Financial Statement For Ralph Brown

The gearing ratio seems to be immensely high. This could be due their major savings. It seems that they are buying their own shares back perhaps in order to save up for projects like reorganisations or investments. It has decreased by half from 2010 to 2011 probably because they reduced their non-current liabilities. High gearing is supposed to be risky and also results in paying higher interests.

The purpose of this paper is to advise analyze the financial statements of Dillard’s, Inc. in order to recommend whether or not my client should invest $1 million in the large retail company. I will compare the financial statements of Dillard’s, Inc. its competitor, Kohl’s Corporation. Investing in retail can be risky because a retail company’s performance is very heavily influenced by factors that have nothing to do with the actual company such as the overall performance of the economy or the weather during the holiday shopping season. There is, however, potential for profitability within the retail sector. Based on my analysis, I recommend that the client should not invest in Dillard’s, Inc. for the following reasons. First, Dillard’s has experience a decline in net income in the last three years. Second, liquidity ratios indicate that they could face possible liquidity constraints in the future. Third, long-term debt paying ability ratios indicate that the company could have trouble paying off the principal of its current debt obligations. Fourth, the profitability ratios are well below industry averages, suggesting that there are more profitable companies to invest in within the industry. And finally, Investor analysis ratios provide mixed opinion of the future performance of the company. I conclude that retail can be a profitable industry to invest in if an investor has the risk tolerance and risk capacity to withstand the uncertainty, but neither Dillard’s

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.

Home Depot trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol HD. It is the largest home improvement retailer in the USA. According to the Nasdaq Stock Market website, as at 8th August 2017, Home Depot share price was trading at USD150.5 (National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations). In the last 52 weeks, its share price rallied to USD160.86 which was its highest, and during the same period, its lowest share price was USD119.2 (National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations). We calculate the market capitalization of a company by multiplying its share price by the number of outstanding shares. Home depot outstanding shares are at 1,195,555,001 giving it a market capitalization of USD 180 billion

This ratio is similar to current ratio, except that it excludes inventory from current assets. Inventory is subtracted because it is considered to be less liquid than other current assets, that is, it cannot be easily used to pay for the company’s current liabilities. A company having a quick ratio of at least 1.0, is considered to be financially stable. It has sufficient liquid assets and hence, it will be able to pay back its debts easily (Qasim Saleem et al., 2011).

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.

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.

Liquidity In analyzing liquidity of the company, the current ratio is not very telling of a falling company. The company increased its ratio throughout the period of the income statement thus building upon its company assets and allowing for a 6-1 ratio of assets over its liabilities. This implies the company is still able to operate sufficiently even though it did not make its optimum current ratio of about 8-1. However, when one takes the inventory out of the equation with the quick ratio, the numbers show the true strength of short term liquidity. The numbers are still good, and do not indicate failure – but are

Lawsons 2010 and 2011 current ratio are above the industry average (1.8:1) however in 2012 the current ratio falls below the industry average at 1.55:1 and than again in 2013 to 1.02:1. This indicates that the company’s ability to pay its debts is

Based on the Time Interest Earned Ratio Landry’s ability to pay interest bills from profit earned decreased. In 2002 Landry’s could pay their interest bill just over 13 times from earnings before interest tax. In 2003 Landry’s ability to pay interest bills was almost cut in-half to 7 times. We think that as a result of the decrease in ability to pay interest bills, creditors could be concerned about these findings.

Before beginning an analysis of a company it is necessary to have a complete set of financial statements, preferably for the pas few years so that historical trends can be obtained. Ratios are a way for anyone to get an idea of the financial performance of a company by using the information contained in the financial statements. Ratios are grouped into four basic categories, liquidity, activity, profitability, and financial leverage. This document will use a variety of these ratios to analyze the firm, Sample Company, as of December 31,2000.

If this ratio is high means company owns too many debts which may decrease their

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.

Current ratio of Company X and Y is 1.80, and 2.55 respectively. This ratio presents the proportion of current assets to current liabilities. This ratio provided a measure of degree to which current assets cover current liabilities. Since both companies have excess of current assets over their current liabilities, they met basic requirement of safety margin against uncertainty in realization of current assets and funds flows. Generally, it is suggested that a firm should have neither a very high ratio nor a very low ratio. Very high ratio implies heavy investments in current assets reflecting under utilization of the resources. A very low ratio endangers the business in to risks of not being able to pay short term requirements. Normally, it is advocated to have the current ratio as 2:1 (Baker and Powell, 2009).