Financial Review of Billabong Pty Ltd free essay sample

Billabong Financial Review Review of Billabong Financial information for 2005-2008 Note: tables are shown in $’000s (excluding $ values expressed with decimal places) Note: revenue is expressed and revenue from the sale of goods. Question 1 – Revenue and Revenue Margin 2005200620072008 Total Revenue $ (From the sale of goods)$840,701$1,018,227$1,222,911$1,347,618 % Change from previous year24. 60%21. 12%20. 10%10. 20% % Change from base year (2004)24. 60%50. 91%81. 24%99. 73% Change in $$165,972$177,526$204,684$124,707 It is important to note the $ value increases as it is not the biggest % increase. Showing strong growth until 2007, the 2008 smaller growth can be attributed to the GFC or that business expansion has slowed. This can be noticed in the Financial reports list of businesses owned by billabong increasing, from; â€Å"Billabong†, â€Å"Von Zipper†, â€Å"Element† and â€Å"Honolua Surf Co† in 2004 to the addition of; â€Å"Kustom†, â€Å"Palmers†, â€Å"Nixon†, â€Å"XCEL†, â€Å"Tigerlily†, â€Å"Sector 9† and Dakine up to 2008, this gives Billabong International a larger stake at market share, with their brands dominating surf shop shelves. Also with the addition of Billabong owned store fronts becoming more and more common, apposed to being a wholesale provider, the businesses expansion into new countries around the world and the growth of the brand within these countries has allowed Billabong to add to their ever-expanding global brand and an increasing revenue of 1422% over the past ten years, with now average growth of around 19% pa, a growth at perhaps a more manageable level, this shows a steep growth period that is and has for a few years been slowing down suggesting it may have reached its maximum profit potential. With all this in mind, we can see a company with a strong growth period that is now consolidating its position as one of the leading brands in this industry. Question 2 – Gross Profit margin Net Profit Margin GPM = GP (Revenue from sale of goods – Cost of Sales) / Sales * 100 20072008 Total Revenue (from sale of goods) $1,222,911$1,347,618 Minus Cost Of Sales$570,979$608,040 Equals GP $$651,932$739,578 GPM (GP$/Total Revenue*100)53. 31%54. 88% Gross profit margin shows us the percentage difference between sales and the cost of those sales. The result of the margin can help determine what the level of profitability is for the goods being produced. These results show a business that is more than doubling their money invested on the production of goods. Also, the figures show an increase in gross profit margin suggesting the business is becoming more efficient at production or sale of goods produced. These are both strong percentages that show the money invested into the production of goods is money well spent. NPM = NP (before tax interest) / Sales * 100 2005200620072008 Net Profit (Before tax Interest)$189,555$222,014$241,300$270,548 Over Total Revenue$840,701$1,018,227$1,222,911$1,347,618 Equals Net Profit Margin22. 55%21. 80%19. 73%20. 08% Net profit margin shows the margin of profit after expenses (however before tax interest). These percentages are reducing due to increased expenses, notably from increases in selling, general and administrative expenses and from cost of goods sold. Also expenses in depreciation are increasing; however this would be expected from a business at the tail end of a sharp growth period. The net profit margin is reducing to 2007 but showing some regain in 2008, perhaps the GFC and its effect on the cost, efficiency and ability of stimulating sales has had some impact on the 2007 decline but the business is still showing a strong financial position with reasonably steady profit margins. Question 3 – Return on Assets Return on Shareholder Equity ROA =NP (before tax Interest) / Average Total Assets * 100 2005200620072008 Net Profit (before Tax Interest)$189,555$222,014$241,300$270,548 Over Average Total Assets$919,559$1,097,835$1,324,155$1,508,016 ROA20. 61%20. 22%18. 22%17. 94% Return on assets shows how well the business assets are being employed, to what level they are utilised and to what impact any new assets may be having to overall net profit. These figures show a reducing percentage that may indicate the business is investing in higher risk assets that may not yet be presenting their full return potential or as a safe option within the economic climate are investing in lower risk assets with lower marginal return, alternatively it could represent a business that is not efficiently managing its new assets as it is not making the same return on their assets that they previously were. It could, also, be showing the current economic climate were return on assets are requiring more investment and higher cost to gain similar $ yield. ROE = NP (after taxation preference dividend) / Average Shareholder Equity during period 2005200620072008 Net Profit (after Tax preference dividend if any)$125,232$145,659$167,607$176,269 Over Average Shareholder Equity$607,938$674,729$735,903$777,393 ROE20. 60%21. 59%22. 78%22. 67% Return on Equity or the Return on Shareholders’ Funds shows a ratio that compares profit to the owners with a stake within the business. This ratio shows, that if there were no retained profits they may be able to make the percentage mentioned return on their funds invested in dividends, for example $100 invested in 2005 would see a return of $20. 60, these ratios can help investors decide whether they should invest compared to other investment opportunities. The difference between ROA and ROE is the ROA shows what level of return the business is getting on their funds invested into assets and how efficiently their managers are running these assets, whereas the ROE shows what level of return the investors are getting on heir funds invested into the company. Question 4 – Cash flow statements 2005200620072008 Operating activities$122,317$107,675$91,209$153,207 % Change from previous year83. 62%-11. 97%-15. 29%67. 97% % Change from base year (2004)83. 62%61. 64%36. 92%129. 99% Investing activities($37,453)($145,179)($73,462)($146,867) % Change from previous year54. 01%-287. 63%49. 40%-99. 92% % Change from base ye ar (2004)54. 01%-496. 98%-202. 08%-503. 92% Financing activities($86,883)$51,799$34,314$18,626 % Change from previous year-378. 35%159. 62%-33. 76%-45. 72% % Change from base year (2004)-378. 5%385. 19%288. 92%202. 55% Net cash Cash Equivalents$51,022$67,855$113,212$125,852 % Change from previous year-9. 93%24. 81%40. 06%10. 04% % Change from base year (2004)-9. 93%20. 98%101. 85%124. 39% The above table shows the cash flow within 4 main segments of the business operations and the changes within these levels from year to year. Noticeable changes included: -Operating activities ?Decreases in 2007 from higher income taxes ?Lower marginal increase in receipts from customers ?2005 shows lower (than trend in other years) payments to suppliers and employees ? 006 shows steep increase in payments to suppliers and employees ? 2007 2008 show significantly higher borrowing costs, this can be attributed to the significant increases in borrowings in these years. -Investing activities ?2005 sh ows the business made no purchases of subsidiaries or any net cash acquired. ?2007 shows reduced expense to subsidiaries and net cash acquired ? payments for intangible assets has reduced each year, excluding 2007 ? 2007 seems to be a weaker performance year for this business and this may be a reason to why investment in new subsidiaries reduced in this year. Financing activities ?2005 significantly smaller borrowings (of $87m as apposed to $338m in 2008) – main factor to negative figure. ?Higher repayments in 2005 than 2006. ?The business reduced their borrowings significantly in 2005 compared to later years, this may be an indicator to the business growth and expansion plans. ?The business has steadily increased the dividends paid to shareholders from each year. ?2005 seems to be a consolidation year with the business borrowing less and paying back more. 2007 2008 the business held significantly higher borrowings thus payments had to be higher however not compared to the s ize of their borrowings, EG borrowings of $113m at the end of 2005 with $114m repaid (over 50% repayment) compared to 2008 with $471. 4m borrowings with $197m repayment (closer to 30% repayment)). -Net cash cash equivalents ?Net cash held has increase significantly from 2006 to 2007 ? Net cash has increased to a high amount, perhaps this is required for the businesses day to day activities, however if not, it may be under utilising its cash resources. The business made profit from exchange rate in 2006 but in all other years has seen a loss from the effects of exchange rate, this could be due to the strength or weakness of the Australian dollar (or other currencies held by the global business) and the increased transfer from weak currencies to stronger currencies, EG the Australian dollar has remained relatively strong during the GFC whereas other currencies have seen a harsher effect on the value of their currency and as Billabong is an Australian business one could say that more cash would be transferred in to Australian dollars than would be transferred out. What this tells us about Billabong is there may have been some downfalls in 2007, however the organisation has remained stable and is investing for future growth, and although their growth might have slowed from years prior to 2005 they are still a growing and expanding organisation. Question 5 – Short Term Liquidity Current Ratio = Current Assets / Current liabilities 2005200620072008 Current Assets$340,255$474,008$573,518$667,523 Over Current Liabilities$136,645$180,748$172,273$217,102 Current Ratio2. 9 times2. 62 times3. 33 times3. 07 times The current ratio shows the comparison between the ‘liquid’ assets and current liabilities to find how many times the business can cover the short-term commitments of their current liabilities. The Pearson text (pg 298) states that an ‘ideal’ cover ratio is around 2 times, with this in mind we can see the business is in a stable position to cover their short-term commitments and is increasing its ability to do s o (Atrill, Mclaney, Harvey Jenner, 2009). Also it indicates the business is making wise growth decisions at a minimal cost and is investing their funds well, as the current assets are growing at an increasing rate than that of the current liabilities. Quick Ratio = Current Assets (excluding inventory and prepayments) / Current liabilities 2005200620072008 Current Assets (excluding Inv prepayments)$224,682$301,099$387,872$440,098 Over Current Liabilities$136,645$180,748$172,273$217,102 Quick Ratio1. 64 times1. 67 times2. 25 times2. 03 times The quick ratio (also known as the Acid test ratio) is a more accurate way of determining the liquidity of the business as inventory may not be as easily liquidated if needed. The ratios show that Billabong has covered their liabilities and for potential lenders (or trade payables) demonstrates that if the business was unable to make repayments it would not be hard for them to liquefy some assets to meet these payments without detrimental effects on business assets. Question 6 – Liabilities over assets Interest Cover Ratio 005200620072008 Total Liabilities (TL)$300,604$545,609$630,895$830,358 Total Assets (TA)$937,938$1,257,732$1,390,578$1,625,461 TL / TA32. 05%43. 38%45. 37%51. 08% The trend in this gearing ratio suggests the business in increasing its total liabilities faster than its assets and in the long term presents a bad trend towards over borrowing (almost half of 2008’s total liabilities are made up of borrowings). Perhaps the assets are not presenting their value in relation to the liabilities they may have produced while attaining them. However this percentage is still manageable as long as the trend does not continue for too long. Interest Cover Ratio = Profit / Interest expense 2005200620072008 Net Profit (Before interest and tax)$189,555$222,014$241,300$270,548 Over Interest expense$5,896$9,069$19,486$24,986 Equals Interest Cover Ratio32. 15 times24. 48 times12. 38 times10. 83 times This ratio is used by lenders to see the businesses ability to repay loans interest. Although reducing, an interest cover ratio of 10 times is still a strong ratio. However, if this trend continues at its current rate the business may have too much debt for their net profit to cover the interest expense, the business may find it difficult to make further borrowings and may prevent the business from reaping benefits from future investment opportunities. Question 7 Dividend Yield Price/Earnings Ratio 2005200620072008 Market Value Per share at close 30th June$13. 63$15. 35$17. 95$10. 80 Dividends Declared $64,897$84,858$97,435$112,014 Earnings Per share (cents)60. 970. 580. 785. 1 Number of Ordinary Shares on issue205,271,283205,984,631205,859,969205,753,609 Total value of Shares on issue$2,797,847,587. 29$3,161,864,085. 85$3,695,186,443. 55$2,222,138,977. 20 There is a drop in share issue in 2007, perhaps, due to high market value of shares thus investors would opt to sell shares and make high yield from value their shares in compared to the yield they earn from dividends. The 2007 drop can potentially be accredited to the market anticipating the 2008 drop in share value and selling shares at their high value rather than losing their invested capital when the share prices drop. However this alternatively could be a primary attributing factor to the 2008 drop in share value thus affecting the share price further, as there was reduced market confidence, which can be seen by the businesses originator, Mr. G. S. Merchant, selling off close to a third of his share capital invested in Billabong in 2006, potentially as a precursor to future reduced confidence in the performance of Billabong shares, although this may have just been a way for Mr. Merchant to cash out some of his shares in order to invest into other projects, it is a detractor to overall investor confidence. Dividend Yield Ratio = (Dividends per share / (1-t)) / Market Value per share *100 2005200620072008 Dividends paid per share (cents)31. 6241. 2047. 3354. 44 Tax Rate30% Market Value Per share at close 30th June$13. 63$15. 35$17. 95$10. 80 Dividend Yield Ratio3. 31%3. 83%3. 77%7. 20% The dividend yield ratio is a measurement tool for the investor on the return via dividends from the capital invested. The business strategy of increasing dividend paid may be seen as a strategy to maintain shareholders and stimulate current and potential shareholder confidence during decreasing share value and unstable global financial climate of 2008. Although the yield ratio of 2008 is significantly higher investors need to determine whether the reduced share price is worth the dividend yield and perhaps 2008 shows a period where purchase of shares for the long term would yield higher benefit rather than sale of shares and in hindsight suggest that purchase of shares or hold of current shares in 2007 to 2008 would result in negative change to an investors share portfolio. Price Earnings Ratio = Market value per share / Earnings per share 2005200620072008 Market Value$13. 63$15. 35$17. 95$10. 80 Earnings per share (cents)60. 970. 580. 785. 1 Price Earnings Ratio22. 38 times21. 77 times22. 4 times12. 69 times The Price Earnings Ratio is a practical guide to investor market optimism within the prospective outlook of the business. This Ratio shows how many times the dividend (at the current rate) would need to be paid until the initial outlay of purchasing the shares (at current price) would be covered by the dividends received. The Ratio is reasonably stable from 2005 to 2007, however it shows a sharp decline in 2008, this decline shows a dilapidated share and market confidence because of the dramatic decline in share price and outlines the overall deteriorating market conditions as a result of the global financial climate. This helpful tool allows potential investors the ability to judge the performance of this business in comparison to other investment opportunities and thus define which investment will yield the highest benefit to their investment portfolio. Question 8 – Share Recommendation (Yahoo. com. au, 2009) The above chart shows the 5 year share price of Billabong international and assists in determining the share trends and market confidence. Over past 5 yrsCurrent HighLow Share Price$10. 86$18. 81$6. 09 The first consideration an investor needs to make if they are considering investment is to find a company they have loyalty to, or can justify financially supporting. Secondly they must determine whether the capital invested would yield more than other investment opportunities or more than interest return of investing in a bank. Then they must decided using share analysis if the market is stable or whether the businesses share price is stable or growing enough to allow them to realise continued profit from their investment. Within share analysis there are two primary techniques to determine investment viability, which are Fundamental analysis and Technical analysis. Fundamental analysis is the method of analysing the stock through the use of key ratios, comparing these ratios to industry averages and by understanding the fundamentals of the business holistically. Whereas Technical analysis is a method that defines the investment viability by assessing the stock price, stock history, market confidence and other technical indicators. A brief review of these analysis techniques shows the following: Fundamental analysis: Continued financial growth †¢Proven business stability within unstable financial climate †¢Strong and sustainable financial ratios that suggest a growing and stable business †¢Increasing dividend yield ratio suggests growing profits to be made from long term investments through this dividend yield oDecreased share issue assists with compounding this ratio †¢The growing r evenue suggests that continued increases in dividend yield are maintainable with the growth of the business †¢The return on Equity ratio is relatively stable and perhaps on the incline. This suggests that if overall market confidence was to return to levels prior to the GFC the share price would most likely increase towards its previous heights †¢Return on Assets ratio may suggests the business may not be wisely investing their funds, however it is more likely a sign of the current financial climate and the fact that this ratio has not dropped as harshly as other businesses suggests the business has strategies in place to lessen external effects on profitability of its assets †¢Net profit margin and gross profit margin are relatively stable with some incline to gross profit margin, which demonstrates this business is selling its goods efficiently and thus the business should have a continued ability to distribute dividends and assist in growth of its share value through the growth and development of the business value and market confidence in the business Technical analysis: †¢5 year share price history shows low share price in 2008 thus long term sha re investment, in 2008, would potentially yield high profits on the share value †¢Mid-late February 2009 shows steep price drops to $6. 9 †¢Improving market sentiment due to stabilising financial climate †¢Market has not shown full recovery and some financial skeptics suggest the worst is yet to come, thus this uncertainty should be considered when deciding to invest †¢Share price demonstrates ‘bullish’ trend, that is a trend towards upward share price †¢Short term stock stability suggests better return through long term investment, potential trend towards future increasing share price whereas short term prices may only increase marginally. †¢The above chart suggests a potential bottom and end to previous bearish trends (that is, trends towards lower share value) †¢The end of bearish trends and a move towards more bullish trends shows a growing share price that could potentially produce high long term yield to invested capital With the above in mind my personal share recommendation would be in support of purchasing shares. However recommend this as a long-term investment, that is to invest funds; reap benefits from the growing dividends paid and when the share price has regained its strength to sell and yield further return from the probable trend towards increased share value. References: Atrill, McLaney, Harvey Jenner (2009) – â€Å"Accounting – An introduction†- 4th edition Pearson Education, Australia Yahoo. com. au (viewed 04/09/09) Billabong financial chart over 5 years http://au. finance. yahoo. com/q/bc? s=BBG. AXt=5yl=onz=mq=lc= Note: Figures and information have primarily been sourced from Billabongbiz. com and the financial statements within the website.