Ratio Analysis of French Connection Plc.

vi. At 52.2% they have lower leverage than the lowest quartile and this decreased from the year before which is evident on the balance sheet because their LTD decreased by 13 million

The Total Current Assets for Competition Bikes is 36.8% in year 8 up from 31.5%, showing that the company has enough funds to settle current debt. Specifically Works in Process Inventory and Raw Materials Inventory remains unchanged from year 7 to 8, this shows that even with a decrease in sales the company is slow moving and has not adjusted inventory to sales. The company has accrued more debt from year 7 to year 8 seeing an increase of Total Current Liabilities moving from 5.4% to 7.0%.

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.

Return on net assets = Net Income in Statement of Operations / Net Assets in the Balance Sheet

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.

With respect to the company's balance sheet, the company is in a decent financial position despite the losses. In terms of liquidity, the company has remained liquid

The firm’s accounts receivable ratio increased from 68.71 in 2006 to 74.56 in 2010. This means that it is taking Abbott almost six days longer to collect from its customers today than it did five years ago. Furthermore, the firm’s accounts payable days has decreased from 43.72 in 2006 to 38.22 in 2010. This means that Abbott is paying its suppliers 5½ days earlier today than it did in 2006. A change in the inventory ratio from 8.01 in 2006 to 11.03 in 2010 indicates that it is taking the firm longer to sell finished goods than it used to. The increase in the accounts receivable and inventory ratios, combined with a decrease in the accounts payable ratio, indicates poor working capital management and helps to explain why the firm has increased its holdings of cash and short-term investments. To correct this, Abbott’s managers should focus on collecting cash from its customers faster and delaying payments to its suppliers. To maximize its cash position, the firm would be best served by paying its suppliers in the same amount of time as it collects payment from its customers.

Balance Sheet: Assets, such as Cash and Cash equivalents are up over last year by $20.72 million dollars, whereas Short Term Investments where 0 at the end of 2013 they were slightly up to $1.12 by January 3, 2015. Other Assets shows a drop of $8.26 million dollars, mostly in Property, Plant and Equipment. Based on the 10-K report the balance sheet was in the thousands other web based financial reporting sites show the numbers to be in the millions. Upon further review of the Balance Sheet from the financial website “Watch” the break down in Property, Plant and Equipment shows the biggest difference in the Accumulated Depreciation. (Market Watch) The Vertical Ratio for 2014 Total Current Assets is 3% of the Total Assets and in 2013 was also 3%. The Horizontal Ratio for Total Asset were 37% reflecting a change from 2014 at $212.05 and 2013 $195.61 signaling a significant increase in 2014. The 2015 financial were not completed at the time of this report but the

- The financial statements for the past three years show a decline trend in both the operation and return on shareholder of the company, so a closer look at the factors contributing to this decline is needed.

Balance sheets and income statements are a snapshot of a company’s stability and financial situation. Combined the statements show the income, expenses, and stockholder’s equity in the company. These statements are often analyzed by financial institutions when a company comes to them needing a loan. Stockholders and other investors also look at these statements to make sure their investment will return a profit for them. This paper will look at four different companies and their balance sheets and income statements. The companies are Eastman Chemical Company, Covenant Transportation

It’s noticeable how the company’s operations have been deteriorating as they are having a more difficult time translating sales into cash. Their A/R turnover is not where it needs to be, and in line with that, their liabilities are increasing as well. The company has also been inefficient with the use of their assets as their current activity ratios are not up to par with the industry standards.

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.