CHAPTER 4 Analysis of Financial Statements Well discuss

CHAPTER 4 Analysis of Financial Statements We’ll discuss D’Leon Inc. , Part II, Integrated Case (pages 118 -121 of your text): n n n The company is a small food producer that operates in north Florida. In Chapter 3, we discussed their major expansion to “go national”. q In 2008, sales did not meet forecasts, and costs were higher than expected. q Management and shareholders are worried the company might not survive. We are told that monthly sales data for 2008 (we don’t have the data in the text) show: q Sales are improving in 4 th quarter 2008. q For the month of December 2008, the company is slightly profitable. There is hope that if the company can survive its short-term financing crisis, sales may continue to improve and the company may turn itself around. We will prepare an analysis of the company’s condition and recommend that should be done to get the company back on its feet. We’ll use this case to learn about: q Ratio Analysis q Du. Pont System q Effects of Improving Ratios q Limitations of Ratio Analysis q Qualitative Factors 4 -1

Balance Sheet: Assets Cash A/R Inventories Total CA Gross FA Less: Deprec. Net FA Total Assets 2009 E 2008 85, 632 878, 000 1, 716, 480 2, 680, 112 1, 197, 160 380, 120 817, 040 3, 497, 152 7, 282 632, 160 1, 287, 360 1, 926, 802 1, 202, 950 263, 160 939, 790 2, 866, 592 Note: “E” indicates estimated. The 2009 data are forecasts. 4 -2

Balance Sheet: Liabilities and Equity Accts payable Notes payable Accruals Total CL Long-term debt Common stock Retained earnings Total Equity Total L & E 2009 E 2008 436, 800 300, 000 408, 000 1, 144, 800 400, 000 1, 721, 176 231, 176 1, 952, 352 3, 497, 152 524, 160 636, 808 489, 600 1, 650, 568 723, 432 460, 000 32, 592 492, 592 2, 866, 592 4 -3

Income Statement Sales COGS Other expenses EBITDA Deprec. & amort. EBIT Interest exp. EBT Taxes Net income 2009 E 7, 035, 600 5, 875, 992 550, 000 609, 608 116, 960 492, 648 70, 008 422, 640 169, 056 253, 584 2008 6, 034, 000 5, 528, 000 519, 988 (13, 988) 116, 960 (130, 948) 136, 012 (266, 960) (106, 784) (160, 176) 4 -4

Other Data 2009 E No. of shares EPS DPS Stock price Lease pmts 250, 000 $1. 014 $0. 220 $12. 17 $40, 000 2008 100, 000 -$1. 602 $0. 110 $2. 25 $40, 000 4 -5

Why are ratios useful? n Ratios standardize numbers and facilitate comparisons. n Ratios are used to highlight weaknesses and strengths. n Ratio comparisons should be made through time and with competitors. q Trend analysis. q Peer (or industry) analysis. Who uses financial ratios? n Ratios are used: q by managers to help improve the firm’s performance, q by lenders to help evaluate the firm’s likelihood of repaying debts, and q by stockholders to help forecast future earnings and dividends. 4 -6

Five Major Categories of Ratios and the Questions They Answer n Liquidity: Can we make required payments? n Asset management: right amount of assets vs. sales? n Debt management: Right mix of debt and equity? n Profitability: Do sales prices exceed unit costs, and are sales high enough as reflected in PM, ROE, and ROA? n Market value: Do investors like what they see as reflected in P/E and M/B ratios? 4 -7

D’Leon’s Forecasted Current Ratio and Quick Ratio for 2009 4 -8

Comments on Liquidity Ratios 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. Current ratio 2. 34 x 1. 20 x 2. 30 x 2. 70 x Quick ratio 0. 84 x 0. 39 x 0. 85 x 1. 00 x q Expected to improve in 2009 but still below the industry average. q Liquidity position is weak. 4 -9

D’Leon’s Inventory Turnover vs. the Industry Average Inv. turnover = Sales/Inventories = $7, 036/$1, 716 = 4. 10 x Inventory turnover 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. 4. 1 x 4. 70 x 4. 8 x 6. 1 x q Inventory turnover is below industry average. q D’Leon might have old inventory, or its control might be poor. q No improvement is currently forecasted. 4 -10

DSO: Average Number of Days after Making a Sale before Receiving Cash Days Sales Outstanding: DSO = Receivables/Avg. sales per day = Receivables/(Annual sales/365) = $878/($7, 036/365) = 45. 6 days 4 -11

Appraisal of DSO 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. 45. 6 38. 2 37. 4 32. 0 q Days sales outstanding is above industry average (which is bad). q Even worse, it is forecast to be higher in 2009 than in 2008. q D’Leon collects on sales too slowly, and is getting worse. q D’Leon probably has a poor credit policy – extends too much credit to buyers. 4 -12

Fixed Assets and Total Assets Turnover Ratios vs. the Industry Average FA turnover = Sales/Net fixed assets = $7, 036/$817 = 8. 61 x TA turnover = Sales/Total assets = $7, 036/$3, 497 = 2. 01 x 4 -13

Evaluating the FA Turnover and TA Turnover Ratios 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. FA TO 8. 6 x 6. 4 x 10. 0 x 7. 0 x TA TO 2. 0 x 2. 1 x 2. 3 x 2. 6 x q FA turnover projected to exceed the industry average. q TA turnover below the industry average. q Caused by excessive currents assets (A/R and Inv). 4 -14

Calculate the Debt Ratio and Times-Interest-Earned Ratio Debt ratio = Total debt/Total assets = ($1, 145 + $400)/$3, 497 = 44. 2% TIE = EBIT/Interest expense = $492. 6/$70 = 7. 0 x 4 -15

D’Leon’s Debt Management Ratios vs. the Industry Averages § 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. D/A 44. 2% 82. 8% 54. 8% 50. 0% TIE 7. 0 x -1. 0 x 4. 3 x 6. 2 x D/A and TIE are better than the industry average. What is the critical assumption about the use of equity versus debt in the 2009 forecast? ? § HINT: Look at the number of shares and stock price (slide 4 -5) and common stock (slide 4 -3). Are these realistic assumptions? 4 -16

Profitability Ratios: Operating Margin, Profit Margin, and BEP 4 -17

Appraising Profitability with Operating Margin, Profit Margin, and BEP 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. Operating margin 7. 0% -2. 2% 5. 6% 7. 3% Profit margin 3. 6% -2. 7% 2. 6% 3. 5% 14. 1% -4. 6% 13. 0% 19. 1% Basic earning power q Operating margin was very bad in 2008. It is projected to improve in 2009, but it is still projected to remain below the industry average. q Profit margin was very bad in 2008 but is projected to exceed the industry average in 2009. Looking good. q BEP removes the effects of taxes and financial leverage, and is useful for comparison. q BEP projected to improve, yet still below the industry average. There is definitely room for improvement. 4 -18

Profitability Ratios: Return on Assets and Return on Equity ROA = Net income/Total assets = $253. 6/$3, 497 = 7. 3% ROE = Net income/Total common equity = $253. 6/$1, 952 = 13. 0% 4 -19

Appraising Profitability with ROA and ROE 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. ROA 7. 3% -5. 6% 6. 0% 9. 1% ROE 13. 0% -32. 5% 13. 3% 18. 2% q Both ratios rebounded from the previous year, but are still below the industry average. More improvement is needed. q Wide variations in ROE illustrate the effect that leverage (i. e. , the amount of debt the company has) can have on profitability. q Remember the critical assumption about debt versus equity we discussed. This assumption has a huge effect on the forecast of ROE. 4 -20

Problems with ROE n ROE and shareholder wealth are correlated, but problems can arise when ROE is the sole measure of performance because: q ROE does not consider risk. n q ROE does not consider the amount of capital invested. n q 25% return on a project that costs the company $2, 000 vs. a 20% return on a project that costs the company $200, 000. Might encourage managers to make investment decisions that do not benefit shareholders. n n Oil drilling example: existing production field versus new lease Example: what if annual bonus is tied to ROE? ROE focuses only on return and a better measure would consider risk and return. We’ll talk more about risk and return in Chapter 8. 4 -21

Calculate the Price/Earnings and Market/Book Ratios P/E = Price/Earnings per share = $12. 17/$1. 014 = 12. 0 x M/B = Market price/Book value per share = $12. 17/($1, 952/250) = 1. 56 x 2009 E 2008 2007 Ind. P/E 12. 0 x -1. 4 x 9. 7 x 14. 2 x M/B 1. 56 x 0. 5 x 1. 3 x 2. 4 x 4 -22

Analyzing the Market Value Ratios n P/E: How much investors are willing to pay for $1 of earnings. n M/B: How much investors are willing to pay for $1 of book value equity. n For each ratio, the higher the number, the better. n P/E and M/B are high if ROE is high and risk is low. 4 -23

In hindsight, what should D’Leon have done back in 2004? n Before the company took on its expansion plans, it could have done an extensive ratio analysis to determine the effects of its proposed expansion on the firm’s operations. n Had the ratio analysis been conducted, the company would have “gotten its house in order” (e. g. , issued stock, taken on less debt) before undergoing the expansion or possibly not have undertaken the expansion at all. 4 -24

The Du. Pont System n Focuses on expense control (PM), asset utilization (TA TO), and debt utilization (equity multiplier). 4 -25

Du. Pont Equation: Understanding ROE and Its 3 Important Drivers ROE = (NI/Sales) x (Sales/TA) x (TA/Equity) = 3. 6% x 2 x 1. 8 = 13. 0% PM TA TO EM ROE 2007 2. 6% 2. 3 2. 2 13. 3% 2008 -2. 7% 2. 1 5. 8 -32. 5% 2009 E 3. 6% 2. 0 1. 8 13. 0% Ind. 3. 5% 2. 6 2. 0 18. 2% 4 -26

An Example: The Effects of Improving Ratios A/R Other CA Net FA TA $ 878 1, 802 817 $3, 497 Debt Equity $1, 545 1, 952 Total L&E $3, 497 Sales/Day = $7, 035, 600/365 = $19, 275. 62 n How would reducing the firm’s DSO to 32 days affect the company? q q Reducing A/R will have no effect on sales Initially shows up as addition to cash. 4 -27

Effect of Reducing Receivables on Balance Sheet and Stock Price Added cash A/R Other CA Net FA Total Assets $ 261 617 1, 802 817 $3, 497 Debt Equity $1, 545 1, 952 Total L&E $3, 497 q What could be done with the new cash? § § § Repurchase stock Expand business Reduce debt q How might stock price and risk be affected? 4 -28

Potential Problems and Limitations of Financial Ratio Analysis n Comparison with industry averages is difficult for a conglomerate firm that operates in many different divisions. n “Average” performance is not necessarily good. n Seasonal factors can distort ratios. n “Window dressing” techniques can make statements & ratios look better. n Different operating and accounting practices can distort comparisons. n Sometimes it is hard to tell if a ratio is “good” or “bad. ” n Difficult to tell whether a company is, on balance, in strong or weak position. 4 -29

Consider Qualitative Factors When Evaluating a Company’s Future Financial Performance n Are the firm’s revenues tied to one key customer, product, or supplier? n What percentage of the firm’s business is generated overseas? n The firm’s competitive environment n Future prospects (e. g. , pharmaceuticals, Apple) – what’s in the product pipeline? n Legal and regulatory environment 4 -30