Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
EXHIBIT 1
The Income Statement: An Overview
Sales
Gross profit
Operating expenses: Marketing and selling expenses and general
and administrative expenses
Operating income (Earnings before interest and taxes)
common dividends paid by the firm to its owners in the amount of $15,000,
leaving $49,000, which eventually increases retained earnings in the balance sheet.
EXHIBIT 2
Income Statement (figures in $ thousands)
The LM Manufacturing Company
For the Year Ending December 31, 2006
Sales
Cost of Goods Sold
Gross Profit on Sales
Operating Expenses:
Marketing Expenses
General and Administrative Expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Operating Income (EBIT)
Interest Expense
Earnings Before tax
Income Tax
Earnings after Tax
$830
$539
$291
$91
$71
$28
$190
$101
$20
$81
$17
$64
Dividends Paid
Change in Retained Earnings
$15
$49
Sales
Stock Dividends
Income Taxes
Depreciation expense
$400,000
$5,000
$20,000
$20,000
Here we see two periods of operations, 2005 and 2006. There would be an income
statement for the period of January 1 through December 31 for the operations of
the year 2006 and a balance sheet reporting the company's financial position as of
December 31 of each year, i.e. 2005 and 2006. Thus, the balance sheet on
December 31, 2006 is a statement of the company's financial position at that
particular date in time, which is the result of all financial transactions since the
company began its operations.
Notice that we did not include the $10,000 stock dividends included in the
problem, which is considered a return on the stockholders capital and deducted
from retained earnings.
Exhibit 4 gives us the basic ingredients of a balance sheet. The assets fall
into three categories:
1. Current assets, such as cash, accounts receivable, and inventories;
2. Fixed or long-term assets, such as equipment, buildings, and land; and
3. Any other assets used by the company.
In reporting the dollar amounts of these various assets, the conventional practice is
to report the value of the assets and liabilities on a historical cost basis. Thus, the
balance sheet is not intended to represent the current market value of the company,
but rather merely reports the historical transactions at cost. Determining a fair
value of the business is a more complicated matter than captured by the balance
sheet.
The remaining part of the balance sheet, headed "liabilities and equity"
indicates how the firm has financed its investments in assets. That is, assets must
be financed either with debt (liabilities) or equity capital. The debt consists of such
sources as credit extended from suppliers or a loan from a bank. If the firm is a
sole proprietorship, the equity is the owner's personal investment in the company
and also the profits that have been retained within the business from all prior
periods. Here the terms equity and net worth are frequently used interchangeably.
5
Total assets
LIABILITIES (DEBT) AND EQUITY (NET WORTH)
Current (short-term) liabilities (debt)
2006
Current Assets
Cash
Accounts receivable
Inventories
Prepaid expenses
Total current assets
$39
$70
$177
$14
$300
$44
$78
$210
$15
$347
Fixed assets:
Gross plant and equipment
Accumulated depreciation
Net plant and equipment
Land
Total fixed assets
Patents
Total assets
$759
$355
$404
$70
$474
$30
$804
$838
$383
$455
$70
$525
$55
$927
$61
$76
$12
$4
$2
$79
$146
$225
$17
$4
$2
$99
$200
$299
Common stock
Retained Earnings
Total Stockholders' equity
Total liabilities and equity
$300
$279
$579
$804
$300
$328
$628
$927
$75,000
$10,000
$15,000
$40,000
$15,000
$20,000
Accounts receivables
Long-term notes
Mortgage
Common stock
Inventories
Short-term notes
$50,000
$5,000
$20,000
$100,000
$70,000
$20,000
always equal its cash flows paid to the companys investors (both creditors and
stockholders). They have to equal. That is,
Firm's free cash flows = financing cash flows.
Testing Your Understanding:
The Balance Sheet: How Did You Do?
Earlier on, we provided balance sheet data and asked you to develop the balance
sheet based on the information. Your results should be as follows:
Cash
Accounts receivables
Inventories
Total current assets
Gross fixed assets
Accumulated depreciation
Net fixed assets
Other assets
Total assets
$10,000
$50,000
$70,000
$130,000
$75,000
$20,000
$55,000
$15,000
$200,000
Accounts payables
Short-term notes
Total short-term debt
Long-term note
Mortgage
Total long-term debt
Total debt
Common stock
Retained earnings
Total equity
Total debt and equity
$40,000
$20,000
$60,000
$5,000
$20,000
$25,000
$85,000
$100,000
$15,000
$115,000
$200,000
Operating income
+
depreciation
$101
$28
$129
$17
$5
These
Cash taxes
Cash flows from operations
($12)
$117
$5
$8
$33
$1
$(47)
$15
$0
$15
($32)
$79
$25
($104)
($19)
We see that the free cash flows are negative in the amount of $19,000. While
$117,000 was generated from operations, this amount was more than consumed by
the increases in net operating working capital and investments in long-term assets.
We should question where the firm found the cash to invest in assets when it did
not generate enough from operations to make all its investments. How about from
the investors? Lets compute the financing cash flows to see if the firms investors
provided the money.
... Now About Your Brother-In-Law!
With an understanding of the income statement and balance sheet, lets return to
your brother-in laws proposition to become a partner with him in the clothing
business. You have constructed the income statement and the balance sheet from
the fragments of your dog-chewed papers. When you do, you get the following
results (in $ thousands):
Projected Income
Statement
Sales
Cost of goods sold
Gross profits
Operating expenses:
Office overhead
Advertising expense
Projected Balance
Sheet
$75
$40
$35
$14
$16
11
$6
$14
$10
$30
$6
$10
Rent expense
Depreciation expense
Total operating expenses
Operating income
Interest expenses
Earnings before taxes
Taxes
Net income
$4
$10
Total Debt
Equity
Brother-in-law
Your Investment
Total Equity
Total projected debt and equity
Additional financing needed
Total debt and equity needed
$44
($9)
$1
($10)
$0
($10)
$16
$3
$2
$5
$21
$9
$30
So, based on your estimates, the venture would expect to incur a loss of $10,000.
Furthermore, the balance sheet suggests that the business will need $30,000 for
investments in assets, which would come from debt financing of $16,000 (you
hope); $3,000 from the brother-in-law (if he has it), and $2,000 from you, which
totals $21,000, and not the $30,000 you actually need. Thus, the business will need
an additional $9,000. Maybe, just maybe, this is not quite the opportunity your
brother-in-law perceives it to be.
Calculating Financing Cash Flows
We will now compute the cash flows to the firms investors, or what we call the
financing cash flows. The cash flows from financing the business is equal to:
+
or
-
+
or
-
increase in stock
decrease in stock
$54
($20)
0
($20)
12
($15)
$19
As we expected, the investors, in net, invested more money into the company than
they received. In fact, they provided $19,000the exact amount of the firms
negative cash flows. As we noted earlier, the cash flows generated by a company
must equal the cash provided by the investors or paid to the investors.
To conclude a firm's free cash flows are more complicated than merely
taking income and adding back depreciation. The changes in asset balances
resulting from growth is just as important in determining the free cash flows as is
profits, maybe even more important sometimes. Hence, the owner-manager of a
company is well advised to think about profits and cash flows both, and if we can
only watch one, watch the cash flows, because if we run out of cash, they don't let
us play the game any longer.
13
business.RobertMorrisAssociates,theassociationofbankloanandcreditofficers,
publishesasetof16keyratiosforover350linesofbusiness.Inbothcasestheratiosare
classifiedbyindustryandbyfirmsizetoprovidethebasisformoremeaningful
comparisons.
14
There are two ways to answer the question. First, we can look at the firm's
assets that are relatively liquid in nature and compare them to the amount of the
debt coming due in the near term. Second, we can look at the timeliness with
which such assets are being converted into cash.
Testing Your Understanding:
Measuring Cash Flows: How Did You Do?
Earlier on, we asked you to calculate a firms free cash flows and its investors
cash flows. Your results should be as follows:
Free cash flows:
Operating income
Depreciation expense
Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation
and amortization
Income taxes
After-tax cash flows from operations
Investments in net working capital:
Change in current assets
Change in accounts payables
Investments in net working capital:
Investment in fixed assets
Total investments
Free cash flows
Investors' cash flows:
Interest expense
Dividends
Increase in notes payables
Increase in common stock
Investors' cash flows
$50
$7
$57
$12
$45
$25
$20
$5
$55
$60
($15)
($10)
($5)
$30
$0
$15
liquidity more restrictive by excluding inventories, the least liquid of the current
assets, in the numerator. This revised ratio is called the acid-test (or quick) ratio,
and is measured as follows:
Acid-test ratio =
(Eq. 2)
We can demonstrate the computations of the current ratio and the acid-test ratio by
using the LM Manufacturing Company's 2006 balance sheet (Exhibit 5). These
calculations and the industry norms or averages, as reported by Robert Morris
Associates, are as follows:
Industry
Average
LM
Current ratio
=
$347,000
=
$99,000
Acid-test ratio
3.51
=
$347,000 $210,000
=
$99,000
1.38
Thus, in terms of the current ratio and the acid-test ratio, LM Manufacturing is
more liquid than the average firm in their industry. LM Manufacturing has $3.51
in current assets relative to every $1 in current liabilities (debt), compared to $2.70
for a "typical" firm in the industry; and the firm has $1.38 in current assets less
inventories per $1 of current debt, compared to $1.25 for the industry norm.
While both ratios suggest that the firm is more liquid, the current ratio appears to
suggest more liquidity than the acid-test ratio. Why might this be the case?
Simply put, LM has more inventories relative to current debt than do most other
firms. Which ratio should be given greater weight depends on our confidence in
the liquidity of the inventories. We shall return to this question shortly.
Measuring Liquidity: Approach 2
The second view of liquidity examines the firm's ability to convert accounts
receivables and inventory into cash on a timely basis. The conversion of accounts
receivable into cash may be measured by computing how long it takes to collect
the firm's receivables; that is, how many days of sales are outstanding in the form
of accounts receivable? We may answer this question by computing the average
collection period:
Average collection period =
(Eq. 3)
For LM Manufacturing, the average collection period, if we assume that all sales
are credit sales, as opposed to some cash sales, is 34.3 days, compared to an
industry norm of 35 days:
16
LM
=
=
Industry
Accounts receivable
Daily credit sales
$78,000
= 34.30
$830,000 365
Thus, the company collects its receivable in about the same number of days as the
average firm in the industry. Accounts receivable it would appear are of
reasonable liquidity when viewed from the perspective of the length of time
required to convert receivables into cash.
We could have reached the same conclusion by measuring how many times
accounts receivable are "rolled over" during a year, that being the accounts
receivable turnover. For instance, LM Manufacturing turns its receivables over
10.64 times a year, that being2.
=
=
$830,000
=
$78,000
10.64
Whether we use average collection period or the accounts receivable turnover, the
conclusion is the same: LM Manufacturing is comparable to the average firm in
the industry when it comes to the collection of receivables.
We now want to know the same thing for inventories that we just
determined for accounts receivable: How many times are we turning over
inventories during the year? In this manner, we gain some insight about the
liquidity of the inventories. The inventory turnover ratio is calculated as
follows:
Inventory
Turnover
(Eq. 4)
Note that sales in this ratio are being measured at the firm's cost, as opposed to the
full market value when sold. Since the inventory (the denominator) is at cost, we
want to measure sales (the numerator) also on a cost basis. Otherwise, our answer
would be biased3.
The inventory turnover for LM Manufacturing, along with the industry
norm, is as follows:
LM
Industry
2Wecouldalsomeasuretheaccountsreceivableturnoverbydividing365daysbythe
averagecollectionperiod:365/34.30=10.64.
3Whileourlogicmaybecorrecttousecostofgoodssoldinthenumerator,practicality
maydictatethatweusesalesinstead.Mostsuppliersofindustrynormdatausesalesin
thenumerator.Thus,forconsistencyinourcomparisons,wetoomayneedtousesales.
17
Inventory
Turnover
=
=
$539,000
$210,000
= 2.55
$8,314
$4,238
$1,583
$1,271
$23,373
$19,097
$8,669
1.17
0.92
10.08
18.32
operating profits
total assets
19
(Eq. 5)
EXHIBIT 7
LM Manufacturing Profits to Assets Relationship for Fiscal Year Ended
December 31, 2006
Debt
$299,000
produced
Total Assets
$927,000
Equity
$628,000
$101,000
operating
profits
=
=
Industry
operating profits
total assets
$101,000
$927,000
= 10.89%
0.96
0.81
5.52
15.03
Industry
1.17
0.92
10.08
18.32
Watson is not as liquid as the average firm in the industryno matter how you
measure it! They do not have the liquid assets to cover current liabilities, nor do
they convert receivables and inventories to cash as quickly.
20
(Eq. 6a)
or more completely,
OROA = X
(Eq. 6b)
These influences should become apparent if we look at the income statement and
think about what is involved in determining the firm's operating profits or income.
Total Asset turnover is a function of how efficiently management is using
the firm's assets to generate sales. If Company A can generate $3 in sales with $1
in assets compared to $2 in sales per asset dollar by Company B, we may say that
Company A is using its assets more efficiently in generating sales, which is a
major determinant in the return on investment.
Let's turn now to LM Manufacturing to see what we can learn. We would
compute LM's operating profit margin and total asset turnover as follows:
LM
Industry
=
=
$101,000
$830,000
= 12.16%
$830,000
$927,000
= 0.89
=
=
Recalling that:
21
OROA = X
(Eq. 6a)
Given the following financial information for the Watson Company (expressed in
$ thousands), evaluate the firms operating return on assets (OROA).
Accounts receivables
Inventories
Sales
Operating profits
Cost of goods sold
Gross fixed assets
Accumulated depreciation
Net fixed assets
Total assets
$4,238
$1,271
$23,373
$2,314
$19,097
$27,677
$12,482
$15,195
$49,988
4.63%
11.30%
0.34
10.08
18.32
1.05
LM
Industry
Accounts receivable
=
$830,000
$78,000
=10.64
Inventories
= 2.55
Fixed assets
= 1.58
LM Manufacturing's problems are now even clearer. The company has
excessive inventories, which we had known from our earlier discussions, and also
there is too large an investment in fixed asset for the sales being produced. It
would appear that these two asset categories are not being managed well and the
consequence is a lower operatinag return on assets. A detailed analysis of LMs
OROA is presented in Exhibit 8.
23
EXHIBIT 8
Analysis of LM Manufacturing Operating Return on Assets (OROA)
Operating return
on assets
operating profits
total assets
LM Mfg 10.89%
Industry 13.2%
Operating return
on assets
operating profit
margin
LM Mfg 12.16%
Industry 11%
accts receivable
turnover
LM Mfg 10.64
Industry 10.43
total asset
x turnover
LM Mfg 0.89X
Industry 1.20X
inventory
turnover
fixed assets
turnover
LM Mfg 2.55X
Industry 4.00X
LM Mfg 1.58X
Industry 2.50X
Industry
=
=
$299,000
$927,000
= 32%
Thus, LM Manufacturing uses somewhat less debt than the average firm in the
industry.
4Wewilloftenseetherelationshipstatedintermofdebttoequity,ratherthandebtto
totalassets.Wecometothesameconclusionwitheitherratio.
24
Watson
Industry
4.63%
9.90%
0.47
5.52
15.03
1.54
3.84%
11.30%
0.34
10.08
18.32
1.05
operating profit
interest expense
(Eq. 8)
For LM Manufacturing,
LM
=
=
Industry
operating profit
interest expense
$101,000
= 5.05
$20,000
that the firm may be required to repay some of the debt principal as well as the
interest. Thus, the times interest earned is only a crude measure of the firm's
capacity to service its debt. Nevertheless, it does give us a general indication of a
company's debt capacity.
Testing Your Understanding: Evaluating Watsons Financing Policies
Given the information below for Watson, calculate the firms debt ratio and the
times interest earned. How does Watsons practices compare to the industry.
What are the implications of your findings?
Total debt
Equity
Common stock
Retained earnings
Total liabilities and equity
Operating profits
Interest expense
$26,197
$10,627
$13,164
$49,988
$2,314
$793
Industry norms:
Debt ratio
Times interest earned
34.21%
4.50X
net income
common equity
(Eq. 9)
The return on equity for LM Manufacturing and the industry are 9.94 percent and
12.5 percent, respectively:
26
LM
=
Industry
net income
common equity
$64,000
= $628,000 =
10.1%
It would appear that the owners of the LM Manufacturing Company are not
receiving a return on their investment equivalent with owners involved with
competing businesses. However, we may also ask the question, "Why not?" In
this case, the answer would be twofold: First, LM Manufacturing is not as
profitable in its operation as its competitors. (Remember the operatinag return on
assets of 10.89 percent for LM Manufacturing, compared to 13.2 percent for the
industry.) Second, the average firm in the industry uses more debt, which causes
the return on common equity to be higher, provided of course that the company is
earning a return on its investments that exceeds the cost of debt (the interest rate).
The use of the debt, we must also note, increases the risk. An example will help us
understand this point.
Evaluating Watsons Financing Policies: How Did You Do?
Watson
Industry
Debt ratio
52.41%
34.21%
Times interest earned
2.92X
4.50X
Watson uses significantly more debt financing than the average firm in the
industry. It also has lower interest coverage. The higher debt ratio implies that the
firm has greater financial risk. The lower interest coverage is the result of Watson
borrowing more debt, resulting in a higher interest expense.
The Effect of Using Debt: An Example. Assume that we have two
companies, Firm A and Firm B. These two firms are identical in size, both having
$1,000 in total assets and they both have an operatinag return on assets of 14
percent. However, they are different in one respect: Firm A uses no debt, while
Firm B finances 50 percent of its investments with debt at an interest cost of 10
percent. Assuming there to be no taxes for the sake of simplicity, the financial
statements for the two companies are as follows:
Firm A
Total assets
Debt (10% interest rate)
Equity
Total
$1,000
$0
1,000
$1,000
27
Firm B
$1,000
$500
500
$1,000
Operating income
Interest expense
Net profit
$140
0
$140
$140
50
$ 90
Computing the return on common equity for both companies, we see that
Firm B has a much more attractive return to its owners, 18 percent compared to
Firm A's 14 percent:
=
Firm A:
$140
$1,000
= 14%
Firm B:
= 18%
Why the difference? The answer is straight forward. Firm B is earning 14 percent
on its investments, but only having to pay 10 percent for its borrowed money. The
difference between the return on the assets and the interest rate, that being 14
percent less the 10 percent, flows to the owners. We have just seen the results of
financial leverage at work, where we borrow at a low rate of return and invest at a
high rate of return. The result is magnified returns to the owners.
Testing Your Understanding: Evaluating Watsons Return on Equity
The net income and also the common equity invested by Watsons shareholders
(expressed in $ thousands) are provided below, along with the average return on
equity for the industry. Evaluate the rate of return being earned on the common
stockholders equity investment. In addition to comparing Watsons return on
equity to the industry, consider the implications of Watsons operating return on
assets and its debt financing practices for the firms return on equity.
Net income
Equity
Common stock
Retained earnings
Industry average return on equity
$ 1,300
$10,627
$13,164
2.31%
If debt is so attractive in terms of its ability to enhance the owners' returns, why
would we not use lots of it all the time? We may continue our example to find the
answer. Assume now that the economy falls into a deep recession, business
declines sharply, and Firms A and B only earn 6 percent operatinag return on
assets. Let us recompute the return on common equity now.
Operating income
Interest expense
Net profit
$60
0
$60
28
$60
50
$ 10
Firm A:
$60
$1,000
= 6%
Firm B:
= 2%
Now the use of leverage is negative in its influence, with Firm B earning
less than Firm A for its owners. The problem comes from Firm B earning less than
the interest rate of 10 percent and the owners having to make up the difference.
We are now seeing the negative aspect of financial leverage. In other words,
financial leverage is a two-edged sword; when times are good, financial leverage
can make them very, very good, but when times are bad, financial leverage makes
them very, very bad. Thus, we see that the use of financial leverage can
potentially enhance the returns of the owners, but it also increases the uncertainty
or risk for the owners.
In conclusion, we see that the return on equity is a function of:
1. The difference between the operatinag return on assets and the interest rate.
2. The amount of debt used in the capital structure relative to the firm size.
These relationships are also shown in Exhibit 9.
29
EXHIBIT 9
Analysis of LM Manufacturing Return on Equity Relationships
Return on
Equity (ROE)
LM Mfg
ROE 10.1%
Operating
return n
assets
(OROA):
LM Mfg
OROA
10.89%
less
Interest
Interestrate
rate
(i)
(i)
Useofofdebt
debt
Use
financing
financing
LMMfg
Mfg
LM
debtratio
ratio
debt
32%
32%
Management of operations
LM Mfg
operating profit margin 12.16%
Asset management
LM Mfg
total asset turnover 0.89X
Returning to the LM Manufacturing Company, we will remember that the
operating return on investment is less than that of competing firms, so if the
competing firms are paying comparable interest rates, the return on equity for LM
30
Manufacturing will by necessity be less. Also, we observed that the average firm
in the industry uses more debt, which magnifies the return on equity, but also
exposes the owners to additional risk. So the return on equity for LM
Manufacturing is less than competing firms for two reasons: (1) it has less
operating profits, and (2) it uses less debt. The first reason needs to be corrected
by improved management of the firm's assets. The second reason may be a
conscious decision of management not to assume as much risk as other firms do.
This latter issue is a matter of "tastes and preferences."
Evaluating Watsons Return on Equity: How Did You Do?
Watsons return on equity is 5.46 percent (5.46% = $1,300 million / $23,791
million common equity), compared to 2.31 percent for the industry average.
Watsons return on equity is due to the firm having a higher operating return on
assets and using a lot more debt financing than the average firm in the industry.
While Watson certainly provides it stockholders a higher return on equity than
other firms in the industry on average, it is still low compared to the Standard &
Poors 500 firms, which have historically had an average return on equity of about
18 percent. Thus, the entire industry is struggling to give attractive returns to
stockholders.
To review what we have learned about the use of financial ratios in
evaluating a company's financial position, we have presented all the ratios for the
LM Manufacturing Company in Exhibit 10. The ratios are grouped by the issue
being addressed, that being liquidity, operating profitability, financing, and profits
for the owners. As before, we use some ratios for more than one purpose, namely
the turnover ratios for accounts receivables and inventories. These ratios have
implications both for the firm's liquidity and its profitability; thus, they are listed
in both areas. Also, we have shown both average collection period and accounts
receivable turnover; typically, we would only use one in our analysis, since they
are just different ways to measure the same thing. Hopefully, seeing the ratios
together will help us to see the overview of what we have done.
EXHIBIT 10
LM Manufacturing, Company
Financial Ratio Analysis
Financial Ratios
LM Manufacturing
1. Firm liquidity
$347,200
= 3.51
$99,900
Current
:
Ratio
$347,200 $211,400
= 1.38
$99,900
31
Industry
$78,000
= 34.30
$830,200 365
$830,200
= 10.64
$78,000
$539,750
= 2.55
$211,400
2. Operating profitability
$99,700
= 10.89%
$927,000
$89,700
= 12.16%
$830,200
$830,200
= 0.89
$927,000
$830,200
= 10.64
$78,000
$539,750
= 2.55
$211,400
$830,200
= 1.58
$524,800
3. Financing decisions
$299,900
$927,000
Debt
Ratio
$89,700
$20,000
= 32%
= 5.05
4. Return on equity
$62,310
$627,100
32
= 10.1%
STUDY PROBLEMS
1.
(Ratio Analysis) Using Pamplin Inc.'s financial statements for the two
most recent years:
a.
Compute the following ratios for both 2005 and 2006 for Pamplin,
Inc., from the financial statements provided.
Industry Norm
2006
Current ratio
Acid test (quick) ratio
Inventory turnover
Average collection period
Debt ratio
Times interest earned
Total asset turnover
Fixed asset turnover
Operating profit margin
Return on common equity
b.
c.
d.
e.
3.25
2.75
2.2
90
.20
7.0
.75
1.0
20%
9%
Cash
Accounts Receivable
Inventory
Current assets
Plant and equipment
Less: accumulated depreciation
Net plant and equipment
Total assets
33
2006
$125
375
550
1,050
2,750
(1,200)
1,550
$2,600
2005
$200
0
200
600
2006
$150
150
300
600
300
600
700
1,600
2,400
300
600
800
1,700
2,600
2005
$ 1,200
700
500
30
220
250
50
200
80
120
2006
$ 1,450
850
600
40
200
360
64
296
118
178
(Cash Flow Statement) Compute the cash flow for Pamplin, Inc., for the
year ended December 31, 2006, both for the firm and for the investors.
34
3.
For the Jarmon Company, compute the free cash flows and answer the four
questions. For year ending June 30, 2007.
T. P. Jarmon Company Balance Sheets
For 6/30/03 and 6/30/04
Cash
Marketable securities
Accounts receivable
Inventory
Prepaid rent
Total current assets
Net plant and equipment
Total assets $
2006
$ 15,000
6,000
42,000
51,000
1,200
$ 115,200
286,000
401,000
2007
$ 14,000
6,200
33,000
84,000
1,100
$ 138,300
270,000
$ 408,300
Accounts payable
Notes payable
Accruals
Total current liabilities
Long-term debt
Common stockholders equity
Total liabilities and equity
2006
$ 48,000
15,000
6,000
$ 69,000
$ 160,000
$ 172,200
$ 401,200
2007
$ 57,000
13,000
5,000
$ 75,000
$ 150,000
$ 183,300
$ 408,300
$600,000
460,000
$140,000
$30,000
10,000
30,000
70,000
70,000
27,100
42,900
31,800
$ 11,100
35
INDUSTRY NORMS
Current Ratio
Acid Test Ratio
Debt Ratio
Times Interest Earned
Average Collection Period
Inventory Turnover
Oper. Income Return on Invest.
Operating Profit Margin
Gross Profit Margin
Total Asset Turnover
Fixed Asset Turnover)
Return on equity
1.8
.9
.5
10
20, days
7
16.8%
14%
25%
1.2
1.8
12%
36