Answers to Concepts Review and Critical Thinking Questions
Time trend analysis gives a picture of changes in the company’s financial situation over time. Comparing a firm to itself over time allows the financial manager to evaluate whether some aspects of the firm’s operations, finances, or investment activities have changed. Peer group analysis involves comparing the financial ratios and operating performance of a particular firm to a set of peer group firms in the same industry or line of business. Comparing a firm to its peers allows the financial manager to evaluate whether some aspects of the firm’s operations, finances, or investment activities are out of line with the norm, thereby providing some guidance on appropriate actions to take to adjust these ratios if appropriate. Both allow an investigation into what is different about a company from a financial perspective, but neither method gives an indication of whether the difference is positive or negative. For example, suppose a company’s current ratio is increasing over time. It could mean that the company had been facing liquidity problems in the past and is rectifying those problems, or it could mean the company has become less efficient in managing its current accounts. Similar arguments could be made for a peer group comparison. A company with a current ratio lower than its peers could be more efficient at managing its current accounts, or it could be facing liquidity problems. Neither analysis method tells us whether a ratio is good or bad, both simply show that something is different, and tells us where to look.
If a company is growing by opening new stores, then presumably total revenues would be rising. Comparing total sales at two different points in time might be misleading. Same-store sales control for this by only looking at revenues of stores open within a specific period.
The reason is that, ultimately, sales are the driving force behind a business. A firm’s assets, employees, and, in fact, just about every aspect of its operations and financing exist to directly or indirectly support sales. Put differently, a firm’s future need for things like capital assets, employees, inventory, and financing are determined by its future sales level.
Two assumptions of the sustainable growth formula are that the company does not want to sell new equity, and that financial policy is fixed. If the company raises outside equity, or increases its debt-equity ratio, it can grow at a higher rate than the sustainable growth rate. Of course, the company could also grow faster than its profit margin increases, if it changes its dividend policy by increasing the retention ratio, or its total asset turnover increases.
The sustainable growth rate is greater than 20 percent, because at a 20 percent growth rate the negative EFN indicates that there is excess financing still available. If the firm is 100 percent equity financed, then the sustainable and internal growth rates are equal and the internal growth rate would be greater than 20 percent. However, when the firm has some debt, the internal growth rate is always less than the sustainable growth rate, so it is ambiguous whether the internal growth rate would be greater than or less than 20 percent. If the retention ratio is increased, the firm will have more internal funding sources available, and it will have to take on more debt to keep the debt/equity ratio constant, so the EFN will decline. Conversely, if the retention ratio is decreased, the EFN will rise. If the retention rate is zero, both the internal and sustainable growth rates are zero, and the EFN will rise to the change in total assets.
Common-size financial statements provide the financial manager with a ratio analysis of the company. The common-size income statement can show, for example, that cost of goods sold as a percentage of sales is increasing. The common-size balance sheet can show a firm’s...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document