Tire City, Inc. Case Discussion

Professor Thomas Piper prepared the original version of this note, “Assessing a Firm’s Future Financial Health,” HBS No. 201-077, which is being

"Generally, a plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that complete domination ' was exercised over a corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, ' and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury '" (Williams v Lovell Safety Mgt. Co., LLC, 71 AD3d

Identify the battery issue involving defendants Green and DeVon in the case of Paur v. Rose City Dodge, Inc

The current cash debt ratio only measures the ability of a firm 's cash, along with investments easily converted into cash, to pay its short-term obligations. In 2007, the company has a current cash debt ratio greater than 1 and is in better financial shape than in 2006, when the ratio was less than 1.

Tire City, from the projections, seems to be headed in the correct direction. In the fiscal year 1996, even with increasing debt by 351 thousand dollars, Tire City turned a profit. The expansionary vision that has been given seems to project to more revenue, which increases from 23,505 to 28,206, and a healthy growth rate that can be viewed as sustainable. One precaution to this is the anomaly that takes place in the inventory in 1996. This should be monitored closely and inquired about the reasoning of capping the inventory at 1625 for that year. The total assets of the company is still greater than the liabilities, which leads me to believe that they are structured correctly and have taken the necessary precautions in their capital structure.

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 more tell tale sign is the quick ratio, or acid test, which has increased year after year. Debt to total assets has decreased over 5% since 2001, indicating less financing of current and long term debt and more company assets. Their cash debt coverage far surpasses the ideal 20%, indicating a high level of solvency with sufficient funds and assets to satisfy all debtors. Asset turnover has more or less maintained at right around 1.6, signifying a turnover rate of just less than 180 times per year.

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.

The standard for terminal growth is normally GDP, or 3%. Given the maturity of this

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

Target Corporation is having a very stable financial policy and dividend policy. From the historical financial data, Target had debt $11,044M, $11,202M, $10,599M, $17,471M, and $19,882M in the year of 2005,2006,2007,2008, and 2009 respectively. The long-term debt/equity ratio rises from 69.34% to 108%.

Debt-to Asset Ratio indicates that 48% of AMT's assets money comes from creditors (1985). In addition, the low current ration implies lack of liquidity (1.78 for 1986). Therefore, the company needs to rely heavily on outside financing to meet maturing obligations since there is no operating income.

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.

This is due to the fact that inventory and accounts receivable are left out of the equation. Based on the cash ratio, this company carries a low cash balance. This may be an indication that they are aggressively investing in assets that will provide higher returns. We need to make sure that we have enough cash to meet our obligations, but too much cash reduces the return earned by the company.