Analysis Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Limited

Total asset turnover : This ratio measures the efficiency of a company’s use of its assets

CML's equity ratio increased to 0.4 and correspondingly debt ratio decreased to 0.15 from 2001 to 2005. Generally it is a good trend, even though there has been a decrease in equity ratio in 2005 from 0.45 to 0.40 and an increase in debt ratio from 2004 to 2005, it may be due to the acquisition from US group KKR. However, in 2005, equity is almost three times debt, which means the capital structure is still in good condition.

The liquidity of firm can be measured by computing certain ratio’s such as current ratio and acid ratio. For measuring Target Corporation’s 2014 liquidity; the firm’s current ratio and the acid ratio is computed. The company’s current ratio is 0.91 times which is computed by comparing current asset ($11, 573,000) with current liabilities ($12,777, 000) of the year 2014 (TGT Company Financial, n.d). The firm’s acid ratio is 0.26 times which is computed by deducting inventory ($8,278,000) from current assets. The inventory is deducted from current assets because the company has not received any money for the unfinished good or from unsold inventory worth ($8,278,000). To analyze the Target Corporation’s liquidity trend in 2014; the current ratio and acid ratio of 2014 is compared with the 2015’s ratios. In 2015, the firm’s current ratio was 1.20 times and the acid ratio was 0.45 times. These liquidity ratios reflect that the firm’s liquidity was better in 2015 than 2014. (See Table 1).

ACC/291 March 25,2012   Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio: Current Assets/Current Liabilities 2005 $14,555,092/ $6,974,752= 2.09:1 2004 $14,643,456/ $6,029,696=2.43:1 Acid Test Ratio: Cash+ Short-Term Investments + Receivables (Net)/ Current Liabilities 2005 $305,563 + $283,583 +$6,133,663/ $6,974,752= .96:1 2004 $357,216 + $133,504 + $5,775,104/ $6,029,696=1.04:1 Receivables Turnover: Net Credit Sales/ Average Net Receivables 2005 $50,823,685/ ($6,133,663 + 5,775,104/2) $50,823,685/ $5,954,384= 8.54 times 2004 $46,044,288/($5,775,104+6,569,344/2) $46,044,288/ $6,172,224=7,46 times Inventory Turnover: Cost of Goods Sold/ Average Inventory 2005 $42,037,624/ ($7,850,970+$7,854,112/2) $42,037,624/$7,852,541=5.35 times

Two-year decrease of liquidity measures including current ratio and quick ratio reveals the problems concerning company’s short-term solvency and liquidity. Butler Lumber Company’s current ratio decreased to 145.05% in 1990 from the level of 180.00% in 1988. The same decrease happened to quick ratio (decreased from 88.08% in 1988 to 66.92% in 1990). As the short-term lender, Northrop National Bank should have noticed that Butler Lumber Company’s ability to pay its bills over the short run without undue press needs to be carefully examined. The decrease of current ratio also implies the decreasing level of company’s net working capital, which is another sign of lower level of liquidity.

An organization’s current ratio shows how liquid the assets of the agency are by comparison to the short term debts that the agency must pay to continue its operations. This ratio is calculated by taking the assets that can be converted to cash within a year (current assets) and dividing it by the liabilities that are either currently due or will become due within a year (current liabilities). The current ratio, ideally, should be at

After reviewing the Balance sheet I have a concern regarding the Current and short term liabilities. Creditors/ trade payable is payment yet to be made for goods already received, if this continues to rise then it will effect the business profit and less stock will have to be ordered so repayments can be made. Bank overdrafts also continued to rise and in the long-term the business will be paying greater interest, which will again eat into the profit. Both increased quite a great deal from the last year-end. If this continues then the business will get into bad debts and owe too much that it will end up having to sale its assets to survive. Finally I can see that due to the above issues and other issues the net current assets/ working capital has decreased so therefore the business is less value then it was a year ago. If the business is worth £1 million now, this could soon decrease within another year.

First of which, is the current ratio. It has been rapidly declining since 2000. To me this indicates that there is a liquidity issue. Each year their trade debt increase exceeds the increase of net income for the company. As a result, the working capital has taken a nosedive from $58,650 in 2002 to only $5,466 in 2003.

At the same time, since PP&E increased, D,D &A had a same trend. As for Working Capital, As Current assets rose more than Current liabilities. The number increased. Also, Net Free Cash Flow cannot be ignored because it showed negative number in 1995, and NFCF is a crucial component to calculate stock price.

Increase in current liabilities Substantial increase in current liabilities weakened the company’s liquidity position. Its current liabilities were US$2,063.94 million at the end of FY2010, a 48.09% increase compared to the previous year. However, its current assets recorded a marginal increase of 25.07% - from US$1,770.02 million at the end of FY2009 to US$2,213.72 million at the end of FY2010. Following this, the company’s current ratio declined from 1.27 at the end of the FY2009 to 1.07 at the end of FY2010. A lower current ratio indicates that the company is in a weak financial position, and it may find it difficult to meet its day-to-day obligations.

On the other hand, the company has been growing constantly. In deed, according to the net income estimation for 2007 (see Table 7) the company increases its profits $25 thousand dollars more than the previous year. This is an evidence of how the company is been management and of its willing to grow year after year. Nevertheless, the first quarter of 2007 the working capital only has increased by $7 thousand dollars, which is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities but the importance of this is that according to the rotation on receivables and payable accounts, shown in Table 5 and 10, leads us to the conclusion that the company will have to pay its suppliers

The company’s debt ratios are 54.5% in 1988, 58.69% in 1989, 62.7% in 1990, and 67.37% in 1991. What this means is that the company is increasing its financial risk by taking on more leverage. The company has been taking an extensive amount of purchasing over the past couple of years, which could be the reason as to why net income has not grown much beyond several thousands of dollars. One could argue that the company is trying to expand its inventory to help accumulate future sales. But another problem is that the company’s

Also, according to its leverage ratios, the company’s debts are not only very high, but are also increasing. Its decreasing TIE ratio indicates that its capability to pay interests is decreasing. The company’s efficiency ratios indicate that despite the fact that its fixed assets are increasingly being utilized to generate sales during the years 1990-1991 as indicated by its increasing fixed asset turnover ratio, the decreasing total assets turnover indicate that overall the company’s total assets are not efficiently being put to use. Thus, as a whole its asset management is becoming less efficient. Last but not the least, based on its profitability ratios, the company’s ability to make profit is decreasing.

The liquidity ratios of the firm are slightly below the industry averages. This is due to inventory and accounts receivable making up a significantly larger portion of the current assets than cash and marketable securities. This may be indicative of a problem with inventory management and/or collection on accounts.

The decrease shows a prudent position particularly in when the world is undergoing economic recession; Rio Tinto Ltd reduced its reliance on debt to finance its assets. This also explained the 22% increase in current portion of long term debt, i.e. the company retired major portion of its debt holdings in the last year.