| Supply side structural reform is an inevitable choice for my country to adapt to and lead the new economic normal.At present,theories and concepts related to supply-side structural reforms are relatively rich,but there are few studies on the status and implementation effects of supply-side structural reforms.The coal industry is the focus of my country’s supply-side structural reforms.The establishment of an evaluation index system for the supply-side structural reform of listed coal companies and the use of this system to evaluate the effects of corporate reforms will help to recognize the current status and deficiencies of the current reforms.In turn,it will guide practice to help listed coal companies better implement supply-side structural reform policies,enhance their competitiveness,and play a role in balancing the coal market and even developing the entire national economy.This article takes 25 listed coal companies in Shenzhen and Shanghai stock markets as the main research objects.First,it analyzes the country’s special requirements for supply-side structural reform on coal companies,and builds a performance evaluation index system for the supply-side structural reform of listed coal companies,including 5first-level indicators and 15 second-level indicators,like overcapacity,destocking,deleveraging,cost reduction,and making up for shortcomings.Second,the entropy weight-TOPSIS model and the dynamic evaluation method which is based on time series are used to comprehensively and dimensionally evaluate the supply-side structural reform performance of 25 listed coal companies from static and dynamic perspectives,and K-Means clustering method is used to classify and analyze enterprises.Finally,the obstacle degree model is used to deeply analyzes the main obstacles for listed coal companies to improve the performance of supply-side structural reform,and proposes targeted countermeasures.The research in this paper has obtained the following results:First,from the static evaluation results,the performance scores of the supply-side structural reform of the 25 listed coal companies in Shenzhen and Shanghai in 2019 were generally low,and the first-ranked Yitai B-share supply-side structural reform score was only 0.5891.The company scores are relatively close and only the top 8 companies such as Shanghai Energy and Anyuan Coal have scores of more than 0.5,and the score of remaining companies between 0.4-0.5;Second,from the perspective of dynamic evaluation results,the dynamic comprehensive ranking of the supply-side structural reform performance of the 25 listed coal companies in Shenzhen and Shanghai from 2016 to 2019 has not changed much compared with 2019.Yitai ranked first in static evaluation.The B-share dynamic ranks second with a comprehensive score of 0.5058 for the performance of supply-side structural reforms.Companies such as Shanghai Energy and Anyuan Coal are still ranked high.The top 22 companies still score above 0.4.Only Hengyuan Coal,Datong Coal,and Xinji Energy scored less than 0.4;Third,from the analysis of obstacles,the obstacles for different listed coal companies to improve the performance of the supply-side structural reform are quite different.However,the reduction level of value-added tax in operating income,the growth level of R&D intensity,the reduction level of environmental protection tax in operating income,the increase level of technical staff input intensity,the long-term increase of inventory turnover rate,and the reduction level of asset-liability ratio which are common factors that affects coal enterprises to improve the performance of supply-side structural reforms,and Supplementing shortcomings have the greatest impact on the performance of supply-side structural reforms of listed coal companies.The vast majority of companies still have poor de-leveraging performance,such as low de-capacity performance,slower inventory turnover,and high current liabilities,total liabilities and poor supply quality,which still needs to improve,and heavy value-added tax burden.Inadequate cost reduction work and insufficient R&D intensity to make up for five aspects of poor performance. |
