Engro Foods Financial Statement 2013

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.

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,

The firm shows positive health for the Shareholders Equity with an equity ratio of 44.2% in 2011 and increasing to 45.2% in 2012. Calculating the percent of total assets that shareholders would receive in the event of company liquidation looks positive and very healthy for any investors or shareholders of this firm. The interest coverage ratio is also at a value that is significantly positive 14.0% in 2011 and 12.8% in 2012. Although 2021 shows a decrease, the company is still very capable of generating sufficient revenues to cover their interest payments on any debt they have incurred.

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.

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.

Return on Total Assets was 4.43% which is below five percent. That indicates that the company is not accurately converting its assets into profit. The total for Return on Stockholders’ Equity was 8.89%, however financial analysts prefer ROE to range between 15-20 %. The company’s low ROE indicates that the company is not generating profit with new investments. Lastly, Debt-to-Equity ratio for the company was 1.01 which indicates that investors and creditors are equally sharing assets. In the view of creditors, they see a high ratio as a risk factor because it can indicate that investors are not investing due to the company’s overall performance. The totals of these three ratios demonstrate that the company’s financial state is not as healthy as it should be.

Overall regards to liquidity ratios, the higher the number the better; however, a too high also indicates that the firms were not using their resources to their full potential. Current ratio of 1.0 or greater shows that a company can pay its current liabilities with its current assets. JWN’s ratio increased from 2.06 in 2007 to 2.57 in 2010, and slightly decreased to 2.16 in 2011. JWN’s cash ratio increased significantly from 22% in 2007 to 80% in 2010. JWN has a cash ratio of 73% in 2011, which is useful to creditors when deciding how much debt they would be willing to extend to JWN. In addition, JWN also has moderate CFO ratio of 46%, indicating the companies’ ability to pay off their short term liabilities with their operating cash

I have researched the company’s financial reports. There will be a financial analysis of the company comparing its present to past two years’ performance and to the performance of its major competitors.

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.

Liquidity ratio. The firm’s liquidity shows a downward trend through time. The current ratio is decreasing because the growth in current liabilities outpaces the growth of current assets. The quick ratio is also declining but not as fast as the current ratio. From 1991 to 1992, it only decreased 0.35 units while the current ratio decreased 0.93 units. Looking at the common size balance sheet, we also see that the percentage of inventory is growing from 33% to 48% indicating Mark X could not convert its inventory to cash.

Overall the long term solvency position of the company satisfactory and less risky, because managerial policies kept the repercussion of recession ( increase in interest rate) in mind and hence reduced its reliance on debt financing This gives it a secure position from the point of view of long term creditors.

The Debt-Equity Ratio shows that most of the capital was in terms of ordinary shares and is becoming more reliant on Shareholders Equity than on debt to finance operations.

Pan Europa management heavily relied on debt financing to sustain firms capital spending dividends. Their share values in the market were low and not competitive. Moreover the shareholders lost confidence in the company’s performance resulting in decreased share value and low profitability. The company is struggling in its objectives to diversify in its products and expand within and geographically.

Our choices led to a constant increase in net income over the three years. Short term debt increase by approximately 100% percent but steadily reduced over the next three years. We were happy with the positive growth of the company and the fact that we were able to pay off most of the initial short term funding required by the increase in working capital requirement. Overall the current situation of the company in 2018 is good, although the total value created is less than 20% of that created in phase 1. From this we learned that the value of the firm can be significantly increased more through a reduction in working capital requirement than through increasing the firm’s sales and net income.

The long-term liquidity risk ratio such as LT debt/Equity, D/E, and Total Liabilities to Total Assets all show a decline from year 2005 due to the repayment of debts. The interest coverage ratio also shows a healthy number of 29.45 in comparison to the industrial average of 15.04 indicating a high ability to pay out its interest expense. Such a low relative risk is not surprising due to the nature of its business depending heavily in R&D development and large intangible assets.