Download Understanding Financial Ratios: From Basic Calculation to Professional Analysis and more Exams Business Finance in PDF only on Docsity!
Interpretation of Financial Statements
By: Brendan Doyle, BA (Hons) in Accounting, MBS Accounting, MA, H. Dip. Ed.
Acting Head of Department of Accounting & Business Computing in Athlone Institute of Technology, Examiner CPA: Professional 1 Corporate Reporting Date: February
This article is designed to assist students in preparing for questions on the interpretation of financial statements on the P1 Corporate Reporting paper. It is also likely to be of benefit to students of P Advanced Corporate Reporting and F2 Financial Accounting.
Introduction:
Interpretation of financial statements can seem to be more straightforward than it actually is. Many students feel it is sufficient to learn off selected ratios and apply them mechanically to financial statements in order to calculate their values. Whilst this is not incorrect, it will grow increasingly insufficient as one climbs the ladder towards the professional levels.
The reason for this is that professional exams are designed to test your professional skills. Learning ratios off by heart and applying them blindly is not a professional skill. The professional approaches the task of analysis like a detective investigating a case. S/he reviews the available information, selects appropriate tools of analysis, applies them to the information given and interprets the results carefully. Ratios constitute one category of analytical tools. The professional analyst uses existing knowledge to form theories, then tests those theories hoping to draw measured conclusions from the results. S/he is always alert for distorting events which may lead the investigator down the wrong path.
This article will review key ratios, but more importantly, will attempt to teach the reader how to raise the standard of analysis. It is important to apply the tool to the information given in an intelligent way, demonstrating that you understand what the information is and is not saying. Examiners will reward the candidates who prove that they have the professional skills to do this. Throughout the article, contrast will be drawn between a basic non-professional answer, and one that would meet the standard demanded by today’s profession.
There is an inherent contradiction in the use of ratios for analysis. The information used is generally historic, yet those using ratios almost always want to try and form a view of what the future might hold. Hence in the analysis of ratios it is rarely sufficient to state what happened in the past. We must make an effort to project what this means for the future. Obviously we cannot be definite about the future, but business strategy is often dependent on assessing the probabilities and making measured decisions based on these assessments. Hence a good analyst will analyse the implication of his/her analysis for future decisions. We are not crystal ball gazing, but merely analysing information to improve future vision.
Financial Ratios:
Figures are only meaningful when compared to something. You must judge everything against some benchmark, otherwise it doesn’t tell you anything. For example is 64% a good mark to achieve in an accounting exam? It is impossible to give an intelligent answer without knowing at least some important information for comparison, such as: What is the pass mark? What is the average mark for the group being assessed? What was the best / worst mark attained by other students? What were last year’s marks like?
We can judge figures against standards, against similar numbers for prior periods, or against similar figures for other companies. Only then may we gain useful information from them.
Financial ratios may be divided into five main categories. These are: (i) Profitability (ii) Liquidity (iii) Gearing (iv) Activity (Operating) (v) Investor
It is vital that the most important ratios are learned, and that intelligent comment can be made on the results.
We will consider the categories one by one. Detailed examples are given in the case of profitability and liquidity. Due to space limitations it has not proven possible to provide further examples. The reader is referred to the P1 Corporate Reporting August 2012 Question 2 and its published solution for a further example.
(I) Profitability:
The key issue here is the amount of profit the business is making. Is it enough considering the volume of goods sold? Is it enough to justify the amount of capital invested in the business? How does it compare with prior periods? How does it compare with other firms in the same industry? There are several measures of profit used in analysis. It is important to be intelligent in your choice of measure.
The main profitability ratios are as follows. Sometimes different formulae are used. It is less important which formula is used than it is to be consistent in application and analysis. For example if your net margin formula is based on profit before interest and tax (as below) you should not cite an increase in the tax rate as a reason for a decline in the net margin!!
(a) Gross Margin = Gross Profit * 100
Revenue
(b) Net Margin = Net Profit before Interest and Tax * 100
Revenue
(c) Return on Capital Employed = Profit Before Interest, Tax and Dividends * 100 Total Capital Employed [incl. interest bearing debt]
ROCE is a very powerful ratio when used correctly. In general, investing in a business is riskier than bank deposits, so the business should earn a ROCE sufficiently in excess of the return available from deposit accounts to compensate for the risk being taken. In addition, if a business has borrowings, the ROCE should exceed the cost of borrowing.
ROE is a narrower way of assessing profitability. It takes profit attributable to equity shareholders divided by the equity investment in the firm. This excludes preference shares and interest bearing debt (which is why the top line excludes interest and preference dividends), therefore it is more relevant for shareholders. We often take closing equity as the denominator, whereas an average equity figure could be more accurate. However as long as the formula is consistent, comparisons and trends should remain valid.
Suggested solution:
Ratio calculation 2014 2013
Gross margin 6,000/35,000 5,800/32, 17.1% 18.1%
Net margin (1,550 + 1,100 + 500) (1,600 + 1,400 + 500) 35,000 32, 9.0% 10.9%
Return on Capital Employed (1,550 + 1,100 + 500) (1,600 + 1,400 + 500) (17,500 + 6,250) (17,000 + 6,250) 13.3% 15.1%
Return on Equity 1,550 1, 17,500 17, 8.9% 9.4%
Weak analysis of profitability ratios (not adequate for professional level) Gross margin and net margin have both declined, although not by much. The company should watch out in case these ratios decline further. ROCE and ROE have also declined. Again, the decline is not massive but if it continues the company will find itself unable to continue in business. Overall the company is quite profitable, although profitability according to every measure is declining marginally. I recommend the company look at improving cost control to improve profits.
[This answer is typical of what is presented by some candidates at professional level, but offers almost no value added. The ratio calculation, if correct, would win the bulk of marks awarded here. The last point is the best, as it offers some concrete analysis of the reason for the profit decline (costs have risen disproportionately) and a potential solution (control costs better).]
Better analysis of profitability (professional level) Overall it appears the profitability of this business has declined year on year, despite a 9.4% sales increase from €32,000 to €35,000. To ascertain the likely cause of this let us examine some popular profitability ratios. Gross margin has declined from 18.1% to 17.1% while gross profit itself increased by 3.4%. As gross profit is made up of sales less cost of sales, this must mean either that sales prices fell or cost of sales (essentially purchase prices) increased relative to each other from 2013 to 2014. It seems highly possible that the company's management engaged in price cutting strategies to increase sales. If so, they succeeded in increasing sales (by 9.4%), but the additional margin contributed by the extra sales was almost outweighed by the lost margin over the total goods sold, resulting in a much smaller increase in gross profit (3.4%). This could still be good business strategy, as it is the total profit that counts at the end of the day. However we need to consider if the increased activity level (higher sales) caused any other costs (e.g. overheads). If the extra sales caused no extra overheads, then we are € better off. The net margin analyses the net profit from operations only (excluding interest and tax). Here we see the net profit % has declined from 10.9% to 9%, and the actual expenses figure is up from €2,300 to €2,850. This suggests that the extra sales activity may have cost €550 in extra overheads. The €200 in extra gross profit does not compensate for this, therefore the strategy would appear to have failed. Note that we do not know what the operating costs would have been in 2014 had sales remained unchanged. We are assuming they would have been similar to 2013. However, we are informed that the expenses figure in 2014 was increased by a loss on disposal of €300. This distorts the comparison with 2013. Recalculating the net margin excluding the one-off loss gives a figure of 9.9%, and a PBIT of €3,450. This is still a disimprovement on 2013 but not as bad as superficial analysis suggests. Crucially, the operating expenses would have been €2,550 in 2014 had this loss not occurred. Hence the decision to cut prices and increase volume (if indeed this was the case) nearly broke even. ROCE declined marginally from 15.1% to 13.3%. If the one-off loss on disposal were excluded the ROCE in 2014 would have been 14.5% (3,450 / 23,750), a much lesser decline. ROCE should be adequate to reward the investor for investing their money in a risky business over playing it safer with bonds or deposits. On this basis, 14.5% is still a respectable pre-tax return on money invested. However this should be judged in the context of the riskiness of the business. There is little means of assessing this risk given in the question. ROE is an alternative, narrower, measure of return. It focuses on equity holders only, and gives an after-tax return on equity. The decline from 9.4% to 8.9% is within normal business fluctuations, and would not be considered alarming. However the longer term trend in both ratios should be observed and if the decline has persisted for a few years, remedial action should be considered. The exclusion of the one-off expense in 2014 would affect the ROE ratio, but it is difficult to quantify this. The reason for the difficulty is that the loss on disposal is likely to have had an effect on the tax charge. It is not possible to assess this from the information given. As ROE is an after-tax calculation, it is meaningless to adjust the expenses figure without also adjusting the tax figure. ROCE is based on profit before tax, therefore this issue does not arise. It is relevant to note that the cost of debt appears to be 8% (500/6,250). It is important that the ROCE exceeds the cost of debt. There is, after all, little sense in borrowing money at 8% if the return on capital is only 6%. In this case, the ROCE comfortably exceeds the cost of debt. Both are assessed on a pre-tax basis so are comparable.
An excessive current ratio means that money is sitting in current assets (receivables, inventory or cash) earning very poor returns. This is an inefficient use of capital. It may be better invested in more productive assets, used to pay down debt, or returned to shareholders.
If the current ratio appears to be problematic we should analyse the situation further to ascertain the reason for the problem. Possible causes could be excessive inventory levels (poor policy, slow moving goods, obsolete stock etc.), poor trade receivable control (leading to increased bad debt risk), or excessive cash levels.
The acid test ratio (also called the quick ratio) is a stricter test of liquidity as in excludes the effect of inventory from current assets. This is because inventory is the least liquid of current assets. An ideal level for this ratio is 1:1 or thereabouts. This level means short term assets are sufficient to meet short term liabilities without needing to sell any more inventory. Inventory is the least liquid current asset as there are two steps required to turn it into cash: (1) sell it, and (2) get paid.
Adverse liquidity ratios may indicate overtrading. This is where a firm is carrying on a volume of business for which it doesn't have the capital. Requirement to purchase inventory is increasing faster than cash is coming in from sales. Trade payables and bank overdrafts are bridging the gap. This cannot continue, as lenders and suppliers will call a halt. At that stage the firm will not be able to meet its payments and so will collapse.
Suggested solution:
Ratio calculation 2014 2013
Current Ratio 5,600/5,100 4,400/2, 1.1:1 1.52:
Acid Test Ratio (5,600 – 5,100)/ 5,100 (4,400-2,750)/2, 0.098:1 0.57: Weak analysis might contain the following points: Current ratio has declined from 1.52:1 to 1.1:1 from 2013 to 2014. This figure should be 2:1. Therefore it is inadequate in both years. Acid test ratio has declined from 0.57:1 to 0.098:1. This is extremely poor as it should be 1:1. Overall the liquidity of this company is terrible.
Better analysis might consider the following: It is clear that both liquidity ratios have declined significantly year on year. As the company is in the retail trade, and trade receivables are insignificant, it would appear that most of its sales are for cash, with little sales on credit. This would normally mean liquidity ratios could be maintained more tightly than the normal 2:1 for the current ratio and 1:1 for the acid test. However the present levels of 1.1:1 and 0.098:1 respectively are at crisis levels and are indicative of a severe liquidity problem with this company. In addition to the ratios, the actual cash position has deteriorated from positive €1,550 to negative €500. The questions are: what is the cause and what needs to be done to rectify it. We are informed that the company opened a third retail outlet during the year 2014. This is likely to be the cause of the revenue increasing by 41% from €32,000 to €45,000.
However profitability has actually declined by €50 after tax. This indicates that there are problems turning the extra revenues into profits. This may be due to one-off costs in opening the new store. Further investigation may reveal if this is the case. The most obvious symptom of the trouble is the increase in inventory levels from €2,750 to €5,100, an increase of 85%. Normally an increase in line with turnover would be reasonable, or even 50% increase as the number of outlets increased by 50%. An 85% inventory increase on a revenue increase of 41% indicates a problem. The cause of this could be inventory obsolescence. In other words we may be experiencing difficulty selling the inventory we are carrying. If this is the case, a large write-down could be required in the future. This would cause a large loss, plus it would have a detrimental effect on the already poor current ratio (it would of course have no effect on the acid test ratio). Alternatively the build-up could be caused by bulk buying at a discount. If this is the case, the excess inventory should unwind over time. Meanwhile, current liabilities need to be paid, and it seems unlikely that the inventory can be sold quickly enough to achieve this. It is possible that we may be able to negotiate longer credit terms with our suppliers. However there is usually a hidden cost to this in terms of higher purchase prices. In any case, tax creditors will not countenance extensions to payment dates without hefty interest charges. Hence, it would seem that the company needs to raise some longer term finance, either through bank loans or additional equity.
(III) Gearing:
Gearing refers to the way the company is financed. It is concerned with two types of financing, namely Debt (borrowings) and Equity (shareholders’ funds). Gearing can be understood as long term liquidity. There are three main ratios used to assess gearing:
(a) Debt / Equity Ratio = Total interest bearing debt Total Equity
(b) Debt / Total Capital = Total interest bearing debt Debt + Equity
(c) Interest Cover = Profit before interest and tax Interest payable
Interpretation of gearing ratios:
The first two ratios essentially measure the same thing, but express it in different ways. The higher the gearing ratios, the higher the debt level of the business. This can be good or bad. A certain level of debt is good because it leverages the equity. This means a given level of equity can be used to finance a much greater level of investment. The shareholders gain from this provided the return earned by the extra investment exceeds the cost of borrowing.
However, too much borrowing increases the risk of the company not being able to meet its repayments as they fall due. If this happens the company will be put into receivership and may well be wound up. The higher the level of borrowing, the less able the company is to withstand a downturn in business (as it must meet contractual interest and capital payments regardless).
Trade payables payment period gives the same information for suppliers. If this is too low, we may not be availing of full credit terms. This costs money in interest if we are borrowing. If the period is too high, it may indicate difficulty in paying on time. If this continues, the relationship with suppliers may be damaged. There may be a relationship between the payment period and the price paid for goods. For this reason, a longer payment period may be saving us interest, but costing us more in lost goodwill and higher product prices. Likewise, a shorter payment period may be a result of strong price negotiations, especially if the business has surplus cash.
The operating cycle is a measure of the length of time the business must finance goods itself. In other words, we purchase goods, hold them in inventory for x days, then sell them and wait y days to be paid. suppliers finance a portion of this, the rest must be financed by the business. This generates no return, so the shorter the operating cycle is the better.
In each case, if an adverse ratio is spotted, look for a logical reason for the ratio’s value. Look for reasons consistent with other observations you have made, and attempt to corroborate your opinion with further information or ratios.
(V) Investor Ratios:
These ratios are especially relevant to investors, especially in quoted companies which have a verifiable share value. The most important ones are as follows:
(a) Earnings per share = Profit attributable to ordinary shareholders No. of Ordinary Shares
(b) Price earnings ratio = Price per share Earnings per share
(c) Earnings yield = Earnings per share * Price per share
(d) Dividend per share = Total ordinary dividend for year No. of ordinary Shares
(e) Dividend yield = Dividend per share * 100 Price per share
(f) Dividend cover = Earnings per share Dividends per share
Interpretation of investment ratios
It is important to realise that the ratio is only as good as the figures inputted into it. It is vital that the correct definitions of profits, dividends, etc. are used.
Profit attributable to ordinary shareholders must be calculated after tax, interest and preference dividends. The higher EPS is the better. It is useful to express profits in this way because it takes account of the impact of share issues on the share of the profit any individual shareholder is entitled to.
The P/E ratio gives a measure of the market’s view of the value of the company in terms of its earnings. The higher the P/E, the higher the share is valued by the market. This could be due to good growth prospects (expectations of higher earnings in the future), or market forces (demand for the share outstripping supply). It could also indicate overvaluation and the risk of future price falls. A low P/E may represent a buying opportunity, but there could be a reason for the poor rating.
Dividends represent the income on a share. The amount per share and the yield give an indication of the value of the dividend to the shareholder. The dividend yield could be compared with the deposit rate to assess the performance of the share from the investor’s viewpoint. The dividend cover gives a measure of how likely the dividend is to be sustained or to grow into the future. A high dividend cover indicates a high likelihood that the rate of dividend will be maintained or increased. However be careful if only one or two years’ figures are used for analysis. They may not be representative of the figures over the longer term.
Conclusion:
The key purpose of this article was to raise awareness among professional students regarding the calibre of answer required in questions on the topic of interpretation of financial statements. The topic lends itself very well to testing understanding of accounting concepts, as it is difficult to learn answers or formats off by heart. It is essential that an effort is made to use and add value to the information given in the question. Take every opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of any ratios used in your analysis. Be aware of the limitations of ratio analysis generally and those of individual ratios. Common sense rules in this topic more so that in any other topic in accounting.
