Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2009 1
Abstract
This report intends to address module learning outcomes of Financial Analysis for Managers
module mapped to the evaluation of performance, financial position and cash flows of two
companies in the same industry, selection and application of appropriate financial analytical
tools for evaluation, recommendation on which company to invest and recommendation for
The report will start by giving an introduction on what the report is all about followed by brief
It will be followed by financial analysis of the two companies which involves selection and
Following that is the decision, as an investor, on which company to invest at and finally is the
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4
6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 26
References ................................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 28
1. Introduction
In assessing the performances of organizations belonging to the same industry/sector it is
misleading to perform direct comparison of figures such as profit or revenues. This is because
there are always differences in the organizations in terms of scale of operations and therefore you
cannot conclude that company A that has made a profit more than company B is performing
Using financial analytical tools, however, the problem of scale is eliminated and comparison can
This report through the use of financial analytical tools is going to evaluate performance,
financial position and cash flow of two organizations in the computer software industry namely
Company X and Company Y. Moreover it will recommend on which company to invest to and
why following the assessment and what measures the management of the underperforming
2. Background
2.1 Company X background
Company X is a dedicated security technology company that secures systems and networks from
known and unknown threats. It allows home users, businesses, government agencies, service
providers and its partners with the ability to block attacks, prevent disruptions, and continuously
track and improve their security and compliance. The Company operates its business in five
geographic regions: North America; Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA); Japan, Asia-
Pacific, excluding Japan; and Latin America. Its product lines are system security, network
Company Y provides security, storage and systems management solutions to help businesses and
consumers secure and manage their information. The Company conducts its business in three
geographic regions: Americas, which includes United States, Canada, and Latin America;
EMEA, which includes Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and Asia Pacific Japan (APJ). Its
delivery network includes direct, inside, and channel sales resources that support its ecosystem
of more than 40,000 partners, as well as various relationships with original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), Internet service providers (ISPs), and retail and online stores. It provides
customers with software and services that protect, manage and control information risks related
to security, backup and recovery, storage, compliance, and systems management. The Company
operates primarily in three markets within the software sector: security, storage and systems
management.
There are several tools for analyzing performances of companies given their financial statements.
The tools are like trend analysis, common-size analysis, ratio analysis and industry analysis.
Trend analysis method analyzes statements for a number of years to study the trend as compared
to a base year. In common-size analysis a base for comparison in financial statements is provided
and components of the base are compared to find their contribution to the base. In ratios analysis,
Since this assignment demands analysis and comparison of performances of two companies in
the same industry, the method that I will use is ratio analysis. This decision has been made
because trend analysis may not provide accurate results as the base year chosen for comparison
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 6
could be a bad year. Common-size analysis has this weakness of not having benchmarks as to
how much the percentages of the items/components of the statements should be.
Financial ratios provide quick and relatively simple means of assessing the financial health of a
business (Atrill, P and McLaney, E 2006). There are about five categories of ratios namely,
liquidity, leverage (gearing), activity (efficiency), profitability and investment. A small number
of ratios calculated, however, can help to build a good picture of the performance and position of
a business. For the context of this assignment ratios used are liquidity’s current ratios, leverage’s
debt-to-equity ratios, activity’s total assets turnover ratios, profitability’s return on net worth
ratios, investment’s price earnings ratios and cash flow’s cash flow per share ratios.
These ratios measure the firm’s ability to meet its maturing short–term obligations.
- Current ratios
This ratio compares the assets of the business soon to be turned into cash with the current
liabilities i.e. the extent to which the claims from short term creditors are covered by
current assets.
Current Liabilities
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 7
Company X Analysis
From the calculated ratios we see that in both years the ratios were higher than the
industry average of 1.5times. It should be noted that the higher the ratio the higher the
liquid the company is. In 2004 the ratio was 3.14 times, which is above the industry
benchmark of 1.5 times. In subsequent years the ratios have been decreasing but not
reaching the industry benchmark though. Despite the higher ratios being favourable,
sometimes they have negative implications as it might mean that funds are tied up in cash
or other liquid assets and are not, therefore, used as productively as they might otherwise
be. So the company should try to lower the level of current assets to match the
benchmark. In the trend analysis of ratios taking year 2004 as a baseline, we see that the
ratios are decreasing by small percentages from year 2005 onwards. This is a good sign
that the company is trying to lower ratios so as to match the industry benchmark.
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 9
Company Y Analysis
In years 2005 and 2006 the ratios were below the industry benchmark which implies that
the company in those years was decreasing in liquidity. In years 2007 and 2008 the ratios
were 0.98 and 0.94 times which meant the company could not cover claims from short
term creditors using current assets. The trend of current ratios show that, taking year 2004
as baseline which is a good year as it was above industry average; the percentage in year
2005 dropped by to 51.62%, in 2006 dropped to 56.68% and continued to drop in the
subsequent years i.e. 2007 and 2008 below the percentages in year 2005 and 2006. This
means as years went by, the company became less liquid which is not a good sign and
management should strive to either increase the value of current assets or decrease the
current liabilities.
These ratios measure the extent to which the firm has been financed by debt.
This ratio shows what proportion of equity and debt (total liabilities) that the company is
Total Equity
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 10
Company X
From the calculated ratios versus industry benchmark in all years the debt to equity ratio
values are lower than the industry benchmark. This means something good is happening
to this company as it is paying down its debts in a well good proportion as we know that
paying down debts saves the company from paying high interest rates meaning the
money that could have been used to pay interest rates would be used to pay higher
dividends. From the trend of ratios taking year 2004 as a base line, we see that in year
2005 the percentage dropped to 96.55% which implies in 2005 the Company X paid off
more debts in 2005. In 2006 however, the percentage was 110.34% which implies that
the company borrowed more than during the baseline year which is not a good sign. In
2007 the percentage was 89.66% in comparison with the base year which is a good sign.
In 2008 however the percentage shot to 111.49% which is not a good sign as it indicates
that the company was borrowing more than paying off debts.
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 12
Company Y
From the ratios it is observed that in year 2004 the ratio was below the industry average
which is good. In 2005 the ratio was also down than the average and down than the ratio
of its previous year 2004 which meant company was paying off debts. In 2006 and 2007
the ratios rose a bit but still below the average which is the safe side. However in 2008
the ratio was higher than the industry average meaning the company was in a bad shape
as it was not paying off debts or it was borrowing more than paying off debts. The more
they borrow the ability to pay interest on the debts becomes uncertain.
The trend of ratios taking year 2004 as the baseline which was a good year, reveal that
the trend from year 2005 through year 2008 was increase in percentage. This is not a
good sign as the company was borrowing more that setting off its debts. Even though
borrowing sometimes is the cheaper way to fund the company than stock selling or using
retained profits, the management of company Y should try to minimize the borrowings as
some debts bear higher interests which is not good for the company.
This ratio takes into account total assets of the firm in relation to turnover. The higher the
Total Asset
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 13
Company X
In the calculated ratios, in both years (2004 through 2008) the ratios were below the
industry benchmark. This means company X in all years was not generating enough
should either increase turnover or some inefficient assets should be disposed off. Also
taking base year as 2004, the trend analysis of ratios don’t give enough information as
whether the company is trying to improve or what as the base year itself was a bad year
(below industry benchmark). This is because in 2005 the trend percentage dropped to
92.50%, in 2006 it rose to 102.50%, in 2007 it dropped again to 97.50 and in 2008 it rose
to 115%.
Company Y
In the calculated ratios, in both years (2004 through 2008) the ratios were below the
industry benchmark. This means company Y in all years was not generating enough
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 15
should either increase turnover or some inefficient assets should be disposed off. Also
taking base year as 2004, the trend analysis of ratios for year 2005 shows the trend
percentage dropped to 50%, in 2006 it rose to 63.04%, in 2007 it was 69.57 and in 2008 it
rose to 126.09%. The trend shows that even though the ratios were below the average but
company Y was trying to improve the ratios as after the drop of 2005 the percentages
have been increasing and hopefully the ratios will match or surpass the benchmark.
These ratios measure management’s overall effectiveness as shown by the returns generated on
The number tells shareholders how effectively a company and its management are using
their money as it measures how much a company earns on each dollar that investors in its
common stock have put into the company. The higher the ROE than the industry
Net worth
Company X
We can see from the ROE ratios, in 2004 the ratio was 18.3 which was higher than the
benchmark which is a good sign that as a climbing return on equity inevitably leads to a
climbing stock price as investors realize that each shilling invested in the company is
earning more and more. In years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 the ROE values were below
the industry benchmark which is not a good sign. This fall below benchmark could
indicate that the company’s customers weren’t willing to pay as much for the company’s
product or that the product is getting more expensive to produce. New competition could
Trend of ratios taking year 2004 as baseline indicates a significant fall from 2004 to 2005
as the percentage in 2005 as compared to baseline was 45.03%. This is not a good sign as
the fall was more than 20%. This meant something wrong was cooking for a while and a
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 18
company could not be able to see it. In 2006 the percentage was increased a bit as
compared to the previous year but not well enough as compared to the base year which
again is not a good sign. In 2007 the percentage dropped a bit as compared to its previous
year which is still not a good sign as it is way below the base year percentage. In 2008 the
percentage increased as compared to year 2007 but still the percentage was well below
the base year. This fall from 2005 to 2008 of return on equity inevitably should have led
to falling stock prices as investors should have realized that each shilling invested in the
Company Y
We can see from the ROE ratios, in 2004 the ratio was 14.46 which was higher than the
benchmark which is a good. In years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 the ROE values were
below the industry benchmark which is not a good sign. This fall below benchmark could
indicate that the company’s customers weren’t willing to pay as much for the company’s
product or that the product is getting more expensive to produce. New competition could
Trend of ratios taking year 2004 as baseline indicates a significant fall from 2004 to 2005
as the percentage in 2005 as compared to baseline was 76.46%. This is not a good sign as
the fall was more than 20%. This meant something wrong was cooking for a while and a
company could not be able to see it. In 2006 and 2007 the percentages as compared to the
base year base year were 24.14% and 29.25% which again is not a good sign. In 2008 the
percentage fell to negative 1169.43 which is a worse case. This fall from 2005 to 2008 of
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 19
return on equity inevitably should have led to falling stock prices as investors should
have realized that each shilling invested in the company is earning less and less.
These ratios assess the returns and performance of shares held in a business from the perspective
of shareholders who are not involved with the management of the business
This ratio is calculated by dividing market price per share with earnings per share and it
measures market confidence in the future of a business as it tells how many times a stock
is trading (its price) per each amount of earning per share (EPS).
Company X
From the calculated price earnings ratios, in 2004 we see that the ratio was 19.47 which is
below the industry benchmark of 28.0. This is not a good sign as it means the company’s
stock price fell disproportionately to its profits or its profits rose disproportionately to its
stock price. In years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 the P/E ratios dropped significantly
below the industry benchmark which is also a very bad sign in terms of earnings power of
business.
Trend ratios calculated taking year 2004 as a baseline indicates that in year 2005 the
trend indicates a drop of about 54% compared to the base year. This should have alerted
investors who specialize in undervalued stocks because the trend has fallen by more than
25% compared to the base year. The case is the same for following years i.e. 2006, 2007
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 22
and 2008 as the trend percentage has fallen by a large percentage (over (50%) which is
Company Y
In both years the P/E ratios were below the industry average. This is not a good sign as it
means the company’s stock price fell disproportionately to its profits or its profits rose
disproportionately to its stock price. From the calculated P/E ratios, in 2004 and 2005 we
see that the ratios were 4.74 times and 11.11 times which were below the industry
benchmark of 28.0 times indicating a bad sign. In year 2006 the ratio was 27.97 times,
which was approximately the same as the industry average signaling a good sign. In years
2007 and 2008 the ratios were below again the industry average which is also a very bad
Trend ratios calculated taking year 2004 as a baseline indicates that in year doesn’t have
much to offer in terms of analysis as year 2004 was a bad year in comparison with the
benchmark.
This is a useful measure for the strength of a firm and the sustainability of its business
model
Cash flow per share = Cash flow from operating Activities – Pref. Dividend
Since there is no benchmark for this ratio, analysis of these two companies using cash
flow per share ratios will be based on comparison. It can be seen that from the calculated
ratios, on average for all years the cash flow per share values for Company X are higher
than those for Company Y. The higher the ratios the better position the company is. So
4. Investment decision
An investor before deciding to invest at a certain business or company will be concerned with the
returns which are going to be obtained in relation to the risk associated with the investment. Thus
profitability, leverage and investment ratios will be used to determine on which company to
invest.
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 25
From the profitability ratios i.e. return on net worth or return on equity (ROE), as shown in the
graph 3.7 and table 3.7 the ratios of Company X in general are higher than the ratios of Company
From the leverage ratios calculated i.e. Debt-to-Equity ratios as shown in table 3.3 and graph 3.3,
it can be concluded that, on average for all years the Debt-to-Equity ratios for Company X are far
better than that for Company Y as the ratios for Company X are below the industry benchmark
From the investment ratios calculated i.e. price earnings ratios as depicted in table 3.9 and graph
3.9, on average in years 2004 through 2008, the cash flow per share ratios for Company X are
higher that for Company Y. this means Company X is stronger and sustainable businesswise as
compared to Company Y.
Therefore, from the comparison of profitability, leverage and investment ratios, I can conclude
that Company X is performing better than Company Y. So as an investor, from the above
We have seen that Company Y is the underperforming company of the two. In order to improve
performance so at least to match Company X, the management of Company should work on the
following:
- The management of Company Y should try to minimize the total debts by paying them
off. Paying down debts is a good use of cash when the debt that’s being retired carries a
high interest rate. Instead money going out the door to pay banks in terms of interest, in
the future it will become earnings that should drive the stock price higher or pay higher
dividends.
MBA-IT/0006/T.2009 26
- The management of Company Y should thrive to increase the net income in order to
increase its net worth or return on equity. They should try to minimize unnecessary
selling, general and administrative expenses. Also unprofitable research and development
expenses should be cut off and unusual expenses should be avoided. With the above
suggested measures the net income of Company Y will increase and consequently will
6. Conclusion
It is clear that, in assessing companies to see their performances it is requires the use of proper
financial tools for analysis rather than looking at absolute figures and concluding that one
company is performing better than the other. The use of financial ratios as a tool for analysis has
revealed that Company X is performing better than Company Y. This has come from the fact that
profitability, leverage and investment ratios of Company X performed better than those of
Company Y when compared. Even though ratios have led us in analyzing the performances of
the two companies and concluding the well performing company of the two, by themselves they
cannot explain why certain strengths and weaknesses exist, or why certain changes have
References
- Atrill, P and McLaney, E (2006) Accounting and Finance for Non-Specialists. 5th Ed.
Appendices
Company X
Total Inventory 0 0 0 0 0
Prepaid Expenses 99.51 79.13 132.2 135 221.9
Other Current Assets, Total 200.46 283.19 268.23 280.19 349.15
Total Current Assets 970.43 1,566.34 1,176.63 1,380.17 1,404.79
Minority Interest 0 0 0 0 0
Other Liabilities, Total 125.75 176.14 192.72 331.18 376.77
Total Liabilities 1,045.28 1,201.59 1,373.02 1,481.20 1,705.39
Company X
Minority Interest 0 0 0 0 0
Equity In Affiliates 0 0 0 0 0
U.S. GAAP Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0
Net Income Before Extra. Items 220.02 118.22 137.47 166.98 172.21
Company X
Company Y
Company Y
Minority Interest 0 0 0 0 0
Equity In Affiliates 0 0 0 0 -53.06
U.S. GAAP Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0
Net Income Before Extra. Items 536.16 156.85 404.38 463.85 -6,728.87
Company Y