Submit Comp A GROUP tted to: parati Analysi MEMBER HO M H SIR IM HO 03 ive An is of Fi RS : OSH MO MUHAMM HAFEEZ-U MTIAZ AS OSH MO 342-380 nalysis Pa inancia OHAMMA MAD FARO U-RAHMA SKARI OHAMMA 02305 s of Pe akista al state AD (MBA OOQ (BBA B AN (MBA AD (MBA etrole n ement A) PSO SHELL A) BYCO A) ATTOCK A) eum In s CID:9 Reg# 4 3 4 K ndust 9301 4581 3610 4469 try in
37
Embed
Comparative Analysis of Petroleum industry in Pakistan
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Submit
Comp
A
GROUP
tted to:
parati
Analysi
MEMBER
HO
M
H
SIR IM
HO
03
ive An
is of Fi
RS :
OSH MO
MUHAMM
HAFEEZ-U
MTIAZ AS
OSH MO
342-380
nalysisPa
inancia
OHAMMA
MAD FARO
U-RAHMA
SKARI
OHAMMA
02305
s of Peakista
al state
AD (MBA
OOQ (BBA
B
AN (MBA
AD (MBA
etrolen
ement
A) PSO SHELL
A)
BYCO
A)
ATTOCK
A)
eum In
s CID:9
Reg#
4
3
4
K
ndust
9301
4581
3610
4469
try in
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all we would like to thank almighty ALLAH who has give us this
courage and strength that we have make this report.
After that we would like to thank our teacher SIR IMTIAZ ASKARI that
he has guided us throughout the semester. Our teacher took pain to
teach us on every stage of this project what to do and how to do .We
had faced many difficulties in completing this report but our teacher
directed us on a right track at right times and that is why we have
completed this project of Comparative Analysis of Petroleum Industry in
Pakistan.
The last but not the least is that in this project we come to that how we
have collect, analyze and present the report on a given date.
SELECTED COMPANIES
The companies that have been selected for further analysis are:
PSO
BYCO
SHELL
ATTOCK
Market Share of these Four Companies
Sales To Assets Ratio
PSO
SHELL
BYCO
ATTOCK
Solvency Ratios
2009 2008
PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL
Current Ratio
1.07:1 0.72:1 1.5:1 1.03:1 Current Ratio
1.2:1 0.92:1 1.41:1 1.13:1
QUICK RATIO
0.75:1 0.12:1 1.49:1 0.87:1 QUICK RATIO
0.6:1 0.92:1 1.38:1 0.51:1
WORKING CAPITAL
866414 (6385) 5469534 (2188551) WORKING CAPITAL
106502472 (2152) 4039284 691254
2007 2006
PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL
Current Ratio
1.2:1 1.01:1 1.48:1 1.06:1 Current Ratio
1.2:1 1.07:1 1.29:1 0.88:1
QUICK RATIO
0.6:1 0.24:1 1.42:1 0.48:1 QUICK RATIO
0.6:1 0.32:1 1.28:1 0.47
WORKING CAPITAL
11127546 54 2592546 1015000 WORKING CAPITAL
10978097 (506) 1301124 24144000
2005
PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL
Current Ratio
1.2:1 1.01:1 1.51:1 0.88:1
QUICK RATIO
0.6:1 0.09:1 1.43:1 0.48
WORKING CAPITAL
8666404 34 685178 774000
CURRENT RATIO GRAPH
QUICK RATIO GRAPH
ANALYSIS (CURRENT, QUICK RATIO AND WORKING CAPITAL)
PSO
The liquidity of company detracted during the FY2009 due to increase of 38% in Current liabilities in year 2009. This is due to 35% increase in trade and other payables and 69% increase in short term borrowing
Current assets also increased 19% during FY2009 due to 37% increase in trade debts. However stock in trade has been decreased by 35%.
Otherwise in previous years other than FY2009 seems to be very stable position which shows the good short term debt paying ability of company. The company can improve its short term debt paying ability by reducing short term borrowing and trade payables.
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO
Byco
Attock
Shell
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO
Byco
Attock
Shell
BYCO
As it is cleared from the figure that we have computed that in 2009 current ratio is low so, company will hesitate to pay back its short term liabilities but in 2008 current ratio was higher then 2009, so we can say that year 2008 was more suitable for Byco Company then 2009 and 2005 was the mile stone for the company in five years. b/c in 2005 company was more efficient to pay their short term liabilities. According to quick ratio analysis company was in the good in 2008 then the other years, b/c their ratio is higher in 2009, so it means firm was able to meet its short term obligations more early in 2008.
ATTOCK
The liquidity of company detracted during the FY2009 due to increase of 10% in Current liabilities in year 2009. This is due to increase in trade and other payables in short term borrowing
Current assets also increased 15% during FY2009 due to increase in trade debts. However stock in trade has been decreased by 52% .The Company can improve its short term debt paying ability by reducing short term borrowing and trade payables
SHELL
In 2005 Shell was less efficient to pays its short term liabilities in same as in 2006 but latter on with passage of time shell has increased its efficiency to pay the short term liability. So we can say that shell has shown a bit good performance.
Comparative analysis
According to current and quick ratio PSO seems to be in a very stable position, it means that PSO manages its assets in a way that it equilibrates its assets according to Liabilities. Current ratio of Attock is high that’s only because of high amount of inventory, when we see the quick ratio of ATTOCK it is down. FY2009 is not so good for all over the industry, A leading company (PSO) has has loss in 2007, and other companies are not in a good position also. PSO has increase its borrowings in great extent that makes company more liquidity in 2009. It seems that BYCO Manages its liabilities at a stable level, but its only because of excessive amount of inventory it has in FY2009, when we see the Quick ratio of BYCO we will be clear about the short term debt paying ability of the BYCO petroleum limited. Attock also have a big amount of
inventory in FY2009, that’s why quick rato is hs been down in FY2009. Although Shell has increased its efficiency of Debt paying, it increases its assets in 2009 and reduces the liabilities that makes SHELL the more stable in market.
ACTIVITY RATIOS
2009 2008
PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL
ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER
11 times 168 times
9.1 53 times ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER
58.78 times
135 times
12.7 9.35 times
INVENTORY TURNOVER
13. times 11 times
265.87 times
12 times INVENTORY TURNOVER
10.1 times 3 times
157.60 times
11 times
2007 2006
PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL
ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER
105.79 times
73 times
17.6 11.77 times
ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER
81.44 times
68 times
29.3 13.0 times
INVENTORY TURNOVER
11.7 times
4 times
202.37 times
9 times INVENTORY TURNOVER
11.5 times
4 times 423.53 times
9.5 times
2005
PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL
ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER
73.78 times
37.78 times
38.8 16.5 times
INVENTORY TURNOVER
11.2 times
5 times
144.13 times
7.3 times
ACCOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER GRAPH
PSO A/R TURNOVER
Account Receivables Turnover seems to be not good in FY2009, it can be due to company could not collect the receivables of 2008 year, That’s why the receivables turnover is so high, but the company can improve this ratio in future, because the past data shows that company has a good turnover in last 4 years. The year 2007 is seems to be best because there is not any huge receivables to collect, compare to FY2009 and FY2008, FY2006 and FY2005 seems to be stable in position, so it does not affect the position of company.
BYCO A/R TURNOVER
A/R turnover ratio for BYCO seems to be very good for company, but its only because of less receivables in current assets that makes company more recoverable,
ATTOCK A/R TURNOVER
And working capital increases because current assets are more than current liabilities it means the company have more funds to repay their obligation in FY 2009
Account Receivables Turnover seems to be not good in FY2009, it can be due to company could not collect the receivables of 2008year. That’s why the receivables turnover is so high. The year 2005 is seems to be best because there is not any huge receivables to collect, compare to FY2009 and FY2008
020406080
100120140160180
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO
Byco
Attock
Shell
SHELL A/R TURNOVER
In Account Receivables turnover there is fluctuations. In 2005 Account Receivable turnover was 16.5times and in the next year it has decreased, it means that company has low performance, but latter on again company has increased its performance.
INVENTORY TURNOVER GRAPH
PSO INVENTORY TURNOVER
Inventory turnover is slightly higher in FY2009 which is a favorable trend. Otherwise remaining years have a stable position of inventory turnover. These figures shows that the company managed its inventory in a good way that’s why inventory turnover becomes stable.
BYCO INVENTORY TURNOVER
As for as inventory turn over is concerned BYCO has improve the turn over of inventory, so we can say that company is showing extra efficiency to the inventory turn over with the passage of time.
ATTOCK INVENTORY TURNOVER
Inventory turnover is higher in FY2009 and 2006 which is a favorable trend. Otherwise remaining years have a less of inventory turnover. These figures show that the company managed its inventory not in a good way that’s why inventory turnover are not stable.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO
Byco
Attock
Shell
SHELL INVENTORY TURNOVER
Inventory turnover is for SHELL Pakistan has recorded very much positive performance. In given five years inventory turnover has been increased at stable rate.
Comparative analysis
Account receivable turnover is highest of BYCO but it’s because of little amount in receivables that makes company fast recoverable. PSO is looking in negative trend because last year receivables couldn’t be collectable and that are due in 2009, it makes PSO less recoverable in Account receivables. SHELL is in very good position because it maintain its receivables in a good manner and its in increasing trend, also it maintain A/R turnover ratio in past years. Attock is also in negative trend.
Inventory Turnover Ratio is in increasing trend for all the companies, why? That’s because of purchasing of inventory in a great extent, All companies are focusing to purchases and they are not thinking about their paying ability, it will obviously hit them on profitability of company.
The debt management ratios of PSO show the negative trend in FY2009, because in 2009 short term liabilities have been increased. It includes Trade and other payables and short term borrowings. Trade and other payables have 35% increment in 2009 and short term borrowing have 69% increment. Also 52% of reserves of the company have been decreased. That’s why debt ratio of the company has rose in FY2009. The reason for the increase of Debt /Equity ratio is same that reserves have been decreased by 52% in Year 2009. Long term deposit have no effect to the company, and Retirement and other benefit have negligible impact over the company’s debts, Short term liabilities have been so much increase that result in bad management of debts and also loss in FY2009. The PSO manages its debts very smoothly from FY2005 to FY2007, but it shows the increase trend in debt ratio from FY2008 to FY2009.
BYCO
With the passage of time company has improved his equity by reducing leverages in 2005 it was 72.3% but in 2009 it shirked and become 35% so it is quite good sign. According to debt equity ratio Company has declared more debt with the passage of time. According to this ratio company has good condition in 2005 but letter on it because worst in 2009.
0.00%
100.00%
200.00%
300.00%
400.00%
500.00%
600.00%
700.00%
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO
Byco
Attock
Shell
ATTOCK
The debt management ratios of ATTOCK show the decreasing trend in FY2009, because in 2009 short term liabilities have been increased and in 2009 and in 2005 the debt ratio is higher because current assets are low. It includes Trade and other payables and short term borrowings The debt equity holder decreases in 2009 because equity has been increased more as compared to the liabilities. The have maximum amount of equity and the debt cost is negligible.
SHELL
In debt ratio company has been inefficient. Specially in 2009 the debt ratio was on its peek. By doing analysis we came to know that In 2005 debt ratio was 55.4% as a time goes on debt ratio has increased at stable rate. In debt equity ratio company again has been failed to achieve good performance, in debt/equity ratio company has negative trend and with the passage of time this negative performance has increased.
PSO facing declining in profit an FY2009, it is due to increase in cost of good sold, the cost of goods sold increase by 31.04% as compare to FY2008, it is the main reason that company incurs loss in FY2009, however net sales also increased by 23.7%, but it is not enough to grow profit margin, company should try to decrease the CGS as well as increase in sales. In 2008 CGS increased by 37.9%, but sales increased by 42%, that results in increment of 45% in Gross profit. FY2008 seems to be in good position in which Gross profit margin is 5.1%. However FY2007 is less profitable due to increase in CGS.
BYCO
In 2009 company has shown loss in gross profit margin, so one can say that financial health of the company is not so good and in the future company will be unable to pay its operating and other expenses.
ATTOCK
T he gross profit margin increase every year. Because the company increase their sale and this increment is due to high prices of petroleum products.
SHELL
As for as Gross profit is concerned company has increased its performance, although in 2006 Gross profit ratio has decreased but latter on company recover the loss and increased its ratio so we can say that this is the quite good sign for the company.
Net Profit Margin = Net Income before minority share of Earnings and Non Recurring Items /Net Sales
The profitability of the PSO fell by 48% in FY2009. Although the sales of the company increased, but due to increased in CGS, company face loss, that result in negative ROA in FY2009, overall ROA of the PSO is very stable, except FY2007 which is due to less profit in 2007.
BYCO
In 2009 company has shown loss, and in 2007 company also incurred loss, than in remaining years company has earned profit, but not as much as other companies. In 2009 company has incurred heavy loss and 2008 was quite good. We can say that company has earned on their assets, but in 2007 again company got the loss, so we can say that company is in inefficient to get the return on assets.
ATTOCK
The net profit rate of FY2009 is 4.98% and FY2008 4.96%. The net profit margin ratio approximately same in FY2009,2008,2005 but in 2007 and 2006 net profit margin go down because their expenses have been increased in 2007 and 2006.
ROA in FY 2006 is higher and continuously decreasing till 2009. It mean the company don’t have ability to used the assets efficiently and don’t earn a handsome return on from the sources available to the company
SHELL
As for as Net Profit margin is concerned company has not been good in performance, it has decreased the net profit margin continuously, and 2009 net profit margin has been shrieked to 1.5% so we can say its not a favorable for company.
In 2005 Return on Asset were 11.03% it means company has earned quit well on their Assets, but in the second year 2006 company incurred loss. Then again in the next year company recovered itself and showed a good sign till 2009.
Price/Earning ratio=Market price per share/earning per share
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (5.47) times 5.1 times 14.3 times 7.0 times 11.6 times BYCO (0.31) times 250 times (4.46) 11.25 times 14.58 times ATOCK 5.94 times 9.43 times 13.92times 9.28 times 13.73 times SHELL 9.1 times 8.5 times 31.8 times 8.4 times 9.9 times
PSO
Return on Equity is most valuable profitability ratio, Return on equity reveals how much profit a company earned in comparison to the total amount of shareholder equity found on the balance sheet, PSO has loss in 2009 so ROE is in negative trend, the best year for PSO in regard of ROE is FY2008, in this year Net is higher than previous years, and in FY2007 due to less income it is less ROE, in 2006‐5 is in a stable position.
A leverage ratio summarizing the affect a particular amount of financial leverage has on a company's earnings per share (EPS). The higher the degree of financial leverage, the more volatile EPS will be.
This ratio can be used to help determine the most appropriate level of financial leverage to use to achieve that goal. The company’s P/E ratio is in increasing trend from 2005 to 2008, but due to loss in 2009 it becomes in negative. Although EPS in FY2008 is about 81.9 and Market share price at year end is Rs 417.2 which is highest rate as compare to previous years, it reduces the P/E Ratio of the company, P/E ratio of the company is fluctuating during 2005 to 2009. In 2007 due to less profit and high Earning/Share.
BYCO
In 2005 the company has 1.66 leverage o earning ratio, but with the passage of time it showed negative trend because leverage on earning ratio has increased. In 2009 it got the highest position of worth 10.5%.
If we will take a sigh of P/E ratio that we can analyze that company has earned more profit, but it is also fact that company has shown loss in FY2009 and FY2007 as well and rest of the years company has shown stable profit.
ATTOCK
ROE in FY 2006 is higher and continuously decreasing till 2009. It mean the company don’t have ability to used the assets efficiently and don’t earn a handsome return on from the sources available to the company
The financial leverage in FY 2006 is higher it mean in 2006 the company is more risky. In FY2009 and FY 2005 the degree of financial leverage is low and the risk factor is also low in these years.
Theoretically, a stock's P/E tells us how much investor are willing to pay per dollar of earning. P/E ratios are generally lower during times of high inflation
Price earing ratio is higher in FY 2005 and FY 2007 but in FY 2009 it is decrease due to low market price of shares of the company. And high value of EPS.
Price earning ratio fluctuate every year because there is a high change in market price therefore P ratio fluctuate in FY 2007 and 2005 the company is more stable because P ratio is higher in these years
SHELL
In 2005 company had 1.8% leverage on Earning/Share it directly affected the earning but latter on leverage on per share has decreased so we can say company showed a good performance. In 2005 P/E ratio was so good but latter on company has shown decreasing trend till 2008, then again company has earned good profit.
In FY2009 loss incurred to the company , the investors had got nothing from company. In FY2008 the ROE is highest which shows the better sign for company and it also shows maximization of profit compare to other years, this is because of Highest sale in 2005 to 2008 which result in good Asset turnover, it means company utilized its assets in a efficient way.
BYCO
In 2009 BYCO didn’t utilized its assets in efficient way, because sales decreased in that year. But in 2008 it seems to be profitable but still company has many problems to become profitable. Because company failed to earn profit in two year, company’s ability to run in long term seems to be not possible.
ATTOCK
If a company's ROE goes up due to an increase in the net profit margin or asset turnover, this is a very positive sign for the company. InFY2006 the value is high and in FY 2009 it decreased it means that the company don’t use its assets effectively.
SHELL
ROE of shell shows the decreasing trend, however these rates are fluctuating year by year. Company’s net income margin (which is due to increase in operating expenses) is very low in each year that’s why it makes the company in downward trend.
Comparative analysis of Profitability and Debt ratio
Debt Ratio of all the firms are in increasing trend, its main reason is that they borrow short term loans without interest and they want to take benefit of it that’s why companies have increasing debt ratio.
When we see the gross profit of the firms; PSO has very low gross profit margin and BYCO has loss, that is result of High amount of CGS, but ATTOCK and SHELL has a good position in Gross Profit, ATTOCK is seems to be a very good in Gross profit ratio and ROA as compare to other companies, that is because the ATTOCK is a small company as compare to PSO and SHELL so that it seems to be very effective in Gross profit and ROA; for example if ATTOCK gross profit is 1000 on sale of Rs. 10000 it will show the margin of 10% that is a good margin for ATTOCK but it will be no more good for other companies, so we can not compare ATTOCK’s GP ratio on other companies.
Net Profit margin shows that PSO and BYCO companies are in Loss and reason is described at many positions, But ATTOCK and SHELL are in Profit. However Shell has low Net income margin which is because of increase in Operating expenses, Shell need to control its operating expenses, but still its in a good position because overall industry is going in loss and Shell runs in profit.
Return on Equity of Petroleum Firms seems to be 2:2 ratio, it means that 2 companies earned profit in FY2009 and 2 got Losses. But it can not be decided on the basis of ROE that the companies who had losses can not run in Long term. PSO is a very stable and profitable in previous years but due to high Raw material cost it run in Loss, that doesn’t mean that PSO will be liquidify, PSO is in a very strong position, its debt paying ability is very good, and it can run in Long Term relationship with its investors, The BYCO is really in trouble, because it had incur losses two times within 5 years. And its debt paying ability is also not in a good position, its amount of Profit is also very low.
ATTOCK has maintained its ROE in a good manner, however it is also in downtrend in FY2009 but it is quit possible for Firm to keep it high in next year.
Shell has increasing trend in ROE, that is sign of good move in market, Shell Pakistan is running in profit and it maintained its sales and Assets very efficiently, although FY2009 is not good for most of the Oil companies but Shell Pakistan proved itself as a stable company, Return on Assets of Shell is in increasing trend which means the company is utilizing its assets very effectively.
We can not say that a Single firm has a best performance in this industry, because PSO is a largest petroleum company in the Pakistan and it has 72% market share. However it incurred
loss in 2009 but it does not mean that It will not cover it in next year, the Firm has a best debt paying ability, and a it has good control over Receivables and inventory as compare to others.
Although this time Shell is seems to be good profitable in Financial statements.
Changes in Cost, Sale and Gross Profit PSO =====Change in Sale, CGS, and Gross Profit
Sales Volume: Per Year (given)
2009: 92.4 million barrel 2008: 91 million barrel 2007: 82.6 million barrel 2006: 68.6 million barrel 2005: 67.9 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel
CGS (Rs.000) (A)
Barrels sold (B)
Per Barrel cost A/B
Change within year
2009 609685478 92. 4 m 6598 1468 2008 465254907 91 m 5112 1027 2007 337446896 82.6 m 4085 (‐12) 2006 281042813 68.6 m 4097 1170 2005 212503650 67.9 m 3129 ‐ Change in Sale/barrel
Sales (Rs.000) (A)
Barrels sold (B)
Per Barrel Sale price A/B (Rs.)
Change within year
2009 612695589 92. 4 m 6631 1189 2008 495278533 91 m 5442 1208 2007 349706326 82.6 m 4233 (114) 2006 298250039 68.6 m 4348 1219 2005 198757319 67.9 m 2927 ‐ Change in Gross Profit
PSO =====Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Opening Cost 621.8 277 300 262 180 Charges
thereon 10.9 9.86 15 11.5 19
Purchase cost 5431 4787 3648.7 3692 2670 Charges
thereon 623 37 123 132 56
PSO
In FY2009 company faced loss of Rs. (9966) millions. Why Company faced this Loss?
However the sale volume increased in a great extent but CGS also increased, company could not control its cost, In 2009 Cost/barrel of Oil was Rs. 6598 with increase of Rs. 1468, it’s a very big amount and in sale price there is of only deference of Rs.33, its not sufficient to earn profit, the increase in CGS was the result of increase the Cost in Purchases in FY2009, the deference between 2009‐2008 purchases is about 644, that result in loss to the company. In 2008 Cost/barrel also increased but the Sale price/barrel was also increased by Rs.330. it is a good amount to increase profitability, the purchases amount also increased at a great extent in FY2008 but Prices were so high that makes company profitable. In FY2007 company reduces Rs.12 in cost of goods sold, that was actually because of low prices of Oil in International Market.
BYCO ====Change in Sale, CGS and Gross Profit
Production Volume: million barrel/ Year 2009: 7.03 million barrel 2008: 6.188 million barrel 2007: 5.06million barrel 2006: 4.808 million barrel 2005: 3.789 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel
BYCO== =Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Raw
Material 6732.7 5371 3740 3468 2448
Salaries 27 24.5 21 16 15 Fuel and
Power 44 35 34 46 49
Others 92.3 67 75 104 117
BYCO
In FY2009 however Production volume increased but company could control its cost of production, the coast was about 500 higher than sale price/barrel that’s why companies faced loss. The reason of increasing cost is that Raw material (Crude oil) price was so much high in 2009 that result in increase in overall cost and sale price was about 400 low than the cost.
ATTOCK =====Change in Sale, CGS and Gross Profit
Sales Volume: million barrel/ Year 2009: 9.14 million barrel 2008: 9.6 million barrel 2007: 11.6 million barrel 2006: 11.36 million barrel 2005: 3.79 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel
ATTOK====Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Purchase 5898.4 5168.7 3296 2919 2225 Petroleum
development levy 497.4 20.9 289.8 234 175
Others 9.2 25 72 171.5 100
ATTOCK
The company sale increases in rupees in 2009 due to increase the price of the petroleum products. But the company sale in barrel is decrease in FY 2009 at 9.14 million barrel to 9.6 million barrel in 2008. But in FY 2007 and 2006 the sale in barrel is higher. But the gross profit increase due to increase in prices. And gross profit ratio also increases.
Shell ====Change in CGS, Sale and Gross Profit
Sales Volume: million barrel/ Year 2009: 18.09 million barrel 2008: 20.35 million barrel 2007: 19.04 million barrel 2006: 14.3 million barrel 2005: 15.4 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel
Profit & Loss Items 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Increase(Decrea
se) %
Increase(Decrease) %
Increase(Decrease) %
Increase/Decrease) %
Increase(Decrease) %
Net Sales
16.2 20.6 8.1 312.1 100
Cost of Products Sold
16.0 20.0 7.8 311.7 100
Gross Profit 19.8 34.4 12.9 320.3 100
Other Operating Income
(5.8) 120.7 25.6 22.4 100
Operating Expenses
35.8 31.6 17.4 78.2 100
Net Profit 16.7 52.8 24.1 202.5 100
Common Size Analysis Shell Pakistan Income statement Horizontal Analysis
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Revenue 115221.51% 142.09% 116.89% 119.14% 100% Cost of Revenue, Total 116504.85% 139.04% 121.16% 119.64% 100% Gross Profit 105688.02% 175.52% 70.32% 113.16% 100% Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total 5547.17% 139.40% 120.27% 118.31% 100% Depreciation/Amortization 100.19% 98.81% 85.42% 96.88% 100% Operating Income 86841.21% 213.43% 29.35% 125.69% 100% Interest Expense, Net Non-Operating -345233.61% 265.10% 274.98% 120.28% 100% Interest/Invest Income - Non-Operating Interest Income(Exp), Net Non-Operating
Net Income Before Taxes 70970.22% 212.00% 10.40% 127.37% 100% Provision for Income Taxes 73972.98% 216.98% -27.51% 125.27% 100% Net Income After Taxes 695100.61% 209.58% 28.83% 128.40% 100% Diluted Normalized EPS 69.52% 208.98% 28.83% 128.40% 100% Vertical Analysis Total Revenue 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cost of Revenue, Total 92.14% 89.17% 94.45% 91.50% 91.12% Gross Profit 7.86% 10.59% 5.16% 8.14% 8.57% Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total 4.82% 98.23% 103.02% 99.42% 100.12% Depreciation/Amortization 0.00% 0.47% 0.50% 0.56% 0.68% Operating Income 3.04% 6.06% 1.01% 4.26% 4.04% Interest Expense, Net Non-Operating 1.01% -0.63% -0.79% -0.34% -0.34% Interest/Invest Income - Non-Operating 0.00% 0.15% 0.11% 0.04% Interest Income(Exp), Net Non-Operating 0.00% -0.07%
Net Income Before Taxes 2.28% 5.52% 0.33% 3.96% 3.70% Provision for Income Taxes 0.78% 1.85% -0.29% 1.27% 1.21% Net Income After Taxes 15.02% 3.67% 0.61% 2.68% 2.49%
Other Current liabilities, 89082.42% 97.63% 0.00% 118.48% 100%
Total Total Current Liabilities 225312.92% 190.91% 160.64% 147.25% 100% Long Term Debt Capital Lease Obligations 1254907.98% 13.50% 3.07% 42.94% 100% Total Long Term Debt 12269.94% 15350.92% 3.07% 42.94% 100%
Total Debt 0.00% 228.03% 205.52% 136.78% 100% Deferred Income Tax 0.00% 249.28% 0.00% 252.66% 100% Other Liabilities, Total 0.00% 600.63% 434.17% 308.15% 100%
Total Liabilities 246092.44% 212.19% 160.87% 147.71% 100% Common Stock, Total 195289.42% 156.23% 156.23% 124.98% 100% Additional Paid-In Capital/reserves 103457.55% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100%
Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit)
78133.18% 186.25% 116.21% 129.80% 100%
Total Equity 0.00% 163.93% 113.94% 122.32% 100%
Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity
182821.35% 192.72% 141.94% 137.47% 100%
Veritcal Analysis
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Cash 0.29% 2.20% 2.79% 3.47% 3.65% Cash & Equivalents Short Term Investments 0.19% 0.17% 0.17% 0.35% 0.45% Cash and Short Term Investments 0.71% 2.37% 2.96% 3.82% 4.11% Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net 43.81% 12.37% 14.53% 18.49% 18.16% Notes Receivable - Short Term Receivables – Other 18.72% 15.44% 20.61% 14.15% 8.38% Total Receivables, Net 0.00% 27.81% 35.14% 32.64% 26.54% Total Inventory 3.54% 45.67% 28.35% 35.27% 32.11% Prepaid Expenses 0.00% 0.36% 0.31% 0.24% 0.25% Other Current Assets, Total 0.03% -0.01% 0.73% 0.10% 0.08%
Total Current Assets 67.29% 76.19% 67.48% 72.08% 63.08%
Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Gross 19.17% 31.78% 40.72% 22.50% 47.75%
Accumulated Depreciation, Total 0.00% -14.59% -18.26% -2.39% -20.72%
Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Net 0.00% 17.18% 22.46% 20.11% 27.02%
Deferred taxation 6.79% Intangibles, Net 0.00% 0.03% 0.07% 0.13% 0.13% Long Term Investments 5.75% 5.53% 7.28% 7.18% 9.35% Note Receivable - Long Term 0.52% 0.37% 0.63% 0.49% 0.41% Other Long Term Assets, Total 0.29% 0.70% 2.09%
Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases 0.04% 0.14% 0.11%
Other Current liabilities, Total 7.63% 7.94% 0.00% 13.50% 15.66%
Total Current Liabilities 73.11% 58.76% 67.14% 63.54% 59.32% Long Term Debt 6.64% 6.30% 0.00% Capital Lease Obligations 0.54% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08% Total Long Term Debt 0.01% 6.31% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08%
Total Debt 0.00% 21.17% 25.91% 17.80% 17.89% Deferred Income Tax 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.18% 0.10% Other Liabilities, Total 0.00% 0.48% 0.47% 0.35% 0.15%
Total Liabilities 80.30% 65.68% 67.61% 64.10% 59.66% Common Stock, Total 1.82% 1.38% 1.88% 1.55% 1.70% Additional Paid-In Capital/reserves 5.57% 5.11% 6.94% 7.16% 9.84%
Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Cash Flow statements
PSO
Cash Flow Activities 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Cash inflow from operating activities (4828554) 4050125 3691454 1633774 5307821 Net cash (outflow) from investing activities (2889) (172926) (707953) (173687) (1219568)Net cash (outflow) from financing activities 511790 (9649840) (1565507) (4104443) (3087422)Cash & Cash equivalents at end of the year (1510325) (7190672) (1418031) (2836025) (191669)
In FY2009 cash inflow from operation is in bad condition, its because of low recievabels turnover in 2009, the company was unable to recover its recievables in FY2009. However remaining years have positive value and seems to be good.
Net cash flow from investing activities is in negative in FY2009, but its amount is so minimal that does not affect on equity, however in FY2009 inventory has been purchased in a big extent.
PSO has no longterm debts, it has only short term borrowings and deposits in its account, so PSO has positve value in FY2009 that’s not in good condition. Remaining years have very good outflow activities from financing.