Keramika (Vitebsk)
Open Joint-Stock Company Keramika
UNP: 300000303 · 119 Gagarina St., Vitebsk
Identification
Financial statements
k BYN
| Line item | Reporting year | Prior year |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed assets | 10 636 | 9 571 |
| Intangible assets | 3 | 3 |
| Investments in long-term assets | 5 506 | 5 565 |
| Long-term financial investments | 1 | 1 |
| Total Section I (long-term assets) | 16 146 | 15 140 |
| Inventories | 3 038 | 3 600 |
| — materials | 1 647 | 1 673 |
| — work in progress | 106 | 106 |
| — finished goods and merchandise | 1 285 | 1 821 |
| Deferred expenses | 40 | 12 |
| VAT on acquired goods, works, services | 38 | 94 |
| Short-term receivables | 796 | 549 |
| Cash and cash equivalents | 287 | 299 |
| Total Section II (short-term assets) | 4 199 | 4 554 |
| BALANCE (assets) | 20 345 | 19 694 |
| Charter capital | 370 | 370 |
| Reserve capital | 268 | 263 |
| Additional capital | 6 214 | 5 457 |
| Retained earnings (uncovered loss) | 11 801 | 11 599 |
| Total Section III (equity) | 18 653 | 17 689 |
| Long-term loans and borrowings | — | — |
| Total Section IV (long-term liabilities) | 0 | 0 |
| Short-term loans and borrowings | — | — |
| Short-term payables | 1 692 | 2 005 |
| — to suppliers, contractors, providers | 212 | 128 |
| — on advances received | 863 | 930 |
| — on taxes and duties | 49 | 80 |
| — on social insurance and security | 55 | 38 |
| — on payroll | 178 | 165 |
| — on lease payments | 227 | 566 |
| — to the owner of property (founders, participants) | 95 | 88 |
| Total Section V (short-term liabilities) | 1 692 | 2 005 |
| BALANCE (equity and liabilities) | 20 345 | 19 694 |
Computed metrics
Integrity checks
Checks passed: 6 of 6
Signals
- Sharp margin compression: sales profitability fell from 8.2% to 2.8%, and profit on sales shrank almost threefold (1,187 → 382k BYN) on near-flat revenue. Costs grow faster than prices.F2.060 · F2.010
- Operating cash flow near zero: +40k BYN on revenue of 13,911k BYN (a 0.3% margin). The enterprise barely covers its operating cycle from own funds.F4.040 · F2.010
- Investment in fixed assets nearly halved: F4.061 −697 → −365k BYN (−48%) amid heavily worn equipment — asset renewal is being postponed.F4.061
- No loan burden: there are neither long- nor short-term loans or borrowings on the balance sheet; liabilities are only current payables.F1.510 · F1.610 · F1.630
- Liquidity with a wide margin: current ratio 2.48 against the declared threshold of 1.0; own-working-capital provision is positive (0.60).F1.290 · F1.690 · F1.490 · F1.190
- Operating cash flow returned to positive: +40k BYN against −403k BYN a year earlier.F4.040
- Equity is real, not inflated by revaluation: retained earnings of 11,801k BYN are the bulk of capital; revaluation additional capital is about a third.F1.460 · F1.450 · F1.490
Recommendation
OJSC Keramika is a Vitebsk plant producing bricks and ceramic building materials.
Recommendation: Privatization — the state's exit from its minority stake; the new owner will need to modernize the operating and cost model (production energy efficiency, renewal of worn equipment, margin recovery). No financial recovery is required: the enterprise has no credit load requiring restructuring of obligations.
Why privatization. By balance-sheet structure the enterprise is stable: there are no loans or borrowings at all, liquidity is twice the norm, equity is real (the bulk is accumulated retained earnings rather than revaluation), and overdue debt is negligible. Operating cash flow returned to positive territory (+40k BYN against −403 a year earlier). The enterprise's problem is not the balance sheet but the operating model: the margin collapsed over the year — sales profitability fell from 8.2% to 2.8%, and profit on sales shrank almost threefold on near-flat revenue. The cause is costs outpacing prices: fuel (gas) is the main cost item, and with the low pricing power of a mass-brick producer this squeezes profit. Added pressure comes from high fixed-asset wear, while renewal investment was sharply cut in 2024.
Confidence: LOW. Separately, the state share in the charter fund is only 26.47% across 880 shareholders: here the state is a minority participant rather than a controlling owner, so the classic scenarios for disposing of a state asset apply to this enterprise only in a limited way. This is a borderline case for the sample's scope, and a final decision on it requires separate methodological clarification. All 6 cross-form consistency checks pass.