Recent orders
Financial Analysis For Two Uk Retail Chains The Case Of Morrisons And Tesco
Financial Analysis For Two Uk Retail Chains: The Case Of Morrisons And Tesco
1.0 Introduction
This report analyses and interprets Morrison and Tesco financial performance over a period of 5 years using the five major financial ratios of profitability, liquidity, gearing, asset management, and investment. To achieve this, the report will utilise the companies’ financial statements for the last five years – from 2008 to 2012. In addition, the report will offer a brief overview of the UK retail industry. Lastly, the report will discuss the limitations of each of the five financial analysis ratios. Overall, the report will argue that these two companies offer investors almost similar value yet they pursue different business models.
2.0 Brief Background of the UK Retail Market
Over the last ten years, the UK retail market has grown tremendously. The total retail market is worth more than £146.3 billion (as of 2008) from a low of £93.3 billion in 1998 (Li, 2008). Though this is relatively the lowest growth in 40 years, analysts believe that a growth of 1.2 percent is to be experienced in the second and third quarters of 2012 due to major events such as the London Olympics (SAS, 2011).
A research by IGD shows that consumers spend 52 percent of every pound on retail shopping with 21 percent of this spent in retail chains (Li, 2008). Nevertheless, the UK retail market has recently faced a number of uncertainties including the 2008 global recession and the Euro Zone crisis, shrinking consumer income, high unemployment rates, and an unresponsive credit system.
Currently there are more than 100 retail chains in the UK falling within the four major categories of convenience stores; traditional retail; online channel; and hypermarkets, supermarkets, and superstores. The four major retail chains are Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrison. Other notable retail chains include Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and Iceland.
3.0 Brief Overview of the Two Companies
Over the years, Morrison and Tesco have registered immense growth courtesy of their sound financial and operational strategies. Morrison occupies the fourth position with about 11.8 percent while Tesco occupies the first position with about 30 percent of the local market share (Li, 2008). Though the companies pursue different operational and financial strategies, their UK operations are subject to the same market and accounting regulations. As such, it is arguable that Tesco pursues the most responsive strategy.
Morrison has a simple business strategy. A strategy based on the desire to address the individual grocery needs for all its customers by providing fresh, affordable, quality food and outstanding customer service. This strategy is buoyed by an easily controllable internal supply chain – the company can constantly monitor the manufacturing and delivery of food products to guarantee freshness and customer service. Moreover, the company’s corporate strategy incorporates stakeholders’ needs while ensuring the company stays afloat in the highly competitive UK retail market (Morrison, 2012).
On the other hand, Tesco strategy is based on the urge to responsibly and effectively serve the needs of the communities it operates in. This is within the seven core pillars of its business strategy of expanding its operations within the UK, venturing into the international market, aggressive selling, responsive selling, creating high value brands, creating value for its stakeholders, and expanding retail services in all markets (Tesco, 2012).
4.0 Companies Strategic Differences
4.1 Morrison
Morrison registered huge group revenues in the last five financial years – £12,969 million in 2008 and £17,663 million in 2012. During the financial year 2011/2012, Morrison experienced a huge growth in customer numbers – a record number of customers visited its stores (about 0.4 million every week) (Morrison, 2012). This is an indicator that the company’s business strategy to offer fresh foods is bearing fruits. The fact that Morrison’s online channel is small demonstrates that customers are beginning to build faith in its business approach. Actually, the personalized business approach where experts in food areas such as fish interact with customers is gaining popularity among consumers.
Moreover, the company’s corporate compliance and social responsibility records are outstanding. Under the Corporate Compliance and Responsibility (CCR) Committee, the company ensures that it constantly improves core corporate responsibility and governance areas such as workplace health and safety, environmental management, ethical and competitive compliance, executive remuneration, as well as corporate responsibility. The company maintains a strong relationship with charitable organizations as well as government agencies – to date, it has achieved 14.6 percent reduction in carbon emission, a promising achievement based on the 30 percent overall reduction target set out in 2005. In addition, the company is on target to achieving zero waste directed to landfills by 2013 – only 5.6 percent is remaining (as of 2012). The company exceeded its annual target of raising £1 million for charity work – in the 2011/12 financial year, £2.3 million was raised (Morrison, 2012).
On the other hand, executive remuneration is done in tandem with the company’s performance, business priorities as well as the environment in which it operates in. This has been on an increasing trend in the last five years relative to the PBT which has been on an increase in this period. To boost investor confidence, the companies CEO encourages major shareholders to regularly make input in the way major corporate governance activities are carried out.
4.2 Tesco
Tesco experienced increased revenues in the last five financial years despite operating in a highly competitive and unpredictable environment – £47,298 million in 2008 and £64,539 million in 2012. The company is actually a nice investment for potential and existing investors – it is registering huge sales and giving out its shareholders value for their investment through huge dividends.
However, unlike Morrison, Tesco has achieved phenomenal growth courtesy of the expansionist strategy it pursues – the company believes in expanding its markets into new product lines such as finance as well as new avenues for reaching out to its customers. It believes in growing its online presence as a way of adapting to customers’ new ways of doing things.
For example, whereas Morrison believes in adopting the “street market” approach, Tesco believes in expanding its business so as to successfully create more jobs, bring fresh foods to under-developed neighbourhoods, review the quality of its brands, step-up the innovation gear, reduce prices, build economies of scale, and open-up new stores to penetrate traditionally conservative markets. This is in tandem with the official slogan that “no one tries harder for customers” (Tesco, 2012: 11).
The company prides in increasing staff, training new employees, acquiring new equipments, and opening-up new stores. This is in tandem with the company goal of enhancing customer perceptions by providing the best shopping experience whose core pillars are “service, range, quality, price, availability and the store environment” (Tesco, 2012: 12).
5.0 Financial Analysis
5.1 Profitability Ratios
5.1.1 Morrison
Profitability 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
GP 6.9% 7.0% 6.9% 6.3% 6.3%
NP 3.9% 3.8% 3.9% 3.2% 4.3%
ROCE 0.31% 0.27% 0.33% 0.27% 0.24%
ROE 12.8% 11.7% 12.1% 10.2% 12.7%
3.1.2 Tesco
Profitability 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
GP 8.15% 8.48% 8.10% 7.76% 7.67%
NP 3.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3.6% 4.1%
ROCE 13.3% 12.9% 12.1% 12.8% 12.7%
ROE 15.81% 16.07% 15.91% 16.57% 17.94%
As the above tables show, Tesco has experienced a larger GP than Morrison but the two companies have relatively similar NP for the five year period. Moreover, Tesco has a relatively stable GP and NP while Morrison’s GP and NP have been erratic within the same period. Both companies registered a low NP in 2009 perhaps due to the effects of the global recession.
Overall, Tesco is more efficient in managing its operational costs than Morrison (Vance, 2003). Specifically, Morrison cannot seem to keep its costs of financing at low levels as shown by a smaller NP for the five year period. Additionally, Tesco has registered a large ROCE and ROE than Morrison in the same period.
This is an indicator that that Tesco keeps its costs of selling, financing, and investment at relatively low levels than Morrison. Perhaps this is because the company has a large market share compared to Morrison and hence enjoys economies of scale.
5.2 Liquidity Ratio
5.2.1 Morrison
Liquidity 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Current Ratio 0.57 0.55 0.51 0.53 0.50
Acid Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.32
5.2.2 Tesco
Liquidity 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Current Ratio 0.67 times 0.68 times 0.71times 0.74times 0.58 times
Acid Ratio 0.48 times 0.50 times 0.54 times 0.59 times 0.34 times
Tesco can meet its short term debt obligations easily than Morrison. Tesco liquidity has increased by a larger margin than that of Morrison over the last five years – Tesco’s current ratio and acid ratio for the last five years show a change of 0.09 and 0.14 respectively compared to Morrison’s 0.07 and -0.08 respectively. This large and positive range in current ratio and acid ratio indicates that Tesco has been steadily improving its ability to offset its short term liabilities than Morrison over the same period.
Actually, Morrison experienced a decline in acid ratio during the last five years, an indicator that the company is in deficit of short-term assets and can only meet its short term liabilities by selling inventories (Helfert, 2001). Overall, the company’s liquidity ratios are healthy by industry standards as the companies have faster inventory turnover rates.
5.3 Asset Management
5.3.1 Morrison
Asset Management 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Stock Turnover 23.27days 25.83 days 26.71 days 48.58 days 39.90 days
Asset Turnover 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0
5.3.2 Tesco
Asset Management 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Stock Turnover 20.02days 21.21 days 22.91 days 22.27 days 21.31 days
Asset Turnover 3.70 3.42 3.90 4.18 3.98
Morrison stock turnover period has been on a decrease since 2008 except in 2009 when it shot from 39.90 days to 48.58 days. Nevertheless, the company seem to be enjoying a relatively stable yet decreasing stock turnover rate over the last five years, with 2012 being its worst year. Tesco too has been experiencing decreasing stock turnover rate over the years.
This phenomenon could have been occasioned by the shrinking of disposable income among consumers in the UK during this period. Nevertheless, Tesco has a slightly higher asset turnover than Morrison, an indicator that the company is more efficient in turning its assets into revenue. Overall, the two companies seem to be experiencing stable asset turnover in the last five years.
3.4 Gearing Ratio
3.4.1 Morrison
Gearing 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Debt Ratio 27.26% 15.07% 18.67% 14.20% 12.40%
Interest Cover 20.70 times 21.02 times 15.11times 11.18times 10.2 times
3.4.2 Tesco
Gearing 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Debt Ratio 38.41% 40.85% 54.0% 74.38% 52.06%
Interest Cover 9.56 times 8.176 times 6.0 times 6.6 times 11.1times
Though Tesco has a higher debt ratio than Morrison, it is clear that Morrison has a more futuristic financial approach. This approach allows for the maximization of funding from long-term lenders at the expense of short-term ones. It is therefore not a surprise that Tesco has a lower interest cover ratio than Morrison as it seems the company prefers utilising short-term finance and reinvesting its profits while suppressing long-term finance.
3.5 Investment Ratio
3.5.1 Morrison
Investment 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Dividend pay-out 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 0.9%
Dividend per share 10.70p 9.60p 8.20p 5.80p 4.80p
EPS 26.68p 23.93p 22.80p 17.39p 20.79p
Price/earnings 11.40 11.60 14.10 15.60 15.20
3.5.2 Tesco
Investment 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Dividend pay-out 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
Dividend per share 14.76p 14.46p 13.05p 11.96p 10.90p
Earnings Per share 34.98p 33.10p 29.33p 27.14p 26.95p
Price/earnings 8.50 11.10 13.20 11.50 14.60
Tesco has been paying higher dividends to its shareholders compared to Morrison yet it has a low dividend pay-out ratio for the last five years. The reason for this phenomenon is because Tesco has huge net income that converts to higher earnings per share. Moreover, Tesco has a low price-earnings ratio because its earnings per share is much higher than that of Morrison for the five years period – Tesco earnings per share has increased from a low of 26.95p in 2008 to a high of 34.98p in 2012 compared to Morrison which has grown from 17.39p in 2009 to 26.68p in 2012. Both companies have registered a decreasing PE in the last five years, with Tesco registering the lowest PE. This can be interpreted to mean that both companies offer investors almost the same value for their money.
4.0 Conclusion
Both Morrison and Tesco have experienced immense growth. This growth is as a result of pursuing robust business models that allow them to offer value to their stakeholders. Morrison pursues a somehow lean business model, while Tesco pursues an agile one hence the difference in their total share in the UK market. Overall, both companies offer their shareholders almost the same value for their money as they have almost similar profitability capabilities, short-term debt payment capabilities, asset management capabilities, long-term funding utilization capabilities, investment capabilities yet they pursue significantly different business approaches. As Vance (2002) posits, the five broad categories of financial ratios are not exhaustive in giving the true financial picture of a company but they have succeeded in giving investors a clear glimpse of where the two companies are headed.
References
Helfert, E.A. (2001). Financial analysis: Tools and techniques: A guide for managers. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Li, E. (2008). Supermarket chains and grocery market in the UK. Shanghai, China: China Europe International Business School.
Morrison PLC (2012). Annual report and financial statements 2011/12. Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC.
SAS (2011). UK retail 2012 & beyond. [Online]. Available at: HYPERLINK “http://www.sas.com/offices/europe/uk/downloads/press/sas-verdict-retail2012.pdf/” http://www.sas.com/offices/europe/uk/downloads/press/sas-verdict-retail2012.pdf/ (accessed June 22, 2012).
Tesco PLC (2012). Annual report and financial statements 2012. [Online]. Available at: HYPERLINK “http://www.tescoplc.com/files/pdf/reports/tesco_annual_report_2012.pdf/” http://www.tescoplc.com/files/pdf/reports/tesco_annual_report_2012.pdf/ (accessed June 22, 2012).
Vance, D.E. (2003). Financial analysis and decision making: Tools and techniques to solve financial problems and make effective business decisions. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Morrison
Ratio Formulae 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
GP Revenue – COGS/ revenue x 100 (17,663- 16,446/ 17,663) x 100 = 6.9% (16,479 – 15,331/ 16,479 ) x 100 = 7.0% (15,410 – 14,348/ 15,410) x 100 = 6.9% (14,528 – 13,615/ 14,528 ) x 100 = 6.3% (12,969 – 12,151/ 12,969 ) x 100 = 6.3%
NP Net profit/ sales x 100 (690 / 17,663) x 100 = 3.9 (632 /16,479) x 100 = 3.8% (598/15,410)x100=3.9% (460/ 14,528) x 100 = 3.2% (554/ 12,969) x 100 = 4.3%
ROE Net income/ shareholders equity x 100 (690/ 5,397) x 100 = 12.8% (632 /5,420) x 100 = 11.7% (598/4,949) x 100 = 12.1% (460/4,520) x 100 = 10.2% (554/4,378) x 100 = 12.7%
ROCE EBIT/ (Assets – CL 973/ (5,397 – 2,303)= 0.31 904/ (5,420 – 2,086) = 0.27 907/(4,949- 2,152)=0.33 671/ (4,520 – 2,024) = 0.27 612/ (4,378 – 1,853) = 0.24
Current ratio CA/CL 1,322/ 2,303 = 0.57 1,138/ 2,086 = 0.55 1,092/ 2,152 = 0.51 1,065/ 2,024 = 0.53 909/ 1,853 = 0.49
Acid (quick) ratio CA – Stock/ CL 1,322 – 759/ 2,303 = 0.24 1,138 – 638/ 2,086 = 0.24 1,092 – 577/ 2,152 = 0.24 1,065 – 299/ 2,024 = 0.38 909 – 325/ 1,853 = 0.32
Stock turnover Sales/ inventory 17,663/ 759 = 23.27 16,479/ 638 =25.83 15,410/577 =26.71 14,528/ 299 = 48.58 12,969/ 325 = 39.90
Asset turnover Revenue/ assets 17,663/5397 = 3.3 16,479/5420 = 3.04 15,410/4949 =3.1 14,528/4520 = 3.2 12,969/ 4,378 = 3.0
Debt ratio Total debt/Assets x 100 1471/5,397=
27.26% 817/5,420 =
15.07% 924/4,949 =
18.67% 642/4,520 =
14.20% 543/4,378 =
12.40%
Interest cover ratio EBIT/interest expense 973/47 =
20.70 904/43 =
21.02 907/60 =
15.11 671/60 =
11.18 612/ 60 =
10.2
Dividend payout ratio Dividends/ net income 10.70/690 =
1.6% 9.60/632 =
1.5% 8.20/598 =
1.4% 5.80/460 =
1.3% 4.80/554 =
0.9%
Dividend per share Dividend – special dividend/ shares outstanding 10.70 (picked from the full FY results) 9.60 (picked from the full FY results) 8.20 (picked from the full FY results) 5.80 (picked from the full FY results) 4.80 (picked from the full FY results)
Earnings per share Net income/outstanding common shares 26.68 (picked from the full FY results) 23.93 (picked from the full FY results) 22.80 (picked from the full FY results) 17.39 (picked from the full FY results) 20.79 (picked from the full FY results)
Price/earnings ratio Market value/ earnings per share 11.40 (picked from the full FY results) 11.60(picked from the full FY results) 14.10(from the full FY results) 15.60(picked from the full FY results) 15.20(picked from the full FY results)
Appendix 2: Tesco
Ratio Formulae 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
GP Revenue – COGS/ revenue x 100 64,539 – 59,278/ 64,539 = 8.15% 60,455- 55,330/ 60,455 = 8.48% 56,910 – 52,303/ 56,910 = 8.10% 53,898- 49,713/ 53,898 = 7.76% 47,298 – (43,668/ 47,298 = 7.67%
NP Net profit/ sales x 100 2,814/ 72,035 =
3.9% 2,671/67,074 = 4.0% 2,336/62,537 = 3.7% 2,138/ 59,426 =
3.6% 2,130/ 51,773 =
4.1 %
ROE Net income/ share holders equity x100 2,814/ 17801 =
15.8% 2,671/ 16623 =
16.1% 2,336/ 14681 =
17.9% 2,138/ 12906 =
16.6% 2,130/ 11873 =
17.9%
ROCE EBIT/ Total assets – Current Liabilities 13.3% (picked from the full FY results) 12.9% (from full FY results) 12.1% (picked from the full FY results) 12.8% (picked from the full FY results) 12.7% (picked from the full FY results)
Current ratio Current assets/ Current liabilities 12,863/19,180 = 0.67times 12,039/17,731 = 0.68times 11765/ 16,015 = 0.73 times 13479/17595 = 0.77 times 6,300/ 16,015 = 0.39 times
Acid ratio Current Assets – Inventory / Current Liabilities 12,863-3,598/ 19,180 = 0.48 times 12,039-3,162/ 17,731= 0.50 times 11,765 – 2,729/ 16,015 = 0.56 times 13,479 – 2,669/ 17,595 =
0.61 times 6,300 – 2,430 / 10,345 = 0.37 times
Stock turnover Sales/ inventory 72,035/ 3,598 = 20.02 days 67,074/ 3,162 = 21.21 days 62,537/ 2,729 = 22.91 days 59,426/ 2,669 = 22.27 days 51,773/ 2,430 = 21.31 days
Asset turnover Revenue/ assets 65,166/ 17801= 3.70 56,910/1662=3.42 56,910/14681= 3.88 53,898/ 12906 = 4.18 47,298/ 11873 = 3.98
Debt ratio Total debt/ total assets x 100 6,838/17801 = 38.41% 6,790/ 16623 = 40.84% 7,929/ 14681 =
54.0% 9,600/ 12906 =
74.38% 6,182/ 11873 =
52.06%
Interest cover ratio EBIT/ financing costs 3985/ 417 =
9.56 times 3917/ 483 =
8.1 times 3457/ 579 =
6.0 times 3169/ 478 =
6.6times 2791/ 250 =
11.1 times
Dividend payout ratio Dividends/ net income 14.76p/ 2,814 =
0.5% 14.46p/ 2,671= 0.5 % 13.05p/ 2,336 =
0.6 % 11.96p/ 2,138 = 0.6% 10.90p/ 2,130 = 0.5%
Dividend per share Dividend – special dividend/ shares outstanding 14.76p (picked from the full FY results) 14.46p (picked from the full FY results) 13.05p (picked from the full FY results) 11.96p (picked from the full FY results) 10.90p (picked from the full FY results)
Earnings per share Net income – special dividend/ outstanding shares 34.98p (picked from the full FY results) 33.10p (picked from the full FY results) 29.33p (picked from the full FY results) 27.14p (picked from the full FY results) 26.95p (picked from the full FY results)
Price/earnings ratio Market value per share/ earnings per share 8.50 (picked from the full FY results) 11.10 (picked from the full FY results) 13.20 (picked from the full FY results) 11.50 (picked from the full FY results) 14.60 (picked from the full FY results)
Identity Theory
Identity Theory
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Tittle
Professor’s Name
Date
Identity Theory
Social identity theory and identity theory have numerous overlay points than dissimilarities in their comprehending of the self. Identity theory is a social psychosomatic concept that developed from organizational symbolic interactionism. This perception perceives the self as developed from societal relations and depicted to others through identities that are suitable in particular conditions. McCall and J. L. Simmons are enthused by the linguistic of dramaturgy. Role identity is well-defined as the character (or role) individuals take part when holding particular group positions in societies. It is interpersonal because individuals intermingle with one another through their personal character identities.
Stryker’s structured approach to identity tries to describe how a person will conduct in the circumstances established on how normally and how powerfully identities are invoked. Stryker’s identity concept starts with a simple query: “Why, on a free midafternoon, do particular individuals play a game with associates, whereas others take their kids to the menagerie?” In Stryker’s opinion, one requires recognizing society’s reflexive nature and self to respond to this query. He established that behavioral selection is a task of how committed and salient identities are for people as they interconnect with one another in the communal structure (Wilson et al., 2019). Identity salience signifies the likelihood that others will invoke individuality in social situations or by the self; identity commitment signifies the extent to which personalities’ relations with others rely on their taking part in particular roles and upholding specific identities
Identity theory is a societal psychosomatic principle that arose from operational representative interactionism. The approach looks at the personality and how people assign significances to the numerous parts they play, in what manner social structures impact what it denotes to be an individual, and in what way identities are entrenched in social structures (Serpe at al., 2020). Identity theory inspects how micro-level procedures generate and sustain the denotations persons have for others and themselves and how these meanings preserve themselves to keep up the social order. This perception perceives the self as up-and-coming from social relations and depicted to others by identities that are suitable in particular conditions.
Reference
Serpe, R. T., Stryker, R., & Powell, B. (2020). Structural Symbolic Interaction and Identity Theory: The Indiana School and Beyond. In Identity and Symbolic Interaction (pp. 1-33). Springer, Cham
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41231-9_1
Wilson-Smith, K. M., & Corr, P. J. (2019). Theoretical perspectives on identity and transition. In Military Identity and the Transition into Civilian Life (pp. 1-17). Palgrave Pivot, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12338-3_1
Financial Analysis and Managements assignment
1143001600200Financial Analysis and Management’s assignment
00Financial Analysis and Management’s assignment
HYPERLINK “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Gloucestershire_University_arms.png”
2171700118745Student’s name: Izmagambetova Zhanylsyn
Student ID: B0431RTRT0812
MBA Stage 2_Group_B_MSE
16 October 2012
00Student’s name: Izmagambetova Zhanylsyn
Student ID: B0431RTRT0812
MBA Stage 2_Group_B_MSE
16 October 2012
Question 1
Pyramid of Ratios
Return on Capital Employed Revisited
The Pyramid of Ratios or the du Pont Technique
160020050165ROCE
Profit for the year
Equity shareholders’ funds
00ROCE
Profit for the year
Equity shareholders’ funds
057150Profit margin
Profit for the year
Turnover
00Profit margin
Profit for the year
Turnover
354330057150Asset Turnover
Turnover
Equity shareholders’funds
00Asset Turnover
Turnover
Equity shareholders’funds
Secondary Ratios
Figure 1: Top two levels of the pyramid
ROCE (Return on Capital employed) is referred to as the Primary Ratio since it appears at the top of the pyramid. ROCE shows the capability of the company to get profit of the capital it invests. Based on Parrino and Kidwell (2009) explanations, ROCE is calculated by determining the fraction of the company’s capital utilized that the company made in pre-tax profits before the costs of borrowing. This is how the ratio looks:.
-10160451485ROCE = Profit for the year margin (Profit before interest and tax) x Capital Employed Turnover
00ROCE = Profit for the year margin (Profit before interest and tax) x Capital Employed Turnover
This is how the ratio looks:
These relations are essential and this is seen better when the formula is written out in full:
ROCE= Annual profit/Turnover=Turnover/ Equity Shareholders’ Funds
01143000ROCE=Profit for the year/Turnover=Turnover/ Equity Shareholders’ Funds
00ROCE=Profit for the year/Turnover=Turnover/ Equity Shareholders’ Funds
011430Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) = Annual profit * 100
Equity Shareholders’ Funds 00Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) = Annual profit * 100
Equity Shareholders’ Funds and ROCE=Profit for the year/Turnover=Turnover/ Equity Shareholders’ Funds
When the profit margin and invested capital turnover ratios are put together and cancelled, the ROCE is got:
092075Profit for the Year = Profit for the Year * Turnover
Equity Shareholders’ Funds Turnover Equity Shareholders’ Fund
00Profit for the Year = Profit for the Year * Turnover
Equity Shareholders’ Funds Turnover Equity Shareholders’ Fund
When the ordinary elements cancel out from the profit margin and invested capital turnover ratios, Return on Capital employed is obtained;
053975Profit for the Year = Profit for the Year * Turnover
Equity Shareholders’ Funds Turnover Equity Shareholders’ Fund
00Profit for the Year = Profit for the Year * Turnover
Equity Shareholders’ Funds Turnover Equity Shareholders’ Fund
Giving
061595ROCE = Profit for the Year = Profit for the Year
Equity Shareholders’ Funds Equity Shareholders’ Funds
00ROCE = Profit for the Year = Profit for the Year
Equity Shareholders’ Funds Equity Shareholders’ Funds
Usefulness of pyramid of ratios in interpreting financial statements
For the beginners, ROCE is essential in balancing the relative profitability of a company. According to Barnes (2006) it is also an effective measurement of the sort since ROCE determines a firm profitability refereeing to the amount of capital used. When the capital involved is slotted in, one can easily determine whether the firm is using the profit appropriately or not (Barnes, 2006). When ROCE is high, it is an indication that bigger earnings can be reinvested into business for the shareholder’s benefits. The amount reinvested in the firm further produces higher earnings-per-share. The companies with higher ROCE are always considered successful.
b) Discuss the usefulness key investor ratios in comprehending the performance of a business:
dividend rate
dividend yield
earnings per share
P/E ratio
1) Earnings per share (EPS) is the sum of money earned for a give period of time per share of common stock.
0148590Earnings per share (EPS) =Net income available to common shareholders/Number of common shares oustanding
00Earnings per share (EPS) =Net income available to common shareholders/Number of common shares oustanding
According to Clayman & Fridson, George (2012), companies ought to provide information on their earnings per share in their financial statements. The two earnings per share ought to be disclosed in the financial reports are basic and diluted earnings per share.
Basic earnings per share are obtained by getting the difference between net earnings and dividends, then dividing difference by the mean number of outstanding shares. The diluted earnings per share are obtained by getting the difference between income and preferred dividends then dividing the difference by number of outstanding shares taking into account all dilutive securities for example, options and convertible debt. The diluted earnings per share are indications of the possible dilution of earnings (Clayman & Fridson, George 2012). A significant difference is seen between the basic and diluted earnings per share for large companies with various dilutive securities for instance stock opinions and or convertible preferred stock.
Book value equity per share is the quantity of the book commonly referred to as the carrying value, of equity per share of stock. This is obtained by dividing the value of shareholders equity by the amount of shares of regular outstanding stocks. As earlier mentioned, the value of book equity and market value may differ. The market value per share, suppose available, is a better measure of the shareholder’s investment in a firm (Bayldon & Woods & Zafiris 1984).
2) The price-to-earnings ratios (P/E or PE ratio) is the ratio of the price per share of common stock to the earnings per share:
0205740Price-to-earnings ratio=Market price per share/Earnings per share
0Price-to-earnings ratio=Market price per share/Earnings per share
Parrino, R., Kidwell, D. (2009) argue that the earnings per share typically used in the denominator is the sum of earnings per share for the last four quarters. In this case, the P/E is often referred to as the trailing P/E.
On the contrary, the leading P/E is determined using approximate earnings per share for a period of four quarters. At times, P/E is using a proxy for assessing the firm’s capability of making cash flows in the coming days. The evaluations are generally carried out by investors. Suppose the company has less than one earnings, P/E is considered to have no meaning.
3) The dividend yield ratio connects the cash return from a share to its current market value. This can help investors to assess the cash return on their investment in the business.
The ratio is expressed as a percentage: where t is the dividend tax credit rate of income tax.
-571580645Dividend yield = (Dividend per share/(1-t)*100))/Market value per share
0Dividend yield = (Dividend per share/(1-t)*100))/Market value per share
In the world, investors who get a dividend from a business get a tax credit as well. As this tax credit can be offset against any of income tax, at the dividend tax credit rate.
According to Rouse (2007), majority of the investors prefer comparing returns from shares with the ones from other investments. Since the other investments forms are quoted on a gross basis, it is essential to accumulate the dividend to make easier comparisons. This can be attained by dividing the dividend per share by (1-t), where t is the dividend tax credit rate of income tax.
Use of dividend yield formula:
As mentioned by Brooks (2012), the dividend ratio formula can be used by investors looking to increasing or reducing trends of the dividend yield. A firm which is paying less dividends compared to its price may be having difficulties or could be retaining some of percentage of its net income. When approximating a stock, there is the necessity of considering the company as a whole and the worth of net income the company is retaining as reinvestment of the company’s income can lead to better further growth and profitability.
The other importance of the formula is that it is essential for investors who depend on dividends from their investments. However, reduced dividend is not an indication of lower dividends since the hare prices could have increased. As earlier mentioned, a decreasing trend in dividends should only necessitate examination and not doing away with the investment (Brooks 2012).
4) The dividend cover ratio is an estimate of various commonly employed when determining the financial strength of a firm (Jonathan & Peter & Jarrad 2012). The ratio is concerned with the connection between dividends paid by the firm and the earnings that it makes. Presented is a fundamental of dividend cover ratio. To determine the dividend cover ratio, the earnings per share of a firm are divided by the yearly dividend per share.
The investors using dividend cover ratio can get various information. By considering the ratio, one will be able to determine if the firm is struggling to pay its dividends or if the company meets its obligations. Investors only like to be associated with companies that are bale to pay their dividends. Even though, the dividend ratio has a lot of information about a company’s liquidity, there are other various factors to be considered by investors before making an investment.
Various things could determine the numbers, and investor has to consider the entire situation when determining the company’s liquidity. Though the ratio and other things, one can easily determine which company is able to invest in.
Question 2
1) The significance of Profits and Liquidity
Importance of liquidity
As mentioned by Ekanem (1994), suppose a manager says the company has liquidity or problems in getting working capital, this is an indication that the company will run into problems meeting its obligations. This is an indication that the firm do not have cash at hand and might not be expecting enough finance to run the business.
Liquidity is required for the running of the business, pay dividends and wages, suppliers and others. For a short period, liquidity is essential than gains, but over a long time, it does not make sense having cash if it has not come form the profit made by a company. Positive cash flow is essential to a company’s success and among the main areas for financial ratio analysis is the company’s level of cash. The liquidity gives the extent to which a firm is able to meet its obligations both over the short and long term basis.
Liquidity ratio is over a short period, so companies that use current assets and liabilities accounts. The accounts trace the assets that are to be converted to money in the short term and liabilities to be overcome in the short term. Suppose a company is not capable of meeting its short-term obligations, it might find itself being bankrupt (Benjamin & Spencer 2008).
To gauge the liquidity of the firm, a few key ratios are given to help understand the potential near-term cash flow:
0-42545Cash ratio=Cash/Current liabilities
00Cash ratio=Cash/Current liabilities
Importance of Profitability
Gains are the reason for a business existence, and it is the ability to make profits that encourage business owners to take risks in investment. The most significant role of profit is rewarding the entrepreneurs. The other importance of profits are
• Profits give money for investments. Gains kept in a company and reinvested assists the company grows. •It is through a company’s profits that new investors are attracted. This leads to increased capital. •It is through profits that business value is increased, and this gives the business owners capital gain. •Through the profit, a company is able to repay its loans, and hence reducing company’s reliance on other firms or individuals (Saleem 2011).
Importance of profitability is explained by profitability ratios. Profitability ratios measure how competently the firm is turning sales or assets into income. Ultimately, what financial manager want to know is how well company has performed overall, that is, how the company has generated profits. The following ratios help to analyse that overall performance:.
Connection between liquidity and profitability
According to Saleem (2011), liquidity and profitability are correlated. They two are inversely related since an increase in one leads to decrease in the other. Evidently, there are various conflict between decisions made by managers concerning profitability and liquidity. For instance, suppose higher investors are kept in expectation of an increment in prices of goods, profitability goal is approached but this endangers the firm’s liquidity.
There is a direct connection between higher return and higher risk which endangers liquidity. A company may increase its profitability through an enhanced debt equity ratio. However, when a firm increases money from other sources, it commits itself to making the payment of interest.
In all areas of financial management, he management select between risks and profits. The management ought to forecast cashflow and analyse different sources of money. It is mainly the forecasting of cash flow and managing it that results to liquidity, control of prices and forecasting coming benefits are among the roles of management and these leads to business profitability.
2) Liquidity risk
Short-term investments represent a temporary store of funds that are not necessarily needed in company’s daily transactions. If a substantial portion of a company’s working capital portfolio is not needed for short-term transactions, it should be separated from a working capital portfolio and placed in a longer-term portfolio. The long-term portfolios are normally dealt with by a given area or a manager under strict company’s supervisions. In this way, the risks, maturities, and portfolio management of longer-term portfolios can be managed independently of the working capital portfolio (Pastor and Stambaugh 2003).
One of these risks is liquidity risk. Risk liquidity is the risk which is difficult to deal with as a company might not realize its assets or the company might increase funds to fulfill commitments regarding financial instruments. In this Figure 2, liquidity risk and attributes and safety measures are associated. The attributes describe the conditions that contribute to the type of risk, and the safety measures describe the steps that investors usually take to prevent losses from the risk (Pastor and Stambaugh 2003).
Figure 2. Liquidity risk, safety measures.
Type of Risk Key attributes Safety Measures
Liquidity Security is difficult or impossible to sell
Security must be held to maturity and cannot be liquidated until then
Stick with government securities
Look for good secondary market
Keep maturities short
Working capital
The cash conversion cycle
Brooks (2012) states that working capital (WC) consists of a company’s current assets and liabilities. Managing these assets and liabilities in a way to improve the company’s flow is what working capital management is all about. This strategy focuses on retaining effective levels of both present assets and present liabilities so that a company has greater cash inflow than cash outflow.
Managing WC is the operational side of budgeting. When we put a budget together, we anticipate future cash flow and the cash flow timing. When we manage WC, we are trying to ensure that we produce the required level of cash inflow at the appropriate time to handle the cash outflow. To achieve this, a company decide when and what to order, when to extend credit, when to write off debts, and when to make informed short-term financial decisions.
In general, we know that a company must build the product before it can sell the product, so we need to understand how long a company must finance its operation before a customer pays. The cash conversion cycle helps determine that length of time by measuring the amount of time money is tied up in the production and collection processes before the company can convert it into cash. Three different cycles constitute the company’s overall cash conversion cycle:.
1.The production cycle: the period it takes to build and sell the product
2.The collection cycle: this is the period of collecting from customers (receiving accounts receivable).
3.The payment cycle: the taken to pay suppliers and labour (paying accounts payable)
This is the time cover in order to finance its operations. In other words, the CCC begins when a company first pays out cash to its suppliers and ends when it receives cash in from its customers. Essentially, it measures how quickly a company can convert its products or services into cash. We can show the relationship as:
047625Cash conversion cycle=Production cycle+Collection cycle-Payment cycle
00Cash conversion cycle=Production cycle+Collection cycle-Payment cycle
We should make one further distinction within the CCC: the business operating cycle. This cycle starts at the time production begins and finishes with the cash collection from the sale of the product. It is the core of the business: making and selling the product and collecting the revenue from the customers. In other words, the business operating cycle has two components: the production cycle and the collection cycle. If one recalls the «march to cash» in the opening of this assignment, the operating cycle describes this movement up the balance sheet from inventory to accounts receivable to cash. We «pull out» the CCC’s operating cycle to focus only on what it takes to move from cash outlay (the payment cycle) to cash inventory. Figure 3 shows various graphical relationships of the CCC (Brooks 2012).
Figure 3. The cash conversion cycle.
0101600Start of production to receipt of cash from sale of product
00Start of production to receipt of cash from sale of product
2400300119380Production cycle:
0Production cycle:
114300119380Collection cycle:
0Collection cycle:
The time to product a product The time from the sale to the
and then sell it to a customer. receipt of cash for the sale.
240030099060Cash conversion cycle:
0Cash conversion cycle:
-11366599060Payment cycle:
0Payment cycle:
The time between when a raw The time between when a company
material is ordered and received pays for raw materials and when it
and when it is paid for. Receives payment for its product sale.
Let’s look at the different cycles in Figure 3. The overall CCC through the experiences of a small company, Corporate Seasonings, a catering company. Corporate Seasonings caters mainly to the business community by providing box lunches and breakfast food trays. The company typically receives food orders three days to a week in advance of an event. Customers pay after delivery, but the company receives some payments immediately and some over the next few months. Because Corporate Seasonings receives payment after production, it must figure out how to finance its daily operations. Let’s have the owner explain her business in her own words.
Minimise the risk of liquidity (Working capital)
A firm ought to have a sufficient level of working capital to achieve the present obligations and continue with business operations. The firm has to sure that it does not run out of operations due to liquidity. The failure of a company to meet its obligation as a result of insufficient liquidity is risky since it will lead to poor credit imagine, lose of investors confidence, or at times the company might close down.
The liquidity is affected in cases where the level of capital is holding more of the present assets of the company. In other words, the working capital should not be either too high or too low. A well supervised least working capital level at a calculated risk is normally advantageous for increased profitability.
Question 3
According to Chandra (2007), the policy of dividend is concerned with making a decision concerning cash dividend in the current or paying increased dividend later. The company can decide to pay also through stock dividends, which is not the case with cash dividends as they do not offer liquidity to the institutional investors. Cash flow dividends however ensure the shareholders gain capital. The expectations of the dividends by the shareholders assists them estimate the value of a share and it is significant in decision making by financial managers of a firm. Importance of this dividend policy is described by Christie’ company dividend policy. Christie settles dividends to its shareholders annually in cash. From the chart above, it can be seen that dividends per share and EPS were increased. (Figure 4,5). Such a situation means that dividend policy is likely to be acceptable to its institutional investors.
38100231140
Figure 4. Dividend per share (pence)
Because of increase of EPS there is a rise in the payout ratio figure, graphically:
788035109220
Figure 5 Earning per share (pence).
EMBED Excel.Chart.8 s
Figure 6. Payout ratio.
Regular Dividend Policy
Dividend policy of Christie’s firm can be commented also by regular dividend policy. The normal dividend policy is founded on the payment of a non changing dollar dividend in every period. The policy allows the owners to have positive general information, and hence reducing their risks. Mostly, firms using the policy increase the normal dividend if there is an increase in earnings. Under this policy, dividends are almost never decreased (Lambert & Lanen, Larcker 1989).
The dividend policy of Christie is to pay about £9 per share until per share earnings have exceeded £29 for three consecutive years (Figure 5). Form that point, the yearly dividend is increased to £11.4 per share, and new earnings plateau is made. The firm does not expect to reduce its dividends till its liquidity is reducing. Data for Christie’s earnings, dividends share price for the past 6 years follow.
No matter the earnings level, Christies paid dividends of nearly £9 for every share in 2004. In the proceeding year, the price of dividends rose to £11.1 for every share since earnings exceeding £29 had been attained for the three years as illustrated in Figure 5. In the same year, 2005, the firm established a new earnings plateau for the increased dividends. The mean price per share for Christie became stable, increasing behaviour despite the earning patterns (Brennan & Thakor 1990).
Figure 7. Payout ratio of Christie’s company.
Year 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
Payout ratio 0.333 0.336 0.339 0.336 0.33 0.335
Mostly a normal policy is built referring to target dividend-payout ratio. Under the policy, the firm tries to pay a given fraction of earnings, but not to let the dividends fluctuate, the firm pays stated dollar dividend and increases the dividend to achieve the targeted payout as earnings rise (Brennan & Thakor 1990). For example, Christie seems to have a target payout ration of about 33.5% or £8.5/£25.4 when the policy was set in 2001, and at the time dividend was increased to £11.1 in 2005, the payout was approximately 33.6% or £11.1/£33 as illustrated in figure 6.7.Bibliography
Barnes, P. (2006), ‘The Analysis and Use of Financial Ratios’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 14(4), pp 449-461.
Benjamin, G. & Spencer, B. (2008) Interpretation of Financial statements, New York : HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Brennan, M. & Thakor, A. (1990), ‘Shareholder Preferences and Dividend Policy’, The journal of Finance, 45(4), pp 993-1018.
Brooks, R. (2012) Financial Management, 2nd edn., Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Chandra P. (2007) Financial Management, 7 edn, India: McGraw-Hill.
Clayman, R. & Fridson, M. & Troughton, G. (2012) Corporate Finance, 2 nd edn, New Jersey: John Wiley & sons Inc.
Elliott, B. & Elliott, J. (2008) Financial Accounting and Reporting, 12th edn, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Ekanem, I. (1994), ‘Liquidity management in small firms: a learning perspective’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,17 (1), pp 123 – 138.
Jonathan, B. & Peter, D. & Jarrad H. (2012) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, 2nd edn, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Lambert, R. & Lanen, W. & Larcker, D. (1989), ‘Executive Stock Option Plans and Corporate Dividend Policy’, Journal of financial and quantitative analysis, 24(4), pp 409-429.
Pamela, P. & Frank, J. (1999) Analysis of financial statement, New Hope: Frank J. Fabozzi Associates.
Parrino, R. & Kidwell, D. (2009) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, NJ: Willey and Sons, Inc.
Parrino, R. & Kidwell, D. (2009) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, NJ: Willey and Sons, Inc.
Pastor, L. & Stambaugh, R. (2003), ‘ Liquidity risk and expected stock returns’, The Journal of Policital Economy, 111 (3), pp 642.
Rouse, D. (2008) How to understand Accounts, London: Lawpack Publishing Limited.
Saleem, Q. (2011), ‘Impacts of liquidity ratios on profitability’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(7), pp 95-98.
References:
Al-Twaijry, A. (2007), ‘Dividend policy and payout ratio: evidence from the Kuala Lumpur stock exchange’, Journal of Risk Finance, 8(4), pp 349 – 363.
Allen, F. & Myers, S. & Brealey, R. (2008) Principles of Corporate Finance, 9th edn, New York: McGraw Hill.
Antony, H. & Pratt, P. (2010) Financial Accounting, Harlow: Willey and Sons, Incorporated.
Bayldon, R. & Woods, A. & Zafiris, N. (1984), ‘A note on the ‘pyramid’ technique of financial ratio analysis of firms’ performance’, Journal of Business Finance &Accounting, 11(1), pp 99-106.
Barnes, P. (2006), ‘The Analysis and Use of Financial Ratios’, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 14(4), pp 449-461.
Brennan, M. & Thakor, A. (1990), ‘Shareholder Preferences and Dividend Policy’, The journal of Finance, 45(4), pp 993-1018.
Benjamin, G. & Spencer, B. (2008) Interpretation of Financial statements, New York : HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Block, S. & Hirt, G. (2008) Foundations of Financial Management, 12 edn, Texas: McGraw-Hill,Texas Christian University.
Brockman, P. & Unlu E. (2009), ‘Dividend Policy, Creditor Rights, and the Agency Costs of Debt’, Journal of Financial Economics, 92(1), pp 276–299.
Brooks, R. (2012) Financial Management, 2nd edn., Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Chandra P. (2007) Financial Management, 7 edn, India: McGraw-Hill.
Clayman, R. & Fridson, M. & Troughton, G. (2012) Corporate Finance, 2 nd edn, New Jersey: John Wiley & sons Inc.
Damodaran, A. (2010) Applied Corporate Finance, 3rd edn, NJ: John Willey and Sons, Inc.
Ekanem, I. (1994), ‘Liquidity management in small firms: a learning perspective’,
Elliott, B. & Elliott, J. (2008) Financial Accounting and Reporting, 12th edn, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Hillier, D. & Ross, A. (2010) Corporate Finance, 1st edn, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Jonathan, B. & Peter, D. & Jarrad H. (2012) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, 2nd edn, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Kent, H. & Gary, P. (2005) Understanding Financial Management, 1st edn, Padstow: TJ International.
Leopard, A. & John, J. (2000) Analysis of Financial statement, 5th edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Michael, C. & Eugene, F. (2010) Financial Management, 13th edn, Mason: Nelson.
McLaney, E. & Atrill, P. (2010) Accounting, 5th edn, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Mukherjee, A. (2006) Corporate Accounting, New Delhi Tata: McGraw Hill.
Rouse, D. (2008) How to understand Accounts, London: Lawpack Publishing Limited.
Pamela, P. & Frank, J. (1999) Analysis of financial statement, New Hope: Frank J. Fabozzi Associates.
Parrino, R., Kidwell, D. (2009) Corporate Finance and Investment, 6th edn, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Parrino, R. & Kidwell, D. (2009) Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, NJ: Willey and Sons, Inc.
Pastor, L. & Stambaugh, R. (2003), ‘ Liquidity risk and expected stock returns’, The Journal of Policital Economy, 111 (3), pp 642.
Rouse, D. (2008) How to understand Accounts, London: Lawpack Publishing Limited.
Saleem, Q. (2011), ‘Impacts of liquidity ratios on profitability’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(7), pp 95-98.
Steve, L. & Chris, J. (2011) Corporate Finance, 8th edn, Hampshire: Nelson.
Scott, C. & Hoffer, J. (1982), ‘Usefulness of financial ratios in a single industry’, Journal of Business Research, 10(1), pp 103-118.
Sutanto, J. & Pribadi, Y. (2009), ‘Efficiency of working capital on company profitability in generating ROA, Journal of economics, and Accountancy Ventura, 15 (2), pp 289-304.
Quiry, P., Fur, Y. (2011) Corporate Finance, 3rd edn, West Sussex: John Willey and Sons, Inc.
