Case 22 Victoria Chemicals (A)

Jordan Green Shaquita Harris Sharde Lymon Donald Pritchard MGMT 4700 3/21/12

I. Introduction Victoria Chemicals is one of the leading producers of Polypropylene, a polymer that is used in many products ranging from carpet fibers, automobile components, packaging film and more. When Victoria Chemicals started up in 1967 they built two plants, one in Merseyside, England and one in Rotterdam, Holland. Both plants were identical to each other and produced an equal amount of goods. Morris Greystock, the controller of the Merseyside plant had notice a decline in the stock price from 250 pence per share in 2006 to 180 pence per share in 2007 and knew he had to do something. Facing pressure from the investors and wanting to increase production efficiency, he decided to renovate the Merseyside plant so Victoria Chemicals can lift itself back to where it once was and continue to be one of the major competitors in the worldwide chemical industry. After taking all the costs and benefits into consideration, Greystock put together his own analysis in which he based it on four different components; Earning per Share, Payback Period, Net Present Value, and Internal rate of return. Soon after many people looked at his analysis they had several questions and suggestions to give to Greystock. We will see soon enough that Greystocks Analysis had many flaws that needed to be fixed and how it really should have been done. II. Victoria Chemicals and its Capital Expenditures Victoria Chemicals incorporated four different types of methods to determine its capital budgeting proposed projects. They include Earnings per Share (EPS), Pay Back Period (PBP), NPV, and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Of the four methods, the two favorable to use for evaluation would be NPV and IRR while the EPS and PBP would be less favorable to use because of its evaluation process. Using NPV is a good method to use to evaluate the project because it takes in account for all the costs relevant to the project and includes all the cash flow of the project as seen on exhibit 1. We would also include the IRR because of the beneficial picture that it creates. However, there can be a complication if two scenarios arise. The first complication can be realized when there is a negative Cash Flow other than the initial year of the implementation of the project and dealing with a mutually exclusive project. Neither one of these scenarios occur for the proposed Victoria Chemicals project. The payback period and EPS are not used in the final determination of accepting the project because of their shortfalls. When using EPS to evaluate a project it will be more biased towards shorter term project. This is because EPS focuses on the current cash flows instead of the direct cash flows. The reason why Pay Back Period isnt a determining factor in accepting a project is because it doesnt take into consideration the time value of money and also ignores any Cash Flow that occurs after the payback period has been reached. III. Transportation Division Dispute The Transport Division suggestion is that the tank car purchases should be included in the initial outlay because the increased output will exhaust the capacity of the current tank cars and

thus will make the company purchase them in year 2010 instead of 2012. This shift in time will alter the timing of the cash flows and will have a direct affect on the incremental depreciation as seen on exhibit 1. While Greystock argues that it shouldnt be included because it will initially use the excess capacity of the Transport Division. IV. Facing Cannibalization The director of sales suggest that if the project is accepted then it means they will have to shift capacity away from the Rotterdam plant and towards in Merseyside in order to compensate for the increased output volume. This process of shifting resources would result in an internal cannibalization. The director of sales also warns of an oversupply in the market due to stiff competition and the recession that is affecting the economy. He believes its not necessary to accept the project because it will create internal cannibalization. As we see on exhibit 2, the worst case scenario of 100% internal cannibalization still produces a positive NPV of 8.81. The most likely case scenario would produce a possible 50% internal cannibalization and would produce a NPV of 12.94 as seen on exhibit 2. Greystock on the other hand believes that cannibalization is not a relevant cash flow. After reviewing the calculation, the suggestion of director of Sales has merit and is evident that Greystock made a mistake in not including cannibalization in its cash flow.

Griffin Tewitt the assistant plant manager proposed to modernize the separate and independent part of the Merseyside works which was the production line producing ethylene-propylenecopolymer rubber (EPC). This proposal would cost GBP1 million and would improve cash flow by GBP25,000 ad infinitum and would allow them to produce the EPC at the lowest cost in the world. Even this advantage, it would still result in a negative project NPV. Tewitt argued that the positive NPV of the poly renovations would be able to sustain the negative NPV of the EPC project. The important thing to notice is undertaking this project will increase the plant size which directly coincides with the increase in bonus being tied to it. This presents a conflict of interest which is also an agency problem. Another problem is that it would not be very honest because the firm would be hiding critical information from the investors. From this we can conclude that Dewitt has self-driven motives for undertaking this project instead of looking out for the company and thus we suggest rejecting this proposal. V. Concerns of the Treasury Staff After looking over Greystocks analysis, Andrew Gowen of the treasury staff had a couple suggestions about what rate should be the one being used. He stated that Cash flows and discount rates need to be consistent in their assumptions about inflation, which is correct. Historically inflation rates are around 2 to 3%, however in Greystocks analysis, he did not take this into consideration. This would mean that the real target rate for the company would be at 7%. Trying to stay consistent in the analysis we decided to use a 3% inflation rate and a nominal

rate of 10%. This is more accurate since inflation is something that is a constant so to assume 0% inflation is just unrealistic. As seen in exhibit 3, the inflation is not a determining factor in the NPV. VI. Concerns of the Assistant Plant Manager After taking everyones input into consideration, Greystocks analysis had to take on a large overhaul. First of all, an inflation rate had to be added, we know that inflation must be counted on in the first year. We decided to let the base year for inflation to be the year before since we thought that it would make more sense to have inflation at the beginning of 2008 instead of it starting in 2009. Our next step was to take into account cannibalization, which is very important since we want to know how much is Rotterdam losing out on by renovating Merseyside. Once we took into account cannibalization, we needed to reduce the work in process of Rotterdam according to the percentage of cannibalization we thought would be taking place and in our analysis we decided to make it 100%. The next thing that had to be changed was depreciation for the tank cars. Greystock originally did not include depreciation of tank cars which needs to be included here since they are now accelerating the date of when they would need more tank cars from 2012 to 2010. As stated in the case, the first eight years they were using the DDB method and at the last two years straight-line were used. There were two minor changes that needed to be made and that was the removal of overhead costs and engineering costs. The reason for this is because overhead is more to do with allocation, there is no need to add overhead costs into this analysis and secondly, engineering costs is a sunk cost which is not added in determining the NPV of the project because it would be spent regardless of whether they go through with the project or not. After making many changes to the sheet, pretax cash flow had to be calculated properly as seen on exhibit 1 with the new values and since we now added the tank cars into depreciation, capital expenditure of GBP2 million needed to be added for 2011. Lastly we would get the change in WIP to the correct amount after taking all the changes into consideration. These changes are critical in Greystocks analysis and give out a much more accurate NPV and IRR as seen in exhibit 1 when compared to his original. The benefits of the Merseyside project to Victoria Chemical include an increase in manufacturing throughput of 7% and the project is expected to improve the firms gross margin from 11.5% to 12.5%. Another benefit to be realized from the project is an energy savings increase of 1.25% of sales for year 5 and 0.75% of sales for years 6-10. All of these benefits will be reflected as income revenue on the income statement. As seen on exhibit 4, price per ton is more sensitive to the project NPV and IRR than the inflation rate is. The breakeven point of price per ton is at $457 as seen on exhibit 4. In comparing the change of inflation rate and NPV, it was discovered that the only situation which causes the project to be of no value is when deflation occurs. The discount rate has an impact on the new projects value as well especially when looked at with the cannibalization. Exhibit 5 shows as the discount rate and cannibalization increases the projects NPV decreases. The

projects NPV maintains positive even at the worst case scenario of discount rate at 20% and 100% cannibalization as seen in exhibit 5.

Exhibit 2

| | | | | | |

| | |0% |10% |20% |30% |40% |50%

|NPV |8.81 | | | | | | | | | | |

|IRR |21.7% 17.08 |30% 16.25 |29% 15.42 |29% 14.60 |28% 13.77 |27%

| | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Cannibalization | | | | | |60% |70% |80% |90% |100%

12.94 |26% 12.12 |25% 11.29 |24% 10.46 |23% 9.63 |23% 8.81 |22%

Exhibit 3

| |

| |

|NPV |8.81

|IRR |21.7%

| |

| | | | |Inflation | | | | | |

|0.0% |0.5% |1.0% |1.5% |2.0% |2.5% |3.0% |3.5% |4.0% |4.5% |5.0%

|4.588962 |5.238871 |5.908864 |6.599736 |7.312308 |8.04744 |8.806024 |9.588987 |10.3973 |11.23196 |12.09402

|17.1% |17.9% |18.7% |19.4% |20.2% |21.0% |21.7% |22.4% |23.2% |23.9% |24.6% | |

| | | | |

| |

| |

Executive Summary: Victoria Chemicals is a leading producer of polypropylene, a polymer used in a wide variety of products. Their factory at Merseyside consists of old production only semi continuous, causing the factory to have higher labor content. In order to remain relevant and profitable in such a competitive market, Victoria Chemicals needs to update its antiquated plant design. When Lucy Morris took over her position as plant manager, she discovered many opportunities to improve the polypropylene production. Some improvement stem from deferring maintenance over the preceding five years. Capital expenditures by the company only consisted of the most essential. Now what was deferred is going to be essential. By making improvements, it would save energy and improve process flow. Included in the improvements would be: 1. Relocating and modernizing tank-car unloading areas, which would enable process flow to be streamlined. 2. Refurbishing the polymerization tank to achieve higher pressures and thus greater output.

3. Renovating the compounding plant to increase extrusion throughput and obtain energy savings. The improvements are proposed to be GPB12 million by plant manager Lucy Morris. The disadvantages to this proposal would be that the plant would be shut down for 45 days, thus

running the risk of losing customers. The advantages would be lower energy requirements and 7% greater manufacturing throughput. Also, the project is expected to improve the gross margin from 11.5% to 12.5%. The proposed project has objections by different divisions of Victoria Chemicals. The first division that is concerned is the Transport Division. They could increase their allocation of tank cars to Merseyside, but with the anticipated growth of the firm, they believe they will have to purchase new tank cars. The second division with concerns is with the sales and marketing departments. They point out that although the project assumes Victoria Chemicals can sell the added output they are predicting, can they actually sell it? The market for polypropylene is extremely competitive, and the industry is in a downturn. They think that this will cause cannibalization within the company. The third objection is by the Assistant Plant Manager Griffin Tewitt. He has been engrossed in renovating the ethylene-propylene-copolymer rubber (EPC) part of the plant. His project would give Victoria Chemicals the lowest EPC cost base in the world, but his NPV for the project was (GBP750,000). He believes his project should be included in the renovations. The final objections are by the treasury staffs who believe that because of inflation the discount rate should be 7% instead of 10%. This is ignored in the analysis, and 10% is continued to be used. Problem Statement: Will undertaking the capital program to improve productions at Merseyside improve the financial performance of Victoria Chemicals? Will taking on this project cause a loss of business volume? Data Analysis: The expected Net Present value of this project is GBP10.5 million. NPV gives explicit consideration to the time value of money. It is measured by subtracting a projects initial investment from the present value of the cash inflows discounted at a rate equal to the firms cost of capital. If the NPV of the project is greater than zero, then the firm can believe that this is an acceptable project. The higher the NPV, the better the return for stockholders. The internal rate of return for this project is 24%. The IRR is the discount rate that makes the net present value equal to zero. IRR is important to this project because it includes risk. With the market in a downturn, IRR is going to be important. The IRR must be better than the hurdle rate of 10%, where clearly this project achieves that. The addition to Earnings per share of this project is GBP0.22. For engineering-efficiency projects, the contribution to net income has to be positive, which this is.

The payback period for the program is 3.8 years. The shorter the payback period, the better a project is believed to be. We do not take depreciation into consideration for this evaluation. 3.8 years would be acceptable. The profitability index is based upon NPV. The profitability index for Merseyside is 1.15%. This means Victoria Chemicals will earn 1.15% on initial GBP12 million invested above and beyond return needed to pay initial investment cost. Key Decision Criteria In determining if this project will be profitable for Victoria Chemicals, it is important to remember some guidelines about relevant cash flows. As far as the transportation division is concerned, Victoria Chemicals has always done its books with each division fending for itself. If they believe that an allocation of tank cars needs to be made, then they can put it on their books. When looking at relevant cash flows, one should remember to be suspicious of any item called an allocation. The concerns of the Sales and marketing departments were associated with cannibalism within the company, more specifically the sales of sister factory Rotterdam. f you were to account for full erosion of Rotterdams business volume, the NPV would be GBP8.82 million and the IRR would be 22.3. This is still a positive NPV for Merseyside and above the hurdle rate. If the Merseyside factory can become a dominant figure for Victoria Chemicals, maybe improvements can be made at Rotterdam. Although the market is in a downturn, accomplishing this project now would lead to an increase in sales when the market turns around. If they can provide the market with a cheaper product when it turns around, sales volume can be expected to increase. Overall, the project met all four investment criteria the company has set forth. Evaluation of Alternatives The company could look at making smaller improvements over time instead of all the improvements at once. Shutting down the factory completely could lead to loss of sales. If they could come up with an alternative way to still keep productions moving without the complete shutdown of the factory, this could help keep customers. Recommendations and Action Plan After thorough evaluation of the project, the conclusion is that Victoria Chemicals should go forward with the proposed capital program. The addition to Earning per share, the positive NPV, and the acceptable IRR are all factors that lead us to believe this capital program will be successful. After the market turns around, Victoria Chemicals will be in a dominant position in the market and will surely take more market share than before the program. Competitors BP(British Petroleum)

BP is one of the world's leading international oil and gas companies, providing its customers with fuel for transportation, energy for heat and light, retail services and petrochemicals products for everyday items. BP is a global oil and gas company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is the third-largest energy company and fourth-largest company in the world measured by revenues. It is vertically-integrated and is active in every area of the oil and gas industry, including exploration and production, refining, distribution and marketing, petrochemicals, power generation and trading. It also has major renewable energy activities, including in biofuels, hydrogen, solar and wind power. BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 3.8 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 22,400 service stations worldwide. Its largest division is BP America, which is the biggest producer of oil and gas in the United States and is headquartered in Hothemton, Texas. As at 31 December 2010 BP had total proven commercial reserves of 18.07 billion barrels of oil equivalent. The name "BP" derives from the initials of one of the company's former legal names, British Petroleum. BP plc Annual Financial Data

In Millions of THEMD (except for per share items) Cash & Equivalents Short Term Investments Cash and Short Term Investments Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net Receivables - Other Total Receivables, Net Total Inventory Prepaid Expenses Other Current Assets, Total Total Current Assets Property/Plant/Equipment, Total Gross

As of 201112-31 14,067.00 288.00 14,355.00 42,105.00 25,661.00 1,286.00 12,277.00 95,684.00 -

As of 201012-31 18,556.00 1,532.00 20,088.00 37,489.00 26,218.00 1,574.00 8,843.00 94,212.00 -

As of 200912-31 4,980.00 0.00 8,339.00 24,338.00 29,989.00 22,605.00 1,753.00 4,967.00 67,653.00 231,258.00

As of 200812-31 4,196.00 8,197.00 24,123.00 29,806.00 16,821.00 3,050.00 8,510.00 66,384.00 217,109.00

In Millions of THEMD (except for per share items) Accumulated Depreciation, Total Goodwill, Net Intangibles, Net Long Term Investments Other Long Term Assets, Total Total Assets Accounts Payable Accrued Expenses Notes Payable/Short Term Debt Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases Other Current liabilities, Total Total Current Liabilities Long Term Debt Capital Lease Obligations Total Long Term Debt Total Debt Deferred Income Tax Minority Interest Other Liabilities, Total Total Liabilities Redeemable Preferred Stock, Total Preferred Stock - Non Redeemable, Net Common Stock, Total Additional Paid-In Capital Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit) Treasury Stock - Common Other Equity, Total Total Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Shares Outs - Common Stock Primary Issue Total Common Shares Outstanding

As of 201112-31 12,100.00 21,102.00 30,926.00 6,921.00 290,927.00 52,405.00 5,932.00 9,044.00 15,037.00 82,418.00 35,169.00 35,169.00 44,213.00 15,078.00 1,017.00 45,780.00 179,462.00 111,465.00 111,465.00 290,927.00 18,975.90

As of 201012-31 8,598.00 14,298.00 29,453.00 8,346.00 272,262.00 46,329.00 5,612.00 14,626.00 17,312.00 83,879.00 30,710.00 30,710.00 45,336.00 10,908.00 904.00 50,874.00 177,275.00 94,987.00 94,987.00 272,262.00 18,796.46

As of 200912-31 -122,983.00 8,620.00 11,548.00 29,826.00 7,278.00 235,968.00 23,882.00 6,202.00 0.00 9,109.00 20,127.00 59,320.00 25,020.00 498.00 25,518.00 34,627.00 18,662.00 500.00 30,355.00 134,355.00 5,158.00 9,847.00 101,730.00 -21,517.00 6,395.00 101,613.00 235,968.00 18,759.89

As of 200812-31 -113,909.00 9,878.00 10,260.00 28,681.00 8,130.00 228,238.00 20,716.00 6,743.00 0.00 15,740.00 26,594.00 69,793.00 16,937.00 527.00 17,464.00 33,204.00 16,198.00 806.00 32,674.00 136,935.00 21.00 5,155.00 9,763.00 94,555.00 -21,839.00 3,648.00 91,303.00 228,238.00 18,730.31

BP Strategies/Plan for recovery after Gulf Oil Spill Plan to theme around half of the increased cash flow for investment and half for other themes including increased distributions to shareholders. Investors will be able to measure balance sheet strength. The plan makes a greater priority of creating value for the shareholder, rather than simply increasing production volume. They will sell assets earlier in their lifecycle following discovery if they spot opportunities to reinvest in higher growth areas. They are also being selective in where they invest along the supply chain. For example, they are selling certain mature fields that hold more value for others, and they are selling a number of refining and marketing assets that do not match their aspirations. I want to say a little more about the areas of strength at the heart of their strategy. Exploration is their lifeblood. They had a record year for new access in 2011, gaining 55 exploration licenses in nine countries. This opened up around 315,000km2 for exploration. They intend to more than double exploration investment over the next three years. In deep water, they are confident in their ability to design, engineer and operate large installations safely. 2012 will be a good year for them in the deepwater regions of Angola, Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico. In giant fields, work with their partners has increased output at Iraqs Rumaila field by more than 10%. BP was the first super major to exceed its production target in Iraq. During the year they also announced they will be investing approximately $14 billion with their partners in the UK North Sea. Natural gas is set to be the fastest-growing fossil fuel globally to 2030. Here, they are forging new partnerships, such as the strategic alliance created in 2011 with Reliance in India. They continue to have a significant facts on developing unconventional resources around the world. Taking technology and skills developed in North America, they are working with the governments of Oman and Algeria to develop their large tight gas reservoirs, and they also continue to work in Indonesia to develop their onshore coal bed methane fields. They also have exceptional expertise in building supply chains. For example, they move gas from 6,000 meters below the Shah Deniz field in Azerbaijan to markets in Europe, 3,000 kilometers away. In Refining and Marketing, their world-class fuels, lubricants and petrochemicals the mines are shifting the balance of their activity towards higher growth markets, including China and India. They are moving forward with their plans to sell around half of their refining capacity in the THEM, and they have made good progress on the modernization of the Whiting refinery. Looking ahead, they expect their downstream operations to be a material contributor to the cash flow they anticipate over the next few years. These strengths are supported by their longstanding track record in and applying leading technology, and the deep and enduring relationships they form. They theyre disappointed that their exploration plans with Rosneft did not progress, but they remain committed to their TNK-BP investment in Rthemsia, which continues to be successful. As the BP Energy Outlook 2030 shows, the world is now in a long wavelength transition to a low-carbon energy mix. For BP, that means helping to meet current demand through the supply

of oil and gas including unconventional resources while developing a number of the lowcarbon options needed at scale tomorrow. During 2011, they invested a further $1.6 billion in their Alternative Energy business, which takes total investment since 2005 to $6.6 billion. They have a growing biofuels business in Brazil and they added 401MWa of wind generation capacity during the year, with interests in more than 1,000 wind turbines now turning across the THEM. In contrast, solar has evolved into a low-margin commodity market, and in 2011 they began winding down their remaining solar operations as they prepare to exit the business. LyondellBasell LyondellBasell is the worlds third-largest independent chemical company. We have annual revenues of approximately $41 billion and more than 14,000 employees worldwide. Their vertically integrated facilities, broad product portfolio, manufacturing flexibility, superior technology base and reputation for operational excellence enable them to deliver exceptional value to their customers across the petrochemical chain from refining to advanced product applications. Fast Facts Annual revenues of $41 billion (2010) Global reach that addresses worldwide needs 58 manufacturing sites in 18 countries on five continents Sales in more than 100 countries Vertically integrated facilities enable conversion of crude hydrocarbons to materials for advanced applications Participation in 16 significant manufacturing joint ventures, 11 of which are outside of Western Europe and the United States, primarily in regions that have cost-advantaged raw materials or high growth rates Approximately 9,600 patents worldwide They participate in the entire petrochemical value chain, from refining to specialized petrochemical product end themes. They are the largest producer of polypropylene and polypropylene compounds; a leading producer of propylene oxide, polyethylene, ethylene and propylene; a global leader in polyolefins technology; and a producer of refined products, including biofuels. Additionally, LyondellBasell is a leading provider of technology licenses and a supplier of catalysts for polyolefin production. They are geographically diverse with an extensive global manufacturing, supply, technical and commercial infrastructure. They market and sell their products in more than 100 countries. As economies around the globe develop, the demand for their products continues to grow. LyondellBasell Industries NV Financial Data

In Millions of THEMD (except for per share items) Cash & Equivalents Short Term Investments Cash and Short Term Investments Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net Receivables - Other Total Receivables, Net Total Inventory Prepaid Expenses Other Current Assets, Total Total Current Assets Property/Plant/Equipment, Total Gross Accumulated Depreciation, Total Goodwill, Net Intangibles, Net Long Term Investments Other Long Term Assets, Total Total Assets Accounts Payable Accrued Expenses Notes Payable/Short Term Debt Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases Other Current liabilities, Total Total Current Liabilities Long Term Debt Capital Lease Obligations

As of 201112-31 1,065.00 0.00 1,065.00 3,778.00 3,778.00 5,499.00 1,040.00 53.00 11,435.00 8,444.00 -1,111.00 585.00 1,177.00 2,039.00 270.00 22,839.00 3,414.00 1,165.00 48.00 4.00 387.00 5,018.00 3,980.00 -

As of 201012-31 4,222.00 0.00 4,222.00 3,747.00 3,747.00 4,824.00 975.00 11.00 13,779.00 7,607.00 -417.00 595.00 1,360.00 2,091.00 287.00 25,302.00 2,761.00 1,557.00 42.00 4.00 467.00 4,831.00 6,036.00 -

As of 200912-31 558.00 11.00 569.00 3,287.00 3,287.00 3,277.00 1,119.00 8,252.00 18,991.00 -3,839.00 0.00 1,861.00 2,119.00 377.00 27,761.00 2,128.00 1,270.00 6,182.00 497.00 290.00 10,367.00 305.00 -

As of 200812-31 858.00 32.00 890.00 2,585.00 2,585.00 3,314.00 649.00 7,438.00 18,699.00 -2,308.00 2,241.00 2,379.00 202.00 28,651.00 2,662.00 1,954.00 774.00 22,891.00 320.00 28,601.00 304.00 -

In Millions of THEMD (except for As of 2011per share items) 12-31 Total Long Term Debt 3,980.00 Total Debt 4,032.00 Deferred Income Tax 917.00 Minority Interest 54.00 Other Liabilities, Total 2,277.00 Total Liabilities 12,246.00 Redeemable Preferred Stock, Total Preferred Stock - Non Redeemable, Net Common Stock, Total 31.00 Additional Paid-In Capital 10,272.00 Retained Earnings (Accumulated 841.00 Deficit) Treasury Stock - Common -124.00 Other Equity, Total -427.00 Total Equity 10,593.00 Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity 22,839.00 Shares Outs - Common Stock Primary Issue Total Common Shares Outstanding 569.34

As of 201012-31 6,036.00 6,082.00 656.00 61.00 2,183.00 13,767.00 30.00 9,837.00 1,587.00 0.00 81.00 11,535.00 25,302.00 564.55

As of 200912-31 305.00 6,984.00 2,081.00 129.00 23,855.00 36,737.00 60.00 563.00 -9,313.00 -298.00 -8,976.00 27,761.00 403.23

As of 200812-31 304.00 23,969.00 3,241.00 135.00 2,451.00 34,732.00 60.00 563.00 -6,440.00 -245.00 -6,081.00 28,651.00 403.23