The Analysis of Financial Position and Performance of Nick Scali Limited and Fantastic Holdings Limited

Chester Inc. is a client of SNHU, LLC who prepares the financial statements and financial analysis for Chester Inc. This report will detail several key items including the accounting effects of international expansion as it relates to differences between Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the United States standards, and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the standards that would govern a portion of the financial reporting with an international expansion. This report will also review the financial performance of Chester Inc. Additionally; it will use ratio analysis to compare Chester Inc. with two of its main competitors.

1. Key success factors & company performance…………………………………………………..3 2. Bank perspective regarding the performance…………………………………………………..7 3. Bank financing perspective at the end of 1998……………………………………………….10 4. Management perspective regarding the bank financing………………………………….13 5. Exhibit 1 – Annual Income Statements (1994-1997)………………………………………17 6. Exhibit 2 – Annual Balance Sheets (1994-1997)……………………………………………..18 7. Exhibit 3 – Quarterly Income Statements 1997……………………………………………….19 8. Exhibit 4 – Quarterly Balance Sheets 1997………………………………………………………20 9. Exhibit 5 – Forecasting………………………………………………………………………………………21 10. Exhibit 6 – Annual Ratios………………………………………………………………………………….22 11. Exhibit 7 –

ACC/291 March 25,2012   Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio: Current Assets/Current Liabilities 2005 $14,555,092/ $6,974,752= 2.09:1 2004 $14,643,456/ $6,029,696=2.43:1 Acid Test Ratio: Cash+ Short-Term Investments + Receivables (Net)/ Current Liabilities 2005 $305,563 + $283,583 +$6,133,663/ $6,974,752= .96:1 2004 $357,216 + $133,504 + $5,775,104/ $6,029,696=1.04:1 Receivables Turnover: Net Credit Sales/ Average Net Receivables 2005 $50,823,685/ ($6,133,663 + 5,775,104/2) $50,823,685/ $5,954,384= 8.54 times 2004 $46,044,288/($5,775,104+6,569,344/2) $46,044,288/ $6,172,224=7,46 times Inventory Turnover: Cost of Goods Sold/ Average Inventory 2005 $42,037,624/ ($7,850,970+$7,854,112/2) $42,037,624/$7,852,541=5.35 times

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%.

Now as far as the company’s cash flow is concerned, the company has been suffered with very weak cash flows because inventory and receivables have increased which result in negative cash flows and due to increased in accounts payable resulting in positive cash flow thus overall cash generated from operations remain intact. However as mentioned above it is operational inefficiency due to delay in collection from customers resulting in delay in payments to creditor. The current ratio is at satisfactory level.

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.

A vertical and horizontal analysis of each company's balance sheet and income statement in this particular case will be enlightening. A vertical analysis will for instance shed some light on how revenue is being used. In this case, each component of the companies' financial statements will be converted into a percentage of a key component of either the balance sheet or the income statement. A special common size balance sheet and income statement will be utilized to ease comparison. The

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.

Cash flow from operations to total liabilities ratio for 2010 is 15.1% and for 2009 is 11.7%. Financially healthy company has cash flow from operations to total liabilities ratio of 20% or more. Dollar General has a high long-term liquidity risk. Interest coverage Ratio for 2010 is 3.6 and for 2009 is 1.6. A high fluctuation makes the company risky, although it exceeded a 3.0 benchmark in 2010 it should show this stability over time.

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

This is said because the return on assets ratio is low. When it is low the company uses less money on more investment. The profit margin is low as well calculated at only .6% showing that Kudler Foods had a low profit at that reporting time.  The debt to total assets ratio was .28%, which showed the company is healthy. The times interest earned ratio was 9.8%, which backs up claims of financial health. The solvency ratio shows Kudler Foods can pay back long-term obligations. Each ratio has different users interest in mind. Return on common stockholder’s equity is defined as Net Income / Total Capital, and Return on Common Stockholders’ Equity: 676,795 / 1,928,960 = 35.09% Return. Here is a comparison of this (2003) information to the same information from last years’ (2002) records to begin to determine a trend.

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.

On the other hand, Mega Corporation’s financials are going downhill. Despite having a strong balance sheet, there was a benefit pension plan that was hugely under-funded. The income statement was worse. Sales were nearly cut in half, due largely to the fact that foreign competition was squeezing out the margins. Profits and cash flow dropped even more than sales.

BBC’s working capital policy was too conservative. This is apparent in their high level of net working capital with more than 4.2 million in 2010-2011 fiscal year. Although, the net working capital was in the positive figures, their assets were 10 time more than their liabilities. When further reviewing this figure it is because they have a large amount of inventory and accounts receivable. Their liquid assets to total assets ration was between 62% and 66%. Where industry bench marks are 30%.