Druzhba Poultry Farm
OJSC "Druzhba Poultry Farm"
UNP: 200047140 · 90 Zhemchuzhny rural council, 1.5 km west of Zhemchuzhny agro-town, Baranovichi District, Brest Region 225316
Identification
Financial statements
k BYN
| Line item | Reporting year | Prior year |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed assets | 498 028 | 427 145 |
| Intangible assets | 1 334 | 204 |
| Income-bearing investments in tangible assets | 0 | 0 |
| Investments in long-term assets | 25 358 | 46 061 |
| Long-term financial investments | 40 | 40 |
| Long-term receivables | 678 | 725 |
| Total Section I (long-term assets) | 525 438 | 474 175 |
| Inventories | 186 830 | 167 321 |
| — materials | 102 990 | 89 486 |
| — animals being raised and fattened | 38 934 | 38 061 |
| — work in progress | 30 010 | 26 158 |
| — finished goods and merchandise | 14 896 | 13 616 |
| Deferred expenses | 705 | 553 |
| VAT on acquired goods, works, services | 5 650 | 5 480 |
| Short-term receivables | 24 668 | 24 395 |
| Short-term financial investments | 20 | 0 |
| Cash and cash equivalents | 4 898 | 3 704 |
| Total Section II (short-term assets) | 222 771 | 201 453 |
| BALANCE (assets) | 748 209 | 675 628 |
| Charter capital | 141 358 | 141 358 |
| Reserve capital | 425 | 425 |
| Additional capital | 212 600 | 169 779 |
| Retained earnings (uncovered loss) | 171 712 | 139 310 |
| Total Section III (equity) | 526 095 | 450 872 |
| Long-term loans and borrowings | 39 071 | 44 491 |
| Long-term lease liabilities | 23 531 | 22 996 |
| Other long-term liabilities | 39 | 3 923 |
| Total Section IV (long-term liabilities) | 62 641 | 71 410 |
| Short-term loans and borrowings | 2 208 | 1 156 |
| Current portion of long-term liabilities | 47 268 | 35 036 |
| Short-term payables | 107 826 | 116 157 |
| — to suppliers, contractors, providers | 84 187 | 94 805 |
| — on advances received | 4 352 | 3 905 |
| — on payroll | 5 515 | 4 763 |
| — on lease payments | 6 383 | 5 962 |
| Deferred income | 2 171 | 997 |
| Total Section V (short-term liabilities) | 159 473 | 153 346 |
| BALANCE (equity and liabilities) | 748 209 | 675 628 |
Computed metrics
Integrity checks
Checks passed: 6 of 6
Signals
- Source data quality MEDIUM-LOW — two distinct typos detected via cross-validation: (1) F1.490 TOTAL first-digit typo (displayed 426,095, corrected 526,095 via F3.200 composition + balance equation); (2) F4.040 sign inverted in both years (displayed -23,025/-12,896, corrected +23,025/+12,896 via the F4.110 integral chain). Two distinct typos in a single OLE source raise verification cost for any reviewer.
- Real-capital coverage of long-term assets 0.715 (under the 1.0 norm) — a structural funding gap covered by revaluation F1.450 = 212,600 (40.4% of F1.490). Not extreme (versus the most over-leveraged sample peers at 247%), but stabilized in the maturing-pressure zone. If the fixed-asset revaluation proves overstated on review (under sanctions + bird-equipment depreciation), the coverage could drop below 0.7 → distress.
- Cash buffer thin: 4,898 vs ST obligations 159,473 = 3.1% (≈3 days of operational outflow at F4.030 = -728k/365 = -1,996/day → 2.5 days). Dependence on supplier commercial credit F1.631 = 84,187 (16% of revenue) for working capital — if accelerated payment is demanded, immediate cash shortage.
- Current portion of long-term liabilities F1.620 = 47,268 (vs 35,036 prior, +35%) — significant LT debt maturing within the next 12 months. F4.091 loan repayment -44,856 (vs -29,548 prior, +52%) — a rising debt-service load. Refinancing available (F4.081 +52,739 loans received), but a circulating burden.
- Real-capital coverage of long-term assets declined slightly: 0.743 (prior) → 0.715 (current) — despite improved net profit, the structural gap widens because fixed-asset revaluation outpaces real-equity accumulation. F1.110 fixed assets up +16.6% (427,145 → 498,028 = +70,883), most = revaluation F2.220 = +43,182 (60.9% of the fixed-asset growth). Earnings retention F1.460 +32,402 (+23%) is less than the absolute revaluation effect on additional capital.
- Lease payments F4.094 = -15,681 (vs -9,160 prior, +71%) — lease expenses growing fast. F1.520 LT lease 23,531 stable; F1.636 ST lease payable 6,383 (vs 5,962 prior, +7%). Leasing as a financing channel expands faster than cash flow.
- Stocks up +12% (167,321 → 186,830), drivers: materials +15% (89,486 → 102,990), WIP +15% (26,158 → 30,010), finished goods +9% (13,616 → 14,896). On revenue +14.8% inventory grows proportionally, but cash tied up in stocks rose by 19,509.
- Reserve capital minimal: F1.440 = 425 (stable). No reserves built up — at this enterprise scale (balance 748m) it means no cushion in case of a loss-making year.
- F2.140 swing entirely driven by F2.122 'other finance-activity income' (+8,642 vs 1,193). The source does not explain the nature — possibly FX gain, disposal of investments, or other. Without Notes it is unclear whether this is a sustainable component.
- Net profit massive growth +611.9%: 4,501 → 32,041. K2 net +4.99pp (0.96% → 5.95%) — an operational transformation. K2 sales +2.33pp (3.97% → 6.29%).
- Operating profit F2.060 +82% (18,605 → 33,851). Gross margin expanded: F2.030/F2.010 = 11.8% → 14.4% (+2.6pp). Cost of sales +11.4% vs revenue +14.8% — price/efficiency leverage positive.
- K1 SOS sign-flip improvement: -0.116 (prior) → +0.003 (current). Crossed zero upward — first time positive working-capital coverage. The magnitude is tiny but the direction positive.
- K1 current above norm: 0.97 (prior) → 1.40 (current). Prior 0.97 was below norm, now 1.40 = healthy. A second sign-flip improvement (similar to SOS): liquidity moved from concern into norm.
- Total debt load reduced -9.57% YoY: (44,491 + 1,156) → (39,071 + 2,208) = 45,647 → 41,279. Versus revenue: 41,279 / 538,108 = 7.67% (low for agri primary production). LT debt F1.510 reduced (-12%); other LT F1.560 nearly zeroed (3,923 → 39).
- Revenue +14.81% nominal with BY inflation 5-7% = real growth ~+8% — above the inflation rate; the poultry market is growing.
- Fixed assets F1.110 grew +16.6% — sustained investment in production capacity. Though largely revaluation, there is also real investment (F4.061 -16,681 capex).
- Tax exempt (F2.160 = 0) — an agriculture preference is active. A favourable regulatory position for a food-security strategic sector.
- Clean audit: IE Sarkisov V.V. (Baranovichi), full 2025 period, unqualified ('fairly presented in all material respects').
- Dividends paid in the prior year (112.18 accrued / 112.191 paid 2024) — normal value extraction back to the state shareholder. 2025 = 0 — may be a decision pending OR reinvestment into growth.
Recommendation
OJSC "Poultry Farm 'Druzhba'" is a large (balance sheet BYN 748m, revenue BYN 538m) poultry-farming enterprise with a 96.59% state share and 1,113 minority shareholders, located in the Baranovichi district, Brest region; the sector is primary agribusiness production (OKED 01470 poultry breeding). For 2025 it shows a resounding operational transformation: net profit grew more than 7× (4,501 → BYN 32,041k, +611.9% YoY), revenue +14.8% nominal (~+8% real against Belarusian inflation of 5–7%), net K2 profitability skyrocketed +4.99 pp (0.96% → 5.95%), current K1 liquidity made a sign-flip from below-norm (0.97) to healthy (1.40), K1 OWC made a sign-flip from negative (−0.116) to slightly positive (+0.003). Debt load shrank 9.57%, the agribusiness tax exemption is active (F2.160=0), the audit is clean and unqualified, real equity substantial positive +BYN 313,070k. real-capital coverage of long-term assets = 0.715 — in the "maturing margin pressure" zone per the v2.3 two-axis matrix, but with positive real equity not distress; the gap is covered by revaluation of fixed assets (F1.450 = 212,600 = 40.4% of F1.490), typical for a long-established state enterprise with regularly revalued fixed assets.
Recommendation — privatization / stable / MEDIUM. Not state investment in pure form: the enterprise generates enough cash flow to self-finance growth (capex F4.061 −16,681 is covered by OCF +23,025), the tax exemption already provides effective state support, a 7× net profit does not require a state capital injection. Not restructuring: operational fundamentals are healthy, there is no distress. Not liquidation: a profitable strategic enterprise in the food-security sector. Privatization (with safeguards) makes sense because: (a) the financial profile is strong enough for buyer interest at a reasonable valuation; (b) the state does not extract significant value beyond normal dividends (2024 paid 112 — minor), so a transfer to private hands does not disrupt state finances; (c) the strategic food-security caveat suggests a partial sale / IPO with state retention (50%+1 vote OR a golden share) rather than full divestment — preserving state influence on food-production policy while monetizing a minority stake. Concrete privatization conditions for expert consultation: the target-buyer profile (a domestic agribusiness holding? a foreign strategic investor with food-security restrictions?), valuation methodology, retention level, social commitments (workforce protection in the rural area — the poultry farm is a major employer in Zhemchuzhny agro-town).
Confidence MEDIUM. Financials clean after source-typo corrections (6/6 sanity, F2 chain verified, K1/K2/K3 computed), but source quality MEDIUM-LOW due to two distinct source typos detected via cross-validation: (1) an F1.490 TOTAL first-digit typo (526,095 stored as 426,095 — diff exactly 100,000); (2) F4.040 sign inverted both years (displayed −23,025 / −12,896, should be +23,025 / +12,896, verified via the F4.110 integral chain). Correct reading requires careful cross-validation, which raised the verification cost. Also, on the cost-inflation margin-squeeze macro trend of 2025 — counter-evidence: this enterprise in the food-production sector (like another food producer in the sample) shows the opposite direction — all three compression metrics (K2 sales/net/OCF margin) improved, not compressed. This is the first counter-result: earlier cases observed in the sample showed the margin-compression direction, whereas here it is the opposite. The margin-squeeze effect may be a sector-specific subset rather than a universal macro, or this enterprise has structural protective factors (primary-production tax-exempt scale + state ownership) that exclude the margin-squeeze mechanism.