Since Company H has a variety of merchandise to sell, along with its interest in acquisitions; it has a significantly higher level of net fixed assets than that of Company G. Acquisitions will always increase the level of net fixed assets. Since Company G tends to implement a strategy that does not favor large acquisitions, its level is lower at a level of 7.6 versus 24.4 in Company H.
Company H also exceeds Company G in most of the liabilities section, which automatically gives Company H a leg up in being able to take on more liabilities such as credits and loans. However, Company G comes out winning in terms of income and expenses, with a net income of 8.5%. Company H’s net income ended at 2.9%. This also relates to lowered percentage of SG&A expenses on Company G’s side, higher interest income, special items income, and its lower percentage of income taxes.
Company G is also considered to be more liquid than Company G, with a current ratio of 1.57 versus Company H’s 1.49. This indicates that while Company G has more liabilities, it is better-able to pay its short-term liabilities than Company H. It is understandable why Company H keeps its liabilities slightly lower so that they do not become overwhelmed with short-terms loans and notes that it will not be able to pay back on time.
Bruner, R. F., Eades, K. M., & Schill, M. J. (2010). Case Studies in Finance: Managing for Corporate Value
References: Bruner, R. F., Eades, K. M., & Schill, M. J. (2010). Case Studies in Finance: Managing for Corporate Value Creation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.