4.2.6 Cash Flow Statement – TSH Resources Berhad
Summaries of Cash Flow Statement of TSH Resources Berhad from the years 2000 to 2009
4.3 CALCULATION OF FINANCIAL RATIOS ANALYSES
4.3.1 Liquidity ratios
The calculation of Liquidity ratios and results of Kwantas Corp. in financial year from 2000 to 2009
Figure 2.2
The calculation of Liquidity ratios and results of TSH Resources in financial year from 2000 to 2009
- Profitably Ratios
The calculation of Profitability Ratios and results of Kwantas Corp. in financial year from 2000 to 2009
The calculation of Profitability Ratios and results of TSH Resources in financial year from 2000 to 2009
4.3.3 Efficiency Ratios
The calculation of Efficiency Ratios and results of Kwantas Corp. in financial year from 2000 to 2009
The calculation of Efficiency Ratios and results of TSH Resources in financial year from 2000 to 2009
4.3.4 Investment ratios
The calculation of Investment ratios and results of Kwantas Corp. in financial year from 2000 to 2009
The calculation of Investment ratios and TSH Resources in financial year from 2000 to 2009
- Gearing Ratios
The calculation of Gearing ratios and results of Kwantas Corp. in financial year from 2000 to 2009
The calculation of Gearing ratios and results of TSH Resources in financial year from 2000 to 2009
4.4 FINANCIAL INTERPRETATION AND COMPARISON BETWEEN TSH RESOURCES BERHAD AND KWANTAS CORPORATION BERHAD
4.4.1 Comparison of Companies Liquidity
Chart 1.1 : Current Ratios
We are assuming that the industry plantation current ratio is 1.5 times and from the Charts 1.1, we can see that current ratios of THS Resources Berhad are higher than currents ratios of Kwantas Corporation from the year 2000 until 2009. The higher current ratios which recorded by THS was 2.26:1.5 in year 2004 but its decline to 1: 1.5 in year 2009. This might be the high level of stock held by the company.
Compared with Kwantas, the average current ratios from year 2000 until 2009 kept in the same steady which is below the industry ratio. It might be the high level of stock held by the company. The results are TSH’s current ratios are better than Kwantas Resources’ current ratios. However, both of the company might have no problem paying its current obligations on time.
Chart 1.2 : Quick Ratios
Assumed that the quick ratios (Acid-test ratio) of industry ratio of 0.8 times. From the Chart 1.2, we can see that the quick ratios of TSH are higher than quick ratios of Kwantas Corporation. The quick ratio which is exactly the same as current ratio, however stock is not taken into account. The analysis of quick ratios shows that the TSH Resources has more liquidity of cash compared to the Kwantas Resources. It difficult for both of companies to pay its current liabilities when need arises if the ratios are below 0.8 times.
We have concluded that the Kwantas Corporation Berhad is significantly less liquid than the TSH Resources Berhad as a whole from year 2000 to 2009.
4.4.2 Comparison of Companies Profitability
Chart 1.3 : Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)
Chart 1.4 : Return on Total Assets (ROTA)
Chart 1.6 : Gross Profit Margin
Chart 1.7 : Net Profit Margin
The summarised of Income Statement of Kwantas Corporation Berhad from the years 2000 to 2008 has shows that the group company’s revenue were steady increased from RM759m to RM3.45b but in year 2009 and its declined to M1.56b in respectively. The profits of group of company were decreased from RM30.5m to RM7.43m in year 2000 until 2003. The next following year until 2009, its show that the group was recorded steady inclined profits from the amounts of RM36.3m to RM213.3m. However, the group was recorded amount of RM95.3m of losses in year 2009.
The analysis of Charts 1.6 & 1.7, show that the average gross profits margin of the group at rate of 10% to 13% from year 2000 until 2007 and its means that group had efficiency in term of controlling cost of good sold especially inventory management. However, the gross profit margin decreased sharply from 11.3% to 4.4% in year 2008 to 2009 in respectively due to decreased sold of palm oil products from RM3.1b to RM1.5b in that financial years. Other factor to contribute decreased of group’s income in year 2009 is uncertainty in the pricing CPO. From this situation the values of ROCE and ROTA of group’s were negatives in year 2009 as per shown in charts 1.3 and 1.4.
Moreover, the summarised of Income Statement of TSH Resources Berhad has show that the total revenues of company’s group from year 2000 until 2009 were inclined from RM175m to RM1.1b but the revenues decreased to 12% with amount RM980m at next following year. We also find that the group company’s gross profit margin as shows in the Chart 1.6 is consistent growth at averages above 20% from years 2000 to 2008 but its were decreased in year 2008 and 2009 at rates of 19.55% and 17.78% in respectively. The gross profits margin of company’s group decreased due to declined sales of oil palm products in year 2008 and 2009. However, the company still an efficiency in controlling cost of sold and the gross profit margin higher compared to Kwantas Corporation Berhad.
The Charts 1.7 has shows that the higher net profit margin was recorded in year 2004 at rate of 17.38% but the it were decreased from year 2005 to 2009 at 9.13%, 10.23% ,12.45%, 5.91% and 8.55% in respectively. If, the industry average at 8% is will shows that the company have controlled their operation expenses. The Charts of 1.3 & 1.4 are show that the TSH Resources’ ROCE and ROTA a positive values from year 2000 until 2009. It show that the company given better return to the shareholders and indicates the management’s TSH Resources Berhad has abilities to make profits from the investment in assets.
To sum up, we agreed that the profitability of TSH Resources Berhad is higher than Kwantas Coporation Berhad from year 2000 until 2009.
4.4.3 Comparison of Company Efficiency
Chart 1.8 : Assets Turnover
We are assumed that industry average is 1.5x and from the Charts 1.8 shows that the average assets turnover for Kwantas Corporation is generating a higher volume of sales with the given amount of assets as compared with industry average. In compared with TSH Resources Berhad’s asset turnover is shows that a lower ratio than the industry’s might be indicate that a company should increase its sales or some assets may need to be disposed off. Some possible other factors for a low asset turnover ratio include under-utilized of fixed assets which indicates an inefficient use of these assets to produce sales.
Charts 1.9 : Inventory Turnover
Moreover, the Kwantas Corporation’s inventory turnover ratio as shows on Chart 1.9 is well below the industry average. It indicates that the company is less efficient, has excess stocks and there takes a longer time to convert its stocks into sales. But it was contrast to TSH Resources’ inventory turnover ratio is well above the industry average and its indicates the company may well be turning over its stock slowly; improvements were made in the years 2005, as it was able to sell stock more quickly at next following years.
Charts 1.10: Accounts receivable ratios
Next, on the Charts 1.10, has shows that Kwantas Corporation’s accounts receivable ratios are well control in term of average collection periods less than 60 days from year 2000 to 2008 but the collection period in year 2009 to increased to 75 days and its inefficient. Hence, TSH Resources’ accounts receivable ratios are above of industry ratio and it might be the company has inefficient in extending credit and collecting debts.
Charts 1.11 : Account payable ratios
However, the both companies have same average fluctuation in term of account payable ratios (Chart 1.11) and its indicates that they did not account for any current liabilities such account payable in keep long term periods to pay to their suppliers.
4.4.4 Comparison of Investment Ratios
Charts 1.12 : Earning Per Shares (EPS)
Earning per shares (EPS), is one of the most widely used ratios concerning common stock and mainly used by public companies. As shows on the Charts 1.12, indicates that TSH Resources’ EPS have positive values from year 2000 to 2009 and it shareholders were earned profits per unit issued share. Contrast, the Kwantas Corporation’s EPS has positive values from the year 2000 until 2008 but it declined to negative value in the year 2009 at value -0.23 sen per share. As an investor, we should concern to a higher value EPS in order getting a higher profit per share. In additional, the PE and dividend payout ratios for THS Resources are slightly well indicator to investors in holding company compared to the Kwantas Corporation Berhad’s ratios from year 2000 to 2009.
Charts 1.13 : Dividend Yield
This ratio used to compares the dividend per share received by shareholder with the current market share price. Based on the Chart 1.13, it shows that TSH Resources Berhad’s dividend yields are well return to investors from year the 2000 until 2009. However, the Kwantas Corporation dividend yields are inconsistent from year the 2000 to 2009. In year 2008, the company does not declare the dividend to their shareholder.
4.4.5 Comparison of Gearing Ratios
Charts 1.14 : Debt Ratios
Total debt comprises current liabilities plus long term-term liabilities. The above Chart 1.14 has indicates that TSH Resources has lower borrowings than Kwantas Corporation Berhad in the same industry. We find that only approximately at 33% to 48.06% of its assets are financed by debt from year 2000 to 2009, while the remainder are financed using shareholder’s equity. Hence, the data show that the debts ratios of the company keep steady increased from year 2000 until 2009 and it approximately an equivalent to industry average ratios.
The Kwantas Corporation Berhad has shows that the debt ratios more than 50% and it contrast to debt ratios of TSH Resources Berhad from the year 2000 to 2009. In general opinion, if the company has higher debt ratio, the more risk that company is considered to have taken on.
In additional, we are find the gearing ratio and times interest earned ratios of TSH Resources Berhad, indicates that the company might be able repayment its medium and long-term debt commitment on time.
4.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSES FINDING FOR TSH RESOURCES BERHAD AND KWANTAS CORPORATION BERHAD
In above analyses, we find that financial positions for TSH Resources Corporation are healthy compared to Kwantas Corporation Berhad, despite both of companies in the same industry of palm oil plantation. However, TSH Resouces Corporation and Kwantas Corporation Berhad have well maintain their cash flow from year the 2000 until 2009 and it very important to maintain positive cash flow for fulfill the risk obligation in the shot-term. Follows as the summarise of the companies strenght data:
Based on our analyses and finding, we are concluded that strongly advisable to invest in commons stock of TSH Resources Berhad for the plantation industry portfolio.
5.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF SHANGRI-LA HOTELS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD AND GRAND CENTRAL ENTERPRISE BERHAD
5.1 COMPANY BACKGROUND
5.1.1 Shangri-La Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad
Shangri-La Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad is a Malaysia-based company engaged in investment holding and the operation of a beach resort. The Company operates in three segments: hotels, resorts and golf course, which is engaged in hotel, beach resort and golf course business; investment properties, which include rental from offices, shoplots and apartment and rental of car parks, and others, which include commercial laundry services and investment holding. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company's hotel properties are Rasa Sayang Resort & Spa, Shangri-La Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Traders Hotel Penang, Golden Sands Resort, Palm Beach Resort and Rasa Ria Resort. As of December 31, 2009, the Companies subsidiaries are Shangri-La Hotel (KL) Sdn Bhd, Golden Sands Beach Resort Sdn Bhd, UBN Holdings Sdn Bhd, UBN Tower Sdn Bhd, Pantai Emas Sdn Bhd, Madarac Corporation, Palm Beach Hotel Sdn Bhd and Wisegain Sdn Bhd, among others. The company is based in Penang, Malaysia. Shangri-La Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad is a subsidiary of Hoopersville Limited.
5.1.2 Grand Central Enterprise Berhad
Grand Central Enterprises Bhd. is a Malaysia-based company engaged in the hotel business, provision of limousine services and hotel management services. The hotels owned by the Company include Hotel Grand Continental Kuala Lumpur, Hotel Grand Continental Kuching, Hotel Grand Continental Kuala Terengganu, Hotel Grand Continental Kuantan, Hotel Grand Continental Langkawi, Hotel Grand Continental Malacca and Hotel Grand Central Kuala Lumpur. As of December 31, 2009, the Company had nine subsidiaries, namely Grand Central (K.L.) Sdn. Bhd., Grand Central Enterprises (Malacca) Sdn. Bhd., Hotel Grand Olympic (M) Sdn. Bhd., Grand Central Trans-Services Sdn. Bhd., Grand Island Hotel (Langkawi) Sdn. Bhd., Grand Central Enterprises (Pahang) Sdn. Bhd., Grand Central Enterprises (Trengganu) Sdn. Bhd., Grand Central Enterprises (Sarawak) Sdn. Bhd. and Grand Central Enterprises (Perak) Sdn. Bhd.
This part of report will assess the financial health of Shangri-La Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad and Grand Capital Enterprise Berhad in the financial year from the year 2000 to 2009. There are two steps in the process of evaluation. Firstly, the comparison of both of the companies accounting ratios should be analyzed from the year of 2000 to 20009. Secondly, comparison between both companies will be done as well from the year of 2000 to 2009. Five categories of ratio have been used to analyze the financial health of both companies, which are liquidity ratios, profitability ratios, efficiency ratios, investments ratios and gearing ratios respectively.
5.2 The SWOT Analysis
5.2.1 Shangri-La Hotels (Malaysia) Berhad
Strength
- Uncommonly high service standards
- Low turnover compare to industry
- Strong brand name and company reputation
Weakness
- Losing market share to rivals
- Unattractive compensation packages
- Failure to understand cultural differences
- Deviating toward a global strategy
Opportunities
- Gain market share North America and Europe
- Increase presence in China and Asia
- Relaxed travel restrictions
- Rising urban incomes
- Operational efficiency due to building design
Threats
- Loss of employees to rivals
- Increase in the cost of labor
- Current economic situation
- Restrictions on travel
5.2.2 Grand Central Enterprise Berhad
Strength
- Uncommonly high service standards
- Strong brand name and company reputation
Weakness
- Losing market share to rivals
- Unattractive compensation packages
- Higher overall unit costs relative to rivals
Opportunities
- Increase presence in China and Asia
- Relaxed travel restrictions
- Rising urban incomes
Threats
- Loss of employees to rivals
- Increase in the cost of labor
- Current economic situation
- Restrictions on travel
- FINANCIAL DATA
5.3.1 Income Statement of Shangri-La
5.3.2 Income Statement of Grand Central
5.3.3 Balance Sheet of Shangri-La
5.3.4 Balance Sheet of Grand Central
5.3.5 Cash Flow Statement of Shangri-La
5.3.6 Cash Flow Statement of Grand Central
5.4 CALCULATION OF FINANCIAL RATIOS ANALYSES
5.4.1 Liquidity Ratios
5.4.1.1 Current Ratio
Current ratio = Current Assests
Current Liabilities
5.4.1.2 Quick Ratio
Quick Ratio = Current Assets – Stock
Current Liabilities
5.4.2 Profitability Ratios
5.4.2.1 Return on Capital Employed
Return on Capital Employed = Earning before Interest and Taxes
Total Assets – Current Liabilities
5.4.2.2 Return on Total Asset
Return on Total Asset = Earning before Interest and Taxes
Total Asset
5.4.2.3 Profit Margin
Profit Margin = Earning before Interest and Taxes
Net Sales
5.4.3 Efficiency Ratio
5.4.3.1 Asset Turnover
Asset Turnover = Net Sales
Total Asset – Current Liabilities
5.4.3.2 Stock Turnover
Stock Turnover = Stock * 365
Cost of Sales
5.4.3.3 Debtors Turnover
Debtors Turnover = Debtors * 365
Net Sales
5.4.3.4 Creditors Turnover
Creditors Turnover = Creditors * 365
Cost of Sales
5.4.4 Investment Ratios
5.4.4.1 Earnings per Share
Earnings per share = Profit after Taxes and Interest
Number of Ordinary Shares
5.4.4.2 Dividend Yield
Dividend Yield = Dividend per Share * 100
Market Price per Share
5.4.4.3 Price Earning Ratio (PE Ratio)
PE Ratio = Market Price per Share
Earning per Share
5.4.5 Gearing Ratios
5.4.5.1 Gearing
Gearing = Long Term Debt * 100
Shareholders Funds
5.4.5.2 Debt Ratio
Debt Ratio = Total Debt * 100
Total Asset
5.5 FINANCIAL INTERPRETATION AND COMPARISON BETWEEN
SHANGRI-LA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD AND GRAND CENTRAL ENTERPRISE BERHAD
5.5.1 Comparison of Current Ratio
The current ratio of Shangri-La from shows a downward pattern from 2000 to 2003. Then from 2004 till 2008, it shows an upward pattern and for the year of 2009 it shows a downward pattern. There is a downward pattern from the year 2000 to 2003 because the percentage of increase in current liabilities is more than the percentage of increase in current assets. While from the year 2004 to 2008 shows an upward pattern because of percentage increase and decrease in current asset is more than the percentage of increase and decrease in current liabilities. The value of current ratio dropped on 2009 because there is a major increase in current liabilities and major decrease in current assets compared to the year 2008.
The current ratio of Grand Central shows a downward and upward pattern and end the remaining four years with a huge upward pattern. The upward and downward pattern changed interchangeably between 2000 to 2005 because the percentage of increase and decrease in current asset and the percentage of increase and decrease in current liabilities change interchangeably as well. While from year 2006 to 2009, there is a gradual increase in current ratio because there a huge increase in current assets from year to year.
Comparing both of the companies, on average, it is undeniable that Grand Central has a higher level of liquidity compared to Shangri-La. But both companies are considered stable in the industry because the acceptable value of current ratio is 0.30. Having a high value of current ratio may not be a good thing as well. Perhaps it would be better for Grand Capital to use some of its current asset to make some investment because it might bring more return instead of saving it.
5.5.2 Comparison of Quick Ratio
The quick ratio pattern of Shangri-La from 2000 to 2009 is pretty much similar as current ratio. There is a sharp decrease because there is huge increase in current liabilities as well as having a large amount of inventory in hand. Quick ratio increases from 2004 to 2008 because the there a huge increase in current assets covering the small increase in current liabilities as well as reduction in liabilities in 2007. The increase in current asset managed to cover the increase of amount of stock in hand. While the quick ratio decrease to 0.29 in 2009 because the increase in current liabilities is much more higher compared to current asset and the amount of stock in hand is quite big as well.
The same goes to the quick ratio pattern of Grand Central. Its pattern is same as its current ratio. The reasoning behind it is the same as well, only this time the amount of stock changes interchangeably as well. The remaining four years have a high quick ratio because the current asset increases around 100,000,000 from year to year compared to a small increase in current liabilities and the small increase or reduction of stock in hand.
Comparing both company, Grand Central has a higher level of liquidity compared to Shangri-La even after minus the amount of stock. Shangri-La must find a way to increase it current asset or reduce its liabilities as well as reducing the amount of stock in hand. This is in order for Shangri-La to have cash to pay its short-term debt as well as the occurrence of emergencies usage. On the other hand, with so much cash in hand, Grand Central should use the money for investment in order to gain more revenue instead of saving it.
5.5.3 Comparison of Return on Capital Employed
The return on capital employed of Shangri-La shows a negative return on 2001. From that onwards, the rate of return keep on increasing until the year 2007 with the highest value of 12.45%. The rate reduces to 8.78% on 2008 and further reduced to 6.1% on 2009. There was a negative return on 2001 because the earning was negative. The rate increases from 2002 until 2007 because the earnings keep on increasing from year to year except 2006. The rate increases as well as the gap difference between current asset and current liabilities is getting bigger except 2006. The rate increases at 2006 although there is reduction of earnings in 2006 but the current asset reduced as well. Both the rate of year 2008 and 2009 was reduced because earnings have dropped and the increase in current liabilities is higher than the increase in current asset.
For Grand Central, the rate was reduced in 2001 because the earnings and current asset have been reduced while current liabilities increase. From 2002 until 2005, the rate increases because the earnings and current asset increases and current liabilities reduce. On 2006, the rate reduces happen due to the reduction in earnings. On 2007, the rate increases because the earnings have doubled. On 2008, rate was reduced slightly as earning reduced slightly as well and 2009, rate was reduced to 4.9% because earnings have dropped drastically.
Although the rate of return has a downward pattern for both companies from 2008 to 2009, the rate is considered acceptable because it still brings positive returns from the usage of capital. The interest of capital is in the range of 1% to 3%. But it wise for both company to show an upward pattern instead of a downward pattern. It is for the purpose to show a positive credibility to the shareholders and investors.
5.5.4 Comparison of Return on Total Asset
The rate of return on asset for Shangri-La on 2000 was 5.57%. The rate of return was negative on –0.91% on 2001 due to the fact of negative earning. The rate increases from 2002 until 2007 because the percentage of increase in earnings is higher than the percentage of increase in total asset except for the year of 2006. The rate still increases on 2006 because the reduction in earnings is divided with a reduction in total assets as well. There is a downward reduction in the rate of return from 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 because the amounts of earnings have been reduced and the amounts of total asset have increased.
The rate of return on total asset for Grand Capital shows an inconsistent pattern. On 2000, the rate was 1.65%. On 2001, the rate reduced to 1.36% because the percentage of reduction in earnings is more than the percentage of reduction in total assets. From that on, the rate increases from 2002 to 2005 as the amount of earnings increases from year to year. Rate was reduced to 3.74% on 2006 because earnings have dropped. The rate was almost doubled the following year because the amount of earnings almost doubled as well. The following two years shows a downward pattern because the amount of earnings was reduced as well from year to year.
Comparing both companies, Grand Central is more effective in using its assets to generate revenue. Although Shangri-La produces higher value of return compared to Grand Central, but there is a higher risk involve because the patter of return is more volatile from year to year.
5.5.5 Comparison of Profit Margin
The profit margin of Shangri-La was 23.85% on 2000. However, the profit margin was negative on 2001 with the value of -5.45 as the earning was negative. The rate increases from 2002 to 2005 due to the fact that there were increases in earnings. In addition, during this period, the increase in net sales is not as much as the increase in earnings. On 2006, the profit margin reduces to 16.49% as earning was reduced. Profit margin increases to 26.33% on 2007 due to the fact that the earnings have doubled. The profit margin of 2008 and 2009 was reduced to 19.1% and 15.5% respectively because the amount of earnings for both years have been reduced compared to previous year.
The profit margin of Grand Central was 14.01%on 2000. The rate reduces to 11.14% on 2001 as earnings dropped to 3835000. The profit margin increases form 2002 to 2005 as the amount of earnings increases during this period of time. Profit margin was reduced to 21.28% on 2006 because amount of earnings was reduced as well. Profit margin increases to 32% on 2007 because the percentage of increase in earnings is higher than the percentage of increase in net sales compared to 2006. The profit margin was further increased to 34.01 as there was increase in earnings and a reduction in net sales. On 2009, the profit margin was reduced to 27.52% as there was reduction in both earnings and net sales.
Grand Central does shows more profit margin compared to Shangri-La and the rate of profit margin from year to year is more stable as well. This outcome is possible due to the fact that the resources used by Grand Central is locally based which is much more cheaper compared to Shangri-La whom used some imported resources. Using cheaper but quality resources contribute to the high profit margin of Grand Capital.
5.5.6 Comaprison of Asset Turnover
The asset turnover of Shangri-La was 0.25 times on 2000. The rate was reduced to 0.17 on 2001 and 2002. This is due to the fact that net sales were reduced and the difference between total asset and current liabilities is getting bigger. Turnover increases to 0.18 and 0.23 on 2003 and 2004 respectively. This is because the net sales for both years increase. Turnover was reduced 0.21 on 2005 as net sales were reduced to 280089000. From the year 2006 to 2008, asset turnover managed to reach the 0.4 barrier as net sales increases and the difference between total assets and current liabilities reduces. On 2009, asset turnover reduces 0.39 as net sales were reduced drastically.
The asset turnover of Grand Central on 2000 was 0.13 times. The value of asset turnover shows an increasing pattern from 2001 to 2007. The value of net sales kept on increasing from year to year during this period of years. In the mean time, the difference of total assets and current liabilities is getting smaller from year to year. The asset turnover for 2008 and 2009 was reduced to 0.19 and 0.18 respectively. The asset turnover was reduced from year to year as the net sales were reduced from year to year.
The amount of turnover rate for Grand Central is lesser than Shangri-La for every year from 2000 to 2009. This is in coherent with the fact that the profit margin of Grand Central is higher compared to Shangri-La. With Shangri-La has a less profit margin, thus it is not surprising that the value of asset turnover is higher than Grand Central. Therefore, we can conclude that Shangri-La charge lower rate of price compared to Grand Central.
5.5.7 Comparison of Stock Turnover
The stock turnover value for Shangri-La was 32 days on 2000. On 2001, the number of days was reduced to 30 days as amount of stock and cost of sales was reduced. The number of days increases to 36 on 2002 as the increase in amount of stock is higher than increase in cost of sales. Amount of days was reduced on 2003 and 2004 as the amounts of stock have been reduced. While for 2005 and 2006, the opposite happen where the amount of days have increases because the amount of stock has increase tremendously while there is only a minor increase in cost of sales. On 2007, the amount days have been reduced to 43 days because the amounts of stock have been reduced. While for 2008 and 2009, the amount of days is 47 days. For 2008, the amount of stock has increase together with the cost of sales. While for 2009, the opposite happens, there is a reduction in stock and cost of sales.
The stock turnover value for Grand Central was 20 days on 2000. The amount of days on 2001 is a tragedy due to the fact that the amount of stock is higher than cost of sales. As a result, it takes more than a year to clear the stocks. The amount of days shows a downward pattern from 2002 to 2005. Grand Central managed to keep a low amount of stock compared to cost of sales. The amount of days increases on 2006 and 2007 because the percentage of increase in stock is higher than percentage of increase in cost of sales. The number of days was reduced on 2008 and 2009 compared to 2007 due to the fact that there were less stock.
Although initially Grand Central has a bad record in making use of the part of its working capital that has been invested in stock, but on the latter part, Grand Capital is able to out-performed Shangri-La in making sure that they have the right amount of stock to avoid stocks becoming obsolete or loss of business opportunities.
5.5.8 Comparison of Accounts Receivable Turnover
For Shangri-La, the number of days for debt turnover increases from the year 2000 to 2003. It started with 29 days, followed by 30 days, 37 days and finally 41 days. The ratio of debtors is higher than the ratio of net sales for all of the four years causing the amount of days increases. The amount of days reduced to 38 days on 2004 because there is a huge increase in net sales compared to the increase in debtors. The amount of days on 2005 and 2006 increases to 43 and 50 days respectively because the amount of debtors increases. While for the year of 2007, 2008 and 2009, the region is on 30-40 days bracket because the amount of debtors have been reduced compared to the year of 2006.
For Grand Central, the number of days for debt turnover reduces from the year 2000 to 2004. This is due to the fact that the amounts of debtors have decreased gradually from year to year except for the year of 2002. Although the amount of debtor doesn’t reduce compared to 2001, but the amount of days was reduced because the amount of net sales has increased. An amount of 53 days was stated for the year of 2005 and 2006 because the percentage of increase in debtors is higher than the percentage of increase in net sales. While from the year of 2007 to 2009, a downward pattern was shown because the amount of debtors have been reducing from year to year.
Comparing both of the company, both of the company is pretty similar in its debt turnover. The only difference is that Shangri-La has to handle a larger amount of debt and net sales compared to Grand Capital. It might be a trouble for Shangri-La if some of its debtors didn’t pay their debt causing Shangri-La short in cash or asset to pay its liabilities or emergencies scenarios.
5.5.9 Comparison of Accounts Payable Turnover
For Shangri-La, the creditors turnover for 2000 was 47 days. The amount of days increases to 132 and 153 for the year of 2001 and 2002 respectively. This is due to the fact that the amounts of creditors have increased for both of the years. The amounts days was reduced dramatically on 2003 to 59 days. This is due to the fact that the amount of creditor for 2003 has been reduced dramatically as well. From the year of 2004 to 2006, the amount of days shows an increasing pattern. For 2005, it is a result of a mixture of slight increase in creditors and a decrease in cost of sales. While for 2006, it is a result of a larger increase in creditors compared to the increase in cost of sales. For 2007 and 2008, the amount of day was less compared to 2006. For 2007,it is because the rate of increase in cost of sales is much more higher than the rate of increase in creditors. While there is a major drop in 2008 because there is a major reduction in creditors and a slight increase in cost of sales only. On 2009, it increases to 80 days as the amounts of cost of sales have been reduced dramatically.
For Grand Capital, the creditors turnover for 2000 was 42 days. The amount of days increases to 850 and 478 for the year of 2001 and 2002 respectively. This is due to the fact that the amounts of creditors are more than the cost of sales. There is an increasing pattern from 2003 to 2005 where the increase in creditors is accompanied by increase in cost of sales as well. While from 2006 to 2009, it shows a downward pattern because the amount of creditors is reducing.
Comparing to both companies, Shangri-La does have an upper hand in paying it credits. But the amount of days shouldn’t be drag until too long as well because it shows the efficiency level of Shangri-La is decreasing. For the year 2009, the amount of cost of sales has been reduced in an alarming rate while the amount of creditors increases. Although Grand Capital has less day in paying its credits, but at least the portion of creditors and cost of sales is more balanced compared to Shangri-La.
5.5.10 Comparison of Earnings per Share
The earnings per share for Shangri-La on 2000 were 0.07. On 2001, the earning was negative (-0.05) because the profit after taxes and interest was negative. From 2002 to 2005, the value of earning shows an upward pattern increasing from 0.01 to 0.04 to 0.07 and to 0.11. This is due to the fact that the amount of profit increases from year to year. While on 2006, the earning dropped to 0.08 because there was a reduction in profit. On 2007, earning increases by 0.1 to 0.18 because the profit increases tremendously, more than double of it. The pattern of from 2007 to 2009 shows a downward pattern. On 2008, the earnings were 0.11 and on 2009, it was 0.08. This is due to the fact that profit has decreased from year to year.
The earnings per share for Grand Central on 2000 were 0.004. The earnings dropped to 0.001 on 2001 as profit was reduced to almost 75%. The earnings increases to 0.006 the following year as profit increases as much as five times more compared to 2001. From 2003 to 2007, there was an upward pattern on the earnings as profit kept on increasing from year to year. Earnings dropped to 0.06 on 2008 and 0.05 on 2009 as amount of profit have been reduced.
Comparing both companies, shareholders would be able to enjoy more earnings in Shangri-La because the earnings is higher than Grand Central for the past five years. But the return of Shangri-La is more volatile compared to Grand Central. Therefore, if investors aim for stability, Grand Central would be a wise choice.
5.5.11 Comparison of Dividend Yield
For Shangri-La, the dividend yield on 2000 was 2.83%. The following to years shows an increase in dividend yield to 2.91% and 3.13% respectively. This is due to the fact that the market price per share has been increased from year to year. From 2003 until 2009, there is an alarming downward pattern where the dividend yield has been reduced from year to year. This is because the market price per share has increased from year to year. The market price per share for 2003 was RM 1.22 and the end for 2009 was RM 3.10.
Meanwhile for Grand Central, the dividend yield on 2000 was 2%. On 2001, the dividend yield decrease to 1.96% because the market price per share has increased. On 2002, the dividend yield increased to 2.08% because market price per share has been reduced to RM 0.48. On 2003, the dividend yield decrease to 1.92% because the market price per share has increased. On 2004 and 2005, the dividend yield increased to 2% and 4.4% respectively. The dividend yield was reduced slightly to 4% on 2006 and increased to 4.47% in 2007. While from 2008 to 2009, there was an increasing pattern in the dividend yield, increasing from 4.11% on 2008 to 4.28% on 2009. This is due to the fact that the market price per share has been reduced to RM 0.70 from RM 0.73.
Comparing to both of the company, Grand Central bring more dividend yield to its shareholders. But there is a possibility Shangri-La brings more dividend value wise because the market price per share is much more higher compared to Grand Central. But it would be a risk to invest in Shangri-La because there is a downward patter in its dividend yield for the past 7 years.
5.5.12 Comparison of Price Earning Ratio (PE Ratio)
Both of the companies’ PE ratio is tend towards a downward pattern. Grand Central does have a higher PE ratio compared to Shangri-La. It shows that Grand Central is willing to pay for each dollar of annual earnings. It can be proven because the dividend yield of Grand Central is higher as well. With that mention, we know that Shangri-La is the opposite of Grand Central where they are less willing to pay for each dollar of annual earnings. With that, we can refer that the dividend yield is lower as well. But there is an element of risk investing in Grand Central because with high PE ratios are more likely to be considered "risky" investments than those with low PE ratios, since a high PE ratio signifies high expectations.
5.5.13 Comparison of Gearing Ratio
The gearing ratio for Shangri-La has a mixture of upward and downward pattern form year to year while Grand Central has a downward pattern only from 2000 to 2009. The one obvious was from the drastic drop from 23.69% on 2004 to 1.18% on 2005.
Comparing both companies, Shangri-La uses more on credit fund instead of owner fund. Although it is not an ideal situation but at least the percentage of ratio is considered acceptable with an average of 12% for the past for years. It would be better if they managed to keep it less than 30% and the best, less than 20%.
While for Grand Capital, they use more on owner fund instead of credit fund. They focus more on minimizing the long term debt. By taking a look at the graph, the gearing ratio for the past five years is very low. But do bear in mind that depending too much on owner fund is a liability as well. But the company should be in good hand because their investment ratios are stable with earnings per share and dividend yield are bringing benefits to investors.
5.5.14 Comparison of Debt Ratio
The pattern of debt ratio for both companies is similar as its gearing ratio. Shangri-La has a mixture of upward and downward from year to year while for Grand Central, it is downward all the way from 2000 to 2009 with a sharp decline from 2004 (23.37%) to 2005 (7.39%).
By comparing the ratio for the past five years, Shangri-La depend more on debts to finance its activities compared to Grand Central. Although using debt to finance its activities is not a good idea, but still the debt ratio is considered at a acceptable level at the range of 16% for the pat three years. Shangri-La would be advised to reduce the debt ratio in the future or keep it at a level below 20%. Using debt to finance its activities doesn’t mean that Shangri-La is in a bad shape financially. Perhaps Shangri-La has used its asset to do some investments which bring more yields compared to the interest on debt.
While Grand Central is totally the opposite of Shangri-La. Grand Central finance its activities by using more of its assets instead of debt. Perhaps it is a good move by Grand Capital because based on the liquidity ratio; it would be a good idea to use its own asset to finance their activities. But assuming there are investment opportunities for Grand Central, it would bring no harm to them to increase their debt ratio in a controllable manner because the investment might bring more yields in the future instead of saving the asset to finance its activities.
-
FINDINGS OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR SHANGRI-LA AND GRAND CENTRAL
Firstly, the liquidity ratio of Shangri-La was less than Grand Central. It means the liquidity ratio of Grand Central is better than Shangri-La. In addition, Shangri-La ratio is less than 1. It shows that there was either lack of cash or other liquid asset with a problem on liquidity. However, the point also depends on the specific features of the industry and the stock turnover ratio for a stock-in-hand to be converted quickly in cash.
\Secondly, Grand Central profitability ratio show that the company made either better investment or more careful investment than Shangri-La. It also profitable with it resources fairly utilized, as the higher return on capital employed the more profitable the business. The profit margin had increased show that Grand Central pricing policy was effective over the period.
Thirdly, the efficiency ratio shows that Grand Central had make good use of its capital employed and quality good move through business. Shangri-La had made good use of its capital employed and quality good move as well but it is not as efficient as Grand Central.
In addition, in investment ratios, both Shangri-La and Grand Central earning per share reduced over the period indicating a reduction profit performance for shareholders. The PE ratio of Shangri-La is lower than Grand Central. Investors would be short on confidence on investment. However, Shangri-La has a high growth and it PE ratio from 2005 to 2009 are lower than 20, so it is considered to be an undervalued stock and the stock price will hopefully appreciate. Also, Shangri-La earning capability is in the increasing trend. Investor could foresee a future growth of its stock price. On the contrary, Grand Central has a satisfied market price and its PE ratio is high, then it is considered to be overpriced share.
Finally, the gearing ratio of Grand Central shows that it could find a balance between two factors which are long term financing and equity financing in order to reduce the risk introduce to the business so as not to risk the profitability. A higher ratio means high dependence on borrowings and long term financing, thus increasing the financial risk of the business. On the other hand, a lower ratio means high dependence on equity financing.
- Conclusion
In conclusion, the report analyses and compares accounting ratios of Shangri-La Hotels (M) Berhad and Grand Central Enterprise Berhad to measure both of the companies’ financial position. A result of evaluation on both companies is that the company value and financial situation of both of these companies is quite healthy with Grand Central Enterprise Berhad financial status is slightly better than Shangri-La Hotels (M) Berhad. Therefore, based on the analysis and evaluation above, it is highly advisable to invest in the commons stock of Grand Central Enterprise Berhad for the hotel industry.
6.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF QL RESOURCES BERHAD AND HUP SENG INDUSTRIES BERHAD
6.1 COMPANY BACKGROUND
6.2.1 QL Resources Bhd.
QL Resources Berhad, an investment holding company, engages in marine products manufacturing, integrated livestock farming, and palm oil activities primarily in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. The company involves in deep sea fishing; and manufacturing and selling surimi, which is fish paste, as well as surimi based products and fishmeal. It also engages in the crude palm oil milling and oil palm cultivations; and owns approximately 3,000 acres of oil palm estate. In addition, the company distributes animal feed raw materials, such as corn and soya bean meal; and food related products, as well as involves in livestock and poultry farming. Further, it processes and distributes lubricants and food grains, supplements, animal health products, and agricultural products; manufactures and sells meehoon, noodles, frozen halal foodstuff, frozen fish products, and frozen sea food; and sells fresh fruit bunches and markets palm oil products. Additionally, the company engages in the property holding; broiler farming; wholesale of frozen chicken parts; and retail of pets and pet supplies. QL Resources Berhad is based in Shah Alam, Malaysia.
Company Contact
Address : 16A JalanAstak U8/83, Bukit Jelutong, Shah Alam, 40150, Malaysia.
Contact number : 60 03 7801-2288, 60 03 7801-2222 (fax)
Website : http://www.ql.com.my
6.2.2 Background of HupSeng Industries Bhd.
HupSeng Industries Bhd, through its subsidiaries, engages in the manufacture and sale of biscuits and coffee mix in Malaysia. Its products include cream crackers, crackers, Marie biscuits, sandwiches, cookies, and assorted biscuits. The company also involves in the sale and distribution of biscuits, confectionery, and other foodstuff. It offers its products in Asia, Europe, the United States, Africa, and Russia. The company was founded in 1958 and is based in BatuPahat, Malaysia. HupSeng Industries Bhd is a subsidiary of HSB Group Sdn. Bhd.
Company Contact
Address : No. 14 JalanKilangKawasanPerindustrianTongkangPecah, BatuPahat, 83010, Johor
Contact number : 607-4151211, 607-4151777 (fax)
Website :
6.3 FINANCIAL DATA
6.3.1 QL RESOURCES BHD.’S FINANCIAL DATA
6.3.1.1 Balance Sheet Data
6.3.1.2 Profit and Loss Account Data
6.3.1.3 Cash Flow Statement Data
6.3.1.4 Key Account Ratios
6.3.2 HUP SENG INDUSTRIES BHD.’S FINANCIAL DATA
6.3.2.1 Balance Sheet Statement Data
6.3.2.2 Profit and Loss Account Data
6.3.2.3 Cash Flow Statement Data
6.3.2.3 Key Account Ratio
6.4 CALCULATION OF FINANCIAL RATIOS ANALYSES
6.4.1 QL RESOURCES BHD.’S FINANCIAL RATIOS
6.4.1.1 Liquidity Ratios
- Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities
- Quick Ratio = ( Current Assets – Stock) / Current Liabilities
6.4.1.2 Profitability Ratios
- Return on Equity = Net Income/Shareholder's Equity
- Return on Invested Capital = (Net Income – Dividends) / Total Capital
- Operation Profit Margin = Operating Income/ Net Sales
6.4.1.3 Investment Ratios
- EPS = (Net Income – Dividends on Preferred Stock)/ Average Outstanding Shares
- Dividend yield = Annual Dividend per Share/ Price per Share
- PE ratio = Market Value per Share/ Earning per Share (EPS)
6.4.1.4 Efficency Ratios
- Asset Turnover = Revenue/ Capital Employed
- Stock turnover = (Stock / Cost of Sales) x 365
- Accounts Receivables Turnover = (Account Receivables/ Revenue) x 365
- Account Payab;es Turnover = (Account Payables/ Cost of Sales) x 365
6.4.1.5 Gearing Ratios
- Gearing Ratio = (Long term debt/ Shareholder funds) x 100
- Debt Ratio = Total Debt/ Total Assets
6.4.2 HUP SENG BHD.’S FINANCIAL RATIOS
6.4.2.1 Liquidity Ratio
6.4.2.2 Profitability Ratios
6.4.2.3 Investment Ratios
6.4.2.4 Efficiency Ratios
6.4.2.5 Gearing Ratio
6.5 FINANCIAL INTERPRETATION AND COMPARISON BETWEEN QL RESOURCES BHD’S AND HUP SENG INDUSTRIES BHD.
6.5.1 Comparison between QL and Hup Seng with their Peer Group
Figure: Comparison of growth, profitability, value, and risk between QL Resources Bhd. With the peer group (Infinancials, 2010)
Figure: Comparison of growth, profitability, value, and risk between HupSeng Industries Bhd. with the peer group (Infinancials, 2010)
The Growth Score for QL Resources Bhd. is 5.5 /10. The Growth Score for its peer group is 6.0 /10. This means that QL Resources Bhd. has slightly lower growth than its peers. The Profitability Score for QL Resources Bhd. is 6.2 /10. The Profitability Score for its peer group is 4.3 /10. This means that QL Resources Bhd. is more profitable compared to its peers. The Value Score for QL Resources Bhd. is 2.3 /10. The Value Score for its peer group is 5.5 /10. This means that QL Resources Bhd. is significantly more expensive that its peers. The Risk Free Score for QL Resources Bhd. is 5.1 /10. The Risk Free Score for its peer group is 4.8 /10. This means that QL Resources Bhd. is less risky compared to its peers.
The Growth Score for Hup Seng Industries Bhd. is 5.7 /10. The Growth Score for its peer group is 3.6 /10. This means that Hup Seng Industries Bhd. has significantly higher growth than its peers.The Profitability Score for Hup Seng Industries Bhd. is 5.5 /10. The Profitability Score for its peer group is 5.8 /10. This means that Hup Seng Industries Bhd. is slightly less profitable compared to its peers.The Value Score for Hup Seng Industries Bhd. is 5.7 /10. The Value Score for its peer group is 3.7 /10. This means that Hup Seng Industries Bhd. The Risk Free Score for Hup Seng Industries Bhd. is 5.9 /10. The Risk Free Score for its peer group is 7.7 /10. This means that Hup Seng Industries Bhd. is more risky to its peers compared to its peers.
6.5.2 ANALYSIS OF LIQUIDITY RATIOS
6.5.2.1 Comparison of Current Ratios
Figure: Current Ratio between QL and Hup Seng
This graph indicates of a company's to ; the higher the , the more the is. Hup Seng has a better ability to meet its debt obligation compare to QL. Although Hup Seng’s current ratio fluctuates along the ten years time but it is also higher than QL in each of the ten years. ratio is equal to divided by . Since the current of a company are more than twice the current , then it is generally considered to have good .
Hup Seng is more liquid than QL since they are in different types of business even though they are in the same consumer product sector. QL Resources Bhd., an investment holding company, engages in marine products manufacturing, integrated livestock farming, and palm oil activities, it faces a many challenges where the weather and natural disaster can affect its business. On the other hand, Hup Seng has a more stable manufacturing line in biscuit production and marketing. This enables Hup Seng to have more stable revenue and lower liabilities for its business.
QL’s current liabilities did current assets; hence the company does not have its short term obligations. Anyway, we can see that QL had achieved its highest current ratio in year 2010. This shows that QL is improving in its short-term financial .
6.5.2.2 Comparison of Quick Ratios
Figure: Quick Ratio between QL and Hup Seng
Quick ratio is viewed as a of company's or . This graph shows that Hup Seng has a higher Quick Ratio than QL. Hence, Hup Seng has a higher liquidity and to its . Hup Seng’s current liabilities are able to be cover by its current assets. In addition, Hup Seng has met its highest financial standing in year 2003. We can see that Hup Seng’s Quick Ratios are fluctuating along the ten years; this will not affect their liquidity since the ratios are always above 1.5.
QL’s Quick Ratio was hanging in between 0.6 to 1.0. This shows that it is weak in meeting its obligations. However, the ratios are quite stable. As the same, QL has achieved the highest Quick Ratio in year 2010, indicating that they are trying to improve their financial standing and it is working.
6.5.3 ANALYSIS OF PROFITABILITY RATIOS
6.5.3.1 Comparison of ROE
*ROE of Hup Seng is not available in year 2000.
Graph: ROE between QL and Hup Seng.
One of the most important profitability metrics is return on equity. Return on equity reveals how much profit a company earned in comparison to the total amount of shareholder equity found on the balance sheet. ROE shows how well a company uses investment funds to generate earnings growth. ROEs between 15% and 20% are considered desirable.
In the graph above, we can see that Hup Seng has a higher ROE compare to QL. However, QL’s ROE is much more stable than Hup Seng and it is in an increasing trend. In other words, Hup Seng is more likely to generate cash internally but its performance may be in an up and down trend. However, shareholders in QL will enjoy a more stable and increasing ROE. To choose between these two companies, investors have to depend on their ability to take risk.
6.5.3.2 Comparison of ROIC
*ROIC of QL is not available in year 2010.
*ROIC of Hup Seng is not available in year 2000 and 2010.
Graph: ROIC between QL and Hup Seng.
ROIC shows how well a company generates cash flow relative to the capital it has invested in its business. In this graph, we can observe that QL has a better ROIC than Hup Seng. QL give a good utilization on the monetary capital invested (long-term debt, common and preferred shares) on them by returning an increasing trend of profit. In addition, QL achieved the highest QL in year 2009.
Again, Hup seng give the ROIC an unstable trend. Despite, ROIC of Hup Seng in year 2009 is higher than QL did. However, Hup Seng did not perform well in year 2004 to 2007. The unstable trend of ROIC will make investors of Hup Seng feel uncomfortable. Hup Seng should put up a more stable ROIC so that it can gain more of its stakeholders to invest in them.
5.5.3.3 Comparison of Operating Profit Margin
*Operating profit margin of Hup Seng is not available in year 2000.
Graph: Operating Profit Margin between QL and Hup Seng.
In this graph, we can see that QL perform better in Operating Profit Margin. Its trend is more stable and is in the increase. Although there are a little up and down, but overall, it is consider a stable trend.
However, Hup Seng has some fluctuations in its operating profit margin. Although Hup Seng achieved the highest operating profit margin in year 2006, it came immediately the next year. Moreover, operating profit margin of Hup Seng fallen sharply in year 2009 for the second time.
All these indicate that QL has a better control in its expenses and costs in its daily operations. Hup Seng should have a more regular and consistent control their cost and expense on their daily operations, for example raw materials, wages and etc. This is to gain back the investors’ confident towards its company.
6.5.4 ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENT RATIO
6.5.4.1 Comparison of EPS (Earnings per Share)
*EPS of QL is not available in year 2010.
*EPS of Hup Seng is not available in year 2000.
Graph: EPS between QL and Hup Seng.
In the graph above, we can notice that Hup Seng has a higher EPS in most of the years. However, EPS of QL is in the increasing trends and it also hit the highest EPS in year 2010.
Although QL is increasing in its EPS but it is in slow movement. Earnings per share are generally considered to be the single most important variable in determining a share's price. Hence, QL’s shareholders are able to forecast the company’s share price with the stable increase of its EPS.
In the opposite, Hup Seng’s investors will feel uncomfortable to its share price due to its fluctuated EPS. Although Hup Seng met its highest EPS in year 2010, it is still hard to predict whether it will fall again in year 2011.
6.5.4.2 Comparison of Dividend Yield
*Dividend yield of Hup Seng is not available in year 2000.
*Dividend yield of QL is not available in year 2000.
Graph: Dividend Yield between QL and Hup Seng.
Through the graph above, obviously QL paid a better dividend to their shareholders from year 2001 to 2007 compare to Hup Seng. However, Hup Seng did better than QL from the year 2008 to 2010 later.
At the current situation, investors will more prone to invest in Hup Seng due its higher dividend yield. In an overall view, two of the companies are still not attractive enough in their dividend yield. Their low dividend yield may be due to their reservation of retained earnings to expand or develops their business.
6.5.4.3 Comparison of PE (Price per Earning) Ratios
*PE ratio of Hup Seng is not available in year 2000.
*PE ratio of QL is not available in year 2010.
Graph: PE Ratios of QL and Hup Seng.
In the above, QL has higher PE ratio than Hup Seng in year 2009 which is the most recent data. This result told us that the investors willing to pay more for QL in year 2009 compare to Hup Seng.
Theoretically, a stock's P/E tells us how much the investors are willing to pay per ringgit of earnings. For this reason it's also called the "multiple" of a stock. In other words, a P/E ratio of 14.464 suggests that QL’s investors in the stock are willing to pay RM14.464 for every RM1 of earnings that the company generates. Hup Seng achieved high PE ratios in year 2005, 2006, and 2008. Sharp fall of PE ratio happened in year 2009. However, this is a far too simplistic way of viewing the P/E because it fails to take into account the company's growth prospects.
Again, two of these companies still did not perform very well. They should achieve higher PE ratios and also propose a good company’s growth prospect to grab the investors’ attentions.
6.5.5 ANALYSIS OF EFFICIENCY RATIOS
6.5.5.1 Comparison of Asset Turnover
*Asset turnover of QL and Hup Seng are not available in year 2010.
Graph: Asset Turnover of QL and Hup Seng.
QL’s asset turnover is always higher than Hup Seng. QL achieve the highest asset turnover in year 2004. Later, it continuously dropped until year 2009. Hup Seng has a more stable but lower asset turnover.
This shows that it is more efficient at using its assets in generating sales or revenue. Asset turnover also indicates pricing strategy of these two companies. QL with low profit margins tend to have high asset turnover, while Hup Seng with high profit margins have low asset turnover.
QL’s asset turnover is lower year by year when compared to historical data for the firm data, hence the more sluggish the firm's sales. This may indicate a problem with one or more of the asset categories composing total assets - inventory, receivables, or fixed assets. QL should analyze the various asset classes to determine where the problem lies.
6.5.5.2 Comparison of Stock Turnover
*Stock turnover ratio of Hup Seng are not available in year 2010.
Graph: Stock Turnover of QL and Hup Seng.
Stock turnover is also known as inventory turnover. In the graph above, we can know that Hup Seng has a higher stock turnover. Hence, Hup Seng is better in converting its into . Hup seng is a capital intensive company, where it rely more on machine to product the biscuit products. Hence, fixed asset turnover becomes more important to Hup Seng.
Compare to Hup Seng, QL is lower in stock turnover and it is increasing in an overall basis. A low turnover rate may point to overstocking, obsolescence, or deficiencies in the product line or marketing effort. However, in some instances a low rate may be appropriate, such as where higher inventory levels occur in anticipation of rapidly rising prices or shortages.
6.5.5.3 Comparison of Debtors Turnover
*Debtors turnover ratio of Hup Seng are not available in year 2010.
Graph: Debtors Turnover of QL and Hup Seng.
From the graph, we notice that QL has a lower debtors turnover ratio than Hup Seng. However, debtors turnover ratio of QL is decreasing while Hup Seng is in increasing in trend. However, we cannot judge a company solely with debtors turnover ratio because there is no rule of thumb which may be used as a norm to interpret the ratio as it may be different from firm to firm.
Accounts receivable turnover ratio or debtors turnover ratio indicates the number of times the debtors are turned over a year. Hence, Gup Seng has the higher the value of debtors turnover and it may be more efficient in the management of debtors or more liquid the debtors are.
Similarly, low debtors turnover ratio of QL and it may implies that it is inefficient in management of debtors or less liquid debtors. It is the reliable measure of the time of cash flow from credit sales.
6.5.5.4 Comparison of Creditors Turnover
*Credit turnover ratio of Hup Seng are not available in year 2010.
Graph: Creditors Turnover of QL and Hup Seng.
From the graph, we can observe that Hup Seng has a higher creditors tunover ratio than QL. Creditors are the businesses or people who provide goods and services in credit terms. That is, the supplier or manufacturers give the buyer some time to pay rather than paying in cash. Creditor values relate to the costs of raw materials, goods and service.
Hup Seng with a higher creditors turnover ratio or a lower credit period ratio signifies that it was being paid promptly by their customers. This situation enhances the credit worthiness of the company. However, a very favorable ratio to this effect also shows that Hup Seng is not taking the full advantage of credit facilities allowed by the creditor services.
In the opposite, QL which has a lower creditors ratio may suffer from poor payments or bad debts by its customers. This may affect the company from having a smooth flow of its revenues.
6.5.6 ANALYSIS OF GEARING RATIOS
6.5.6.1 Comparison of Gearing Ratio
Graph: Gering Ratios of QL and Hup Seng.
In term of gearing ratio, obviously, QL has a higher gearing ratio compare to Hup Seng. QL hit the highest gearing ratio in year 2010 and this does not show a good sign. It only shows that it rely more on outsider debt. Hup Seng scores zero gearing ratio along the ten years.
Gearing is a measure of financial leverage, demonstrating the degree to which a firm's activities are funded by owner's funds versus creditor's funds. High gearing ratio of QL shows that it depends a lot on creditor’s funds. In theory, the higher the level of borrowing (gearing) the higher are the risks to a business, since the payment of interest and repayment of debts are not "optional" in the same way as dividends. However, gearing can be a financially sound part of a business's capital structure particularly if the business has strong, predictable cash flows.
Zero gearing shows that Hup Seng does not depend on outsiders’ fund. Gearing can be a financially sound part of a business's capital structure particularly if the business has strong, predictable cash flows.
6.5.6.2 Comparison of Debt Ratio
*Debt ratio of Hup Seng is not available in year 2010.
Graph: Debt Ratios of QL and Hup Seng
From the graph above, QL has a higher debt ratio compare to Hup Seng. Debt ratio has a very close relation with debt ratio since they are related to company’s leverage activity. A debt ratio of greater than 1 indicates that a company has more debt than assets; meanwhile, a debt ratio of less than 1 indicates that a company has more assets than debt.
Both of the companies have debt ratio less than 1, this shows that their asset are more than debts. Used in conjunction with other measures of financial health, the debt ratio can help investors determine a company's level of risk. Hence, these two companies can be considered as financially healthy company where their debts are lesser than their assets.
6.6 FINDINGS OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR HUP SENG INDUSTRIES BERHAD AND QL RESOURCES BERHAD
Table: Summary of Ratio Analysis of QL and Hup Seng.
Base on the summary table above, we can roughly know about the strengths and weaknesses of the two companies. Five main types of ratios are reviewed and compared. It is very important for the investors to do financial analysis on a company before making their investing decisions.
Initially, Hup Seng is higher in liquidity than QL. Hence, Hup Seng has the better ability to pay off its short-terms debts obligations or the larger the margin of safety that it possesses to cover its short-term debts. Besides, the risk of bankruptcy of QL is higher than Hup Seng.
Secondly, one of the most frequently used tools of financial ratio analysis is profitability ratios which are used to determine the company's bottom line. Profitability ratios show a company's overall efficiency and performance. In term of profitability ratio, QL performed better. In other words, QL has a better utilization of its assets and control of its expenses to generate an acceptable rate of return. In opposite, Hup Seng is weaker in profitability. It is important to note that many factors can influence profitability ratios of Hup Seng, including changes in price, volume or expenses, as well the purchase of assets or the borrowing of money.
Thirdly, equity holders hope for ‘added value’ from their investment through income from dividends and growth from capital gain. Through an analysis of financial statements we can provide shareholders with a guide to appraise their dividend position. After the analysis, we found out that QL scored a higher investment ratio. According to the results, it is more profitable for the investors if they try to invest in QL. High P/E ratio of QL is viewed as an indicator that company profits will rise and that it has significant growth prospects.
Next, efficiency ratios can show how quickly the company is collecting money for its credit sales or how many times inventory turns over in a given time period. This information can help management decide whether the company's credit terms are appropriate and whether its purchasing efforts are handled in an efficient manner. Hup Seng was more efficient in where it has a higher efficiency ratio. We also can say that Hup Seng has a better control in its business operation than QL.
Finally, Gearing Ratio is the contribution of owner’s equity to borrowed funds. The ratio explains the degree to which the business is funded by the owner as against the borrowed funds.
Gearing is basically defined as the ratio between a company’s borrowing (debt) and owner’s equity (i.e. shareholder’s fund). Hup Seng has a lower gearing ratio where they did not depend on leverage for their business operation. It is normal for a company to have leveraging for their business. QL has an upper average in gearing ratio and it bears a certain amount risk in its business. The risk QL took may be the risk of bankruptcy if it unable to pay back its debts.
6.7 Conclusion
The major part of smart investing is to conduct extensive research. While research alone cannot promise us a successful , instead we need to take the time to clearly figure out how and where we want to invest, have a far great chance of being successful. It is important to keep in mind that every situation is different, and you must find that fit our specific needs.
Although QL Resources Bhd. and Hup Seng Industries Bhd. are in the same Consumer Product sector, but they are in the different industries. Hence, the company performances are also different since they may be facing difference barriers in their business environment.
However, as a suggestion, investors who is risk-averse, they can choose QL Resources Bhd. as their investment target while those who do not prefer to take risk, they should invest in Hup Seng Industries Bhd.
Eddie McLaney & Peter Atrill (1999), Accounting: An Introduction.