc ia l c ap ita l 1. E qu ity 25 3 47 9. 0 22 9 36 1. 0 31 7 95 5. 0 –2 17 8 31 .0 –2 81 1 22 .0 –2 62 8 65 .0 –2 66 4 40 .2 1. 1. E qu ity w ith ou t c ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 1 82 4. 0 –2 1 38 1. 0 67 4 91 .0 –3 70 5 40 .0 –4 33 8 31 .0 –4 15 5 74 .0 –4 19 4 43 .4 1. 2. C ap ita l i n re va lu at io ns 25 1 65 5. 0 25 0 74 2. 0 25 0 46 4. 0 15 2 70 9. 0 15 2 70 9. 0 15 2 70 9. 0 15 3 00 3. 2 2. D eb t 55 7 35 6. 0 75 4 88 7. 0 69 9 83 8. 0 68 7 15 9. 0 72 2 76 6. 0 72 8 64 1. 0 87 5 16 7. 1 2. 1. E xt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 54 7 71 5. 0 74 0 72 1. 0 69 0 10 5. 0 68 6 40 0. 0 72 2 26 0. 0 72 8 16 9. 0 87 4 87 8. 0 2. 2. I nt er na l l ia bi lit ie s 9 64 1. 0 14 1 66 .0 9 73 3. 0 75 9. 0 50 6. 0 47 2. 0 28 9. 1