Collapse of Forge Group Limited Forge group limited was established as Clampter Pty Ltd on 30 June,

during year 12 and year 13. However, in year 13 and year 14 total current assets fell

HH’s long term debt/asset ratio was decreasing from 2006 to 2010 and goes up a little bit to 14.82% as shown on the data. However, the total debt ratio were all time above 50% except year 2010. At the end of 2011, HH’s total debt ratio is 57.54% while the long term debt/asset ratio is 14.82%. This tells us that HH has a larger portion in short term debts/ liabilities than long term debts. And as we can see from the consolidated balance sheet,

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.

The return on shareholders’ fund, capital employed, total assets all have gone down during this period. The ability of the company to pay its short term debt hasn’t varied much, but the administrative expenses have gone up by a very large amount.

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 lost money almost every year since its leveraged buyout by Coniston Partners in 1989. The income generated was not sufficient to service the interest expenses of the company which stood at $2.62B in 1996. From Exhibit 1, we can say that interest coverage ratio computed as EBIT / Interest Expense was 1.31 in 1989 and has been decreasing over years and currently stands at 0.59. This raises a question of how the company can meet its interest payments without raising cash or selling assets.

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 company currently faces serious financial challenges. It was struggling with declining sales and increasing costs. Since 2004, revenues had fallen by more than 40% while costs especially for employees health insurance, maintenance, and utilities climbed. Credits and loans had been borrowed to

Support: The Company’s revenues increased considerably (19%). However, the Accounts receivables also increased significantly (38%). Increase in revenues are generally associated with a proportional increase in the allowance for doubtful debts. By not reporting a significant ‘allowable for bad debt accounts’, the company is able to overstate its profits and could be a cause for concern in the long run, if the receivables turn out to be bad.

There are two ways of increasing capital, (1) using debt and (2) issuing new shares. For profitable companies sometimes it is cheaper to use debt instead of issuing new shares since cost of debt is tax shielded. In this case company didn’t have any debt in past which means less default risk, it will affect total value in a positive way. It will decrease the taxes paid and increase net income, accordingly share values.

Interest Expense Rate is continuously increasing from 1992 to onward. It shows that company is paying high financial charges over short term and long term borrowings.

Debt financing is considered the fastest and cheapest method of financing growth of a company, however using debt to finance accelerated and explosive growth can have his drawbacks. The debt financing option enjoyed by Loewen kept shareholders stake in the business constant, and reduced the company’s tax liability. As shown in exhibit 4, from year 1989 to 1996 (excluding the special items regarding the law suits in 1995), the increase in debt (from 79.7 to 1428.6) led to an increase in EBITDA (from 21.4 to 251.9), operating profit(from 17.7 to 195.1) and net income (from 6.2 to 63.9), and led to an increase in the dividends paid throughout these years (from 0 to 11.4), and thus kept the shareholders happy. These results have encouraged investors to invest more in Loewen, and have encouraged Loewen to issue more debt to finance its acquisitions, until they arrived to a point where the debt to equity ratio became too high due to lots of reasons.

Furthermore, if an organisation does not have enough cash resources in order to settle its current liabilities, this will highlight great inefficiency with stock turnover not being sold. A good company such as Sainsbury’s we see is healthy because revenue is recognised from inventories sold – this revenue allows cash to flow in order to pay for short term and long-term liabilities. It is evident that there are insufficient cash flowing into the company from investing activities and financing activities, which are shown by the brackets.

The financial analysis of the balance sheet shows that the percentage of equity in the sources of funds is decreasing while the debt is escalating. Short term liability has compounded from 14% to 39% while long term liability had increased from 16% to 24%. The Debit/equity ratio shows an almost double increase in dependence on borrowed funds between 2007-2008, leading to a greater obligation of fixed interest payment, and a lessor safety margin for long term creditors. An increasing Debit-equity ratio can also create difficulties in raising additional loans. This triggered a potential lack of future financing, considering that Gerhard Schroder property developer had indicated that he was unwilling to continue to provide financial support to the organization. Additionally, they