CHAPTER 5

USING FINANCIAL STATEMENT INFORMATION

BRIEF EXERCISE

BE5–1

Coke Pepsi (a) ROE = Net Income/Average Stockholders’ Equity 27.7% 28.5% ROA = (Net Income +[Interest Expense (1-Tax Rate)])/ Average Total Assets 11.2% 9.3% Common Equity Leverage = Net Income/(Net Income +

[Interest Expense(1-Tax Rate)]) 96.7% 90.4%

Capital Structure Leverage = Average Total Assets/ Average Stockholders’ Equity 2.55 3.41 Return on Sales = Net Income + [Interest Expense

(1- Tax Rate)]/Net Sales 19.4% 10.4%

Asset Turnover = Sales/Average Total Assets .58 .89

Pepsi earns slightly more relative to its equity base and slightly less relative to its assets. Coke, however, has a higher return on sales (profits relative to sales). Pepsi shows higher use of leverage (Capital Structure Leverage ratio) and is much more efficient generating sales from its asset base (Asset Turnover ratio).

(b) ROA x Common Equity Leverage x Capital Structure Leverage = ROE

Coke: .112 x .967 x 2.55 = .277 (rounding) Pepsi: .093 x .904 x 3.41 = .285 (rounding)

(c) Return on Sales x Asset Turnover = ROA

Coke: .194 x .58 = .112 Pepsi: .104 x .89 = .093

(d) Pepsi’s advantage in producing a return for shareholders’ equity investment is driven by more

aggressive use of leverage. Coke’s advantage in ROA is driven by its profitability for each dollar of sales. Given the higher returns on equity and the companies’ respective costs of capital, both companies are creating value for their shareholders.

E5–3

Based on the information provided by Ginny’s Fashions, we can compute the following ratios: 1. Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders’ Equity* 2014: $17,000 ÷ $31,000 = .548 2015: $18,000 ÷ $35,500 = .507 *2013 numbers needed for averages, so the above ratios use the ending number from the balance sheet 2. Return on Sales = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1 – Tax Rate)]) ÷ Net Sales 2014: $17,000 + [2,000 (1 - .3)] ÷ $70,000 = .263 2015: $18,000 + [2,000 (1 - .3)] ÷ $74,000 = .262

3. Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities 2014: $14,000 ÷ $7,000 = 2.0 2015: $21,000 ÷ $9,000 = 2.33 4. Debt/Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders’ Equity 2014: $33,000 ÷ $31,000 = 1.065 2015: $33,000 ÷ $40,000 = .825 Generally, a lot more information is available to a bank loan officer to decide upon a long-term loan. However, given the limited information, I would support only a short-term loan rather than a long-term loan. The return on equity has declined while the return on sales has remained stable, indicating that the company is not making any gains in its profitability. The current ratio is encouraging, indicating the company’s short-term solvency is not in question. In terms of cash flows, the company’s cash flow from operating activities is positive but declining considerably. It seems it is financing its asset base partly from long-term loans and partly from its own operations. Overall, as a bank loan officer, my bank’s interest will be safely protected if I approve only a short-term loan and not a long-term loan.

E5–4

a. Profitability Ratios: Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders' Equity = $16,500 ÷ [($29,000 + $36,500) ÷ 2] = .504 Return on Assets = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1–Tax Rate)]) ÷ Average Total Assets = ($16,500 + [$5,000 x (1- .34)]) ÷ [($81,000 + $99,000) ÷ 2] = .22 Earnings per Share = Net Income ÷ Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding = $16,500 ÷ [(2,000 shares + 2,000 shares) ÷ 2] = $8.25

Return on Sales = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1 – Tax Rate)])÷ Net Sales = ($16,500 + [$5,000 x (1 - .34)]) ÷ $72,000 = .275 Interest Coverage = (Net Income Before Taxes and Interest Expense) ÷ Interest Expense = $30,000 ÷ $5,000 = 6.00 Solvency Ratios: Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities = ($9,000 + $12,000 + $18,000) ÷ $16,500 = 2.36 Quick Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities + Accounts Receivable) ÷ Current Liabilities = ($9,000 + $12,000) ÷ $16,500 = 1.27 Activity Ratios: Receivables Turnover = Net Credit Sales ÷ Average Accounts Receivable = $72,000 ÷ [($9,000 + $12,000) ÷ 2] = 6.86 Inventory Turnover = Cost of Goods Sold ÷ Average Inventory = $30,000 ÷ [($15,000 + $18,000) ÷ 2] = 1.82 Capitalization Ratios: Financial Leverage = Return on Equity – Return on Assets = .504 – .22 = .284 Debt/Equity = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity = ($16,500 + $46,000) ÷ ($20,000 + $5,000 + $11,500) = 1.71 Market Ratios: Price/Earnings Ratio = Market Price per Share ÷ Earnings per Share = $36 ÷ $8.25 = 4.36 Dividend Yield = Dividends per Share ÷ Market Price per Share = ($9,000 ÷ 2,000 shares) ÷ $36 = .125 Return on Investment = (Market Price1 – Market Price0 + Dividends per Share) ÷

Market Price0

= ($36 – $30 + $4.50) ÷ $30 = .35

E5–4 Concluded

b. 2015 2014 Balance Sheet Cash 9% 9% Accounts receivable 12% 11% Inventory 18% 19% Long-lived assets (net) 61% 61% Total assets 100% 100% Accounts payable 17% 15% Long-term liabilities 46% 49% Common stock 20% 25% Additional paid-in capital 5% 6% Retained earnings 12% 5% Total liabilities & stockholders' equity 100% 100% Income Statement Sales 100% Cost of goods sold 42% Gross profit 58% Operating expenses 17% Income from operations 41% Interest expense 7% Income from continuing operations (before taxes) 34% Income taxes 12% Net income 22% c. The company is making a handsome return of 27.5% on sales. Its return on equity is more

than 50%. Since the return on equity measures a company’s ability to use equity investor’s capital to generate net assets through operations, a return of more than 50% indicates that Ken’s Sportswear has exceptional earning power.

The current ratio of Ken’s Sportswear has gone down from 2.58 for the year 2014 to 2.36 for the year 2015, but it is still very good. It is indicative of the fact that the company has more than twice the current assets to meet its short-term obligations. Just as the current ratio provides information about the short-term solvency position of the company, the debt/equity ratio provides information about the long-term solvency of the company. Ken’s Sportswear has a debt/equity of 1.79 in 2014 and 1.71 in 2015. This means that the company has more debt than equity. A ratio of 1 would indicate that 50% of the company is financed by the stockholders and the remaining 50% is financed by the creditors. Therefore, a ratio of more than 1 indicates that the company has more debt than equity, which often can be a cause for concern. In summary, the company does not have any solvency problems in the short run but could face solvency problems in the future if its return on equity, financial leverage, and other activity ratios decline.

E5–6

a. 2013 2013 Ending Cash Balance = 2013 Beginning Cash Balance + Change in Cash = $0 + $78 = $78 Change in Cash = Cash from Operating Activities + Cash from Investing Activities + Cash from Financing Activities $78 = Cash from Operating Activities – $400 + $800 Cash from Operating Activities = $(322) 2014 2014 Ending Cash Balance = 2014 Beginning Cash Balance + Change in Cash $76 = Beginning Cash Balance – $2 2014 Beginning Cash Balance = $78 or 2014 Beginning Cash Balance = 2013 Ending Cash Balance = $78 Change in Cash = Cash from Operating Activities + Cash from Investing Activities + Cash from Financing Activities $(2) = $(252) + Cash from Investing Activities + $400 Cash from Investing Activities = $(150) 2015 2015 Ending Cash Balance = 2015 Beginning Cash Balance + Change in Cash $156 = $76 + Change in Cash Change in Cash = $80 Change in Cash = Cash from Operating Activities + Cash from Investing Activities + Cash from Financing Activities $80 = Cash from Operating Activities + $150 – $200 Cash from Operating Activities = $130

Beecham was using debt and/or equity during 2013 and 2014 to finance the acquisition of productive assets (i.e., investing activities) and to cover cash outflows from operating activities. During 2015, the company started generating cash from operating activities and used this cash—along with selling productive assets—to reduce its debt and/or equity and to build a cash reserve.

E5–6 Concluded

b. Other than at the beginning of 2013, the company always had a positive cash balance. From that standpoint the company was solvent throughout the three-year period. A more detailed analysis of Beecham's solvency, however, requires an analysis of the company's operating performance, financial flexibility, and liquidity. During 2013 and 2014, Beecham did not generate cash flows from operating activities. The company remained solvent by issuing additional debt or equity. Since the company was able to acquire additional debt or equity financing in 2013 and 2014 and was able to sell off assets during 2015, it appears that Beecham does have some financial flexibility. However, without having the associated balance sheets, it is not possible to adequately assess Beecham's financial flexibility and liquidity. Based upon the limited information provided, it appears that Beecham faced some potential solvency problems in 2013 and 2014, but was able to overcome these problems by issuing additional debt or equity.

E5–7

a. (1) Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities 2014: $385,000 ÷ $170,000 = 2.26 2015: $400,000 ÷ $460,000 = 0.87 (2) Quick Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities + Accounts Receivable) ÷ Current Liabilities 2014: ($30,000 + $10,000 + $95,000) ÷ $170,000 = 0.794 2015 ($15,000 + $225,000+ $90,000) ÷ $460,000 = 0.717 b. Receivables Turnover = Net Credit Sales ÷ Average Accounts Receivable 2014: $780,000 ÷ [($100,000 + $95,000) ÷ 2] = 8.00 2015: $800,000 ÷ [($95,000 + $90,000) ÷ 2] = 8.65 Number of Days Outstanding = 365 ÷ Receivables Turnover 2014: 365 ÷ 8.00 = 45.625 2015: 365 ÷ 8.65 = 42.197 c. Solvency refers to a company's ability to meet its debts as they come due. Current liabilities

represent the debts that are expected to come due first. Therefore, to be solvent, a company must have sufficient cash or near-cash assets to meet these current liabilities. Total current assets is one measure of near-cash assets. As indicated by the change in the company's current ratio, the company has insufficient current assets available to settle its current liabilities. The company's quick ratio worsened during 2015. Given that the company has insufficient current assets and insufficient cash, marketable securities, and accounts receivable to meet its debts, it can probably be concluded that the company's overall solvency position is not strong.

E5–8

a. Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders' Equity 2012: $510,000 ÷ [($100,000 + $100,000) ÷ 2] = 5.10 2013: $490,000 ÷ [($100,000 + $290,000) ÷ 2] = 2.51 2014: $515,000 ÷ [($290,000 + $315,000) ÷ 2] = 1.70 2015: $505,000 ÷ [($315,000 + $510,000) ÷ 2] = 1.22

It appears that the additional capital provided by the owners has not been used to generate net income. The company's net income has been relatively constant from 2012 to 2015. If the company had been effective at using the additional capital, the company's net income should have increased, and return on equity should have been relatively constant or increasing over time. However, if the company has used the additional capital for long-term projects, such as a new product, these projects may not generate any net income for several years. Once these projects begin generating income, the company's return on equity may increase to more appropriate levels. Therefore, the effectiveness of the company at using the owners' capital cannot be adequately evaluated without additional information.

b. It appears that the company has overinvested in inventory. The inventory turnover and the days'

supply of inventory for each year are: 2012 2013 2014 2015

Inventory turnover 12.00 5.93 4.85 4.09 Days' supply 30.42 61.55 75.26 89.24 These ratios indicate that the company went from having one month's supply of inventory on

hand to having almost three months of inventory on hand. It appears that the company has more inventory on hand than is warranted, given demand for the inventory. The company could reduce inventory on hand and invest the proceeds in income-producing assets such as marketable securities. Such a move would make the company more profitable and provide owners a greater return on their investments. This change in investment policy would increase the company's return on equity.

E5–9

a. Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities 2012: $20,000 ÷ $8,000 = 2.500 2013: $24,000 ÷ $13,000 = 1.846 2014: $31,000 ÷ $25,000 = 1.240 2015: $35,000 ÷ $30,000 = 1.167 Debt/Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity 2012: ($8,000 + $15,000) ÷ ($20,000 + $10,000) = 0.767 2013: ($13,000 + $35,000) ÷ ($20,000 + $20,000) = 1.200 2014: ($25,000 + $40,000) ÷ ($20,000 + $32,000) = 1.250 2015: ($30,000 + $40,000) ÷ ($20,000 + $38,000) = 1.207

E5–9 Continued

Return on Assets = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1 – Tax Rate)]) ÷ Average Total Assets 2012: ($13,000 + [$2,000 (1 - .3)]) ÷ [($53,000] = 0.272 2013: ($14,000 + [$4,000 (1 - .3)]) ÷ [($53,000 + $88,000) ÷ 2] = 0.238 2014: ($21,000 + [$5,000 (1 - .3)]) ÷ [($88,000 + $117,000) ÷ 2] = 0.239 2015: ($24,000 + [$5,000 (1 - .3)]) ÷ [($117,000 + $128,000) ÷ 2] = 0.224

b. 2015 2014 2013 2012

Current assets 27.34% 26.50% 27.27% 37.74% Noncurrent assets 72.66 73.50 72.73 62.26 Total assets 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Current liabilities 23.44% 21.37% 14.77% 15.09% Long-term liabilities 31.25 34.19 39.77 28.30 Capital stock 15.62 17.09 22.73 37.74 Retained earnings 29.69 27.35 22.73 18.87 Total liabilities and stockholders' equity 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% c. Solvency measures a company's ability to meet its debts as they come due. The current ratio

provides one measure of a company's solvency. Based upon this ratio, Lotechnic has sufficient current assets to meet its current obligations. However, the trend in its current ratio indicates that the company's excess of current assets over current liabilities is decreasing. Therefore, the company has relatively fewer current assets available to meet its current obligations. This trend indicates that Lotechnic Enterprises' solvency position may be worsening.

The debt/equity ratio provides an indication of a company's capitalization, which, in turn, indicates how risky a company is. Lotechnic is relying increasingly on debt relative to stockholders' equity to finance operations. At some point in time, the company will have to repay this debt. The company will either have to repay this debt by (1) generating cash from operations, (2) selling assets, (3) borrowing additional cash, or (4) acquiring cash by issuing stock. From the statement of cash flows, the cash generated from operations has been decreasing and is now negative; therefore, it appears that the company cannot rely on operations to generate cash. The statement of cash flows also indicates that the company has been using cash for investment purposes every year. This implies that the company may have some assets that it could sell. But if these assets are used in operations, the company's operations may be adversely affected by selling them.

Since total assets equal the sum of total liabilities and stockholders' equity, the proportion of total liabilities to the sum of total liabilities and stockholders' equity reported on the common-size balance sheet equals the proportion of total liabilities to total assets. This measure indicates the proportion of total assets (based upon book value) that would have to be sold to satisfy all the company's obligations. To meet its obligations, Lotechnic Enterprises would have to sell approximately 55% of its total assets, which would virtually decimate its asset base.

Based upon the trend in the current ratio, the debt/equity ratio, cash flows from operations, and the proportion of total liabilities to total assets, it appears that Lotechnic Enterprises may face severe solvency problems as its long-term debt matures.

E5–9 Concluded

Earning power is defined as a company's ability to increase its wealth through operations and to generate cash from operations. Earning power and solvency are closely related. A company must have adequate resources to generate wealth. If a company experiences solvency problems, it will most likely have to divert its resources to paying its obligations. Therefore, due to its solvency problems, Lotechnic Enterprises may not have strong earning power. Although Lotechnic's net income has increased every year, the company's effectiveness at managing capital, as indicated by ROA, has decreased every year. This trend indicates that the company may have limited earning power. This conclusion is also supported by the trend in the company's cash flows from operations.

It must be remembered, however, that this analysis is based on very limited information. To adequately analyze a company, additional information would be needed. Complete financial statements, financial information for similar companies, and general economic information should all be considered when analyzing a company's earning power and solvency position.

E5–10

Transaction Quick Ratio Current Ratio Debt/Equity Ratio (1) – – + (2) N E N E + (3) – – – (4) – – +

a

(5) + + –b

(6) + + –

__________________ a Wage Expense would be closed into Retained Earnings at the end of the accounting period as

part of the closing process. Thus, recording wage expense would decrease stockholders' equity, and thereby increase the debt/equity ratio.

b This transaction would increase both Sales and Cost of Goods Sold. Both of these accounts

would be closed into Retained Earnings as part of the closing process. Since the sales price exceeds the cost of the inventory, the net effect of this transaction would be to increase Retained Earnings. Thus, total stockholders' equity would increase, and thereby decrease the debt/equity ratio.

E5–12

a. 2010: $2,408 ÷ $4,946 = 48.7% 2011: $2,610 ÷ $5,503 = 47.4% 2012: $2,897 ÷ $5,465 = 53.0% b. Price Earnings Ratio = Market Price per Share ÷ Earnings per Share = Market Price per Share ÷ (Net Income ÷ Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding) 2011: $100.33 ÷ {$5,503 ÷ [(1,066 + 1,032) ÷ 2]} = 19.11 2012: $ 88.21 ÷ {$5,465 ÷ [(1,032 + 1,010) ÷ 2]} = 16.49 Dividend Yield = Dividends per Share ÷ Market Price per Share 2010: ($2,408 ÷ 1,066 shares) ÷ $ 76.76 = .0294 2011: ($2,610 ÷ 1,032 shares) ÷ $100.33 = .0252

2012: ($2,897 ÷ 1,010 shares) ÷ $ 88.21 = .0325 Stock Price Return = (Market Price1 – Market Price0 + Dividends per Share) ÷

Market Price0

2011: ($100.33 – $76.76 + $2.53) ÷ $76.76 = 34.0% 2012: ($88.21 – $100.33 + $2.87) ÷ $100.33 = - 9.22% c. An investment in McDonald’s stock from 2010 to 2012 would have provided a very good return

for investors in 2011, but a loss in 2012. The dividend yield was solid over this time period but the capital appreciation from the stock price was strong in the first year but negative in the second.

E5–14

a. Based on the 2012 numbers the Medical devices unit generated the highest operating profits as a percentage of sales at 26.2%, slightly ahead of the Pharmaceutical unit at 24.0%

b. All three areas experience a drop in the total dollars of operating profits, but the percentage drop was the smallest in the Medical devices unit.

P5–3

a. Dollar Percentage Change Change

Assets Current assets: Cash $ (1,904) (32.2%) Short-term marketable securities 691 70.9% Accounts receivable (262) (7.3%) Inventory 344 15.0% Other current assets (78) (5.4%) Total current assets (1,209) (8.5%) Property, plant, & equipment 0 0.0% Other assets 1,948 16.7% Total assets $ 738 2.2% Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Current liabilities: Short-term borrowings $ (1,510) (99.2%) Accounts payable 63 5.6% Wages payable 135 16.8% Dividend payable (1) (0.2%) Income taxes payable (118) (45.0%) Other current liabilities 890 19.0% Total current liabilities $ (541) (6.1%) Long-term debt 43 0.4% Contributed capital 47 3.5% Retained earnings 1,189 8.0% Total liabilities and stockholders' equity $ 738 2.2%

P5–3 Concluded

b. 2012 2011 Change Assets Current assets: Cash 11.68% 17.60% (33.64%) Short-term marketable securities 4.84% 2.90% 66.90% Accounts receivable 9.70% 10.69% (9.26%) Inventory 7.69% 6.83% 12.59% Other current assets 3.99% 4.31% (7.43%) Total current assets 37.90% 42.33% (10.44%) Property, plant, and equipment 22.56% 23.05% (2.13%) Other assets 39.54% 34.62% 14.21% Total assets 100.00% 100.00% Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Current liabilities: Short-term borrowings 00.03% 4.52% (99.34%) Accounts payable 3.45% 3.34% 3.29% Wages payable 2.73% 2.39% 14.23% Dividend payable 1.57% 1.61% (2.48%) Income taxes payable 0.42% 0.78% (46.15%) Other current liabilities 16.18% 13.90% 16.49% Total current liabilities 24.39% 26.54% (8.07%) Long-term debt 32.66% 33.25% (1.77%) Contributed capital (3.82%) (4.05%) (5.68%) Retained earnings 46.77% 44.26% 5.67% Total liabilities and stockholders' equity 100.00% 100.00%

(Other Current Assets and Other Current Liabilities are rounded to result in a value of 100% in

column addition.) c. Common-size financial statements provide relative comparisons of account balances rather than

absolute comparisons of account balances. Absolute comparisons only provide information about whether an account balance has increased or decreased. Alternatively, relative comparisons provide information about whether an account balance has increased or decreased relative to a benchmark measure. This relative comparison allows financial statement users to determine more easily if a company is altering the composition of its assets, liabilities, or stockholders' equity. Relative comparisons of account balances may also provide users with insights into why account balances are changing.

P5–4

(1) Return on equity measures a company's effectiveness at managing equity investments.

Return on equity is calculated as net income divided by average stockholders' equity.

2014: $515,000 ÷ [($450,000 + $755,000) ÷ 2] = .855 2015: $510,000 ÷ [($755,000 + $795,000) ÷ 2] = .658

The company generated returns on its owners' investments in excess of 65%, which appears

to be rather substantial. However, without being able to compare Gidley Electronics' performance to industry averages, it is difficult to conclude whether the company is really effective in managing the owners' capital.

P5–4 Continued

(2) Return on equity measures a company's effectiveness at managing owners' investments, while return on assets measures a company's effectiveness at managing all investments, both debt and equity. The excess of return on equity over return on assets indicates a company's effectiveness at using debt to generate returns for the owners. This measure is called financial leverage. Since financial leverage is calculated using return on assets, the first step is to calculate return on assets. Return on assets is calculated as the sum of net income and [interest expense x (1- tax rate)] divided by average total assets. Gidley's return on assets for 2014 and 2015 is:

2014: ($515,000 + [$165,000 (1 - .40)]) ÷ [($1,450,000 + $1,470,000) ÷ 2] = .421 2015: ($510,000 + [$150,000 (1 - .40)]) ÷ [($1,470,000 + $1,465,000) ÷ 2] = .409 Gidley's financial leverage for 2014 and 2015 is, therefore: 2014: .855 – .421 = .434 2015: .658 – .409 = .249 The company is using debt to the benefit of its equity owners. The positive leverage indicates that proceeds from debt are generating sufficient profits to provide a return for the equity owners. In other words, the return from using debt exceeds its cost.

(3) The current ratio measures whether a company has sufficient current assets to meet its current liabilities. The current ratio equals current assets divided by current liabilities. Gidley's current ratio for 2014 and 2015 is:

2014: $1,010,000 ÷ $275,000 = 3.673 2015: $980,000 ÷ $290,000 = 3.379

Gidley Electronics' current assets are over three times greater than its current liabilities. The company therefore appears to have no solvency problems. However, the company may be unable to convert some of its current assets to cash quickly enough to meet some of its current liabilities. Another measure of solvency that compares near-cash assets to current liabilities is the quick ratio. The quick ratio equals the sum of cash, marketable securities, and accounts receivable divided by current liabilities. Gidley's quick ratio for 2014 and 2015 is: 2014: ($115,000 + $220,000 + $400,000) ÷ $275,000 = 2.673 2015: ($110,000 + $175,000 + $350,000) ÷ $290,000 = 2.190

Gidley Electronics appears to have sufficient cash and near-cash assets available to meet its current obligations. Therefore, the company should have no significant short-term solvency problems.

P5–4 Concluded

(4) The price/earnings ratio measures the sensitivity of stock prices to changes in earnings. This ratio is calculated by dividing the market price per share by earnings per share. Since this ratio uses earnings per share in the calculations, the first step is to calculate earnings per share. Earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income by the average number of common shares outstanding during the year. Gidley's earnings per share for 2014 and 2015 are:

2014: $515,000 ÷ [(17,000 + 17,000) ÷ 2] = $30.29 2015: $510,000 ÷ [(17,000 + 22,000) ÷ 2] = $26.15 Gidley's price/earnings ratio for 2014 and 2015 is:

2014: $69.00 ÷ $30.29 = 2.278 2015: $54.00 ÷ $26.15 = 2.065

It appears that the price of Gidley Electronics' stock is rather sensitive to changes in earnings. A change in earnings per share should cause the market price to change by approximately twice the change. To obtain a better idea of how sensitive the company's stock is to changes in earnings, the company's price/earnings ratio should be compared to industry averages.

(5) The average number of days accounts receivable are outstanding is calculated as 365 days

divided by accounts receivable turnover. The accounts receivable turnover is, in turn, calculated by dividing net credit sales by average accounts receivable. Gidley's accounts receivable turnover for 2014 and 2015 is:

2014: $3,010,000 ÷ [($400,000 + $400,000) ÷ 2] = 7.525 2015: $2,450,000 ÷ [($400,000 + $350,000) ÷ 2] = 6.533 The number of days outstanding for receivables during 2014 and 2015 is:

2014: 365 ÷ 7.525 = 48.505 days 2015: 365 ÷ 6.533 = 55.870 days

The average number of days accounts receivable are outstanding increased slightly. Therefore, customers are not paying their open receivables as quickly as before. If this problem persists, Gidley may have to consider more stringent credit and/or collection policies.

P5–5

a. Return on equity provides a measure of a company's effectiveness at managing the owners' capital. The formula for calculating return on equity is net income divided by average stockholders' equity. The 2015 return on equity for Hathaway Toy Company and Yakima Manufacturing would be:

Hathaway: $875,000 ÷ [($1,585,000 + $2,460,000) ÷ 2] = .433 Yakima: $755,000 ÷ [($70,000 + $825,000) ÷ 2] = 1.687

Note: Beginning Stockholders' Equity = Ending Stockholders' Equity – Net Income

Based on return on equity, Yakima Manufacturing has been almost four times more efficient than Hathaway Toy Company at managing owners' capital.

P5–5 Concluded

b. Return on assets provides a measure of a company's effectiveness at managing all investors' capital. The formula for calculating return on assets is the sum of net income and tax-adjusted interest expense divided by average total assets. The 2015 return on assets for Hathaway Toy Company and Yakima Manufacturing would be:

Hathaway: ($875,000 + $0) ÷ [($1,825,000 + $2,700,000) ÷ 2] = .387 Yakima: ($755,000 + $195,000[1 – 0.00]) ÷ [($1,945,000 + $2,700,000) ÷ 2] = .409

Note: Beginning Total Assets = Ending Total Assets – Net Income

= Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity – Net Income

Based on return on assets, Yakima Manufacturing and Hathaway Toy Company are essentially equal in their abilities to manage all investors' capital.

c. Earnings per Share = Net Income ÷ Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding

Hathaway: $875,000 ÷ [(80,000 + 80,000) ÷ 2] = $10.94 Yakima: $755,000 ÷ [(35,000 + 35,000) ÷ 2] = $21.57

Note: The number of shares outstanding equals the balance in Common Stock divided by $10

par value per share.

d. Yes, stockholders are realizing a return on their capital of 168.7% (from Part [a]), while debtholders are realizing only a return on their capital of approximately 10.5% ($195,000 of interest expense ÷ $1,850,000 balance in mortgage payable). This difference in returns is due to the company using debt rather than equity to finance operations. Since the debtholders are only entitled to interest, any earnings from operations in excess of interest accrues to the stockholders. Thus, Yakima Manufacturing has efficiently used debt to benefit its stockholders.

P5–6

In order to consider an investment in Goodyear, let us first compute the following ratios: 1. Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders’ Equity

2011: $ 321 ÷ [($1,505 + $1,624) ÷ 2] = 20.5% 2012: $183 ÷ [($1,624 + $1,159) ÷ 2] = 13.2% 2. Return on Sales = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1 – Tax Rate)]) ÷ Net Sales

2011: ($321 + [$330 (1 – 0.30)]) ÷ $22,767 = 2.4% 2012: ($183 + [$357 (1 – 0.30)]) ÷ $20,992 = 2.1%

P5–6 Concluded

3. Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities

2011: $9,812 ÷ $5,929 = 1.65 2012: $8,498 ÷ $5,322 = 1.60 4. Debt/Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders’ Equity

2011: $16,005 ÷ $1,624 = 9.86 2012: $15,814 ÷ $1,159 = 13.64

Generally, an equity investor would have much more information available to make a decision than what is provided by Goodyear. However, based on the information provided, an equity investment in Goodyear would be unwise. The company is showing a lower ROE and return on sales, has high leverage on its balance sheet and is generating a drop in cash balances. Until Goodyear can turn around its operations, it is not an attractive opportunity.

P5–7

a. Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders' Equity

Robotronics: $610,000 ÷ [($1,005,000 + $1,005,000) ÷ 2] = .607 Technology: $1,675,000 ÷ [($1,440,000 + $1,440,000) ÷ 2] = 1.163

Based on return on equity, Technology is almost twice as efficient as Robotronics at managing

the stockholders' capital. If unusual items were not considered, return on equity for each company would be:

Robotronics: $610,000 ÷ [($1,005,000 + $1,005,000) ÷ 2] = .607 Technology: ($1,675,000 – $1,300,000) ÷ [($1,440,000 + $1,440,000) ÷ 2] = .260

Technology now appears to be considerably worse than Robotronics at managing the

stockholders' capital. Including unusual items in calculating return on equity does provide a more complete measure of how efficiently a company managed its stockholders' equity in the current year. However, since unusual items are, by definition, items that occur infrequently, these items do not indicate a company's continued ability to efficiently manage the stockholders' capital. Thus, unusual items probably should not be used to calculate return on equity.

P5–7 Concluded b. Financial leverage indicates how effectively a company uses debt for the benefit of stockholders.

Financial leverage equals return on equity less return on assets. Thus, return on assets must be calculated before calculating financial leverage.

Return on Assets = (Net Income + Interest Expense (net of tax)) ÷ Average Total Assets

Robotronics: ($610,000 + $100,000) ÷ [($3,360,000 + $3,360,000) ÷ 2] = .211 Technology: ($1,675,000 + $175,000) ÷ [($1,870,000 + $1,870,000) ÷ 2] = .989

Financial Leverage = Return on Equity – Return on Assets

Robotronics: .607 – .211 = .396 Technology: 1.163 – .989 = .174

From this analysis, Robotronics is approximately twice as effective as Technology at using debt to generate returns for its stockholders. If unusual items are not considered, the return on assets for each company would be:

Robotronics: ($610,000 + $100,000) ÷ [($3,360,000 + $3,360,000) ÷ 2] = .211 Technology: [($1,675,000 – $1,300,000) + $175,000] ÷ [($1,870,000 + $1,870,000) ÷ 2] = .294

Therefore, the financial leverage of the two companies would be:

Robotronics: .607 – .211 = .396 Technology: .260 – .294 = –.034

If unusual items are not considered, Technology has negative financial leverage. That means that Technology is not generating a large enough return on its debt to even cover the interest expense. Thus, Technology is using debt to the detriment of its stockholders. It appears, therefore, that unusual items can affect the conclusions one draws when analyzing a company.

P5–8

Return on Sales = Net Income ÷ Net Sales .08 = $25,000 ÷ Net Sales Net Sales = $312,500 Cost of Goods Sold = Net sales x (1 – Gross Margin Percentage) = $312,500 x (1 – 40%) = $187,500 Net Income = Net Sales – Cost of Goods Sold – Expenses $25,000 = $312,500 – $187,500 – Expenses Expenses = $100,000 Inventory Turnover = Cost of Goods Sold ÷ Average Inventory 5 = $187,500 ÷ [($0 + Ending Inventory) ÷ 2] Ending Inventory = $75,000 Receivables Turnover = Net Credit Sales ÷ Average Accounts Receivable 8 = $312,500 ÷ [($0 + Ending Accounts Receivable)÷2) Ending Accounts Receivable = $78,125

Quick Ratio = (Cash + Accounts Receivable + Marketable Securities) ÷

Current Liabilities .5 = (Cash + $78,125 + $0) ÷ $200,000 Cash = $21,875

Tumwater Canyon Campsites Income Statement

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Sales $312,500 Cost of goods sold 187,500 Gross profit $125,000 Expenses 100,000 Net income $ 25,000

Tumwater Canyon Campsites

Statement of Current Assets and Liabilities December 31, 2015

Current assets Current liabilities Cash $ 21,875 Accounts payable $200,000 Accounts receivable 78,125 Inventory 75,000 ________ Total current assets $175,000 Total current liabilities $200,000

P5–9

a. Mountain-Pacific Railroad

Common-Size Balance Sheet December 31, 2015 and 2014

2015 2014 Dollar % Dollar % Assets Current assets: Cash $ 10,000 0.68% $ 312,000 20.36% Short-term marketable securities 125,000 8.47% 120,000 7.83% Accounts receivable 500,000 33.90% 150,000 9.79% Inventory 200,000 13.56% 210,000 13.71% Prepaid expenses 50,000 3.39% 75,000 4.90% Total current assets $ 885,000 60.00% $ 867,000 56.59% Long-term investments 225,000 15.25% 225,000 14.69% Property, plant, and equipment 430,000 29.15% 540,000 35.25% Accumulated depreciation (65,000) (4.40%) (100,000) (6.53%) Total assets $ 1,475,000 100.00% $ 1,532,000 100.00% Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 10,000 0.68% $ 50,000 3.26% Wages payable 5,000 0.34% 2,000 0.13% Dividends payable 125,000 8.47% 5,000 0.33% Income taxes payable 50,000 3.39% 35,000 2.29% Current portion of long-term debt 100,000 6.78% 175,000 11.42% Total current liabilities $ 290,000 19.66% $ 267,000 17.43% Mortgage payable 350,000 23.73% 450,000 29.37% Common stock ($10 par value) 200,000 13.56% 110,000 7.18% Additional paid-in capital 135,000 9.15% 95,000 6.20% Retained earnings 500,000 33.90% 610,000 39.82% Total liabilities and stockholders' equity $ 1,475,000 100.00% $ 1,532,000 100.00%

P5–9 Continued

Mountain-Pacific Railroad Common-Size Income Statement

For the Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2014

2015 2014 Dollar % Dollar % Revenue: Net cash sales $ 1,955,000 32.02% $ 2,775,000 66.31% Net credit sales 4,150,000 67.98% 1,410,000 33.69% Total revenue $ 6,105,000 100.00% $ 4,185,000 100.00% Cost of goods sold: Beginning inventory $ 210,000 3.44% $ 300,000 7.17% Net purchases 4,005,000 65.60% 2,475,000 59.14% Cost of goods available for sale $ 4,215,000 69.04% $ 2,775,000 66.31% Less ending inventory 200,000 3.28% 210,000 5.02% Cost of goods sold $ 4,015,000 65.76% $ 2,565,000 61.29% Gross profit $ 2,090,000 34.24% $ 1,620,000 38.71% Selling & administrative expenses: Depreciation expense $ 75,000 1.23% $ 90,000 2.15% General selling expenses 575,000 9.42% 600,000 14.34% General administrative expenses 480,000 7.86% 420,000 10.04% Total selling & administrative exp. $ 1,130,000 18.51% $ 1,110,000 26.53% Income from operations $ 960,000 15.73% $ 510,000 12.18% Interest expense 50,000 0.82% 65,000 1.55% Income from continuing operations (before taxes) $ 910,000 14.91% $ 445,000 10.63% Income taxes 310,000 5.08% 151,000 3.61% Income before unusual items $ 600,000 9.83% $ 294,000 7.02% Unusual loss (net of tax benefit of $60,000) 115,000 1.88% 0 0.00% Net income $ 485,000 7.95% $ 294,000 7.02% By looking at the common-size balance sheets and income statements, we can observe the

following: 1. The proportion of current assets to total assets has increased slightly from 57% to 60%. The

composition of current assets has changed dramatically. Cash balance has declined by about 19% and accounts receivables have gone up by about 24%.

2. Since current liabilities are up by 2% and long-term debt is reduced by only 6%, it is not clear, without the statement of cash flows, where the cash went.

3. Such a dramatic increase of 24% in the accounts receivable can be a cause for concern. Is the company relaxing its credit policies or is it having a poor collection year? Depending upon the cause, one may anticipate that net cash flow problems could occur in 2016.

P5–9 Concluded

4. Since retained earnings are down by approximately 6%, and the net income is slightly up, one can only conclude, in the absence of other information, that a hefty dividend was probably paid. This could also explain the dramatic decrease in the cash balance.

5. It seems that the relative composition of cash versus credit sale is switching from 2014 to 2015. This corroborates the dramatic increase in accounts receivable.

6. It is also clear that the company’s increased cost of goods sold has cut into its gross profit, which is down by almost the same amount (4%) as the increment in the cost of goods sold.

7. The company has been quite successful in running tight operations, as is evidenced by a reduction in the total selling and administrative expenses. Reductions such as this would add value to its stock in the long run.

b. The proportion of credit sales and cash sales to total sales changed dramatically from 2014 to

2015. The company made approximately twice as many credit sales during 2015 as it made during 2014. This shift flowed through to the balance sheet. Fewer cash sales caused (1) the Cash balance to decrease and (2) the Accounts Receivable balance to increase during 2015.

c. Common-size financial statements allow people to make comparisons across time and across

companies by providing a benchmark against which to make the comparisons. Standard financial statements allow only absolute comparisons. By providing a benchmark, common-size financial statements allow relative comparisons. Such comparisons allow financial statement users to focus on the relative importance of an account rather than on whether an account simply increased or decreased in absolute terms. Further, common-size financial statements can provide financial statement users with insights as to why an account balance changed or why a certain trend has developed. For example, in the case of Mountain-Pacific Railroad, the shift in the relative importance of cash and accounts receivable can be explained by examining the shift in the relative importance of cash and credit sales.

P5–10

a. Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders' Equity 2014: $294,000 ÷ $815,000 = .361 2015: $485,000 ÷ [($815,000 + $835,000) ÷ 2] = .588 Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities 2014: $867,000 ÷ $267,000 = 3.247 2015: $885,000 ÷ $290,000 = 3.052 Quick Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities + Accounts Receivable) ÷ Current Liabilities 2014: ($312,000 + $120,000 + $150,000) ÷ $267,000 = 2.180 2015: ($10,000 + $125,000 + $500,000) ÷ $290,000 = 2.190

P5–10 Continued

Return on Assets = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1 – Tax Rate)]) ÷ Average Total Assets 2014: ($294,000 + [$65,000 (1 - .34)]) ÷ $1,532,000 = .220 2015: ($485,000 + [$50,000 (1 - .34)]) ÷ [($1,532,000 + $1,475,000) ÷ 2] = .345 Receivables Turnover = Net Credit Sales ÷ Average Accounts Receivable 2014: $1,410,000 ÷ $150,000 = 9.400 2015: $4,150,000 ÷ [($150,000 + $500,000) ÷ 2] = 12.769 Earnings per Share = Net Income ÷ Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding 2014: $294,000 ÷ 11,000 = $26.73 2015: $485,000 ÷ [(11,000 + 20,000) ÷ 2] = $31.29 Price/Earnings Ratio = Market Price per Share ÷ Earnings per Share 2014: $45.00 ÷ $26.73 = 1.684 2015: $70.00 ÷ $31.29 = 2.237 Debt/Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity 2014: ($267,000 + $450,000) ÷ $815,000 = .880 2015: ($290,000 + $350,000) ÷ $835,000 = .766 Return on Sales = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1 – Tax Rate)]) ÷ Net Sales 2014: ($294,000 + [$65,000 (1 - .34)]) ÷ $4,185,000 = .081 2015: ($485,000 + [$50,000 (1 - .34)]) ÷ $6,105,000 = .085 Financial Leverage = Return on Equity – Return on Assets 2014: .361 – .220 = .141 2015: .588 – .345 = .243 Dividend Yield = Dividend per Share ÷ Market Price per Share 2014: ($10,000 ÷ 11,000 shares) ÷ $45 = .020 2015: {$595,000 ÷ [(11,000 + 20,000) ÷ 2]} ÷ $70 = .548 Return on Investment = (Market Price1 – Market Price0 + Dividends per Share) ÷

Market Price0

2014: ($45 – $50 + $0.91) ÷ $50 = –.082 2015: ($70 – $45 + $38.39) ÷ $45 = 1.409

P5–10 Continued

Interest Coverage Ratio = (Net Income Before Taxes and Interest Expense) ÷ Interest Expense 2014: ($445,000 + $65,000) ÷ $65,000 = 7.846 2015: ($910,000 + $50,000) ÷ $50,000 = 19.200 Inventory Turnover = Cost of Goods Sold ÷ Average Inventory 2015: $4,015,000 ÷ [($210,000 + $200,000) ÷ 2] = 19.585

It appears that during 2015 the company became more efficient at using capital provided by all investors and by equity owners. Both return on assets and return on equity increased by over 50% during 2015. Further, as evidenced by the increase in financial leverage, the company was also more efficient at using debt to benefit the equity owners.

The dramatic increase in inventory turnover is probably the primary reason the company became more efficient at using capital. The higher number of inventory turns allowed the company to generate more profits, thereby increasing return on equity, return on assets, financial leverage, and earnings per share. The company also became slightly more efficient at managing its costs, as evidenced by the increase in return on sales.

The company has more than sufficient current assets to meet its current liabilities, as evidenced by its current ratio. The company's receivable turnover increased dramatically during 2015, which indicates that it is doing a better job of collecting from its customers. Closer inspection of the receivable turnover, however, reveals that Mountain-Pacific may actually be doing a worse job of collecting from its credit customers. If the 2015 receivable turnover is calculated using just the December 31, 2015 receivables balance instead of using the average receivables balance, the receivable turnover falls to 8.3, which is less than the turnover rate in 2014. Further, the increase in the inventory turnover may indicate future solvency problems. As the inventory turnover increases, the company will have to acquire inventory more often. Therefore, increasing the number of inventory turnovers places added pressure on the company to have sufficient cash to meet its debts as they come due. If the company is unable to generate cash from its receivables on a timely basis, and if it continues to suffer a decline in cash sales, it could very well experience severe solvency problems.

P5–10 Concluded

b. Based on the average of the company's 2014 and 2015 ratios, Mountain-Pacific's return on equity, current ratio, and return on assets are almost identical to the industry averages. While the absolute levels of these ratios are similar, the trend of Mountain-Pacific's ratios provides additional information on the company's performance. Based on return on equity, the company has become more efficient during 2012 at managing the equity owners' capital, and based on return on assets, the company has also become more efficient at managing the capital provided by both debt and equity investors. These trends imply that Mountain-Pacific has also become more effective at using debt to benefit the equity owners. Further, the company is now more efficient than the average company in the industry. Several other ratios, such as receivables turnover, return on investment, and times interest earned, indicate that Mountain-Pacific is also performing better than the industry average.

When Mountain-Pacific’s quick ratio is compared to the industry average, the company's solvency position appears to be better. Without having additional information about Mountain-Pacific's solvency position, it is difficult to conclude how the company is performing relative to the rest of the industry.

P5–12

a. Watson Metal Products' 2016 income statements under the different financing alternatives would be as follows.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Income from operations* $ 16,500,000 $ 16,500,000 $ 16,500,000 Interest expense 4,000,000 4,750,000 4,375,000 Net income before taxes $ 12,500,000 $ 11,750,000 $ 12,125,000 Income taxes 5,000,000 4,700,000 4,850,000 Net income $ 7,500,000 $ 7,050,000 $ 7,275,000

* $16,500,000 = $15,000,000 2016 income from operations from non-French

operations per the 2015 income statement + $1,500,000 2016 income from operations from French operations.

The formulas for the requested ratios are: Earnings per Share = Net Income ÷ Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Average Stockholders' Equity Return on Assets = (Net Income + [Interest Expense (1– Tax Rate)]÷ Average Total Assets Financial Leverage = Return on Equity – Return on Assets Debt/Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity

Note: Although several of the ratios use averages, ending balances were used as specified in the problem.

Alternative 1 EPS: $7,500,000 ÷ (2,000,000 shares* + 200,000 shares) = $3.41 * 2,000,000 shares = $6,600,000 2015 net income ÷ $3.30 2015 earnings per share

ROE: $7,500,000 ÷ ($45,000,000 + $5,000,000a + $7,500,000b) = .1304 a $5,000,000 = 200,000 shares $25 per share b $7,500,000 = 2016 net income

ROA: ($7,500,000 + [$4,000,000 (1 – .4)]) ÷ ($35,000,000 + $45,000,000 + $5,000,000 + $7,500,000) = .1070 Leverage: .1304 – .1070 = .0234 Debt/Equity: $35,000,000 ÷ ($45,000,000 + $5,000,000 + $7,500,000) = .609 Alternative 2

EPS: $7,050,000 ÷ 2,000,000 shares = $3.53 ROE: $7,050,000 ÷ ($45,000,000 + $7,050,000) = .1354 ROA: ($7,050,000 + [$4,750,000 (1 - .40]) ÷ ($35,000,000 + $45,000,000 + $5,000,000 + $7,050,000) = .1076 Leverage: .1354 – .1076 = .0278 Debt/Equity: ($35,000,000 + $5,000,000) ÷ ($45,000,000 + $7,050,000) = .768 Alternative 3

EPS: $7,275,000 ÷ (2,000,000 shares + 100,000 shares) = $3.46 ROE: $7,275,000 ÷ ($45,000,000 + $2,500,000* + $7,275,000) = .1328

* $2,500,000 = 100,000 shares $25 per share ROA: ($7,275,000 + [$4,375,000 (1 - .4)]) ÷ ($35,000,000 + $45,000,000 + $5,000,000 + $7,275,000) = .1073 Leverage: .1328 – .1073 = .0255 Debt/Equity: ($35,000,000 + $2,500,000) ÷ ($45,000,000 + $2,500,000 + $7,275,000) = .685

b. Alternative 2 prevents a dilution of the stockholders' position. Since this alternative did not require any additional shares of stock to be issued, it provides the largest earnings per share. Alternative 2 allows the company to more effectively manage its stockholders' investment, as evidenced by return on equity, and all investments, as evidenced by return on assets. The only potentially serious drawback of this alternative is that it makes the company more risky, as evidenced by it having the largest debt/equity ratio. Further, Alternative 2 allows the company to use debt to benefit stockholders more effectively than is allowed with either of the other two alternatives. Under Alternative 3, stockholders earn a slightly smaller return on their equity, but incur fewer risks, since the company has issued less debt. Alternative 1 provides a marginally lower return to stockholders, but imposes even less risk on them. Stockholders must trade off the risk from issuing debt against the benefits of issuing debt. If the company is close to violating debt covenants or projects weak future cash flows, then Alternatives 1 or 3 would probably be preferable. Otherwise, Alternatives 2 or 3 would probably be preferable.

P5–12 Concluded

c. Alternative 1 $3.30 = ($6,600,000 + Net income from expansion project) ÷ (2,000,000 shares + 200,000 shares) Net income from expansion project = $660,000 Alternative 2 $3.30 = ($6,600,000 + Net income from expansion project) ÷ 2,000,000 shares Net income from expansion project = $0 Alternative 3 $3.30 = ($6,600,000 + Net income from expansion project) ÷ (2,000,000 shares + 100,000 shares) Net income from expansion project = $330,000

P5–13

Note: Although some ratios use average balances, year-end balances were used in the ratios as directed in the problem.

a. Return on Equity = Net Income ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity .75 = $450,000 ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity Total Stockholders' Equity = $600,000 b. Debt/Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities ÷ Total Stockholders' Equity .4 = Total Liabilities ÷ $600,000 Total Liabilities = $240,000 c. Total Assets = Total Liabilities + Total Stockholders' Equity = $240,000 + $600,000 = $840,000 d. Return on Assets = (Net Income + Interest Expense) ÷ Total Assets .65 = ($450,000 + Interest Expense) ÷ $840,000 Interest Expense = $96,000

e. Net Income After Taxes = Income Before Taxes (1 – Tax Rate)

$450,000 = Net Income Before Taxes (1 – 34%) Net Income Before Taxes = $681,818 f. Return on Sales = Net Income ÷ Net Sales .2 = $450,000 ÷ Net Sales Net Sales = $2,250,000

g. Credit Sales = Net Sales 80%

= $2,250,000 80% = $1,800,000

P5–13 Concluded

h. Receivables Turnover = Net Credit Sales ÷ Accounts Receivable 25 = $1,800,000 ÷ Accounts Receivable Accounts Receivable = $72,000

i. Cost of Goods Sold = Net Sales 55%

= $2,250,000 55% = $1,237,500 j. Average Days' Supply of Inventory = 365 ÷ Inventory Turnover 12.167 = 365 ÷ Inventory Turnover Inventory Turnover = 30 k. Inventory Turnover = Cost of Goods Sold ÷ Inventory 30 = $1,237,500 ÷ Inventory Inventory = $41,250

l. Current Liabilities = Total Liabilities 35%

= $240,000 35% = $84,000 m. Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities 3.00 = Current Assets ÷ $84,000 Current Assets = $252,000 n. Quick Ratio = (Cash + Accounts Receivable + Mkt. Securities) ÷ Current Liabilities 2.0 = ($68,000 + $72,000 + Marketable Securities) ÷ $84,000 Marketable Securities = $28,000 o. Noncurrent Assets = Total Assets – Current Assets = $840,000 – $252,000 = $588,000 p. Earnings per Share = Net Income ÷ Number of Common Shares Outstanding $16.00 = $450,000 ÷ Number of Common Shares Outstanding Common Shares Outstanding = 28,125 shares

ID5–1

(1) Bank of America (2) Bed, Bath & Beyond (3) HP (4) Kelly Services Bank of America is Company #1. As a commercial bank, B of A generates service revenue (see Income Statement) and carries receivables (loans) that are funded by deposits (current liabilities on the balance sheet). Banks also are highly leveraged; Company #1 has the lowest equity of the four companies shown. Bed, Bath & Beyond is Company #2. As a retailer, BB & B generates sales revenue from providing inventory to its customers. Company #2 is the only company of the four shown with 100% sales revenue. Further, the company has a significant investment in inventories, as do all retailers.

Hewlett Packard is Company #3. As a technology and consulting company, HP will generate both sales revenue (from the sale of products such as printers) and service revenue (from its consulting business). Of the four companies, only #3 has a mix of sales and service revenue. The company also has investment in inventories, receivables and long-term assets, common for a manufacturing concern. Kelly Services is Company #4. As a temp agency, Kelly will generate service revenue from placing workers and will also carry accounts receivable from its large clients. The company does not carry inventory and does not need a significant investment in long-term assets to operate.

ID5–2

(1) General Electric (2) EchoStar (3) Walgreen’s (4) Campbell’s Soup General Electric is Company #1. GE operates as both a manufacturer and a diversified financial services firm, generating both sales and service revenue. The financial services business, similar to Bank of America in ID5-1, will carry a significant amount of receivables. EchoStar is Company #2. The company sells customers satellite dishes and the television services that are received by the dishes. Further, satellite television services are a relatively new business; start-up operations often show losses for a number of years and Company #2 is showing a loss on the income statement. Walgreen’s is Company #3. As a retailer, the company will generate sales revenue and carry heavy investment in inventories. (The inventory line is greater in #3 than it is in #4.) Campbell’s is Company #4. The description indicates that Campbell’s has been growing by acquisition, which usually generates goodwill, an intangible asset carried under “Other Assets”. Further, manufacturers typically carry balances in receivables, inventory and long-term assets such as property, plant and equipment.