An AnAL?

SlS
Cl 1PL
8uSlnLSS Anu llnAnClAL
L8lC8MAnCL
Cl
lnuuS MC1C8 CCMAn? LlMl1Lu
8L1WLLn !uL? 1 2006 Anu !unL 30 2009





MuLahlr Pussaln 8uLL
ACCA 8eglsLraLlon 1200468
Word CounL 6377


age 2 of 26

1ab|e of Contents

1 kCILC1 C8ILC1IVLS kLSLAkCn AkCACn 3
2 INICkMA1ICN GA1nLkING S
3 ACCCUN1ING 8USINLSS 1LCnNIULS 7
4 ANALSIS 10
S CCNCLUSICNS 23
6 ANNLkUkL 2S
7 kLILkLNCLS 2S
8 8I8LICGkAn 26










age 3 of 26

1 ro[ect Cb[ect|ves kesearch Approach


My selecLlon of Loplc for Lhe 8esearch and Analysls ro[ecL revolved around my flrm bellef ln my
ablllLles l am confldenL abouL my reflned analyLlcal skllls and lnherenL ablllLy Lo dlve deep lnLo numbers
and make sense of Lhem So lL was no surprlse for me LhaL l chose Lo wrlLe my reporL on a Loplc LhaL
requlred flnanclal and buslness performance analysls of an organlzaLlon
lor many years Lhe auLo lndusLry ln aklsLan has been an lnLegral conLrlbuLor Lo Lhe Cu from amongsL
Lhe manufacLurlng secLors of Lhe economy l was parLlcularly lnLeresLed ln sLudylng Lhe performance of
companles ln Lhe auLomoblle secLor durlng Lhe perlod from 20062009 Lo see how Lhey have fared
Lhrough Lhe worsL economlc downLurn ln our hlsLory
l chose Lo focus my research on lndus MoLor Company LlmlLed (lndus MoLor) slnce lL has been a key
player ln Lhe markeL provldlng consumers wlLh rellable and premlum brands such as 1oyoLa Corolla and
ualhaLsu Cuore 1oyoLa Corolla has conslsLenLly been domlnaLlng Lhe markeL ln lLs segmenL especlally ln
Asla
1hls markeL success has only been made posslble by good buslness sLraLegles coupled wlLh 1oyoLa's
Culdellnes whlch call for essenLlal pracLlces such as human resource developmenL and embraclng
culLural dlverslLy 1he company abldes by a sLrong seL of prlnclples such as CusLomer llrsL" whlch have
propelled Lhe developmenL of an able and effecLlve cusLomer relaLlons funcLlon Lo meeL cusLomers'
expecLaLlons 1he organlzaLlon also has a sLrong culLure of corporaLe soclal responslblllLy especlally
concernlng soclal awareness of road and Lrafflc safeLy
My research ob[ecLlves and research quesLlons are as follows
1 1o assess Lhe flnanclal and buslness performance of lndus MoLor relaLlve Lo Lhe lndusLry
a) Pow dld Lhe performance of lndus MoLor compare Lo Lhe lndusLry ln Lhe perlod
precedlng Lhe economlc slowdown?
b) Pow dld Lhe company and Lhe lndusLry perform durlng Lhe economlc slowdown?
c) Pow has Lhe performance of Lhe company varled from year Lo year?
2 1o ldenLlfy Lhe lnLernal and exLernal facLors LhaL affecLed Lhe company's performance and Lo
explaln Lhe raLlos and flgures ln Lhe llghL of Lhese facLors
a) Pow dld corporaLe sLraLegy lndusLry evenLs and macroeconomlc facLors conLrlbuLe Lo a
beLLer or worse performance Lhan Lhe lndusLry?
b) Pow dld Lhese facLors affecL Lhe yearly performance of Lhe company?


age 4 of 26

1o saLlsfy my pro[ecL ob[ecLlves and Lo answer my research quesLlons l declded Lo perform flnanclal
sLaLemenL analysls Lechnlques (crosssecLlonal Llmeserles and commonslze) on lnformaLlon collecLed
from Lhe publlshed annual accounLs
1o provlde meanlngful analysls and comparlson l chose Lhe Lwo maln compeLlLors of lndus MoLor
Ponda ALlas Cars (aklsLan) LlmlLed (Ponda ALlas) and ak Suzukl MoLor Company LlmlLed (ak Suzukl)
1ogeLher all Lhree companles represenL Lhe ma[or passenger car assemblers ln Lhe aklsLanl markeL
lor Lhe lndusLry analysls l used flnanclal raLlos calculaLed uslng daLa from Lhe publlshed accounLs of all
Lhree organlzaLlons Lo derlve lndusLry averages for Lhe auLomoblle secLor Whlle mosLly lndusLry
averages have been used ln Lhe analysls aL Llmes l have had Lo compare Lhe flgures and raLlos of lndus
MoLor dlrecLly wlLh one of Lhe compeLlLors because lL was necessary ln LhaL parLlcular slLuaLlon
1he flnanclal sLaLemenL raLlos are Lhen dlscussed and evaluaLed ln con[uncLlon wlLh Lhe facLors
surroundlng Lhe lndusLry Lo provlde a compleLe and ln depLh undersLandlng of Lhe operaLlonal and
flnanclal performance of lndus MoLor boLh over Lhe years as well as relaLlve Lo Lhe auLomoblle lndusLry




















age S of 26

2 Informat|on Gather|ng


A comprehenslve descrlpLlon of my lnformaLlon gaLherlng process ls provlded ln Lhe Lable below

Source(s) of
Informat|on


Nature

Descr|pt|on

L|m|tat|ons

Lth|ca|
Issues

ubllshed
AccounLs

lndus MoLor

Ponda ALlas

ak Suzukl

20062009

Secondary

l obLalned Lhe annual publlshed
accounLs of lndus MoLor and of
lLs Lwo compeLlLors from Lhe
record secLlon of Lhe Lahore
SLock Lxchange (CuaranLee)
LlmlLed

1hese accounLs provlded me
wlLh Lhe core daLa requlred for
my research Lhe llnanclal
SLaLemenLs and key flgures such
as sales unlLs eLc as well as
lnslghLs lnLo corporaLe sLraLegy
company pollcles and Lhe wlder
economlc envlronmenL as
presenLed ln Lhe ulrecLor's
reporL secLlon of Lhe publlshed
accounLs

1wo dlfflculLles l faced ln
collecLlng Lhls lnformaLlon were

11he Lahore SLock Lxchange
has a pollcy of only provldlng a
maxlmum of 3 publlshed
accounLs per day per person so l
had Lo vlslL Lhelr record secLlon
Lwlce ln Lhe space of a week

21he Lahore SLock Lxchange
desLroys publlshed accounLs
older Lhan 1 year and malnLalns
only a slngle copy of each for
record purposes As my analysls

A llmlLaLlon of Lhe daLa
collecLed from publlshed
accounLs even from
companles ln Lhe same
secLor ls LhaL Lhelr
presenLaLlon of daLa can
be very dlfferenL from
each oLher

lor example one
company may show
lndlvldually on Lhe face of
Lhe balance sheeL
properLy planL and
equlpmenL lnLanglble
asseLs caplLal work ln
progress whlle anoLher
may slmply sLaLe flxed
asseLs on Lhe face wlLh all
Lhe deLalls ln Lhe noLes Lo
Lhe flnanclal sLaLemenLs

l overcame Lhls llmlLaLlon
by flrsL reenLerlng all Lhe
daLa from Lhe flnanclal
sLaLemenLs ln my excel
spreadsheeL formaL whlch
had a conslsLenL
presenLaLlon for all 3
organlzaLlons (Annexure A
8)

1hls ensured LhaL Lhe
dlfference ln presenLaLlon

noL
Appllcable


age 6 of 26


Source(s) of
Informat|on


Nature

Descr|pt|on

L|m|tat|ons

Lth|ca|
Issues
spans across a perlod of 3 years l
had Lo make a loL of phoLocoples
of Lhe publlshed accounLs


ln Lhe acLual publlshed
accounLs would noL hlnder
my progress when l goL Lo
Lhe acLual analysls of Lhe
lnformaLlon


8eference
8ooks

Secondary

l made use of Lwo reference
books Lo undersLand Lhe
Lechnlques used ln flnanclal
sLaLemenL analysls

1!ames C van Porne !ohn M
Wachowlcz !8 (2003)
looJomeotols of lloooclol
Moooqemeot 1welfLh LdlLlon
uelhl earson LducaLlon

2Lawrence ! ClLman (2003)
9loclples of Moooqelol lloooce
1enLh LdlLlon uelhl earson
LducaLlon

1hese books provlded excellenL
reference maLerlal and
broadened my undersLandlng of
flnanclal raLlos

noL Appllcable

noL
Appllcable

newspapers/
!ournals

Secondary

l used an lnLerneL search englne
Lo gaLher relevanL newspaper
and [ournal lnformaLlon on lndus
MoLor and Lhe auLomoblle
lndusLry

1hls maLerlal wldened my
knowledge abouL Lhe company
and lLs acLlvlLles l have
menLloned Lhe arLlcles ln Lhe
8lbllography secLlon of Lhe
pro[ecL



1he search was Llme
consumlng and laborlous

All Lhe lnformaLlon ln Lhe
arLlcles was noL dlrecLly
relaLed Lo company
performance or lndusLry
facLors buL lL sLlll gave me
a solld background on
lndus MoLor

noL
Appllcable


age 7 of 26

3 Account|ng 8us|ness 1echn|ques

1he daLa LhaL l obLalned from Lhe publlshed flnanclal sLaLemenLs and enLered lnLo my excel spreadsheeL
(Annexure A 8) was of llLLle value ln lLs raw form for my analysls
As an example leL us suppose Lhe sales revenue of Company x?Z for Lhe year 2010 ls $ 100000 1hls ls
an absoluLe value and can solely provlde no more lnformaLlon Lhan whaL Lhe sales revenue of LhaL
parLlcular company was for LhaL year
1herefore Lo converL my daLa lnLo valuable meanlngful lnformaLlon l needed Lo do carry ouL a flnanclal
sLaLemenL analysls by calculaLlng flnanclal raLlos
'llnanclal sLaLemenL analysls ls Lhe arL of Lransformlng daLa from flnanclal sLaLemenLs lnLo lnformaLlon
LhaL ls useful for lnformed declslon maklng' (!ames C van Porne !ohn M Wachowlcz !8 2003 p126)
'A flnanclal raLlo ls an lndex LhaL relaLes Lwo accounLlng numbers and ls obLalned by dlvldlng one
number by Lhe oLher' (!ames C van Porne !ohn M Wachowlcz !8 2003 p132)
llnanclal raLlos are relaLlve values as opposed Lo sales or proflLs whlch are absoluLe values llnanclal
raLlos use boLh balance sheeL and lncome sLaLemenL lLems Lo lnLerpreL company performance
(proflLablllLy raLlos) and flnanclal poslLlon (llquldlLy and leverage raLlos) and Lhls lnLerpreLaLlon can only
be achleved Lhrough raLlo comparlson
1here are Lwo posslble Lypes of raLlo comparlsons crosssecLlonal and Llmeserles
'A crosssecLlonal analysls ls a comparlson of dlfferenL flrms' flnanclal raLlos aL Lhe same polnL of Llme lL
lnvolves comparlng Lhe flrm's raLlos Lo Lhose of oLher flrms ln lLs lndusLry or Lo Lhe lndusLry averages'
(Lawrence ! ClLman 2003 p100)
'A Llme serles analysls ls an evaluaLlon of Lhe flrm's flnanclal performance over Llme uslng flnanclal raLlo
analysls' (Lawrence ! ClLman 2003 p101)
l calculaLed lndusLry averages from Lhe flnanclal raLlos of all Lhree companles for an approprlaLe
comparaLlve raLlo for Lhe crosssecLlon analysls (Annexure C)
ln addlLlon Lo crosssecLlonal and Llmeserles analysls l have also employed an addlLlonal Lechnlque ln
order Lo galn a broader undersLandlng of Lhe Lrends ln Lhe yearly flnanclal performance and poslLlon of
lndus MoLor 1hls Lechnlque ls called commonslze analysls (Annexure D)
'An analysls of percenLage flnanclal sLaLemenLs where all balance sheeL lLems are dlvlded by LoLal asseLs
and all lncome sLaLemenL lLems are dlvlded by neL sales or revenues'(!ames C van Porne !ohn M
Wachowlcz !8 2003 p130)


age 8 of 26

llnanclal sLaLemenL or raLlo analysls ls a useful Lechnlque however lL Loo has some llmlLaLlons ln Lhe
Lable below l have dlscussed Lhese llmlLaLlons along wlLh Lhelr lmpacLs (lf any) on my analysls
L|m|tat|ons of kat|o Ana|ys|s

Impact on Ana|ys|s


A raLlo by lLself ls meanlngless slnce Lhere musL be
some sorL of comparlson Lo derlve some
lmpllcaLlon from lL

none
l have used comparaLlve raLlos ln my analysls such
as lndusLry averages


8aLlo analysls only lndlcaLes poLenLlal areas of
concern raLher Lhan provldlng soluLlons Lo Lhe
problems

8aLlo analysls ls carrled ouL on pasL daLa and so
Lhe analysls ls an assessmenL of pasL performance
1he Lrends ldenLlfled ln Lhe analysls may or may
noL conLlnue ln fuLure perlods

Whlle Lhese are llmlLaLlons of raLlo analysls Lhey
have no lmpacL on Lhe effecLlveness of my analysls
slnce my research ob[ecLlves and quesLlons do noL
requlre me Lo

1rovlde soluLlons Lo ldenLlfled problems or

2ro[ecL fuLure performance Lo recommend sLock
buy or sale eLc



'A slngle raLlo does noL generally provlde sufflclenL
lnformaLlon Lo [udge Lhe overall performance of
Lhe flrm' (Lawrence ! ClLman 2003 p102)of
Informat|on

none slnce l have used a group of raLlos Lo
analyse each of Lhe performance areas
proflLablllLy llquldlLy acLlvlLy leverage and
lnvesLor


'1he raLlos belng compared should be calculaLed
uslng flnanclal sLaLemenLs daLed aL Lhe same polnL
ln Llme durlng Lhe year lf Lhey are noL Lhe effecLs
of seasonallLy may produce erroneous concluslons
and declslons' (Lawrence ! ClLman 2003 p102
103)



no lmpacL ln Lhe Llmeserles analysls slnce Lhe
year end of all 3 flnanclal sLaLemenLs of lndus
MoLor was !une 30
Lh


1here may be a seasonallLy effecL ln Lhe lndusLry
analysls as Lhe flnanclal year end of Ponda ALlas
was March 31
sL
and LhaL of ak Suzukl was
uecember 31
sL





Wlndow dresslng of flnanclal sLaLemenLs can affecL
Lhe raLlos slnce Lhe flnanclal lnformaLlon wlll noL
be represenLaLlve of Lhe acLual performance or
poslLlon of Lhe organlzaLlon


Wlndow dresslng ls very unllkely slnce all Lhree
companles have a llsLlng on Lhe SLock Lxchange
and so Lhe daLa source was audlLed flnanclal
sLaLemenLs


age of 26

L|m|tat|ons of kat|o Ana|ys|s

Impact on Ana|ys|s


1he accounLlng pollcles adopLed by Lhe
managemenL ln Lhe preparaLlon of flnanclal
sLaLemenLs may dlsLorL Lhe resulLs of raLlo
analysls


Some lmpacL on Lhe flnanclal analysls ls posslble






















age 10 of 26

4 Ana|ys|s


A rof|tab|||ty
I Sa|es
| 20062007
lndus MoLor sold 8131 more vehlcles from 200607 Lhan lL had Lhe prevlous year ln 2007 Lhe
sales (unlLs) was 30337 compared Lo 42406 ln 2006 so Lhls represenLed an lmpresslve lncrease
of 192
ln Lhe same perlod ak Suzukl also showed an lncrease ln sales (unlLs) of 167
1hls were lmpresslve sales flgures for lndus MoLors as Lhe markeL for locally assembled
passenger cars and llghL commerclal vehlcles grew by only 9 and Lhls Loo was a slowdown ln
growLh from Lhe prevlous years 20042003 37 20032006 23 (lndus MoLor Company
LlmlLed (2007) ooool kepot)
1hls 192 lncrease can be aLLrlbuLed Lo a resLrlcLlon on Lhe lmporLs of used vehlcles whlch are
more Lhan 3 years old 1hls pollcy had more lmpacL on Lhe sales of lndus MoLor Lhan ak Suzukl
slnce ak Suzukl does noL face as much compeLlLlon from lmporLed used cars as does lndus
MoLor
ln revenue Lerms lndus MoLor and ak Suzukl sales were up by 111 and 33 respecLlvely
whlle for Ponda ALlas sales were down by 33

|| 20072008
Sales unlLs were only marglnally hlgher by 0483 ln 2008 30802 unlLs compared Lo 2007 for
lndus MoLor ln facL lndus MoLor was Lhe only company LhaL showed an lncrease albelL a small
lncrease ln sales unlLs and sales revenue*
ak Suzukl and Ponda ALlas showed decllnes ln Lhelr vehlcle sales of 222 and 36
Cverall sales revenue for lndus MoLor was hlgher by 6 compared Lo decllnlng revenues of 22
and 137 over Lhe lasL year for ak Suzukl and Ponda ALlas respecLlvely
1hls perlod marked Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe global flnanclal crlsls and Lhe economlc recesslon and
Lhe effecLs are vlslble ln Lhe Lrend from Lhe prevlous year uemand for auLomoblles was hurL by
rlslng lnLeresL raLes and llmlLed flnanclng avallablllLy from banks and leaslng companles 1here


age 11 of 26

was hlgh lnflaLlon and lack of consumer confldence whlch badly affecLed Lhe sales ln Lhe
auLomoblle secLor lurLher Lo Lhls Lhe lederal 8udgeL 200809 had lmposed addlLlonal Laxes
such as 3 lederal Lxclse uuLy on cars and 23 WlLhholdlng Lax aL vehlcle reglsLraLlon whlch
lncreased Lhe auLomoblle prlces and reduced demand even more (lndus MoLor Company
LlmlLed (2008) ooool kepot)
||| 2008200
Sales revenue and volume boLh suffered badly and Lhere was a decllne of 306 ln unlLs 2009
Sales unlLs 33276 and 86 ln revenue Lerms for lndus MoLor desplLe Lhe lncrease ln selllng
prlces by Lhe company ln Lhe same year (khan A 2009)
lor Ponda ALlas Lhe decllne ln sales unlLs was 216 and ln sales revenues was 38 ak Suzukl
had a masslve decllne ln sales unlLs (443) and sales revenues (339)*
1hese Lrends hlghllghL how badly Lhe auLomoblle secLor was affecLed by Lhe worsL economlc
recesslon 1he cllmaLe of pollLlcal uncerLalnLy ln aklsLan caused lL more harm and Lhere was
hlgh lnflaLlon from depreclaLlon of Lhe aklsLanl 8upee 8anks and leaslng companles had
sLopped auLo flnanclng and consumer confldence was aL lLs lowesL ebb
* l musL menLlon here LhaL ln analyslng Lhese sales flgures especlally lndus MoLor vs ak Suzukl seasonallLy musL
have had some lmpacL on my resulLs Slnce Lhe year end of ak Suzukl ls 31
sL
uecember we were well lnLo Lhe
recesslon when lLs year ended ln 2008 and hence relaLlvely worse percenL changes 1he economlc slLuaLlon was far
worse ln Lhe posLSepLember 2008 perlod so resulLs for lndus MoLor (year end 30
Lh
!une) ln 2008 and 2009 are
marglnally beLLer because of Lhe seasonallLy effecL
llgure 1 lndus MoLor 1rend ln Sales volume and 8evenue
2009 33276 37863
2008 30802 41424
2007 30337 39061
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
30000
60000
2009 2008 2007
Sales volume (unlLs)
Sales 8evenue (8upees ln
mlllons)


age 12 of 26

II Gross rof|t Marg|n
| 20062007
lndus MoLor had a gross proflL margln of 114 whlch was hlgher Lhan Lhe lndusLry gross proflL
margln (72)
Also cosL of sales as a percenLage of sales have been kepL under conLrol by Lhe managemenL of
lndus MoLor lndus MoLor cosLs of sales were only 886 of sales as compared Lo 906 for ak
Suzukl and 99 for Ponda ALlas ln 2007 (Annexure D)
lavorable forelgn exchange raLes reduced Lhe cosLs of lmporLed raw maLerlals and vendor parLs
Lo Lhe company and efflclencles ln producLlon allowed Lhe company Lo conLrol cosLs of
manufacLurlng 1hese along wlLh lmpresslve sales ln 2007 have conLrlbuLed slgnlflcanLly Lowards
a beLLer gross margln Lhan Lhe lndusLry

|| 20072008
ln 2008 Lhe gross proflL margln of Lhe company fell from 114 Lo 93 uesplLe LhaL lL was sLlll
qulLe hlgh relaLlve Lo Lhe lndusLry margln of only 3
WlLh sales belng only marglnally hlgher Lhan 2007 and cosL of sales rlslng by 83 Lhe gross
proflL of lndus MoLor fell by almosL 13
1hls ma[or lncrease was because of hlgh cosLs of lmporLed raw maLerlals and parLs due Lo
exLremely unfavorable exchange raLe movemenL 1he aklsLanl rupee had depreclaLed
slgnlflcanLly agalnsL all ma[or currencles lf we observe Lhe raLes from !anuary 2008 Lo !une
2008 Lhen ln only 6 monLhs Lhe rupee had depreclaLed by 103 agalnsL Lhe ?en from 8s/?en
038 ln !anuary Lo 064 ln !une 877 agalnsL Lhe uS $ from 8s/$ 627 !anuary Lo 682 !une
and 138 agalnsL Lhe Luro 8s/Luro 93 Lo 1077 (ak Suzukl MoLor Company LlmlLed (2008)
ooool kepot)
uurlng Lhe year Lhe prlces of oll and sLeel had also rlsen because of hlgh lnflaLlon ln Lhe markeL
and Lhls had pushed cosLs of manufacLurlng qulLe hlgh
CLher companles ln Lhe lndusLrles also faced Lhe same markeL condlLlons however lndus MoLor
dlsplayed beLLer cosL conLrol CosL of sales as a percenLage of sales rose Lo 907 886 2008
buL was comparaLlvely low Lhan Ponda ALlas (937) and ak Suzukl (983)
Cnly Ponda ALlas managed Lo show an lmproved gross proflL margln as compared Lo Lhe
prevlous year 43 2008 and 1 2007 1hls was probably due Lo lncrease ln selllng prlces of
some models of Ponda ALlas ln 2008 (khan A 2009) 1hls meanL LhaL Lhe percenLage decrease
ln sales revenue was less Lhan Lhe decrease ln cosL of sales (whlch was only because of fewer


age 13 of 26

sales of vehlcles and noL because of cosLs of manufacLurlng whlch had lncreased subsLanLlally
for Lhe lndusLry) Sales revenue had decllned by 137 whlle cosL of sales of Ponda ALlas had
decllned by 166 (Annexure L)

||| 2008200
1he gross proflL of lndus MoLor decllned by almosL 40 from lasL year and Lhe proflL margln
sLood aL 61 for Lhe year
uesplLe Lhe lncrease ln selllng prlces sales had fallen by 86 and cosL of sales Loo had
decreased Lhough by a less raLe Lhan sales (only 34) Lhereby resulLlng ln Lhe huge decrease ln
gross proflL for Lhe year
1he aklsLanl rupee conLlnued Lo depreclaLe and wlLh lL Lhe cosLs of lmporLed raw maLerlal
conLlnued Lo rlse slgnlflcanLly lnflaLlon conLlnued Lo be a problem and Lhe company found lL
dlfflculL Lo pass on prlce lncreases Lo lLs consumers desplLe havlng already lncreased Lhe prlce of
lLs vehlcles (khan A 2009)
1he lndusLry average had also fallen Lo 32 and Lhe superlor performance of lndus MoLor was
because of efflclencles ln Lhe producLlon process CosL of sales as a percenLage of sales was low
compared Lo Lhe lndusLry

III Cperat|ng rof|t Marg|n
| 20062007
lor Lhe year 2007 Lhe lndusLry operaLlng margln was 62 Compared Lo Lhls lndus MoLor and
ak Suzukl have done falrly beLLer Lhan Lhe markeL wlLh marglns of 109 and 87 respecLlvely
1he average was affecLed because of Lhe operaLlng loss lncurred by Ponda ALlas ln Lhe same
perlod So lf we lgnore Lhe average and slmply compare Lhe operaLlng cosLs as a percenLage of
sales (Annexure D) we see LhaL Lhere ls only a sllghL dlfference beLween all Lhree companles lor
example Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon and markeLlng cosLs are 13 (lndus MoLor) 13 (Ponda ALlas) and
08 (ak Suzukl)
CperaLlng lncome as a percenLage of sales was slmllar for lndus MoLor and ak Suzukl (24 and
18 respecLlvely) and only 03 ln Lhe case of Ponda ALlas because Lhls lncome comprlsed
malnly of proflL on bank deposlLs and lndus MoLor and ak Suzukl had hlgher yearend cash
balances mosL of whlch were deposlLed ln Lhe banks as lnvesLmenLs (Annexure A D) Lhan
Ponda ALlas dld ?earend cash balance of Ponda ALlas was 8s 220 Mllllon compared Lo 8s 83
8llllon for lndus MoLor and 8s 33 8llllon for ak Suzukl lor Ponda ALlas Lhls represenLed only
26 of LoLal asseLs vs 343 for lndus MoLor and 239 for ak Suzukl


age 14 of 26

1herefore lL can be sLaLed LhaL Lhe dlfference beLween Lhe operaLlng proflL marglns of lndus
MoLor and ak Suzukl was baslcally because lndus MoLor also had a hlgher gross proflL margln
(as prevlously dlscussed)
|| 20072008
1he lndusLry operaLlng margln had fallen Lo 44 ln 2008 from 62 ln 2009 whlle lndus MoLor
was sLlll en[oylng a beLLer Lhan average margln of 86
Powever compared Lo Lhe prevlous year Lhe operaLlng proflL for Lhe company had decreased by
nearly 17 1he managemenL of lndus MoLor was able Lo conLrol some operaLlng cosLs such as
dlsLrlbuLlon and markeLlng expenses (down by 44 over lasL year) however sLlll had Lo absorb
Lhe hlgher cosLs of admlnlsLraLlon (up by 121) whlch resulLed ln Lhe lower operaLlng proflL
margln for Lhe year
8elaLlve Lo Lhe lndusLry Lhe performance of lndus MoLor was beLLer because of beLLer gross
proflL margln and noL because of operaLlng cosL conLrol CperaLlng cosLs (wlLhouL ad[usLlng for
oLher operaLlng lncome) fell by only 29 for lndus MoLor as compared Lo 17 and 292
decllnlng raLes for Ponda ALlas and ak Suzukl respecLlvely

||| 2008200
1he lndusLry operaLlng margln was aL lLs lowesL ln Lhe Lhree years aL 14 lndus MoLor had a
comparaLlvely hlgher margln aL 33
ulsLrlbuLlon and markeLlng cosLs decreased by 36 however aL Lhe same Llme admlnlsLraLlve
cosLs wenL up by 183 Pence operaLlng proflL decllned by 413 over from lasL year
ak Suzukl had an operaLlng proflL margln of 17 because of poor sales 1he company dld
manager Lo conLrol operaLlng cosLs beLLer Lhan lndus MoLor as all operaLlng expenses have
decreased over from lasL year for ak Suzukl (Annexure L) 1hls decrease ln operaLlng expenses
by Lhe managemenL of ak Suzukl may have resulLed from worker layoffs as salarles and
beneflLs have decllned by 103 ln conLrasL lndus MoLor seems Lo have reLalned lLs workforce
and salarles and beneflLs are hlgher by 117 from 2008







age 1S of 26

IV Du ont Ana|ys|s
1he reLurn on equlLy (8CL) measure relaLes Lhe neL proflL of an organlzaLlon Lo Lhe caplLal
(shareholders' equlLy) lnvesLed ln Lhe buslness and calculaLes an overall reLurn on lnvesLmenL ln
order Lo undersLand how and why Lhe 8CL changes from perlod Lo perlod or compares relaLlve
Lo Lhe lndusLry Lhe uu onL approach ls used 1hls approach breaks Lhe 8CL lnLo Lhree
componenLs and provldes a clearer plcLure of proflLablllLy of Lhe company
8CL neL roflL Margln x 1oLal AsseL 1urnover x LqulLy MulLlpller
neL roflL Margln ls slmply neL proflL afLer Lax dlvlded by sales
1oLal AsseL 1urnover ls sales dlvlded by LoLal asseLs and lL measures how efflclenLly Lhe company
uses lLs asseLs over Lhe year Lo generaLe sales
1he LqulLy MulLlpller ls 1oLal asseLs dlvlded by Shareholders' equlLy and lL ls anoLher measure
for leverage slnce lL represenLs Lhe flnanclal leverage of Lhe buslness (1oLal asseLs equals LoLal
debL plus shareholders' equlLy) l have used Lhe openlng shareholders' equlLy for each year
lnsLead of Lhe yearend balance slnce Lhe openlng balance ls Lhe equlLy caplLal avallable for
lnvesLmenL durlng LhaL year Pence Lhe 8CL measure should be a reLurn on Lhe equlLy or
lnvesLmenL avallable (Annexure L)
(!ames C van Porne !ohn M Wachowlcz !8 2003)
| 20062007
1he neL roflL margln of lndus MoLor was 7 compared Lo Lhe lndusLry average of 36 1he
beLLer gross proflL margln was Lhe maln facLor behlnd Lhls Also flnance cosLs were lower Lhan
LhaL for Lhe oLher companles as a percenLage of sales Lhese were 01 compared Lo 18 and
03 for Ponda ALlas and ak Suzukl respecLlvely
1he asseLs Lurnover was qulLe slmllar beLween Lhe Lhree companles (Annexure L) and Lhe
equlLy mulLlpller of lndus MoLor was approxlmaLely Lhe same wlLh LhaL of Lhe lndusLry
As a resulL Lhe 8CL of lndus MoLor was qulLe hlgh (439) malnly because of beLLer neL roflL
margln ln 2007 1he excellenL sales flgure for Lhe year and beLLer conLrol over manufacLurlng
cosLs Lhan Lhe lndusLry (as dlscussed under Cross roflL margln) LranslaLed lnLo an overall
superlor proflLablllLy for Lhe company
|| 20072008
1he neL proflL margln of lndus MoLor decllned Lo 33 Lhls year 1hls was expecLed afLer Lhe
unprecedenLed rlse ln lnpuL cosLs durlng Lhe year Compared Lo Lhe lndusLry neL proflL margln of
23 Lhe company was sLlll dolng well buL was noL conLrolllng operaLlng cosLs as well as Lhe
oLher companles


age 16 of 26

1he asseLs Lurnover of Lhe company surprlslngly lncreased sllghLly Lo 301 Llmes lndusLry 23
Llmes buL Lhls was only because of neL decrease ln cash balance by nearly 8s 42 8llllon as a
parL of LoLal asseLs (Annexure 8) lf we were Lo calculaLe [usL Lhe flxed asseLs Lurnover for Lhe
year for lndus MoLor and compare lL wlLh lasL year's flgure Lhe efflclency of Lhe company would
acLually be qulLe worse as compared Lo 2007 Lhan ls lndlcaLed by LoLal asseLs Lurnover 1hls ls
because sales ln 2008 only lncreased by 8 whlle properLy planL and equlpmenL alone
lncreased by 888 (Annexure L) So Lhe flxed asseLs Lurnover acLually fell from abouL 183
Llmes ln 2007 Lo 101 Llmes ln 2008
1he equlLy mulLlpller was conslsLenL wlLh Lhe lndusLry
1herefore Lhe 8CL of lndus MoLor was agaln lmpresslve aL 283 lndusLry 12 1he conLrol ln
lnpuL cosLs was paylng off and Lhls was good managemenL by Lhe company ln lmprovlng
producLlon efflclencles

||| 2008200
1he neL proflL margln was aL lLs lowesL ln Lhe 3 years aL 37 whlle Lhe lndusLry margln was a
mere 06 1he cosL savlngs ln manufacLurlng and Lhe low cosL of sales as a percenLage of sales
compared Lo Lhe oLher companles gave lndus MoLor a huge compeLlLlve advanLage ln Lhe
lndusLry
AsseL Lurnover had decreased over from lasL year and was beLLer Lhan Lhe lndusLry average 1he
flxed asseL Lurnover had only decreased Lo 93 Llmes from 101 Llmes ln 2008 buL sLlll efflclency
was far from good as ln 2007 (183 Llmes)
1he equlLy mulLlpller was conslsLenL wlLh Lhe lndusLry
1he overall proflLablllLy ln Lerms of 8CL was excepLlonal for lndus MoLor aL 147 compared Lo
lndusLry flgure of 13









age 17 of 26

8 L|qu|d|ty
LlquldlLy ls Lhe ablllLy of a flrm Lo saLlsfy lLs shorLLerm obllgaLlons as Lhey come due LlquldlLy ls
consldered more lmporLanL Lhan proflLablllLy slnce lL ls essenLlal for a buslness Lo conLlnue Lo
meeL lLs cash flow needs and remaln solvenL
Worklng caplLal means Lhe neL currenL asseLs of Lhe buslness (currenL asseLs less currenL
llablllLles) and ls represenLaLlve of llquldlLy
1he CurrenL raLlo ls currenL asseLs dlvlded by currenL llablllLles
1he Culck raLlo flrsL removes Lhe generally llllquld currenL asseLs such as sLock and prepaymenLs
from Lhe currenL asseLs before dlvldlng by currenL llablllLles
8oLh are used Lo measure Lhe llquldlLy of Lhe company
Worklng CaplLal cycle ls Lhe Llme perlod for whlch cash ls Lled up ln Lhe buslness A shorL cycle ls
beLLer for Lhe llquldlLy of Lhe company (uebLor days plus sLock days less credlLor days)
uebLor days represenL Lhe average Llme perlod LhaL credlL cusLomers Lake Lo make paymenLs
CredlLor days represenL Lhe average Llme perlod Lhe company Lakes ln paylng lLs credlLors whlle
sLock days ls Lhe average Llme sLock remalns wlLh Lhe company before lL ls consumed ln
producLlon (raw maLerlals sLock) or sold (spare parLs and vehlcles)
(Lawrence ! ClLman 2003)
I Current kat|o and u|ck kat|o
| 2007
1he currenL raLlo and qulck raLlo of 183 Llmes and 140 Llmes respecLlvely seem llkely for an
organlzaLlon LhaL holds nearly 343 of lLs LoLal asseLs ln cash 8oLh raLlos were hlgher for lndus
MoLor Lhan Lhe lndusLry averages of 168 and 087 Llmes
1hese do dlsplay a sLrong llquldlLy poslLlon Cn Lhe oLher hand cash compared Lo flxed asseLs
has a poorer raLe of long Lerm reLurn and Lhe company seems Lo have foregone proflLablllLy ln
favour of llquldlLy 1here could be several reasons for LhaL such as lack of lnvesLmenL
opporLunlLles or LhaL Lhe company dld noL foresee any beneflLs from expanslon 1hls cash could
also have been malnLalned [usL as a precauLlon and ln LhaL case lL was Lhe rlghL declslon slnce ln
Lhe followlng years of Lhe economlc recesslon surplus cash and llquldlLy would have proved Lo
be qulLe rellevlng and useful ln malnLalnlng buslness operaLlons




age 18 of 26

|| 2008
1he currenL raLlo lncreased Lo 236 Llmes and Lhe qulck raLlo lncreased Lo 179 Llmes 1he
lncrease ln currenL raLlo can be explalned by a mammoLh lncrease ln Lrade debLs of almosL a
100 from 2007 and a huge decrease ln advances from cusLomers and dealers of 79 from
2007 (Annexure L)
1he lndusLry raLlos were also hlgher from lasL year's CurrenL raLlo was 26 Llmes and qulck raLlo
117 Llmes MosL of Lhe companles ln Lhe lndusLry had experlenced an lncrease ln closlng sLores
and spares and a decrease ln currenL llablllLles relaLlng Lo advances from dealers mosL llkely due
Lo Lhe fall ln markeL demand

||| 200
1he currenL raLlo and qulck raLlo boLh decllned Lo 169 Llmes and 126 Llmes As seen ln Lhe daLa
LoLal currenL llablllLles lncreased Lo 478 of LoLal asseLs from 273 (2008) 1hls seems Lo be a
reLurn Lo 2007 levels whlch were 473 of LoLal asseLs and malnly due Lo more advances from
dealers whlch had decllned ln 2008 Also sLores and spares decllned by 447 from 2008
(Annexure L)
1he lndusLry currenL raLlo (204) remalned hlgher Lhan lndus MoLor's 1hls ls because of ak
Suzukl (currenL raLlo of 374 Llmes) due Lo lLs slgnlflcanLly low currenL llablllLles whlch were only
188 of LoLal asseLs (Annexure D)
Cverall llquldlLy of lndus MoLor was sLlll qulLe healLhy as cash balance had lncreased by 1248
1he cash flow from operaLlons was responslble for Lhls lncrease whlch was around 8s 63
8llllon (Annexure 8)

II Jork|ng Cap|ta| Cyc|e
| 2007
ln Lhe auLomoblle lndusLry credlL cusLomers do noL seem Lo be Lhe norm as proved by debLor's
collecLlon perlod of only 3 days lndus MoLor had sllghLly more debLor days (6 days) Powever
Lhe credlLor days (30) and sLock days (30) were well below Lhe lndusLry averages (42 and 34
respecLlvely) 1hls means LhaL Lhe worklng caplLal cycle of 6 days compared Lo 14 days ln Lhe
lndusLry ls qulLe an achlevemenL especlally for Lhe markeLlng and sales deparLmenL and Lhe car
dealers as Lhey helped keep sLock days well below Lhe lndusLry




age 1 of 26

|| 2008
uebLor days doubled Lo 12 days from 2007 and sLock days and credlLor days decreased by 4 days
and 2 days each Lo 26 days and 28 days respecLlvely 1he lncrease ln debLor days ls conslsLenL
wlLh Lhe hlgher balance of Lrade debLors whlch also doubled (as prevlously dlscussed)
Cverall Lhe worklng caplLal cycle was comparable Lo Lhe lndusLry average belng 10 days and 12
days respecLlvely

||| 200
uebLor days lncreased Lo 17 days sLock days Lo 42 days and credlLor days Lo 40 days a worklng
caplLal cycle of 18 days 1rade debLor balances conLlnued Lo lncrease by 303 from 2008 and
Lrade payables showed an lncrease by 39 as well 1hls lncrease ln payable paymenL perlod may
well have been Lo manage cash flow needs of Lhe buslness slnce sales were decllnlng and sLock
and debLor days lncreaslng Lven Lhough lndus MoLor had healLhy cash balance mosL of lL was
lnvesLed ln bank deposlLs and Lhus Lhe company needed Lo manage lLs cash flow from sale
recelpLs and debLor recelpLs
1he worklng caplLal cycle of lndus MoLor was 10 days less Lhan Lhe lndusLry average and
represenLs good cash flow and llquldlLy managemenL by Lhe company














age 20 of 26

C Leverage
llnanclal leverage raLlos measure Lhe proporLlon of debL and equlLy (Lhe flnanclng mlx) of Lhe
organlzaLlon ln facL leverage ls a represenLaLlve of flnanclal rlsk of an organlzaLlon 1he more
debL Lhe company uses Lo flnance lLs asseLs Lhe hlgher Lhe raLlos and hence more flnanclal rlsk
l have used Lhese raLlos ln con[uncLlon wlLh lnLeresL cover raLlo (operaLlng proflL dlvlded by
flnance cosLs) slnce a hlgher cover raLlo usually represenLs greaLer ablllLy Lo Lake rlsk and so LhaL
company may even have more debL on lLs balance sheeL wlLhouL slgnlflcanLly lmpacLlng lLs
flnanclal rlsk (Annexure C)
lndus MoLor occuples Lhe poslLlon of medlan for Lhe leverage raLlos ln Lhe lndusLry whlle Ponda
ALlas ls hlghly leveraged and ak Suzukl ls low leveraged Ponda ALlas leverage flgures are
exLremely hlgh so only leverage raLlos from ak Suzukl wlll be compared wlLh lndus MoLor as
boLh have no long Lerm debL on Lhelr balance sheeL
| 2007
1he LoLal debL Lo equlLy was 93 as compared Lo 32 from ak Suzukl however Lhe lnLeresL
cover raLlo of lndus MoLor was qulLe hlgh aL 974 Llmes and so a hlgh proporLlon of debL ls noL
Loo much of a rlsk
|| 2008
1oLal debL Lo equlLy raLlo decreased Lo 46 because of lower shorL Lerm llablllLles ln 2008 and
lncrease ln equlLy caplLal because of lncreases ln reLalned earnlngs 8eLenLlon raLes were 628
2007 and 64 2008 (Annexure C)
1he lnLeresL cover raLlo was exLremely hlgh aL almosL 1284 Llmes Pence sLlll lndus MoLor faces
no slgnlflcanL flnanclal rlsk due Lo lLs flnanclng mlx
||| 200
1oLal debL (shorL and long Lerm) lncreased by 141 whlle shareholders' equlLy rose by only 9
from 2008 As a resulL LoLal debL Lo equlLy was now 101 compared Lo 23 for ak Suzukl 1he
lnLeresL cover raLlo had fallen Lo 781 Llmes whlch was lowesL for Lhe Lhree years yeL reasonably
hlgh Lo [usLlfy a hlgher debL Lo equlLy raLlo wlLhouL [eopardlzlng Lhe flnanclal healLh of lndus
MoLor






age 21 of 26

D Market
MarkeL raLlos provlde lnslghL lnLo how Lhe lnvesLors feel abouL Lhe shares of Lhe company ln
Lerms of rlsk and rewards
I Larn|ngs per share (LS) D|v|dend per share (DS) D|v|dend |e|d
1he earnlngs per share (LS) ls calculaLed by dlvldlng Lhe earnlngs avallable Lo shareholders by
Lhe number of ouLsLandlng shares 1hls ldenLlfles Lhe LoLal earnlngs from LhaL parLlcular perlod
LhaL are avallable for dlsLrlbuLlon Lo shareholders
1he acLual dlsLrlbuLlon Lo Lhe shareholders ls represenLed by Lhe dlvldend per share (uS) 1he
remalnlng amounL ls reLalned ln Lhe equlLy of Lhe company and ls represenLed Lhrough Lhe
reLenLlon raLlo
1he dlvldend yleld measures Lhe reLurn avallable Lo Lhe lnvesLor on buylng Lhe share
1he LS of lndus MoLor was hlghesL ln 2007 when proflLablllLy was aL lLs hlghesL ln Lhe 3 years
from 20072009 As proflLablllLy decllned due Lo markeL condlLlons so dld Lhe LS
1he company pald a dlvldend of 8s 13/share ln 2007 and uS has slnce Lhen decllned Powever
Lhe reLenLlon raLlo shows a raLher lnLeresLlng Lrend flrsL lncreaslng from 2007 Lo 2008 and Lhen
falllng sharply 1he dlvldend payouL raLlo (1 reLenLlon raLlo) slgnlfles Lhe proporLlon of earnlngs
pald ouL as dlvldends Slnce reLenLlon raLlo fell from 2008 Lo 2009 due Lo Lhe mlrror effecL Lhe
payouL raLlo musL have lncreased 1hls musL be an aLLempL by Lhe managemenL Lo malnLaln Lhe
rupee amounL of Lhe dlvldend as well as Lo provlde Lhe lnvesLor wlLh a hlgher dlvldend yleld ln
order Lo ensure LhaL share prlce does noL decrease any furLher (Annexure C)


age 22 of 26


llgure2 lndus MoLor LS uS and 8eLenLlon 8aLlo over Lhe years
II r|ce Larn|ngs kat|o (]L)
1he prlce earnlngs raLlo ls markeL prlce of share dlvlded by Lhe LS 1hls raLlo calculaLes Lhe
rupee amounL LhaL an lnvesLor musL earn ln order Lo earn 1 rupee from Lhe company Cenerally
Lhe level of /L raLlo lndlcaLes Lhe degree of lnvesLor confldence ln Lhe fuLure performance of
Lhe share (Lawrence ! ClLman 2003)
ln Lhe case of lndus MoLor Lhe /L raLlo ls hlgher Lhan Lhe lndusLry average ln 2007 however ln
Lhe years LhaL follow lL ls conslsLenLly less Lhan Lhe average 1he average seems Lo have been
dlsLorLed by Lhe un[usLlfled /L of 8376 Llmes ln 2008 of Ponda ALlas when lLs LS was only 8s
033/share (Annexure C)
lf we compare Lhe /L of lndus MoLor wlLh ak Suzukl we see LhaL Lhe lnvesLors have more
confldence LhaL Lhe fuLure earnlngs from ak Suzukl wlll be beLLer as compared Lo Lhe fuLure
earnlngs from lndus MoLor
Cn a dlfferenL noLe based on Lhe pasL performance of Lhe Lwo companles Lhe proflLablllLy as
well as flnanclal sLablllLy ls more sound ln Lhe case of lndus MoLor Pence Lhe low /L may be
represenLlng LhaL Lhe company share ls currenLly undervalued 1o me Lhls seems Lo be Lhe more
llkely scenarlo


age 23 of 26

S Conc|us|ons


l have been qulLe successful ln achlevlng my research ob[ecLlves and my analysls and research flndlngs
have enabled me Lo answer Lhe research quesLlons LhaL l seL ouL for myself aL Lhe sLarL of Lhe pro[ecL
l have summarlzed my slgnlflcanL flndlngs and llnked Lhem wlLh my pro[ecL ob[ecLlves and research
quesLlons ln Lhe Lable below
8efore Lconom|c Cr|s|s Dur|ng Lconom|c Cr|s|s
2007 2008 200
rof|tab|||ty OPlgher sales unlLs as
compared Lo 2006
OCross margln of 114
OCperaLlng margln 109
OneL proflL margln 7 8CL
439

OSales marglnally
hlgher
OroflL marglns
decllned
O8CL decllned

OSales roflL marglns
and 8CL decllned
Vs Industry OPlgher lncrease ln sales Lhan
markeL
OPlgher marglns Lhan lndusLry
O8eLLer 8CL as compared Lo
lndusLry
OMarglns and 8CL
hlgher as compared Lo
lndusLry
OMarglns and 8CL
hlgher Lhan lndusLry


I|nanc|a|
os|t|on
OPlgh cash balance
OSLrong llquldlLy poslLlon
OShorLer worklng caplLal cycle
O1oLal debL Lo equlLy 93

OPlgher llquldlLy raLlos
Olncrease ln worklng
caplLal cycle
Ouecllne ln LoLal debL
Lo equlLy

Ouecllne ln llquldlLy
raLlos
OPlgher cash balance
OPealLhy llquldlLy
OLonger worklng
caplLal cycle
OPlgher leverage
Vs Industry OPlgher llquldlLy raLlos Lhan
lndusLry
OWC cycle beLLer Lhan lndusLry
OLower leverage Lhan lndusLry
OWorklng CaplLal
slmllar Lo lndusLry
Overy hlgh lnLeresL
coverage raLlo Lhan
lndusLry

OLower llquldlLy raLlos
Lhan lndusLry
OShorLer Worklng
caplLal cycle Lhan
lndusLry
OLower leverage and
hlgher lnLeresL coverage
Lhan lndusLry







age 24 of 26

8efore Lconom|c Cr|s|s Dur|ng Lconom|c Cr|s|s
2007 2008 200
Interna| Iactors OCosL of manufacLurlng
conLrolled by managemenL
OCosL of manufacLurlng
conLrolled by
managemenL
OLess dlsLrlbuLlon and
markeLlng cosLs and
hlgher admlnlsLraLlve
cosLs
Olncrease ln selllng
prlces
OLfflclencles ln
producLlon process
O8eLalned workforce
raLher Lhan laylng off
OlnefflclenL operaLlng
cosLs

Market Iactors O8esLrlcLlon lmposed on
lmporLs of used vehlcles older
Lhan 3 years
Olavorable exchange raLes
O8lslng lnLeresL raLes
OLlmlLed flnanclng
OPlgh lnflaLlon
OAddlLlonal Laxes
lmposed
OuepreclaLlon of ak
8upee
Olncrease ln oll and
sLeel prlces
OollLlcal uncerLalnLy
OuepreclaLlon of ak
8upee
OLlmlLed flnanclng
















age 2S of 26

6 Annexure


Annexure A I|nanc|a| Statements
Annexure 8 Cash I|ow Statement
Annexure C kat|o Ana|ys|s
Annexure D Common S|ze Statements
Annexure L Du ont Ana|ys|s ] ercentage Changes
7 keferences


Ponda ALlas Company LlmlLed (2007) ooool kepot
Ponda ALlas Company LlmlLed (2008) ooool kepot
Ponda ALlas Company LlmlLed (2009) ooool kepot
lndus MoLor Company LlmlLed (2007) ooool kepot
lndus MoLor Company LlmlLed (2008) ooool kepot
lndus MoLor Company LlmlLed (2009) ooool kepot
!ames C van Porne !ohn M Wachowlcz !8 (2003) looJomeotols of lloooclol Moooqemeot 1welfLh
LdlLlon uelhl earson LducaLlon
khan A (2009) 'lndus MoLor ralses prlces by 8s 30000' Cnllne uawncom uawn 8eLrleved from
hLLp//newsdawncom/wps/wcm/connecL/dawnconLenLllbrary/dawn/Lhenewspaper/buslness/lndus
moLorralsesprlcesbyrs30000239 8eLrleved 16 AugusL 2010

Lawrence ! ClLman (2003) 9loclples of Moooqelol lloooce 1enLh LdlLlon uelhl earson LducaLlon

ak Suzukl MoLor Company LlmlLed (2007) ooool kepot
ak Suzukl MoLor Company LlmlLed (2008) ooool kepot
ak Suzukl MoLor Company LlmlLed (2009) ooool kepot




age 26 of 26

8 8|b||ography


1he naLlon (2008) '1he naLlon LdlLor appreclaLes lndus MoLor Company efforLs' Cnllne 1he naLlon
nawalwaqL Croup of newspapers 8eLrleved from hLLp//wwwnaLloncompk/paklsLannews
newspaperdallyengllshonllne/8uslness/28!un2008/1henaLlonLdlLorappreclaLeslndusMoLor
CompanyefforLs 8eLrleved 16 AugusL 2010

1he naLlon (2009) 'lndus MoLor 3
rd
11L' Cnllne 1he naLlon nawalwaqL Croup of newspapers
8eLrleved fromhLLp//wwwnaLloncompk/paklsLannewsnewspaperdallyengllshonllne/Cplnlons/01
Mar2009/lndusMoLor3rd11L 8eLrleved 16 AugusL 2010