Ch13S.ppt
- 1. 13 - 1 Ratio analysis Du Pont system Effects of improving ratios Limitations of ratio analysis Qualitative factors CHAPTER 13 Analysis of Financial Statements
- 2. 13 - 2 Income Statement 2004 2005E Sales 5,834,400 7,035,600 COGS 4,980,000 5,800,000 Other expenses 720,000 612,960 Deprec. 116,960 120,000 Tot. op. costs 5,816,960 6,532,960 EBIT 17,440 502,640 Int. expense 176,000 80,000 EBT (158,560) 422,640 Taxes (40%) (63,424) 169,056 Net income (95,136) 253,584
- 3. 13 - 3 Balance Sheets: Assets 2004 2005E Cash 7,282 14,000 S-T invest. 20,000 71,632 AR 632,160 878,000 Inventories 1,287,360 1,716,480 Total CA 1,946,802 2,680,112 Net FA 939,790 836,840 Total assets 2,886,592 3,516,952
- 4. 13 - 4 Balance Sheets: Liabilities & Equity 2004 2005E Accts. payable 324,000 359,800 Notes payable 720,000 300,000 Accruals 284,960 380,000 Total CL 1,328,960 1,039,800 Long-term debt 1,000,000 500,000 Common stock 460,000 1,680,936 Ret. earnings 97,632 296,216 Total equity 557,632 1,977,152 Total L&E 2,886,592 3,516,952
- 5. 13 - 5 Other Data 2004 2005E Stock price $6.00 $12.17 # of shares 100,000 250,000 EPS -$0.95 $1.01 DPS $0.11 $0.22 Book val. per share $5.58 $7.91 Lease payments 40,000 40,000 Tax rate 0.4 0.4
- 6. 13 - 6 Standardize numbers; facilitate comparisons Used to highlight weaknesses and strengths Why are ratios useful?
- 7. 13 - 7 Liquidity: Can we make required payments as they fall due? Asset management: Do we have the right amount of assets for the level of sales? What are the five major categories of ratios, and what questions do they answer? (More…)
- 8. 13 - 8 Debt management: Do we have the right mix of debt and equity? Profitability: Do sales prices exceed unit costs, and are sales high enough as reflected in PM, ROE, and ROA? Market value: Do investors like what they see as reflected in P/E and M/B ratios?
- 9. 13 - 9 Calculate the firm’s forecasted current and quick ratios for 2005. CR05 = = = 2.58x. QR05 = = = 0.93x. CA CL $2,680 $1,040 $2,680 - $1,716 $1,040 CA - Inv. CL
- 10. 13 - 10 Expected to improve but still below the industry average. Liquidity position is weak. Comments on CR and QR 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. CR 2.58x 1.46x 2.3x 2.7x QR 0.93x 0.5x 0.8x 1.0x
- 11. 13 - 11 What is the inventory turnover ratio as compared to the industry average? Inv. turnover = = = 4.10x. Sales Inventories $7,036 $1,716 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. Inv. T. 4.1x 4.5x 4.8x 6.1x
- 12. 13 - 12 Inventory turnover is below industry average. Firm might have old inventory, or its control might be poor. No improvement is currently forecasted. Comments on Inventory Turnover
- 13. 13 - 13 Receivables Average sales per day DSO is the average number of days after making a sale before receiving cash. DSO = = = = 45.5 days. Receivables Sales/365 $878 $7,036/365
- 14. 13 - 14 Appraisal of DSO Firm collects too slowly, and situation is getting worse. Poor credit policy. 2005 2004 2003 Ind. DSO 45.5 39.5 37.4 32.0
- 15. 13 - 15 Fixed Assets and Total Assets Turnover Ratios Fixed assets turnover Sales Net fixed assets = = = 8.41x. $7,036 $837 Total assets turnover Sales Total assets = = = 2.00x. $7,036 $3,517 (More…)
- 16. 13 - 16 FA turnover is expected to exceed industry average. Good. TA turnover not up to industry average. Caused by excessive current assets (A/R and inventory). 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. FA TO 8.4x 6.2x 10.0x 7.0x TA TO 2.0x 2.0x 2.3x 2.5x
- 17. 13 - 17 Total liabilities Total assets Debt ratio = = = 43.8%. $1,040 + $500 $3,517 EBIT Int. expense TIE = = = 6.3x. $502.6 $80 Calculate the debt, TIE, and EBITDA coverage ratios. (More…)
- 18. 13 - 18 All three ratios reflect use of debt, but focus on different aspects. EBITDA coverage = EC = = 5.5x. EBIT + Depr. & Amort. + Lease payments Interest Lease expense pmt. + + Loan pmt. $502.6 + $120 + $40 $80 + $40 + $0
- 19. 13 - 19 Recapitalization improved situation, but lease payments drag down EC. How do the debt management ratios compare with industry averages? 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. D/A 43.8% 80.7% 54.8% 50.0% TIE 6.3x 0.1x 3.3x 6.2x EC 5.5x 0.8x 2.6x 8.0x
- 20. 13 - 20 Very bad in 2004, but projected to meet industry average in 2005. Looking good. Profit Margin (PM) 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. PM 3.6% -1.6% 2.6% 3.6% PM = = = 3.6%. NI Sales $253.6 $7,036
- 21. 13 - 21 BEP = = = 14.3%. Basic Earning Power (BEP) EBIT Total assets $502.6 $3,517 (More…)
- 22. 13 - 22 BEP removes effect of taxes and financial leverage. Useful for comparison. Projected to be below average. Room for improvement. 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. BEP 14.3% 0.6% 14.2% 17.8%
- 23. 13 - 23 Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) ROA = = = 7.2%. Net income Total assets $253.6 $3,517 (More…)
- 24. 13 - 24 ROE = = = 12.8%. Net income Common equity $253.6 $1,977 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. ROA 7.2% -3.3% 6.0% 9.0% ROE 12.8% -17.1% 13.3% 18.0% Both below average but improving.
- 25. 13 - 25 ROA is lowered by debt--interest expense lowers net income, which also lowers ROA. However, the use of debt lowers equity, and if equity is lowered more than net income, ROE would increase. Effects of Debt on ROA and ROE
- 26. 13 - 26 Calculate and appraise the P/E, P/CF, and M/B ratios. Price = $12.17. EPS = = = $1.01. P/E = = = 12x. NI Shares out. $253.6 250 Price per share EPS $12.17 $1.01
- 27. 13 - 27 Industry P/E Ratios Industry Ticker* P/E Banking STI 17.6 Software MSFT 33.0 Drug PFE 31.7 Electric Utilities DUK 13.7 Semiconductors INTC 57.5 Steel NUE 28.1 Tobacco MO 12.3 Water Utilities CFT 21.8 S&P 500 30.4 *Ticker is for typical firm in industry, but P/E ratio is for the industry, not the individual firm.
- 28. 13 - 28 NI + Depr. Shares out. CF per share = = = $1.49. $253.6 + $120.0 250 Price per share Cash flow per share P/CF = = = 8.2x. $12.17 $1.49
- 29. 13 - 29 Com. equity Shares out. BVPS = = = $7.91. $1,977 250 Mkt. price per share Book value per share M/B = = = 1.54x. $12.17 $7.91
- 30. 13 - 30 P/E: How much investors will pay for $1 of earnings. High is good. M/B: How much paid for $1 of book value. Higher is good. P/E and M/B are high if ROE is high, risk is low. 2005E 2004 2003 Ind. P/E 12.0x -6.3x 9.7x 14.2x P/CF 8.2x 27.5x 8.0x 7.6x M/B 1.5x 1.1x 1.3x 2.9x
- 31. 13 - 31 Common Size Balance Sheets: Divide all items by Total Assets Assets 2003 2004 2005E Ind. Cash 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% ST Invest. 3.3% 0.7% 2.0% 0.3% AR 23.9% 21.9% 25.0% 22.4% Invent. 48.7% 44.6% 48.8% 41.2% Total CA 76.5% 67.4% 76.2% 64.1% Net FA 23.5% 32.6% 23.8% 35.9% TA 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
- 32. 13 - 32 Divide all items by Total Liabilities & Equity 2003 2004 2005E Ind. AP 9.9% 11.2% 10.2% 11.9% Notes pay. 13.6% 24.9% 8.5% 2.4% Accruals 9.3% 9.9% 10.8% 9.5% Total CL 32.8% 46.0% 29.6% 23.7% LT Debt 22.0% 34.6% 14.2% 26.3% Total eq. 45.2% 19.3% 56.2% 50.0% Total L&E 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
- 33. 13 - 33 Analysis of Common Size Balance Sheets Computron has higher proportion of inventory and current assets than Industry. Computron now has more equity (which means LESS debt) than Industry. Computron has more short-term debt than industry, but less long-term debt than industry.
- 34. 13 - 34 Common Size Income Statement: Divide all items by Sales 2003 2004 2005E Ind. Sales 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% COGS 83.4% 85.4% 82.4% 84.5% Other exp. 9.9% 12.3% 8.7% 4.4% Depr. 0.6% 2.0% 1.7% 4.0% EBIT 6.1% 0.3% 7.1% 7.1% Int. Exp. 1.8% 3.0% 1.1% 1.1% EBT 4.3% -2.7% 6.0% 5.9% Taxes 1.7% -1.1% 2.4% 2.4% NI 2.6% -1.6% 3.6% 3.6%
- 35. 13 - 35 Analysis of Common Size Income Statements Computron has lower COGS (86.7) than industry (84.5), but higher other expenses. Result is that Computron has similar EBIT (7.1) as industry.
- 36. 13 - 36 Percentage Change Analysis: Find Percentage Change from First Year (2003) Income St. 2003 2004 2005E Sales 0.0% 70.0% 105.0% COGS 0.0% 73.9% 102.5% Other exp. 0.0% 111.8% 80.3% Depr. 0.0% 518.8% 534.9% EBIT 0.0% -91.7% 140.4% Int. Exp. 0.0% 181.6% 28.0% EBT 0.0% -208.2% 188.3% Taxes 0.0% -208.2% 188.3% NI 0.0% -208.2% 188.3%
- 37. 13 - 37 Analysis of Percent Change Income Statement We see that 2005 sales grew 105% from 2003, and that NI grew 188% from 2003. So Computron has become more profitable.
- 38. 13 - 38 Percentage Change Balance Sheets Assets 2003 2004 2005E Cash 0.0% -19.1% 55.6% ST Invest. 0.0% -58.8% 47.4% AR 0.0% 80.0% 150.0% Invent. 0.0% 80.0% 140.0% Total CA 0.0% 73.2% 138.4% Net FA 0.0% 172.6% 142.7% TA 0.0% 96.5% 139.4%
- 39. 13 - 39 Liab. & Eq. 2003 2004 2005E AP 0.0% 122.5% 147.1% Notes pay. 0.0% 260.0% 50.0% Accruals 0.0% 109.5% 179.4% Total CL 0.0% 175.9% 115.9% LT Debt 0.0% 209.2% 54.6% Total eq. 0.0% -16.0% 197.9% Total L&E 0.0% 96.5% 139.4%
- 40. 13 - 40 Analysis of Percent Change Balance Sheets We see that total assets grew at a rate of 139%, while sales grew at a rate of only 105%. So asset utilization remains a problem.
- 41. 13 - 41 Explain the Du Pont System The Du Pont system focuses on: Expense control (PM) Asset utilization (TATO) Debt utilization (EM) It shows how these factors combine to determine the ROE.
- 42. 13 - 42 ( )( )( )= ROE Profit margin TA turnover Equity multiplier NI Sales Sales TA TA CE 2003 2.6% x 2.3 x 2.2 = 13.2% 2004 -1.6% x 2.0 x 5.2 = -16.6% 2005 3.6% x 2.0 x 1.8 = 13.0% Ind. 3.6% x 2.5 x 2.0 = 18.0% The Du Pont System x x = ROE.
- 43. 13 - 43 What are some potential problems and limitations of financial ratio analysis? Comparison with industry averages is difficult if the firm operates many different divisions. “Average” performance is not necessarily good. Seasonal factors can distort ratios. (More…)
- 44. 13 - 44 Window dressing techniques can make statements and ratios look better. Different accounting and operating practices can distort comparisons. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if a ratio value is “good” or “bad.” Often, different ratios give different signals, so it is difficult to tell, on balance, whether a company is in a strong or weak financial condition.
- 45. 13 - 45 What are some qualitative factors analysts should consider when evaluating a company’s likely future financial performance? Are the company’s revenues tied to a single customer? To what extent are the company’s revenues tied to a single product? To what extent does the company rely on a single supplier? (More…)
- 46. 13 - 46 What percentage of the company’s business is generated overseas? What is the competitive situation? What does the future have in store? What is the company’s legal and regulatory environment?