Liquidity Ratios

The following financial report provides an analysis of the financial ratios of David Jones with its close competitor in the retail sector, Myer. The financial ratios analyzed include profitability ratios, leverage ratios, efficiency ratios and market ratios for the two companies. The analysis utilizes individual company time-series analysis as well as industry cross-sectional analysis with the aim of determining the competitiveness of David Jones relative to its close competitor Myer.

Their interest cover has risen by 2, possibly due to the fact that the interest figure has fallen by 1. This means they can pay off their interest roughly three times more than in the previous year. A possible reason for this could be a decline in interest.

In addition, as we are comparing the profit margin and operating profit margin, we notice that interest expense, from 2006 to 2010, consumed a relative small portion of sales proceeds comparing to 2011. In 2011, the profit margin for HH is -1.46% and the operating profit margin for HH is -0.74%. Since profit margin includes interest expense in the calculation while operating profit margin does not, we can conclude that HH has about the same amount in interest expense as the amount of operating loss before interest. This finally doubles the amount of company’s loss at the end of the cycle. This big amount of interest expense leads us to study HH’s leverage ratios.

The decline of inventory turnover presents the incresed possibility of inventory obsolescence which is likely to be assessed as higher business risk. In debts to equity part, the ratio in current year is much higher than that of preceeding year, which means the extent of use of debt in financing company is much higher than before. Pinnacle has used most of its borrowing capacity and has little cushion for addional debt.This action brought high business risk to Pinnacle. In addition, Pinnacle puchase more inventory in current year that that of preceeding year, and net sales are increasing also compared previous year. However, the net income is decreased significantly. These changes show expenses (maybe direct or indirect) have increased dramaticly. The company uses more expensive materials and labors to manufacure and sell products.

* Taking on debt gives the company the ability to use cash for projects and short term investments.

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

8. Times interest earned = (Net Income + Interest) in Statement of Operations / Interest in

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.

With this company the inventory management ratios further indicate that there may be an issue with inventory and inventory controls. The inventory turnover ratio is lower than the industry average and the days’ sales in inventory are high. A company wants to turn inventory quickly to reduce storage costs, and

Jones over forecasts his inventory and has a low inventory turnover ratio. This drastically increases his accounts payable, as he isn’t able to pay due to low cash inflow. His account’s payable increased by nearly 9 percent in 2006. Nearly half of his current assets are in inventory. Also Jones isn’t able to take advantage of the cash discounts offered by his suppliers due to his slow cash collection process. In order to perform well, the company must improve its inventory system and its cash collection policies.

Receivables Turnover: This shows the degree of realization in accounts receivables. Company N has a lower turnover rate, a lower rate implies that receivables are being held longer and the less likely they are to be collected. Also there is an opportunity cost of tying up funds in receivables for a long period of time. Company M is 29 times higher than company N.

Generally speaking, the shorter of the A/R turnover in days, the better efficiency of current capital. But the data of this firm is higher than the industry average level, it indicates there is an inefficient use of current capital and a problem of management, especially in 2001.But it started dropping dramatically in 2002 which reflects an obviously improvement of management.

By comparing the profitability of the two major international retailers, we see that J. Crew Group has a lower return on assets at an average of 5% for 2011-2013 compared to Gap Inc., which has an average ROA of 16% for

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.