CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Consumer goods are an integral part of a person’s day-to-day life because these are

the products that he or she will use or consume on a daily basis. Basic products like food,

beverages, clothing, and jewelry are all considered consumer goods. They are also called

“final goods” because these are sold for personal use, whether it be for school, home or

leisure purposes (Kenton, 2018). These goods are used to satisfy a consumer’s wants

and/or needs, and they are bought to ultimately be consumed rather than serve as a tool or

a raw material for the production of another good (Wikipedia).

As there is an obvious demand for consumer goods every day, there are companies

dedicated to manufacturing goods for the ultimate consumption of consumers. The

consumer goods sector is a classification of stocks and companies that aims to gratify

consumer needs. It includes food manufacturing, packaged goods, beverages, clothing and

many more (Kenton, 2018). Because this sector produces the basic necessities of the

average consumer, competition between the companies within the industry cannot be

helped. The biggest companies in the industry bring in, on average, $59.170 million, which

proves that it is a sector that continues to thrive (Consumer Goods Technology, 2018).

However, despite the industry’s bringing in millions of dollars every year, the

growth rate seems to be slowing down, even for the top competitors in the sector. Growth

for consumer goods companies decreased from a 6% in 2016 to a mere 2.5% in 2017. This

is due to a number of factors that are hindering the industry’s desire to grow, including, but
 2

not limited to disruptive competitors, technological shifts, consumer behaviors, customer

expectations, and economic pressures (Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdler, 2018). Although

consumer goods are still present in grocery stores and supermarkets, a lot of huge,

established brands are facing a steady decline in the consumer goods business. Among the

world’s top 50 consumer goods companies, only a sheer 15% managed to avoid a decline

in either revenues, profits, or both (Meacham, Faelli, Gimenez, and Blasberg, 2018).

Nevertheless, the changes that the industry has been through these past couple of

years do not hinder investors from putting faith in, at least, the globally-known brands. The

introduction of e-commerce in the 21st century enabled companies to reach a wider

audience and to satisfy their needs with convenience on both sides (Zhou, 2017). Though

the rising prices of basic commodities impede consumers from buying a lot of products, it

is unavoidable because of the constant need for them in their everyday lives.

With the fact that investing in the consumer goods industry can sometimes prove

to be a risky move, the financial performance of three (3) companies from this industry

was compared by means of ratio analysis. Since these companies all come from the same

industry, their goals, objectives, and general processes are similar with each other. All three

of these companies aim to be both profitable and solvent throughout their operational lives,

as is the case with all other companies that are established. Although all companies aim for

the same goals, the attainment all lies upon proper management of company resources

through planning, budgeting, forecasting, control, and decision-making (Hermanson,

Carcello, and McGrath, 1992). Fortunately, a branch of accounting, financial management

can provide the information through the analysis of a company’s financial statements.
 3

Financial management is concerned with the effective managing of a company’s

financial functions. These financial functions include accounting, company policies and

procedures, record-keeping and reporting systems, planning and forecasting practices,

budgeting procedures, and financial-oversight responsibilities. Its main goal is to ensure

that the company is operating as a financially sustainable enterprise (Rural Community

Assistance Partnership, 2011). It is one of the important parts of overall management with

numerous functional departments. It covers a wide area with multidimensional approaches

(Parmasivan and Subramanian, 2009).

As the study is concerned with the probable profitability and solvency of the three

companies to be presented, it is only fair to use their financial statements in order to gauge

their current financial condition. A financial statement is an official document of the firm,

wherein information about the financial aspects of the firm is presented (Parmasivan and

Subramanian, 2009). It was also defined as “a summary of the accounting of a business

enterprise, the balance-sheet reflecting the assets, liabilities and capital as on a certain data

and the income statement showing the results of operations during a certain period”

(Parmasivan and Subramanian, 2009). Basing from these definitions, a financial statement

consists of two important statements: the Income Statement and the Balance Sheet. The

Income Statement reflects the operational position of the company for a particular period.

It also helps to ascertain the profits and losses of the company for the period concerned.

The Balance Sheet reflects the financial position of the company for a particular period. It

also helps to understand the total assets, liabilities, and capital of the company. Although

various assumptions could be made by merely looking at the financial statements, a lot can

be inferred by analyzing and interpreting them. Thus, using the ratio analysis can permit
 4

users to see beyond what the numbers are portraying and enable them to make more

knowledgeable business decisions.

In order to correctly analyze financial statements, the figures in them must be

compared and related to each other or to other relevant data. The usage of ratio analysis

accomplishes this task. Ratios are an effective method of analyzing financial statements

because it compares 2 figures with each other, either in terms of percentages or in absolute

values. However, for a ratio to be relevant, there must be comparisons not just with figures

within a single financial statement, but also with other ratios, competitors, and over time

results. Therefore, important business decisions can be made if financial statements are

properly analyzed with the help of ratios.

The consumer goods industry is one of the riskiest industries to invest in because it

has constantly been declining as the years go by. Among those in the industry, the three

biggest contenders are as follows:

Nestlé. Nestlé is a Swiss food and beverage company. Currently claiming the

number one spot for the consumer goods company rankings for the year 2018, it is the

largest food company in the world. Founded in 1866 by Henri Nestlé when he developed

milk-based baby food and began to market it. This saw the work of Daniel Peter’s seven-

year perfection of his invention, the milk chocolate manufacturing process. In 1879, Nestlé

merged with Peter. In 1904, François-Louis Cailler, Charles Amédée Kohler, Daniel Peter,

and Henri Nestlé collaborated in the creation, development, and marketing of Swiss

chocolate which later on became milk Nestlé. In 1905, the companies merged to become

“Nestlé and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company,” retaining the name until 1947. Their
 5

growth during the early 1990s until the 20th century was favorable, with trade barriers

disappearing and world markets being more open. Acquisitions of other food companies

and its perseverance to transform itself into a nutrition, health, and wellness company in

order to fight off the declining sales of confectionery products and the approaching

government regulation on such products allowed the company to survive in the industry

for as long as it has. [1]

Procter & Gamble. Procter & Gamble is an American consumer goods

corporation. Currently at the number 3 spot for the consumer goods company rankings for

the year 2018, it was founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble. The company

specializes in personal care and hygiene products, and has been grouped into segments

such as beauty, grooming, health care, home care, and baby, feminine and family care. The

company used to also manufacture foods, snacks, and beverages before streamlining and

dropping off 100 brands to focus on its income-generating 65 brands. Their focus on their

income-generating goods allowed them to have a “simpler, much less complex company

of leading brands that’s easier to manage and operate,” according to the company president

and CEO, David Taylor. [2]

Unilever. Unilever is a British-Dutch consumer goods company. It is currently

sitting at the number 5 spot for the consumer goods company rankings for the year 2018.

It was formed in 1929 by a merger of operations of the Dutch Margarine Unnie and the

British Lever Brothers, the name “Unilever” being a portmanteau of the two companies’

names. The company manufactures food and beverages, which makes up for about 30% of

its revenue, cleaning agents, beauty products, and personal care products. It is also the
 6

seventh most valuable company in Europe and one of the oldest multinational companies

in existence. [3]

Review of Related Literature

Financial Reports

Financial statements containing financial data of a company are essential in

evaluating the business’s earning ability. Financial statement analysis is used in making

decisions regarding investments and had been tackled by a number of authors. J. A. Ohison

(2012) stated that financial statements come with a balance sheet (or statement of financial

position) and income statement which describes the flow of resources, profit and loss, and

the profit’s distribution or retention. According to Meigs (2013), financial statement

depicts certain attributes of a business which are considered to fairly represent the

company’s financial activities. The rate of return on investment (ROI) tests the efficiency

of a management in utilizing procurable resources.

Onyekwelu & Ugwuanyi (2014) discussed that the main purpose of a financial

statement analysis is to examine the quantitative as well as qualitative data in order to find

out the quality and protection of assets and the quantity of earnings. In the words of

Cunningham & Walsh (2016), when business failures are common in periods of recession,

the balance sheet takes on an increase in importance because the question of liquidity is

what comes first to the minds of many in the business community and when business

conditions are good, the income statement receives more attention since it provides the

information of the transactions occurred in a certain period of time called accounting

period.
 7

The article of Giove (2016) focuses on a firm’s assets, liabilities and equity which

show the financial position at a point in time in two sub accounts of balance sheet. Assets

account is the first one, which includes all the current and fixed assets of the company. The

other sub account includes all the liabilities and equity. According to Davis and Rupert

(2016) statement of cash flow shows the overall net increase or decrease in cash of the firm

in terms of operating, investing and financing activities.

Financial Ratios

Financial ratios exist to simplify the assessment of an organization’s financial data

and they come in different categories based on the many financial aspects of a business.

Kitces (2015) stated that financial ratio is calculated when two data are compared with one

another while the financial data is provided by the financial statements of relative years.

According to Lee, Yang, and Chang (2013) Profitability ratio (also known as performance

ratio) is used to assess if the business is over or under-spending by determining if profit is

being earned and if there is return on their invested resources. H Kitces (2015) expounded

on the net profit margin under profitability ratio as the ratio between net sale and net profit

that shows how much earnings of a company can be converted into profit excluding the

expenses less all taxes, interest, and preferred stock dividends. Tracy (2014) discussed

about how the liquidity ratio can show the company’s ability to pay its obligations due

without utilizing all their resources and leaving enough to sustain the company’s current

operations. He also wrote that the basic accounting leverage ratio determines if a business

can keep the level of control in business while obtaining funds from outside of the

company.
 8

Comparative Financial Studies

According to Tugas (2012), the exploratory and quantitative context design used

on the study of three listed firms in the education subsector for three periods (2009 – 2011)

analyzed financial statements using the rule of thumb and ratio trends, and after conducting

a comprehensive financial ratio analysis FEU (44 points) ranked first as the most

financially healthy, followed by Malayan (40 points), then CEU (36 points). The total

points for each ratio category were then computed to arrive at an overall basis for 63

analyses. According to Miralao (2015), the Philippines implemented a nationwide reform

in its education system in June 2012. The main change was an increase of the pre-university

education cycle from 10 to 12 years. Financial ratio analysis contributes in the significant

investment in the education system’s human resources and facilities, which prompted the

legislators to increase the education budget in 2014 to 4.3% of the country’s gross domestic

product.

According to Llanto (2012) Philippine credit cooperatives have helped thousands

of members build up their savings and access low cost credit for diverse needs using ratio

analysis that defined their company’s performance. Systematic risks in the Philippine

economy were heightened in 2013. (hanggang ditto lang na-edit ko) Nicholas Tan et al.

(2013) of the International Monetary Fund Country Report No.13/102 because the current

levels of debt in the economy is still far from the cause of past financial crises since high

leverage levels cause a stir and anxiety in the economic sector of the Philippines. According

to Patrick et al (paki-mention lahat) (2014), one rich source of information for financial

statement analysis is the audited financial statements and financial statement analysis from

the standpoint of management relates to all of the questions raised by creditors and
 9

investors because these user groups must be satisfied in order for the firm to obtain capital

as needed.

According to Peterson (2015), there are some reasons that make the result for book

value to be less than the market value when computing the equity of a company: the

earnings are recorded according to accounting principles which does not well reflect the

economic situation, and because of inflation, the current value of money is not well

reflected. Therefore, when using the value for denominator in the total shareholder’s equity

for calculating the D/E ratio, the market value of equity is more preferable. According to

Cadsawan (2015), they used three instruments to analyze and access Banco De Oro’s

financial and operational performance: the first is a financial ratio analysis covering years

2011-2013; the second is the SWOT Analysis; and the third is Porter’s Five Forces Model.

After computing for the ratios, the researchers then interpreted the findings and showed

that in terms of resources, gross customer loans, deposit liabilities, capital funds and net

income, BDO is doing well and improving as all the figures are increasing.

It is important to note that no one measure of financial performance should be taken

on its own. Rather, a thorough assessment of a company's performance should take into

account many different measures. According to, Mohammadi (2012), this study

investigates the financial performance of an investment company in Malaysia for a three-

year period from 2009 to 2011, which is assessed using financial ratios. The findings

pointed out that overall company performance reduced remarkably in the last year of the

analysis. This study principally emphasized on how accounting information aids budgetary

decision-makers to evaluate the company financial performance, determine its future

obligations, and make better investment decisions. The role of profit margin is considered
 10

to be important not only about the amount of profit that the owners can extract from the

business, but also about a line of defense for an advisory firm facing a decline in revenue

when a bear market occurs.

According to Upadhyay (2012), different measures like return on investment, return

on equity, return on assets, earning per share, dividend per share, and asset utilization ratio

are used to assess the profitability of the companies and he concluded in his study that the

solvency position of their business is not sound and credit creation capacity is good in its

aggregate. Ramaswmy, Darrylong and Yeung (2012) found empirical evidences that firm

size and the firm ownership are important determinants of financial performance in the

Malaysian palm oil sector-findings and it lent support to industry analysts who have

highlighted that profitability is higher in privately owned firms. According to Kellermann

and Schlag (2013), debt coverage ratios or leverage ratios are regarded as the appropriate

instruments to safeguard the system of financial regulation and supervision against failure

in risk assessment (The Blue Cross Blue Shield, 2009).

According to Yahya (2013), Unilever Foods is a better corporate than National

Foods (further results are discussed in the Significant Analysis for Financial Statements)

since results showed that horizontal analysis is somehow a better analysis than vertical

analysis as the former shows the negative or the positive trend of variables while the latter

shows the gradual fluctuation of total assets and sales. However, ratio analysis is seems to

be the best analysis as it gives concise and paramount review of firm’s performance.

Rao (2014), by the use of ratio analysis, found out that the poor state of financial

performance of the company is the cumulative result of unfavourable factors such as

continuous low capacity utilization of the units, fall in sugar recovery in some of the units,
 11

poor operational performance, high cane price advised by the State Government and paid

up by the company, low levy price of sugar. Remedy for the poor financial performance is

better than the operational performance of the sugar units, particularly the sick units, paying

reasonably high cane price, reducing the cost of production by improving capacity

utilization, and taking advantage of free quota to make good the losses suffered due to low

levy price.

Phuong'Dao (2016), analyzed air travel performance of Finnair and Scandinavian

Airlines (SAS) based on financial ratios since the airline company has a strong relationship

with other kinds of business and economic factors; he found out that small changes in these

businesses might lead to a dramatic effect on the airline companies. A comprehensive

investigation into profitability, debt coverage and market value ratios will help

stakeholders have an exact evaluation and broader point of view about two rival airlines in

the Nordic region. Two analyses are conducted based on financial data extracted from

financial statements of Finnair and SAS and other relevant sources. Besides, there are

mathematical calculations to support the ratio analysis. All financial ratio interpretations

of the two companies are shown in each ratio analysis which gives the most correct

reflection of the companies’ performances. Finally, measurement of the overall analyses

presents better result of profitability, operational efficiency and decision-making process

to identify the better airline.

Theoretical Framework

Prospect Theory

This is a theory in cognitive psychology that describes how a person chooses

between options that involve risks, wherein the probability of the outcomes cannot always
 12

be certainly predicted. The theory states that most people would make decisions based on

the potential losses that they may incur rather than the gains that the investment may give

them. [4]

Bertrand’s Box Paradox

This is a paradox of elementary probability theory wherein the situation is as

follows:

There are three boxes. The first box contains two (2) gold coins, the second box

contains two (2) silver coins, and the third box contains one (1) gold coin and one (1) silver

coin. The problem presented is in the probability that if one was to choose a box at random

and was made to pull out a coin, also at random, and it happens to be a gold coin, of the

next coin drawn from the same box also being a gold coin.

This gives the conclusion that one cannot simply pick the best option (the box with

two [2] gold coins) just by picking out a single coin and basing their entire decision only

on that single gold coin. One must evaluate all the boxes in order to come to the best

conclusion among the options. [5]

 13

Conceptual Framework

Below is the conceptual archetype used by the researchers which illustrated the

variables examined on the research paper and their relationships with one another.

INPUT PROCES OUTPUT

• The 3 biggest S • Comparison
companies of the 3
within the • Identify the biggest

The framework demonstrates how the researchers used the variables in order to

analyze and compare the profitability and solvency of the selected consumer goods

companies. The input variable contains the financial statements of the companies selected.

On the process variable, the researchers determined which financial ratios to use in order

to calculate the needed figures in order to make comparisons between the selected

companies. Lastly, on the output variable, the researchers compared the information

acquired from the ratio analysis and presented the differences between the companies

selected.

Statement of the Problem

Many of the recipients and users of financial statements do not know how to

properly analyze the information presented in said documents. Some may not even know

that the figures stated in the financial statements can be compared with one another in the

form of ratio analysis in order to come up with information that can be helpful for decision-

making processes. Because information stated on financial statements are summarized and

consolidated and may not reflect the operations conducted within the reporting period, it is
 14

crucial to analyze and interpret these data by using financial ratios to aid management and

various stakeholders in understanding them.

The main intention of the research is to make comparisons between the three

biggest companies within the consumer goods industry by comparing their financial

performances. The study aimed to answer the following inquiries:

1. What is the financial performance of the following selected consumer goods

companies with respect to their:

1.1 profitability

1.1.1 gross profit margin

1.1.2 net profit margin

1.1.3 return on equity

1.2 solvency

1.2.1 quick ratio

1.2.2 debt to equity ratio

1.3 asset management.

1.3.1 return on total assets

1.3.2 financial leverage ratio

1. What is the financial performance of the selected consumer goods companies

when compared to each other?

 15

2. What is the financial performance of the selected consumer goods companies

when compared to the consumer goods industry averages?

Null Hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant difference in the overall average financial performance

between the selected companies of the consumer goods industry.

Significance of the Study

The expected beneficiaries of the study are the sectors as listed below:

Management of the selected companies. The results of the study may serve as a

reference in order to guide them in their decision-making processes.

Potential investors. The study may aid potential investors in deciding on which

company from the consumer goods industry to invest in.

Students and other researchers. This study can be used as a reference for students

to augment and expand their proficiency on ratio analysis. Researchers on the consumer

goods industry can, likewise, use this study as a reference and guide on coming up with

their own studies.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of the study is limited to the collection of data from the selected

companies’ annual published financial statements. The study covered the period of five (5)

years, from the years 2013 until 2017.

 16

The ratios used in this study are limited to the companies’ Quick Ratio, Gross Profit

Margin, Net Profit Margin, Return on Total Assets, Return on Common Equity, Debt to

Asset Ratio, Debt to Equity Ratio, and Financial Leverage Ratio.

Annual financial statements gathered and analyzed were from the companies

Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

Definition of Terms

The researchers defined the following words and phrases in context to how they

were used and utilized in this research study.

Above par means that the ratio pertaining to the company being used against the

industry is above the industry’s average.

Balance sheet is a part of a company’s financial statement which shows the

financial position of the organization. It is composed of the assets, liabilities, and capital

line items of the business at a particular point in time.

Below par means that the ratio pertaining to the company being used against the

industry is below the industry’s average.

Consumer goods sector/industry is category of stocks and companies that relate

to items purchased by individuals for personal consumption rather than by manufacturers

and other industries.

Consumer goods are goods that are produced and subsequently purchased to

satisfy the current wants and needs of the buyer.

 17

Quick Ratio is a liquidity ratio that tests a company’s ability to pay off its short-

term liabilities.

Debt to equity ratio is used to compare the resources provided by the creditors

with the resources provided by the company’s shareholders.

Financial leverage ratio is the amount of total assets financed by the company’s

common equity.

Financial management is defined as dealing with and analyzing money and

investments for a person or a business to help make business decisions.

Financial performance is a subjective measurement of how well a company can

utilize its assets from its primary operations and generate income.

Financial statements are written records that convey the business activities and

the financial performance of a company. This includes the balance sheet, income

statement, and cash flow statement.

Gross profit margin is the percentage of gross profit compared to the net sales

during a specific period of time.

Income statement is one of the primary tools used to assess a company’s

performance and financial position. It summarizes the revenues and expenses generated

by the company over the entire reporting period.

Profitability is the company’s ability to generate profit.

 18

Ratio analysis is a quantitative analysis of information contained in a

company's financial statements.

Return on total assets is a profitability ratio that tests whether management is

using its funds and resources wisely.

Return on total equity is a measure of profitability that calculates how many

dollars of profit a company generates with each dollar of shareholders' equity.

Solvency is the measure of a company’s ability to pay its long-term debts.

 19

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Research Design

A comparative research design was used to test whether there was a significant

difference in the overall average financial performance between the selected companies

within the consumer goods industry.

A comparative research design is commonly used to identify similarities and

differences across different entities or different industries. This often utilizes multiple

variables within the study.

Population

The researchers used the three biggest companies within the consumer goods

industry, namely Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.

Source of Data

The researchers utilized the financial statements of the selected companies released

and published for the years 2013 to 2017.

 20

Financial Ratios Used

Profitability Ratios

1 Gross Profit Margin = gross profit / net sales

2 Net Profit Margin = net income / net sales

3 Return on Common Equity = net income / average common equity

Solvency Ratios

1 Quick Ratio = current assets / current liabilities

2 Debt to Equity Ratio = total liabilities / total equity

Asset Management Ratios

1 Return on Total Assets = net income / average total assets

2 Financial Leverage Ratio = average total assets / average common equity

Data Gathering Procedure

The main data used in the research study were the annual financial statements

issued by the selected companies during the years 2013 until 2017, from which appropriate

figures were taken and then analyzed using ratio analysis. It was crucial that only the

figures stated in the financial statements were used to ensure accuracy of the information

gathered.
 21

Data Analysis

The research followed a five-step model, namely the selection of the annual

financial statements to be used, the identification of the necessary financial ratios, the

mathematical calculation of each company’s financial performance based on its financial

statements, the statistical comparison between each company, and the presentation of the

data gathered.

The first step involved the selection and procurement of the financial statements

of each of the selected companies under the consumer goods industry. These documents

were published by the companies themselves and showed the company’s financial

performance in the form of consolidated information for a certain accounting period and

showed the financial statements of the companies for the past five (5) years.

The second step was to identify the necessary ratios to be used in order to evaluate

each company’s financial performance for the given years. These ratios included

profitability ratios, solvency ratios, and asset management ratios.

The third step involved the calculation of each company’s financial performance

using selected line items from its financial statements with the aid of the financial ratios

selected.

The fourth step then showed the comparison between the selected companies

within the industry using the data from the prior step. These were shown using an MS

Excel-tabulated file. The comparisons covered each company’s profitability, solvency, and

efficiency in asset management.

 22

Lastly, the fifth step concluded the study based on the ratio analysis computations

and data presentation, and the company that performed the best within the industry was

proclaimed.
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

I. The financial performance of the selected consumer goods companies

Table I.1 Financial Performance of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017

Ratio 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average

Quick Ratio 0.6587 0.7536 0.6387 0.6301 0.6415 0.126

Gross Profit Margin 0.1418 0.119 0.1398 0.1471 0.1126 0.1321

Net Profit Margin 0.1133 0.1627 0.1066 0.0993 0.084 0.1132

Return on Total Assets 0.0848 0.1174 0.0735 0.0694 0.0575 0.0805

Return on Common

Equity 0.1647 0.2191 0.1394 0.1367 0.1171 0.1554

Debt to Equity Ratio 0.8778 0.8565 0.9378 0.9991 1.0769 0.9496

Financial Leverage

Ratio 1.9425 1.8665 1.8948 1.9689 2.037 1.942

 0.825

0.75

0.675

0.6

0.525
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.1 Quick Ratio of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017

From the tabulated data stated above, Nestlé could’ve covered its short term

liabilities by up to more than 75% with its current assets on 2014 with its lowest percentile

on 2016 at 63%. The sudden rise and drop for the year 2014 & 2015 respectively, was

mainly due to the current assets of the company increasing and decreasing while their

current liability stays about the same.

0.1875

0.15

0.1125

0.075

0.0375

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.2 Gross Profit Margin of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017
 Its gross profit margin, with an average of 0.13, showed that, from the company’s

total sales, it could’ve generated a gross profit of 13% annually. The drop in 2017 was most

likely due to their increase in cost of sales, reason being that their net sales from 2016 is

virtually the same while their gross profit decreased by around 24%.

0.2125

0.17

0.1275

0.085

0.0425

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.3 Net Profit Margin of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017

Its net profit margin with an average of 0.11 showed that, from the company’s

annual sales, only a net profit of 11% could have been realized, but given that its net profit

margin since 2014 has been taking a downturn, with their 2017 ratio being only about 0.84,

it might be forecasted that this trend will only continue or take a halt. Their 2014 has the

abnormality of having a net profit greater than their gross profit. This was due to the

millions of other income they received mostly due to reclassification.

 0.15

0.12

0.09

0.06

0.03

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.4 Return on Total Assets of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017

Its return on total assets, with an average of 0.08, showed that their assets could

generate income by up to 8%, but given the fact that it has been on decline since 2014 and

having a 2017 ratio 0.057, it may be inferred that this trend may either continue downwards

or freeze. Due to their reclassification gains, their total income for the year 2014 compared

to 2013 was more than 40% more. The anomaly that is their 2014 ratio is most likely also

due to the fact above.

0.275

0.22

0.165

0.11

0.055

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.5 Return on Common Equity of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017
 Its return on common equity showed an average of 0.155, which demonstrated that

15.5% of the income was generated by the investment of the shareholders in the company

for the past 5 years, in recent years, although, this has taken a downturn, having a 2017

ratio of 0.117 or 11.7% which shows that investors have not been as active. Due to their

reclassification gains, their total income for the year 2014 compared to 2013 was more than

40% more. The anomaly that is their 2014 ratio is most likely also due to the fact above.

1.375

1.1

0.825

0.55

0.275

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.6 Debt to Equity Ratio of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017

The 0.95 debt to equity ratio which is relatively low given the fact that this company

is one of the biggest consumer product companies out there, this ratio might not have

reached the standard with one probable reason being that it isn’t taking advantage of the

increased profits that their financial leverage may bring.

 2.1

2.

1.9

1.8

1.7
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.1.7 Financial Leverage Ratio of Nestlé for the years 2013 to 2017

The company’s average financial leverage ratio of 1.94 showed that the company

presented greater risk because a lot of its assets were financed by their creditors, but since

another effect of having a bigger leverage is the probable increase in the profits of the

company. The reason for the sudden leaps of the financial leverage of this company is

because of their equity, over the years, it mostly has been declining which in turn increases

the leverage.

Table I.2 Financial Performance of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017
Ratio 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average

Quick Ratio 0.5687 0.7371 0.8121 0.9446 0.7239 0.7573

Gross Profit Margin 0.1721 0.1841 0.1546 0.2058 0.2145 0.1862

Net Profit Margin 0.1344 0.1402 0.0922 0.1609 0.2356 0.1527

Return on Total

Assets 0.08333 0.0821 0.0514 0.0819 0.1238 0.0845

Return on Common

Equity 0.1704 0.1679 0.1058 0.1736 0.2694 0.1774

Debt to Equity Ratio 1.0269 1.0617 1.0538 1.1926 1.1587 1.0987

Financial Leverage

Ratio 2.0453 2.0444 2.058 2.1203 2.176 2.0888

 1.

0.75

0.5

0.25

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.1 Quick Ratio of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017

From the data provided above, it is shown that Procter & Gamble’s Quick Ratio, at

an average of 0.94, showed that the company could pay off 94% of its current liabilities

with its current assets, the sudden decline in the company’s Quick Ratio on 2017 might’ve

been a result of their increase in the company’s sudden increase in asset on 2014 which

probably have been due to long term investments.

0.275

0.22

0.165

0.11

0.055

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.2Gross Profit Margin of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017
 Its gross profit margins average of 0.186 portrayed that the company could generate

18.6% average gross income from its annual sales.

0.3

0.24

0.18

0.12

0.06

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.3Net Profit Margin of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017

Its net profit margin average of 0.153 stated that the company could acquire 15.3%

net income from its total annual sales. The increase in 2017 is due to the increase of their

net income which happened due to discontinuing a segment of their operations.

0.1625

0.13

0.0975

0.065

0.0325

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.4 Return on Total Assets of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017
 The company’s average return on total assets of 0.085 indicated that the company’s

assets were utilized and generated an 8.5% income for over dollar of asset that the company

owns. The increase in 2017 is due to the increase of their net income which happened due

to discontinuing a segment of their operations.

0.35

0.28

0.21

0.14

0.07

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.5 Return on Common Equity of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017

The average return on common equity of 0.177 illustrated the 17.7% income

generated by every dollar of investment from the company’s shareholders. The increase in

2017 is due to the increase of their net income which happened due to discontinuing a

segment of their operations.

 1.275

1.2

1.125

1.05

0.975

0.9
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.6 Debt to Equity Ratio of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to 2017

The average debt to equity ratio showed the comparison made between the

resources provided by the creditors and the resources provided by the shareholders, with

the creditors providing almost 1.10 for every dollar a shareholder provided. The sudden

increase from 2015 to 2016 happened due to their total equity decreasing dramatically

while total liabilities stayed either the same or increased.

2.25

2.175

2.1

2.025

1.95
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.2.7 Financial Leverage Ratio of Procter & Gamble for the years 2013 to

2017
 The company’s average financial leverage ratio of 2.09 showed that the company

presents greater risk because a lot of its assets were financed by their creditors, the

company’s financial leverage has been steadily increasing along with its Return on Assets

except for 2015 Return on Assets which had a very sour undertone to it with a rate that’s

around 38% less than its 2014 Return on Assets, except this year, its Return of Assets have

been steadily increasing which may have had to do something with their consistent increase

in risk in the form of Financial Leverage, reflected by their significant decrease in total

assets and a minor decrease in their total equity.

Table I.3 Financial Performance of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

Ratio 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Average

Quick Ratio 0.6974 0.6286 0.6337 0.6754 0.7328 0.6736

Gross Profit Margin 0.1429 0.1579 0.1355 0.1417 0.1518 0.1459

Net Profit Margin 0.1057 0.1139 0.0987 0.1052 0.1207 0.1089

Return on Total

Assets 0.1148 0.1179 0.1048 0.102 0.1111 0.1101

Return on Common

Equity 0.3448 0.3793 0.3466 0.3356 0.4136 0.364

Debt to Equity Ratio 2.0721 2.3672 2.252 2.3233 3.1902 2.441

Financial Leverage

Ratio 3.0028 3.2169 3.3061 3.2904 3.7228 3.3078

 0.6

0.45

0.3

0.15

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.3.1 Quick Ratio of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

From the data provided above, it is shown that Unilever’s Quick Ratio was at an

average of 0.4667, which meant that the company could pay off 46.67% of its current

liabilities with its current assets, over the years, this value has been improving to which

we can infer that the company has been giving focus on paying its short term debts.

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.12
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
 Figure I.3.2 Gross Profit Margin of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

Having a Gross Profit Margin with an average of 0.145 through 5 years portrayed

that the company could generate a 14.5% gross income from its annual sales. It may seem

as if there is a huge difference between the 2013 ratio to their 2015 one but there isn’t in

terms of their performance, the changes in their sales and gross profit have changed in very

minor ways, though in reciprocals reflected by the increase in sales with a decrease in gross

profit and vice-versa.

0.13

0.0975

0.065

0.0325

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.3.3 Net Profit Margin of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

Its net profit margin average of 0.109 stated that the company could acquire 10.9%

net income from its total annual sales, these ratios has been relatively balanced in the past

five years to which we can infer that they haven’t made any major changes in the

company’s methods of generating profits.

 0.12

0.1125

0.105

0.0975

0.09
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.3.4 Return on Total Assets of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

The company’s average return on total assets of 0.11 indicated that the company’s

assets were utilized and generated an 11% income for every dollar of asset that the

company owns. The erratic behavior of this through the years was due to their consistent

increase in assets with a very inconsistent behavior with regards to their net income.

0.525

0.42

0.315

0.21

0.105

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.3.5 Return on Common Equity of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

The average return on common equity of 0.36 illustrated the 36% income generated

by every dollar of investment from the company’s shareholders.

 4.

3.2

2.4

1.6

0.8

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.3.6 Debt to Equity Ratio of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017

The average debt to equity ratio showed the comparison made between the

resources provided by the creditors and the resources provided by the shareholders, with

the creditors providing 2.44 more for every dollar a shareholder provided. 2017 debt to

equity ratio was due to the sizeable decrease in total equity and another sizeable increase

to their liabilities.

4.75

3.8

2.85

1.9

0.95

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure I.3.7 Financial Leverage Ratio of Unilever for the years 2013 to 2017
 The company’s average financial leverage ratio of 3.31 showed that the company

presented greater risk because a lot of its assets were financed by their creditors, this rate

along with their Return on Assets show a consistent connection which isn’t good or bad.

Nestlé P&G Unilever Nestlé

Ratio Industry P&G Unilev

Quick Ratio 0.6645 0.7573 0.4667 0.322 Above par Above par Above p

Gross Profit Margin 0.1321 0.1862 0.1459 0.5368 Below par Below par Below p

Net Profit Margin 0.1132 0.1527 0.1089 0.1064 Above par Above par Above p

Return on Total

Assets 0.0805 0.0845 0.1101 0.0779 Above par Above par Above p

Return on Common

Equity 0.1554 0.1774 0.364 0.2219 Below par Below par Above p

Debt to Equity Ratio 0.9496 1.0987 2.441 0.366 Above par Above par Above p

Financial Leverage

Ratio 1.942 2.0888 3.3078 1.958 Below par Above par Above p

I. Comparison of the average financial performance of the selected companies

compared to the industry’s average.

Note: the values are their averages in the past 5 years (2013 to 2017)

Ratio Nestlé P&G Unilever Ranking

Quick Ratio 0.6645 0.7573 0.4667 2 1 3

Gross Profit Margin 0.1321 0.1862 0.1459 3 1 2

Net Profit Margin 0.1132 0.1527 0.1089 2 1 3

Return on Total

Assets 0.0805 0.0845 0.1101 3 2 1

Return on Common

Equity 0.1554 0.1774 0.364 3 2 1

Debt to Equity Ratio 0.9496 1.0987 2.441 3 2 1

Financial Leverage

Ratio 1.942 2.0888 3.3078 3 2 1

Total 19 11 12

II. Comparison of the average financial performance of the selected companies

with each other.

Note: ranking is based solely on what ratio is the highest to the lowest.
 1.

0.75
Nestlé
0.5 P&G
Unilever
Industry
0.25

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.1 Quick Ratio of the Consumer Goods Companies

The quick ratio of the three companies have been really good compared to the

industry, this means that these three companies, generally, is a very liquid company. The

top performing company is P&G.

0.60000

0.45000
Nestlé
0.30000 P&G
Unilever
Industry
0.15000

0.00000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.2 Gross Profit Margin of the Consumer Goods Companies

 0.3

0.24
Nestlé
0.18
P&G
0.12 Unilever
Industry
0.06

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.3 Net Profit Margin of the Consumer Goods Companies

The company’s gross profit margin along with its net profit margin shows us that

the huge difference between the three companies’ gross margin ratio and the industry

average gross margin ratio is only a matter of how the three companies treat their cost of

sales. One can assume that these top companies within the consumer goods industry give

importance to the quality of their products. The best performing company is P&G.

0.1625

0.13

0.0975
Nestlé
P&G
0.065 Unilever
Industry
0.0325

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.4 Return on Total Assets of the Consumer Goods Companies

 The return on total assets of the three companies is on par with the industry average

if not better, their performance in comparison the industry average is passable and between

the three of them, Unilever is the best.

0.5

0.375
Nestlé
0.25 P&G
Unilever
Industry
0.125

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.5 Return on Common Equity of the Consumer Goods Companies

The return on common equity of the industry compared to the three companies is

beating the return on common equity of both P&G and Nestlé but not Unilever’s, out of

the three companies, Unilever’s is the best.

4.

3.
Nestlé
2. P&G
Unilever
Industry
1.

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.6 Debt to Equity Ratio of the Consumer Goods Companies

 All of the three companies debt to equity ratio compared to the industry’s average

is doing well. Out of the three companies, Unilever is dominating.

4.

3.
Nestlé
2. P&G
Unilever
Industry
1.

0.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure II.7 Financial Leverage Ratio of the Consumer Goods Companies

Out of the three companies, Nestlé is the only one who got an average that is below

the industry average. Compared to the other two companies, Unilever is the one performing

best.

Ratios and its relationship with each other

The company that was picked as having the best performance were the companies

whose ratios were the best based on how the ratios are supposed to be used.

Nestlé performed well as an individual consumer goods company, but it did not

stand out among its peers. Compared to the other companies examined, it did not perform

exceptionally better than its competitors.

 P&G has the best Quick Ratio and Profit Margins. Having a higher Quick Ratio

gives a company a lot more opportunities to use debts as a means of getting profit over the

years, which has been reflected in their Profit Margins which have been in an increasing

trend since 2013 with exemption with their 2015 ratio. This shows us that the company is

doing effectively in their profit generating practices.

Unilever, solely based in the past 5 years, have been the best when it comes to their

longer term gains, dominating both Return on Total Assets and Return on Equity along

with Debt to Equity Ratio and their Financial Leverage. It is important to note that the

company is best in terms of Financial Leverage because they have been the most effective

in using this to increase their Return on Assets, but having to bear the weight of being the

most risky of the companies. This company has been the best at dealing with its Debts as

a means of generating profits, which may make it more attractive to investors who are in it

to gain a lot in short amount of time even with all the risk associated with it.
 CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

This segment outlines the findings on the analysis conducted by the researchers. It

is discernible that there is enough evidence to prove that there is a significant difference in

the overall average financial performance of the selected companies within the consumer

goods industry.

I. The financial performance of the selected consumer goods companies

a. Nestlé

Nestlé’s capability as an individual company was good, but it made

no impact when compared to the other companies within the

industry. The company’s Financial Leverage, with an average of an

average of 1.942, out of the three companies, this company is on the

safer side which is reflected with its Quick Ratio Average of 0.665,

but this may also be its downfall, having a Return on Total Assets

of 0.08 and a Return on Common Equity of 0.155, this company

may not be as attractive to the big players when it comes to

investing, but it redeems itself by being attractive to investors who

are in it for the long term. Nestlé has had a consistent 10% in its Net
 Profit Margin when not considering its 2014 Net Profit Margin of

16.27% which may be considered as an outlier by some people.

b. Procter & Gamble

Procter and Gamble’s strength was on Profit generation and its

credit friendliness, having a 75.7% Average Quick Ratio means that

it is the company that has the easiest time paying its creditors and

this makes the company attractive to its creditors, having the highest

Profitability Ratios of .186 in Gross Profit Margin and a ratio of .153

in its Net Profit Margin means that this company is fluent in

controlling their expenses both variable and fixed. This company

also isn’t bad with how it handles risk, with an average in Return on

Total Assets of 0.085, average Return on Common Equity of 1.099,

and an average Financial Leverage Ratio of 2.09 it’s striking the

balance between risk and profitability, it has no real weakness in

terms and no real strength, which makes it the most stable company

out of the three.

c. Unilever

Unilever’s biggest strength was risk taking capabilities, reflected on

its average Financial Leverage Ratio of 3.308 while having an

average Return on Total Assets of .11 and an average Return on

Common Equity of 0.364, which means that their risk taking

adventures have been bearing fruit, they dominate this category

 between these three companies. The company’s biggest weakness is

its Quick Ratio that has an average of 0.467, this company is the

most unattractive in the perspective of creditors, this company also

has a semi weakness in its profitability ratios, having an average

Gross Profit Margin of 0.146 and an average Net Profit Margin of

0.109, out of the three companies, this is the weakest in terms of

profitability, it redeems itself by being the best at debt financing and

handling risks.

II. Comparison of the financial performance of the selected companies when

compared with each other.

Nestlé, out of the three companies, is the safest player. The company

does not take unnecessary risks which make them attractive to long term

investors, they also avoid debt financing as much as possible as shown in

its Financial Leverage which affects their Return on Total Assets. Nestlé is

the company for safe players.

Unilever on the other hand, is the riskiest one of the three, by having

the highest Financial Leverage out of the three, and being justified for doing

so by its comparatively absurd Return on Common Equity, this company

understands the risk associated with debt financing and has sharpened its

skill in using it for the benefit of the company. Unilever is the company for

high risk players.

 P&G is the most stable out of the three, they strike a balance in about

everything, it focuses more on its ability to generate profit and has been a

magnet for creditors with its average Quick Ratio of 0.757. It has a

comparatively amazing profitability ratio, having an average Gross Profit

Margin of 0.186 and an average Net Profit Margin of 0.153; this is the

company that generates the most profit in its operations. This company is

the most balanced out of the three.

III. Significant difference in the average financial performance of the

companies within the consumer goods industry

The difference in the result of the performance of the companies

when compared to the industry average was sufficient proof that the null

hypothesis cannot be taken as a fact.

Conclusion

The findings found within the research showed that the companies focus on

different parts aspects of their performance. The companies must find a way to improve

other aspects of their financial performance in order to appeal to more investors. The

researchers concluded that:

1. All the companies analyzed were solvent but could only generate a small

percentage of profit from its annual net sales.

2. The financial performance of Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever, when

categorized under the consumer goods industry illustrated that the solvency of

the industry could easily pay off its current debts with their current assets.

However, its profitability ratio was quite low, and could, therefore, use

improvements in terms of managing the costs of sales and other expenses.

3. The overall financial performance of Unilever was aimed at having superiority

in profit generation and creditor attractiveness. The company is the best when

it comes to the reliability of paying short term debts and has the best profit

generation in comparison to its competitors. P&G greatest strength lies with its

solvency ratios, this makes the company a good debtor and thus attracting a lot

more creditors. Nestlé’s forte is its balance and safety when it comes to their

investors, their low financial leverage and balanced solvency ratios show that

they make more certain that their company, in case of bankruptcy, can pay off

as much of their creditors and shareholders.

4. There is a significant difference in the overall average financial performance

between the selected companies within the consumer goods industry. The

assessment of said difference was executed through the use and computation of

financial ratios. It illustrated that Procter & Gamble is the most balanced out of
 the three companies, Nestlé serves to be the safest player out of the three, and

Unilever is the most reliable for investors.

5. Out of the three the company that performed the best and the company that one

should invest in, solely based on the financial performance, is Procter &

Gamble.

Recommendation

This research may prove to be helpful to the companies analyzed for they could

gain knowledge about the financial performance through ratio analysis. Furthermore, it can

be used as a reference for future researches. The following recommendations are drawn

from the research conducted:

1. Investors who are interested in investing in the consumer goods industry can

choose to invest in Unilever if they are on the riskier side, in P&G if they strike

a balance between safety and risk, and in Nestlé if they are more on the safety

side.

2. All the companies examined can evaluate and review the aspects of their

business in order to improve in what they lack, namely, risk and safety.

3. Future researchers can use this study as a means to broaden their knowledge of

financial ratio analysis and use the data gathered in the study itself to aid them
 in the pursuance of their own studies. The method with which the companies

within the same industry were compared could be studied and/or used so they

may expound on their own researches.

4. Future researchers may make a study that involves companies that is listed in

the Philippine Stock Exchange in order for the study to be useful to those inside

The Philippines who plans on investing in different companies.

 REFERENCES

"Final Good". (2018, July 31). Retrieved from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_good

Bertrand's box paradox. (2019, January 12). Retrieved from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_box_paradox

Nestlé. (2019, February 6). Retrieved from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9

Procter & Gamble. (2019, February 1). Retrieved from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procter_%26_Gamble

Bjøru, I. (2019). Profitability and growth: How to set smart goals and how to reach them.

Retrieved from avidly: https://www.avidlyagency.com/growthhub/how-to-reach-

smart-goals

Community Resource Group, the Southern RCAP, on behalf of Rural Assistance

Partnership Inc. (2011). The Basics of Financial Management for Small-

community Utilities. Washington, DC, United States of America.

Das. (2017). Measuring the Performance Through Cash Flow Ratios - A Study on CMC .

Retrieved from http://www.publishingindia.com/jcar/47/measuring-the-

performance-through-cash-flow-ratios-a-study-on-cmc/635/4486/

Eklund, J. E. (2009). Theories of Investment: A Theoretical Review with Empirical

Applications. Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum.

Ellett, L. J. (2018, June 14). Growth among consumer goods companies continues to

slow. Retrieved from KPMG: https://home.kpmg/uk/en/home/media/press-

releases/2018/06/growth-among-consumer-goods-companies-continues-to-

slow.html

Kenton, W. (2018, June 25). Consumer Goods. Retrieved from Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer-goods.asp

Kenton, W. (2018, April 1). Consumer Goods Sector. Retrieved from Investopedia:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer-goods-sector.asp

Kenton, W. (2019, January 17). Ratio Analysis. Retrieved from

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ratioanalysis.asp

Meacham, M., Faelli, F., Giménez, E., & Blasberg, J. (2018, March 07). Overcoming the

Existential Crisis in Consumer Goods. Retrieved from Bain & Company:

https://www.bain.com/insights/overcoming-the-existential-crisis-in-consumer-

goods/

Mohammadi, M. a. (2012). An Empirical Study Of Financial Performance Evaluation Of

A Malaysian Manufacturing Company. Retrieved from

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234035626_An_Empirical_Study_of_Fi

nancial_Performance_Evaluation_of_a_Malaysian_Manufacturing_Company

Nuhu, M. (2014). Role of Ratio Analysis in Business Decisions: A Case Study NBC

Maiduguri Plant. Retrieved from

http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/%20jesr/article/download/4399/4302

Paramasivan, C., & Subramanian, T. (n.d.). Financial Management. New Age

International (P) Limited, Publishers.

Phuong'Dao. (2016). Performance Evaluation Based On Financial Ratios. Case: Finnair

And Scandinavian Airlines. Retrieved from

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/112381/Thesis%20.pdf?sequence=

Siddique, S. (2018). Importance of Ratio Analysis. Retrieved from WallStreet Mojo:

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/importance-of-ratio-analysis/

SooperTutorials. (n.d.). Financial Ratio Analysis and Formulas. Retrieved from

http://www.soopertutorials.com/business/finance/1992-financial-ratio-analysis-

formulas.html

Staff, C. (2018, December 14). Top 100 Consumer Goods Companies of 2018. Retrieved

from Consumer Goods: https://consumergoods.com/top-100-consumer-goods-

companies-2018

Suh Collins, S. (2017, March). THE ROLE OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT IN THE

INVESTMENT DECISIONS OF A MICRO FINANCE INSTITUTION (MFI).

 Case Study Bamenda Police Cooperative Credit Union Limited, Yaounde branch

(BAPCCUL Yaounde).

Tugas, F. C. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of the Financial Ratios of Listed Firms

Belonging to the Education Subsector in the Philippines for the Years 2009-2011.

Retrieved from

http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_21_November_2012/19.pdf

Upadhyay, K. P. (2004). Different Types of Financial Ratios to Check up the Financial

Performance of the Selected Finance Companies. Retrieved from

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/73290/9/09_chapter%202.pdf

Ward, S. (2012). Emphasis That Financial Analysis Using Ratio Between Key Values.

Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/yaswanth_ts/a-study-

onfinancialperformanceanalysisofthesundaramfinanceltd

Wu, A. (2014). Relationship Between P/E Ratio And Profitability. . Retrieved from

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/112381/Thesis%20.pdf?sequence=

Zhou, N. (2017, December 19). A Look Into the Consumer Goods Industry in 2017.

Retrieved from AXIAL: https://www.axial.net/forum/look-consumer-goods-

industry-2017/
 APPENDIX Ax

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE SELECTED COMPANIES

I. Nestlé Financial Statements

a. Balance Sheet as at 2013

b. Income Statement as at 2013
c. Balance Sheet as at 2015 (including 2014)
d. Income Statement as at 2015 (including 2014)

e. Balance Sheet as at 2017 (including 2016)

f. Income Statement as at 2017 (including 2016)
II. Procter & Gamble Financial Statements

a. Balance Sheet as at 2013 (including 2012)

b. Income Statement as at 2013
c. Balance Sheet as at 2015 (including 2014)
d. Income Statement as at 2015 (including 2014)
e. Balance Sheet as at 2017 (including 2016)
f. Income Statement as at 2017 (including 2016)
III. Unilever

a. Balance Sheet as at 2013

b. Income Statement as at 2013

c. Balance Sheet as at 2015 (including 2014)

d. Income Statement as at 2015 (including 2014)
e. Balance Sheet as at 2017 (including 2016)
f. Income Statement as at 2017 (including 2016)
 APPENDIX B
INDUSTRY AVERAGE

I. Financial Strength

a. As at 2013
b. As at 2014

c. As at 2015
d. As at 2016
 e. As at 2017

II. Profitability

a. As at 2013
b. As at 2014

c. As at 2015
d. As at 2016
 e. As at 2017

III. Management Effectiveness

a. As at 2013
b. As at 2014

c. As at 2015

d. As at 2016
e. As at 2017
 APPENDIX C

CURRICULUM VITAE

MACALINO, Tristan James D.

119 San Pedro Bautista St.

San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City

Mobile No.: 0906-316-0952

E-mail: tristanmacalino123@gmail.com

Personal Information

Birth Date : January 04, 1999

Birth Place : Quezon City

Age : 20

Gender : Male

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Iglesia Ni Cristo

Academic Experience
College : New Era University

No.9 Central Ave., New Era, Quezon City

Fourth Year, Bachelor of Science in Accounting Technology

AY 2015-Present

Affiliations:

 Member, New Era University - Junior Philippine Institute of Accountants (2015-

2019)

Seminars Attended:

 English proficiency 2018

New Era University

2016

 Financial Statement Analysis

New Era University

October 6, 2018

Secondary : Quezon City Science High School

Misamis Extension, Bago Bantay, Quezon City

AY 2011-2015

Research Study:

 Purgative Properties of Tawa-Tawa (E.Hirta) Leaves SY 2013-2015 (Aria et al.,

2015)

Primary : Brighton Elementary School

AY 2005-2009

Lagro Elementary School

 AY 2009-2010

San Francisco Elementary School

AY 2010-2011

Achievements:

 Top 10 ranked in CSJODEMPRISA from grade 2 to 4 in math

BALCORTA, Julia Vina C.

B6 L31 Nova homes Subd., Brgy. San Agustin,

Novaliches, Quezon City

09214462883

yhuem29@gmail.com

Personal Information

Birth Date : February 20, 1999

Birth Place : Quezon City

Age : 19 years old

Gender : Female

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Iglesia Ni Cristo

Academic Experience

College : New Era University

No.9 Central Ave., New Era, Quezon City

Fourth Year, Bachelor of Science in Accounting Technology

AY 2015-Present
Affiliations:

 Member- Junior Philippine Institute of Accountants (2015-2019)

 Multimedia Committee, New Era University - Junior Philippine Institute of

Accountants (2018-2019)

Seminars Attended:

 SAP BUSINESS ONE – COST ACCOUNTING (2018)

VENUE: New Era University

 CONTACT CENTER NCII TRAINING (2018)

VENUE: Barangay Hall, Brgy. San Agustin

 WORKPLACE COMMUNICATION SEMINAR (2017)

VENUE: New Era University

 SOUNDS OF ENGLISH AND ACCENT NEUTRALIZATION (2017)

VENUE: New Era University

 SAP BUSSINESS ONE – FUNDAMENTALS OF ACCOUNTING (2015)

VENUE: New Era University

 JOURNALISM – EDITORIAL WRITING SEMINARS (2009 – 2011)

VENUE(S): Lagro Elementary School, Divine Grace School, Ramon
Magsaysay Elementary School

Tertiary

Research Study:

 Pagtukoy sa iba't ibang kadahilanan kung bakit karamihan ng mga mag-aaral sa

college of accountancy ang hindi nakapagpapatuloy sa kanilang pag-aaral. (Estacio

et al., 2016)
Secondary

Research Study:

 Christmas Day: Its origin and the reasons why it was not celebrated by everyone

around the world.

Achievements:

 President’s Lister (2015)

College of Accountancy
VENUE: New Era University

 MATH QUIZ BEE COMPETITION (2011)

1st Place
VENUE: Novaliches High School

 GRADUATING BATCH (2011)

8th Honorable Mention
VENUE: San Agustin Elementary School

 JOURNALISM – EDITORIAL WRITING COMPETITION (2009 – 2011)

- Finalist
VENUE: Lagro Elementary School

- 3rd Place
VENUE: Divine Grace School

- Finalist
VENUE: Ramon Magsaysay Elementary School
BONUS, April Sunshine A.

233 AFP Road Veterans Village

Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City

Mobile No.: 0955-703-5733

E-mail: aprilbonus29@gmail.com

Personal Information

Birth Date : April 29, 1998

Birth Place : Pandacan, Manila

Age : 20

Gender : Female

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Catholic

Academic Experience
College : New Era University

No.9 Central Ave., New Era, Quezon City

Fourth Year, Bachelor of Science in Accounting Technology

AY 2015-Present

Affiliations:

 Member, New Era University - Junior Philippine Institute of Accountants (2015-

2019)

Seminars Attended:

 Financial Statement Analysis

New Era University

October 6, 2018

Secondary : St. Andrew Academy of Q.C.

Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City

AY 2010-2014

Primary : St. Andrew Academy of Q.C.

Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City

AY 2004-2010
OLARTE, Jeni Ruth V.

INC Comp, Brgy. Ramon Magsaysay,

Bago Bantay, QC

0915 582 1575

olartejeniruth@gmail.com

Personal Information

Birth Date : 27 August 1998

Birth Place : Mariveles, Bataan

Age : 20

Gender : Female

Civil Status : Single

Nationality : Filipino

Religion : Iglesia Ni Cristo

Academic Experience
 93

College : New Era University

No.9 Central Ave., New Era, Quezon City

Fourth Year, Bachelor of Science in Accounting Technology

AY 2015-Present

Affiliations:

 Member, New Era University - Junior Philippine Institute of Accountants (2015-2019)

 Regional Chief Associate for Communications: East District, National Federation – Junior

Philippine Institute of Accountants – National Capital Region

Achievement:

 NEU Writer (Essay Writing Contest) [February 2018] – 1st Place, New Era University

 NEU Accounting Topnotchers [2017] – 3rd Runner Up, New Era University

 Live TV Commercial Competition [2017] – Best Female Endorser, New Era University

Seminars Attended:

 Sounds Of English And Accent Neutralization [2017] – New Era University

 Workplace Communication Seminar [2017] – New Era University

 Academic Conference – East: The Next Big Thing [October 2017] – University of the

Philippines – Diliman

 EBC Summer Workshop: TV And Radio Reporting [April – May 2017] - Eagle

Broadcasting Corporation

 The 2nd Audit Convention: Submerge [March 2018] – Century Park Hotel

 Accountalks: Debit Possibilities, Credit Opportunities (Feat. Avengers – Taxfinity War:

The Search For Emmc Tax Whiz Year 10) [July 2018] – Miriam College
 94

Research Studies:

 Tracer Study for the CPA Board Passers of New Era University BS Accountancy

Graduates for the Year 2012 (Olarte et al., 2016)

Secondary :

 The Lewis College

479 Cogon St., Sorsogon City, Sorsogon

High School Graduate

S.Y. 2014 - 2015

Achievements:

 5th Honorable Mention

 USP4GG (USPinoys For Good Governance) International Essay Writing Contest [2015] –

Finalist

 Interschool Debate Competition [2015] – Outstanding Debater, Sorsogon State College

Primary : Infant Jesus Montessori Center

Camella Homes, Banlic, Cabuyao, Laguna

Elementary Graduate

S.Y. 2010 - 2011