My Project

Chapter – 1

INTRODUCTION

1

Financing

Financing is a term sometimes used in discussions of financial capitalism which developed

over recent decades, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity) and

financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural

economics.Financialing is a term that describes an economic system or process that attempts

to reduce all value that is exchanged (whether tangible, intangible, future or present promises,

etc.) either into a financial instrument or a derivative of a financial instrument. The original

intent of financing is to be able to reduce any work-product or service to an exchangeable

financial instrument, like currency, and thus make it easier for people to trade these financial

instruments.Finance is an integral part of investment activity and if it is inadequate,

investment will be blocked. Firms generally depend on financial markets to finance their

investment. During 1950s, studies on corporate finance argued that under perfect financial

market setting, financial structure does not affect the investment decision of firms. In other

words, the role of financial intermediaries was ignored till the late 1960s. The neutrality of

financial factors, however, confronted with criticisms after the emergenceof theoretical and

empirical studies with results inconsistent with earlier models

Pattern

A technical chart formation used to make market predictions by following the price

movements of securities.The graphical representation on a chart of a trend in security prices.

Technical analysts identify patterns for a security and predict future price movements in part

by matching current patterns with previous patterns.

1. Introduction of financing pattern

The corporate finance pattern is of vital importance for the financial well being of

companies. Corporate finance decisions affect the various facets of the corporate management

directly or indirectly, which ultimately determine the wealth of investors. The corporate

finance decisions in private Sector affects not only the financial soundness of the concerned

2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_markets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_equity

in 1991, which marked the beginning of liberalization process in India. Post 1991. The

changing pattern in the financing is observed in reforms in the Indian economy and the private

sector in particular accompanied by investment. The steels and aluminum industries have got

the challenge to access the market for both equity and debt finance. The gradual reduction in

the interference otherwise known as increasing autonomy to them will make this task easier.

The steels and aluminum have to relook at the financial leverage they have at present and

change suitably. In this context the present study made one of the first attempts to know the

factors that affect their capital structure. In confirmation with theory more specifically,

pecking order hypothesis, the leverage is found to be negatively related to profitability, i.e. the

steels and aluminum s use the\internal accruals first for the needs of expansion. The

tangibility measured by the ratio of net fixed assets to total assets is found to be positively

related to leverage.). In that study in almost all the sample developing countries the tax rate is

found to be negatively related to leverage. The present study is one of the limited studies

based on sample of central PSUs in India. One can possibly enlarge the sample or modify the

same by taking the steels and aluminum companies listed to capture the effect of the market

on the capital. The thrust of the literature opted to move away from the traditional theories

and placed emphasis on the role of financial sector, since it is argued that changes in the

financial factors will have its influence on the allocation of capital. These studies emphasise

the relationship between finance and investment, and provide a framework for analysingthe

financing patterns and investment behaviour of corporate sector. This section aims to discuss

the relationship between financing patterns and investment in the context of financial

liberalisation to provide a theoretical background for the empirical analysis that we intend to

carry out to study the determinants

Financing patterns across firm types

While the section above focused on the time series behavior of firm financing ratios, this

section explores differences across firm characteristics. In particular, we examine differences

in financing patterns by firm size, sector, age, ownership type, and export orientation. These

differences by analyzing descriptive statistics (means and medians) across firm and by

conducting univariate tests to determine whether these differences are statistically significant.

Second, following the literature on capital structure, we perform regression analysis to

3

understand the determinants of firm financing ratios in India and to investigate whether there

are differences in the factors driving firm financing ratios across firm size and other firm .

Debt financing can alleviate conflicts between equity holders and managers, it can at the

same time create agency problems between equity holders and debt holders. Debt contracts

are such that if an investment yields returns above the nominal value of the debt, equity

holders capture the surplus, but if the investment fails, because of limited liability, debt

holders bear the consequences.

2. Capital Structure –

For any organization financial strategy is of utmost importance. By financial strategy, one

means the

Broad corporate financial decisions that are made by the corporate’ management committee

or above – i.e.at the level of Board. These are not specific decisions, such as the decision to

undertake a project or not. It might even involve decision regarding the rate of interest at

which funds need to be borrowed. Broadly, three kinds of policies come under the purview of

financial strategy. : It represents the total long-term investment in a business firm. It includes

funds raised through ordinary and preference shares, bonds, debentures, term loans from

financial institutions, etc. Any earned revenue and capital surpluses are includedThey are

capital structure policy, dividend policy and capital budgeting policy. All three policies are

important in their own way and are interlinked. Ignoring any of them in corporate financing

decision-making is very difficult. Capital structure policy is normally concerned about:

The proportion of debt and equity to finance the company’s operations

How does the long term to short-term debt mix look like?

In case equity finance is to be raised, should it be through a rights issue or primary issue?

To what extent should internal funds be used to finance the company’s various activities?

It also examines, vis-à-vis, the extent to which the external funds can be used to carry out the

same activities. The capital structure of financing pattern decision is a significant managerial

decision. It influences shareholders’ wealth. As a result, the market value of the share may be

affected by the capital structure decision. The capital structure decision is a continuous

4

process. . Any change in the capital structure pattern affects the debt-equity mix, which in

turn influences the cost of capital. Consequently this affects the value of the firm.

Capital Structure Planning: Decision regarding what type of capital structure a

company should have is of critical importance because of its potential impact on profitability

and solvency. The small companies often do not plan their capital structure. The capital

structure is allowed to develop without any formal planning. These companies may do well in

the short-run, however, sooner or later they face considerable difficulties. The unplanned

capital structure does not permit an economical use of funds for the company. A company

should therefore plan its capital structure in such a way that it derives maximum advantage

out of it and is able to adjust more easily to the changing conditions. Instead of following any

scientific procedure to find an appropriate proportion of different types of capital which will

minimise the cost of capital and maximize the market value, a company may just either follow

what other comparable companies do regarding capital structure or may consult some

institutional lender and follow its advice.

Determinants of capital structure: capital structure should be designed very carefully.

The management of the company should set a target capital structure and the subsequent

financing decisions should be made with a view to achieve the target capital structure. Once a

company has been formed and it has been in existence for some years, the financial manager

then has to deal with the existing capital structure. The company may need funds to finance its

activities continuously. Every time the funds have to be procured, the financial manager

weighs the pros and cons of various sources of finance and selects most advantageous sources

keeping in view the target capital structure: Thus the capital structure decision is a continuous

one and has to be taken whenever a firm needs additional finance.

The factors to be considered whenever a capital structure decision is taken are: (i) Financial

Leverage or Trading on equity, (ii) Cost of capital, (iii) Cash flow, (iv) Control, (v)

Flexibility, (vi) Size of the company, (vii) Marketability, and (viii) Floatation costs. Let it’s

briefly explain these factors.

5

(i)Financial Leverage or Trading on Equity: The use of sources of finance with a fixed

cost, such as debt and preference share capital, to finance the assets of the company is known

as financial leverage or trading on equity. If the assets financed by debt yield a return

greater than the cost of the debt, the earnings per share will increase without an increase in the

owners' investment. Similarly, the earnings per share will also increase if preference share

capital is used to acquire assets. But the leverage impact is felt more in case of debt because

(i) the cost of debt is usually lower than the cost of preference share capital, and (ii) the

interest paid on debt is a deductible charge from profits for calculating the taxable income

while dividend on preference shares is not. Because of its effect on the earnings per share,

financial leverage is one of the important considerations in planning the capital structure of a

company.

(ii) Cost of Capital: Measuring the costs of various sources of funds is a complex subject and

needs a separate treatment. Needless to say that it is desirable to minimise the cost of capital.

Hence, cheaper sources should be preferred, other things remaining the same. The cost of a

source of finance is the minimum return expected by its suppliers. The expected return

depends on the degree of risk assumed by investors. A high degree of risk is assumed by

shareholders than debt-holders. In the case of debt-holders, the rate of interest is fixed and the

company is legally bound to pay interest, whether it makes profits or not. For shareholders the

rate of dividend is not fixed and the Board of Directors has no legal obligation to pay

dividends even if the profits have been made by the company.

(iii) Cash Flow: One of the features of a sound capital structure is conservation. Conservation

does not mean employing no debt or a small amount of debt. Conservatism is related to the

assessment of the liability for fixedcharges, created by the use of debt or preference capital in

the capital structure in the context of the firm's ability to generate cash to meet these fixed

charges. The fixed charges of a company include payment of interest, preference dividend and

principal. The amount of fixed charges will be high if the company employs a large amount of

debt or preference capital. Whenever a company thinks of raising additional debt, it should

analyse its expected future cash flows to meet the fixed charges with fixed charges for

companies whose cash inflows are unstable or unpredictable.

6

(iv) Control: In designing the capital structure, sometimes the existing management is

governed by its desire to continue control over the company. The existing management team

may not only what to be elected to the Board of Directors but may also desire to manage the

company without any outside interference. The ordinary shareholders have the legal right to

elect the directors of the company. If the company issues new shares, there is a risk of loss of

control. This is not a very important consideration in case of a widely held company. The

shares of such a company are widely scattered. Most of the shareholders are not interested in

taking active part in the company's management. They do not have the time and urge to attend

the meetings.

(v) Flexibility: Flexibility means the firm's ability to adapt its capital structure to the needs of

the changing conditions. The capital structure of a firm is flexible if it has no difficulty in

changing its capitalisation or sources of funds. Whenever needed the company should be able

to raise funds without undue delay and cost to finance the profitable investments. The

company should also be in a position to redeem its preference capital or debt whenever

warranted by future conditions. The financial plan of the company should be flexible enough

to change the composition of the capital structure. It should keep itself in a position to

substitute one form of financing for another to economise on the use of funds.

(vi) Size of the Company: The size of a company greatly influences the availability of funds

from different sources. A small company may often find it difficult to raise long-term loans. If

somehow it manages to obtain a long-term loan, it is available at a high rate of interest and on

inconvenient terms. The highly restrictive covenants in loans agreements of small companies

make their capital structure quite inflexible. The management thus cannot run business freely.

Small companies, therefore, have to depend on owned capital and retained earnings for their

long-term funds. A large company has a greater degree of flexibility in designing its capital

structure. It can obtain loans at easy terms and can also issue ordinary shares, preference

shares and debentures to the public. A company should make the best use of its size in

planning the capital structure.

7

(vii) Marketability: Marketability here means the ability of the company to sell or market

particular type of security in a particular period of time which in turn depends upon -the

readiness of the investors to buy that security. Marketability may not influence the initial

capital structure very much but it is an important consideration in deciding the appropriate

timing of security issues. At one time, the market favours debenture issues and at another

time, it may readily accept ordinary share issues. Due to the changing market sentiments, the

company has to decide whether to raise funds through common shares or debt. If the share

market is depressed, the company should not issue ordinary shares but issue debt and wait to

issue ordinary shares till the share market revives. During boom period in the share market, it

may not be possible for the company to issue debentures successfully. Therefore, it should

keep its debt capacity unutilized and issue ordinary4shares to raise finances.

(viii) Floatation Costs: Floatation costs are incurred when the funds are raised. Generally, the

cost of floating a debt is less than the cost of floating an equity issue. This may encourage a

company to use debt rather than issue ordinary shares. If the owner's capital is increased by

retaining the earnings, no floatation costs are incurred. Floatation cost generally is not a very

important factor influencing the capital structure of a company except in the case of small

companies.

The Modigliani-Miller theorem, proposed by Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller, forms the

basis for modern thinking on capital structure, though it is generally viewed as a purely

theoretical result since it assumes away many important factors in the capital structure

decision. The theorem states that, in a perfect market, how a firm is financed is irrelevant to

its value. This result provides the base with which to examine real world reasons why capital

structure is relevant, that is, a company's value is affected by the capital structure it employs.

Some other reasons include bankruptcy costs, agency costs, taxes, and information

asymmetry. This analysis can then be extended to look at whether there is in fact an optimal

capital structure: the one which maximizes the value of the firm

In financing pattern the accounting profession the applications include:

8

Business valuation, especially discounted cash flow, but including other valuation

problems

Capital budgeting

Cost of capital or WACC

Financial statement analysis

Project finance

Balance sheets.

Forms/Patterns of Capital Structure

The capital structure of a new company may consist of any of the following forms –

1. Equity shares only

2. Equity and Preference shares

3. Equity shares and Debentures

4. Equity shares, Preference shares and Debentures.

9

Objectives of the study:

To study the financing pattern of selected companies.

To analyses the trends in financing pattern.

10

Chapter – 2

REVIEW

OF

LITERATURE

11

Modigliani and Miller (1958) argued that real investmentdecisions are

independent of financial decisions. Capital structure ofthe firms or sources of

financing has no bearing on their financialdecisions. Contrary to the neo-classical

models developed since 1950s,there are theoretical and empirical studies that

stressed on the relationship between finance and investment (Minsky 1975; Fazarri

and Variato 1994).The financial system facilitates intermediation between savers

(public)and investors (firms) and helps translate savings into investments. The

system can be credit (bank) based and securities (capital market) based7(Stiglitz

1994). Stiglitz (1994) further argued that market for corporatecontrol provides the

ultimate discipline in the stock market-dominate economies. Myres (1984) and

Myres and Majluf (1984) opened up the way to the so- called pecking order

theorem. Pecking order theorem predicts a negative relationship between

profitability (as a measure of internal funds) and debt financing.

Debt and equity are not merely alternative modes of finance, but are also

alternative modes of governance (Williamson 2002). Corporate governance is

meant to create some rules and regulations which wouldensure that external

investors and creditors in a firm can get their moneyback and would not simply be

expropriated by those who are managingthe firm (Shellfire and Vishny 1997).

Berle and Means (1932) argued thatthe separation of ownership and control may

lead managers to pursuetheir own objectives at the expense of owners. However, it

is also arguedthat the diffuse equity ownership can also make managers run the

firmto their own benefits at the expense of investors (Bolton and Schartstein1998,

p.100). Cornelli, Portes, and Schaffer (1998) observed that theprice of outstanding

shares usually drops when a firm announces a newequity issue. An increase in debt

has also a similar but less strong effect on share price. This could be the reason

why managers prefer internalfinancing, turn to debt if the former option is not

available and useequity issue only as a last resort. The rationale for the relevance

of theinternal finance could be defended from two theoretical perspectives:

12

The managerial approach emphasises agency costs arising out of theseparation of

ownership from control and the role of internal finance infacilitating managerial

discretion. However in the context of developingcountries, including India, the

primary agency problem has been betweenmajority and minority owners (not

between owners and managers) (refer

La Porta et.al (1999) as cited by Reed Darryl p.15, 2004). The secondapproach

i.e. the information-theoretic approach emphasizes asymmetriesof information

between insiders (managers) and outsiders (suppliers ofcapital) leading to credit

shortage faced by firms. Mishkin (1996) noted8 that adverse selection3 and moral

hazard4 problems arising fromasymmetric information in investor-firm

relationship necessarily createdisruptions in financial markets, leading to

inefficient allocation ofinvestible funds. Asymmetric information framework

relates informationfailures to the failures of intermediaries and stock markets and

thusargues for government intervention. Stiglitz and Weiss 1981 & 1994criticize

the financial liberalization thesis on the grounds that financialmarkets are prone to

market failures. Singh (1997) further argued thatless developed countries should

promote a bank based system andprevent a market for corporate control. Singh

(2003) argued that emergingcountries with reasonably well- developed banking

system and equitmarkets would follow pecking order pattern of finance, not only

becauseof the informational asymmetries argued by Myres and Majluf

foradvanced countries,5but also due to the institutional specificities ofemerging

markets in particular, (the desire to maintain family ownershipand control of

corporations).

Mayer (1990) observed that two-thirds on the averageof investment financing in

developed countries like the US, UK, Japan,Germany, France, Italy, Canada and

Finland are mobilised throughinternal financing. In contrast to the experience of

the developedcountries

Singh and Hamid (1992) observed very different trends incertain developing

countries. The contribution of external sources tothe financing of net fixed capital

formation in the 1980s was around 50per cent with a significant share coming

13

from the stock market.Government regulations that directly discourage the use of

debt byimposing specified limits to debt ratios of firms could explain to

someextent the preference of developing countries’ corporations for equityrather

than debt financing.

Nagaraj (1996), Samuel (1996)and Singh (1998) showed similar trends in the case

of Indian corporatesector. Mathew, Rupa et.al (1999) observed a declining trend in

theinternal financing among the large and medium-sized Indian firmsbetween the

periods 1972-80 to 1988-966which supports the findingsof other studies. Similar

findings were observed by Rajakumar (2001),

Sarkar and Sarkar (2004), Joshi (2005) and Bhole (2005). Various studiessuch

as Singh and Hamid (1992), Nagaraj (1996), Singh (1995 & 1997),and Samuel

(1996) argued that the capital market boom in developingcountries is not

associated with improved corporate profitability andtherefore, may not help in

achieving quicker industrialisation and faster long-term economic growth. A

recent study by RBI (2005-06) hasobserved that the Indian corporate sector has

mobilised a large share ofresources from internal sources which accounts for 60.7

per cent during2000-01 to 2004-05. Capital market has been considered as a last

resortwhich contributed merely 9.9 per cent. The debt-equity ratio has alsodeclined

over the years as the corporate sector has been able to mobilize resources

internally (refer Appendix 1). This kind of pattern of financingconforms to the so-

called “pecking order” theory as applied in thedeveloped countries (see Singh,

2003). However, the study does notreveal the contribution of depreciation on large

scale as a source ofinternal finance which is also an important aspect to be

explored.There are few empirical studies specifically on the investmentpattern of

the Indian corporate sector.

Bhole (2005) argued that thegross or net savings rates of the private corporate

sector remained lowduring 1966-67 to 2000-01. Moreover, this sector has not kept

pacewith its capital formation. However, there is an increasing trend of

capitalformation in the private corporate sector since 2002-03.

14

Mazumdar (2008), the annual rate of growth of gross fixed capitalformation at

constant prices was quite high during 1990-91 to 1996-97which accounts for 19.5

per cent. And the growth in capital formationduring the 1990s was relatively

higher than the growth registered in the1980s ( Nair 2005). Similar observations

were made by another studybased on ASI data (Nagaraj 2002). But this rate has

sharply declined tothe level of negative growth rate during 1996-97 to 2002-03

and againincreased significantly to the level of 28.51 per cent during 2002-03

to2007-08 (Mazumdar 2008). (Robertson, 2010) also observed that India’s

investment rate has increased from 25 per cent to35 per cent of GDP in the present

decade and argues that it may not getfully utilised in the long run. Notably, Indian

economy has alsoexperienced a large number of mergers and acquisitions (M&A)

duringthe liberalisation period (Beena, P.L. 2008). One- third of the M&Adeals

that occurred in India during 1978-2007 were cross-border deals(Beena, S. 2010).

Another recent study (Rao and Dhar 2010) observedthat almost two-fifth of the

foreign equity inflows was nothing but anacquisition of existing shares during

2005-06 & 2006-07. Services sectorwas exposed to large share of Private Equity

(PE) or Venture Capital(VC) investments as compared to the manufacturing

sector7. There have7 Chandrasekhar (2007) observed that the total number of

M&A deals hasincreased from the level of 467 ($18.3 million) in 2005 to 782

($28.2billion) in 2006. Out of these deals, 302 involved private equity.

Privateequity is generally acquired either through the private placement of

newshares or the sale of pre-existing shares by the controlling interest or

minorityshareholder, and therefore has features that characterise most take-

overs.11also been several studies on Indian firms‘acquisitions (Nayyar

2007;Pradhan 2007; Nagaraj 2006). However no attempt has been made

tounderstand the financing sources of these acquiring firms. Thereforethis study

intends to fill this gap to some extent, based on a smallsample. Before getting

down to the main analysis, it would be useful tonunderstand the growth of equity

market, euro issues and externalcommercial borrowings in the Indian corporate

sector during theliberalisation era.

15

Chapter – 3

Research

Methodology

16

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Methodology

Research in common parlance refers to a search for knowledge. It can be defined as a

scientific and systematic search for pertinent information on a specific topic. Research is an

art of scientific investigation. Research methodology is a scientific and systematic way to

solve research problems. A researcher has to design his methodology, i.e. in addition to the

knowledge of methods/ techniques; he has to apply the methodology as well. The

methodology may differ from problem to problem. Thus the scope of research methodology is

wider than research methods. In a way, research methodology deals with the research methods

and takes into consideration the logic behind the methods we use.

Research is an academic activity and as such the term should be used in a technical sense.

Research is an original contribution to the existing stock of knowledge making for its

advancement. It is the pursuit of truth with the help of study, observations, comparison and

experiment. In short the search for knowledge through objective and systematic method of

finding solutions to a problem is research. The systematic approach concerning generalization

and the formulation of theory is also research. As such the term ‘research’ refers to the

systematic method consisting of enunciating the problem, formulating a hypothesis, collecting

of facts or data, analyzing the facts and reaching certain conclusions either in the firm of

solutions towards the concerned problem or in certain generalizations for some theoretical

formulation.

Research Process

Research process consists of series of steps or actions necessary to effectively carry out

research. These steps are to be followed in the same manner as they occur in the sequence. It

should be remembered that the various steps involved in a research process are not mutually

exclusive, nor they are separate and distinct. They do not necessarily follow each other in any

specific order and the researcher has to constantly anticipate at each step in the research

process the requirements of subsequent steps.

Various steps involved in the research process are as follows:-

17

Formulating the Research Problem

Extensive Literature Survey

Development of Working Hypothesis

Preparing the Research Design

Determining Sample Design

Collecting the Data

Execution of the Project

Analysis of Data

Hypothesis Testing

Generalizations and Interpretation

Preparation of the Report or the Thesis

This topic describes the research design, data collection method, sampling plan and data

analysis of the project.

Research Design

A research design is the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a

manner that aims to combine relevance to a research purpose with economy in procedure. In

fact, the research design is the conceptual structure within which the research is conducted; it

constitutes the blue print for the collection, measurement and analysis of data. As such the

design includes an outline of what the researcher will do from writing the hypothesis and its

operational implications to the final analysis of data.

Features of research design are as under:

i. It is a plan that specifies the sources and types of information relevant to the research

problem.

ii. It is a strategy specifying which approach will be used for gathering and analyzing the

data.

iii. It also includes the time and cost budgets since most studies are done under these two

constraints.

18

According to Kerlinger, “Research design is the plan, structure and strategy of investigation

conceived so as to obtain answers to research questions and to control variance.”

Research design is in fact the conceptual structure within which the research is conducted. It

can be described as a blueprint for the collection, measurement and analysis of data.

Sampling Design

A sampling design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a given population. It refers

to the technique or the procedure the researcher would adopt in selecting items for the sample.

A sample is a portion of people drawn from a larger population. It will be representative of

the population only if it has same basic characteristics of the population from which it is

drawn according to the research problem.

Characteristics of a good sample design:

The following are the main characteristics of a good sample design:

I. Sample design must result in a truly representative sample.

II. Sample design must be such which results in a small sampling error.

III. Sample design must be viable in the context of funds available for the research study.

IV. Sample design must be such so that the systematic bias can be controlled in a better

way.

V. Sample should be such that the results of the sample study can be applied, in general,

for the universe with a reasonable level of confidence.

Universe

Universe is the set of objects to be studied in the research. It refers to all the people who are

related directly or indirectly related to the research problem.

Population

It is aggregate of all the elements of the entire universe that are to be studied with respect to

the given research problem.

19

Sample

It is a subgroup of the population comprising of elements that are selected for the study. It is a

representative of the population so that inferences can be drawn about the larger population

with the help of a smaller sample.

Data Collection Tools

The task of data collection begins after the research problem has been defined and research

plan has been chalked out.

Secondary Data

Secondary data is the data that have been already collected by and readily available from

other sources. Such data are cheaper and more quickly obtainable than the primary data and

also may be available when primary data cannot be obtained at all.

Data collection

The data is collected from the annual reports of the various companies in different industries.

The analysis is based on the following companies:

1. Steels&aluminum industries.

2. Automobiles industries

3. Telecom industries.

Companies includes in steel and aluminum industries::

Steel authority

Tata steels

Hindalco

JSW

Sterlite industries

Essar steels

Hindustan zinc

Jindal steels

20

Jindal saw

Welspun

Jindal stainless

Bhushan steels

National aluminum

UttamGalva

Companies includes in automobile industries::

Tata motors

Larsen turbo

MarutiSuzuki

M&M

Ashok Leyland

Tvs motors

Bajaj motors

Honda seil car

Exide industry

Companies includes in telecom industries

Bhartiairtel

Bharti heavy electrical limited

Reliance infrastructure

Siemens industries

Videocon

ABB infrastructure

Crompton grease

Idea cellular

Research Period

21

The period of the year is from 2002-2012.

Purpose

The purpose of the research is to analyze the trends in the financing pattern

22

CHAPTER-4

DATA ANALYSIS

&

INTERPRETATION

Ashok Leyland

YearShare

Capital ReserveNet

WorthTrend in Net Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employe

Debt Equit

%to Capital Employed

23

Worth dy

Ratio

Net

worth Debt2001-

02 118.93 891.50 1010.43 100.00 888.45 100.00 1898.88 0.88 53.21 46.792002-

03 118.93 814.68 933.61 92.40 717.23 80.73 1650.84 0.77 56.55 43.452003-

04 118.93 907.64 1026.57 101.60 499.08 56.17 1525.65 0.49 67.29 32.712004-

05 118.93 1024.35 1143.28 113.15 880.41 99.10 2023.69 0.77 56.49 43.512005-

06 122.16 1261.35 1383.51 136.92 691.93 77.88 2075.44 0.50 66.66 33.342006-

07 132.39 1739.23 1871.62 185.23 640.40 72.08 2512.02 0.34 74.51 25.492007-

08 132.39 1993.57 2125.96 210.40 887.50 99.89 3013.46 0.42 70.55 29.452008-

09 132.39 1976.00 2108.39 208.66 1961.98 220.83 4070.37 0.93 51.80 48.202009-

10 132.39 2190.00 2322.39 229.84 2280.45 256.68 4602.84 0.98 50.46 49.542010-

11 132.39 2523.65 2656.04 262.86 2658.19 299.19 5314.23 1.00 49.98 50.02

2011-12 266.07 2632.34 2898.41 286.85 2395.53 269.63 5293.94 0.83 54.75 45.25

total 1525.90 17954.31 19480.211927.9

1 14501.151632.1

9 33981.36 7.90 652.25 447.75

average 152.59 1795.431 1948.021192.79

1 1450.115163.21

9 3398.136 0.79 65.22544.775

2

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

Trend in DebtTrend in Net Worth

Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2009-10.

25

26

TVS motors

Year

Share Capita

lReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth DebtTrend in Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equity Ratio


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 23.10 300.29 323.39 100.00 166.94 100.00 490.33 0.52 65.95 34.052002-

03 23.10 399.85 422.95 130.79 121.89 73.01 544.84 0.29 77.63 22.372003-

04 23.75 551.20 574.95 177.79 119.01 71.29 693.96 0.21 82.85 17.152004-

05 23.75 655.08 678.83 209.91 186.84 111.92 865.67 0.28 78.42 21.582005-

06 23.75 742.33 766.08 236.89 385.04 230.65 1151.12 0.50 66.55 33.452006-

07 23.75 785.52 809.27 250.25 633.56 379.51 1442.83 0.78 56.09 43.912007-

08 23.75 797.83 821.58 254.05 666.34 399.15 1487.92 0.81 55.22 44.782008-

09 23.75 789.38 813.13 251.44 905.98 542.70 1719.11 1.11 47.30 52.702009-

10 23.75 841.63 865.38 267.60 1003.29 600.99 1868.67 1.16 46.31 53.692010-

11 47.51 1951.90 1999.41 618.27 785.42 470.48 2784.83 0.39 71.80 28.202011-

12 47.51 1121.79 1169.30 361.58 715.46 428.57 1884.76 0.61 62.04 37.96

Total 307.47 8936.80 9244.27 2858.55 5689.77 3408.27 14934.04 6.66 710.15 389.85

average 30.747 893.68 924.427 285.855 568.977 340.8272 1493.4040.6661

4 71.01514 38.98486

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2010-1. It shows the continuous increase every year but at the end it is decrease in year 2012. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and in 2010-11 it increase and decrease in 2012.

27

TATA Motors

YearShare

Capital ReserveNet

Worth

Trend in Net Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employed

Debt Equity Ratio


Net

worth

2001-02 319.82 2145.24 2465.06 100.00 2307.72 100.00 4772.78 0.94 51.65

2002-03 319.83 2277.33 2597.16 105.36 1458.31 63.19 4055.47 0.56 64.04

2003-04 353.00 3236.77 3589.77 145.63 1259.33 54.57 4849.10 0.35 74.03

2004-05 361.79 3749.60 4111.39 166.79 2495.42 108.13 6606.81 0.61 62.23

2005-06 382.87 5127.81 5510.68 223.55 2936.84 127.26 8447.52 0.53 65.23

2006-07 385.41 6458.39 6843.80 277.63 4009.14 173.73 10852.94 0.59 63.06

2007-08 385.54 7428.45 7813.99 316.99 6280.52 272.15 14094.51 0.80 55.442008-09 514.05 11855.15 12369.20 501.78 13165.5 570.50 25534.76 1.06 48.44

2009-10 570.60 14208.55 14779.15 599.55 16625.9 720.45 31405.06 1.12 47.06

2010-11 634.65 19351.40 19986.05 810.77 15898.7 688.94 35884.80 0.80 55.70

2011-12 634.75 18709.16 19343.91 784.72 11011.6 477.16 30355.54 0.57 63.72

Total 4862.31 94547.85 99410.16 4032.7 77449.1 3356.09 176859.29 7.93 650.60

average 486.231 9454.785 9941.016 403.27 7744.91 335.609 17685.929 0.7932 65.0602

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2010-1. It shows the continuous increase every year but at the end it is decrease in year 2012. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and in 2010-11 it increase and decrease in 2012.

29

Honda Seil Product

Year

Share Capit

alReser

veNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth

Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati

o%Capital employed

Net

worthDeb

t2001-

02 10.14113.1

9 123.33100.0

07.1

5100.00 130.48 0.06 94.52 5.48

2002-03 10.14

124.99 135.13

109.57

6.94

97.06 142.07 0.05 95.12 4.88

2003-04 10.14

130.73 140.87

114.22

12.07

168.81 152.94 0.09 92.11 7.89

2004-05 10.14

135.24 145.38

117.88

10.05

140.56 155.43 0.07 93.53 6.47

2005-06 10.14

140.99 151.13

122.54

0.00 0.00 151.13 0.00

100.00 0.00

2006-07 10.14

153.62 163.76

132.78

0.00 0.00 163.76 0.00

100.00 0.00

2007-08 10.14

173.37 183.51

148.80

0.00 0.00 183.51 0.00

100.00 0.00

2008-09 10.14

184.27 194.41

157.63

0.00 0.00 194.41 0.00

100.00 0.00

2009-10 10.14

192.21 202.35

164.07

0.00 0.00 202.35 0.00

100.00 0.00

2010-11 10.14

213.00 223.14

180.93

0.00 0.00 223.14 0.00

100.00 0.00

2011-12 10.14

254.07 264.21

214.23

0.00 0.00 264.21 0.00

100.00 0.00

total111.5

41815.

681927.2

21562.

6536.21

506.43 1963.43 0.26

1075.28

24.72

average 11.15

181.57

192.722

156.265

3.621

50.64 196.34

0.0264

107.528

2.472

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and it decrese in year 2005and continous increase in year 2011.

31

Bajaj motors

YEAR

Share Capita

l ReserveNet

Worth


Trend in Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equit

y Ratio


2005-06 101.18 4669.55 4770.73 100.00 1467.1 100.0 6237.88 0.31 76.48 23.52

2006-07 101.18 5433.14 5534.32 116.01 1625.4 110.7 7159.75 0.29 77.30 22.70

2007-08 144.68 1442.91 1587.59 33.28 97.48 6.64 1685.07 0.06 94.22 5.78

2008-09 144.68 1725.01 1869.69 39.19 325.15 22.16 2194.84 0.17 85.19 14.81

2009-10 144.68 2783.66 2928.34 61.38 1338.5 91.24 4266.92 0.46 68.63 31.37

2010-11 289.37 4620.85 4910.22 102.92 1570.0 107.0 6480.22 0.32 75.77 24.23

2011-12 289.37 5751.70 6041.07 126.63 1334.3 90.95 10307.99 0.22 58.61 12.94

total 1215.1 26426.8 27641.9 579.41 7758.1 528.7 38332.67 1.83 536.1 135.3

average 121.51 2642.68 2764.19 57.940 775.81 52.88 3833.267 0.183 53.61 13.54

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 70.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2007-8. It shows the decrese in year2003 and cintinous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2006

33

Larsen& Turbo

YearShare

Capital ReserveNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth DebtTrend in Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equity Ratio


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 248.66 3058.79 3307.45 100.00 3548.87 100.00 6856.32 1.07 48.24 51.762002-

03 266.67 3279.53 3546.20 107.22 2176.00 61.32 5722.20 0.61 61.97 38.032003-

04 24.88 2717.55 2742.43 82.92 1324.35 37.32 4066.78 0.48 67.43 32.572004-

05 25.98 3312.28 3338.26 100.93 1859.66 52.40 5197.92 0.56 64.22 35.782005-

06 27.98 4583.32 4611.30 139.42 1453.57 40.96 6064.87 0.32 76.03 23.972006-

07 56.65 5683.85 5740.50 173.56 2077.75 58.55 7818.25 0.36 73.42 26.582007-

08 58.47 9470.71 9529.18 288.11 3383.99 95.35 12913.17 0.36 73.79 26.212008-

09 117.1412317.9

6 12435.10 375.97 6556.03 184.74 18991.13 0.53 65.48 34.522009-

10 120.4418142.8

2 18263.26 552.19 6800.83 191.63 25064.09 0.37 72.87 27.132010-

11 121.7721334.0

5 21455.82 648.71 7161.77 201.80 28617.59 0.33 74.97 25.032011-

12 122.4825079.4

0 25201.88 761.97 9895.77 278.84 35097.65 0.39 71.81 28.19

total 624.93 96612.1 97237.0 2939.94 37329.7 1051.88 134566.75 2.66 508.38 191.62averag

e 62.493 9661.21 9723.70 293.9939 3732.9 105.18 13456.67 0.265 50.838 19.16

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00


Interpretation:


35

Maruti Suzuki

YearShare

Capital ReserveNet

Worth


Trend in Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equity Ratio


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 132.30 2575.00 2707.30 100.00 656.00 100.00 3363.30 0.24 80.50 19.502002-

03 144.50 2953.50 3098.00 114.43 456.00 69.51 3554.00 0.15 87.17 12.832003-

04 144.50 3446.70 3591.20 132.65 311.90 47.55 3903.10 0.09 92.01 7.992004-

05 144.50 4234.30 4378.80 161.74 307.60 46.89 4686.40 0.07 93.44 6.562005-

06 144.50 5308.10 5452.60 201.40 71.70 10.93 5524.30 0.01 98.70 1.302006-

07 144.50 6709.40 6853.90 253.16 636.80 97.07 7490.70 0.09 91.50 8.502007-

08 144.50 8270.90 8415.40 310.84 900.20 137.23 9315.60 0.11 90.34 9.662008-

09 144.50 9200.40 9344.90 345.17 698.90 106.54 10043.80 0.07 93.04 6.962009-

10 144.50 11690.6 11835.1 437.16 821.40 125.21 12656.50 0.07 93.51 6.492010-

11 144.50 13723.0 13867.5 512.23 309.30 47.15 14176.80 0.02 97.82 2.182011-

12 144.50 15042.9 15187.4 560.98 1078.3 164.38 16265.70 0.07 93.37 6.63

total1011.5

069945.3

070956.8

0 2620.944516.6

0 688.51 75473.40 0.45 658.28 41.72

average 101.15 6994.53 7095.68262.094

3 451.6668.850

6 7547.340.0450

5 65.82784.172

2

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03and its is reduce by and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2009-10.

37

Mahindra&Mahindra

Year

Share Capita

l ReserveNet

Worth


Trend in

Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equity Ratio


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 116.01 1371.89 1487.90 100.00 1377.07 100.00 2864.97 0.93 51.93 48.072002-

03 116.01 1438.31 1554.32 104.46 1139.84 82.77 2694.16 0.73 57.69 42.312003-

04 116.01 1664.15 1780.16 119.64 729.81 53.00 2509.97 0.41 70.92 29.082004-

05 116.01 1881.93 1997.94 134.28 1052.62 76.44 3050.56 0.53 65.49 34.512005-

06 233.40 2662.14 2895.54 194.61 883.39 64.15 3778.93 0.31 76.62 23.382006-

07 238.03 3302.01 3540.04 237.92 1636.00 118.80 5176.04 0.46 68.39 31.612007-

08 239.07 4098.53 4337.60 291.52 2587.06 187.87 6924.66 0.60 62.64 37.362008-

09 272.62 4959.26 5231.88 351.63 4052.76 294.30 9284.64 0.77 56.35 43.652009-

10 282.95 7527.60 7810.55 524.94 2880.15 209.15 10690.70 0.37 73.06 26.942010-

11 293.62 9974.62 10268.2 690.12 2405.29 174.67 12673.53 0.23 81.02 18.982011-

12 294.52 11799.2 12093.7 812.81 3174.22 230.51 15268.00 0.26 79.21 20.79

total 1854.2 44323.4 46177.6 3103.54 17618.8 1279.4 63796.50 3.00 497.30 202.70averag

e 185.42 4432.34 4617.76 310.354 1761.88 127.94 6379.65 0.3003 49.729620.270

4

38

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2011-12

39

Exide Industries

Year

Share Capita

l ReserveNet

Worth


Trend in

Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equit

y Ratio


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 35.73 73.39 109.12 100.00 342.98100.0

0 452.10 3.14 24.14 75.862002-

03 35.61 260.65 296.26 271.50 281.66 82.12 577.92 0.95 51.26 48.742003-

04 71.22 263.70 334.92 306.93 198.97 58.01 533.89 0.59 62.73 37.272004-

05 75.00 354.09 429.09 393.23 290.18 84.61 719.27 0.68 59.66 40.342005-

06 75.00 429.16 504.16 462.02 289.85 84.51 794.01 0.57 63.50 36.502006-

07 75.00 552.98 627.98 575.49 324.70 94.67 952.68 0.52 65.92 34.082007-

08 80.00 909.45 989.45 906.75 349.81101.9

9 1339.26 0.35 73.88 26.122008-

09 80.00 1137.75 1217.75 1115.97 317.18 92.48 1534.93 0.26 79.34 20.662009-

10 85.00 2104.50 2189.50 2006.51 89.99 26.24 2279.49 0.04 96.05 3.952010-

11 85.00 2630.25 2715.25 2488.32 215.00 62.69 2930.25 0.08 92.66 7.342011-

12 85.00 2946.64 3031.64 2778.26 0.00 0.00 3031.64 0.00 100.00 0.00

total 565.0010710.7

3 11275.7310333.3

3 1586.53462.5

7 12862.26 1.83 571.34 128.66

average 56.51071.07

3 1127.571033.33

3 158.65346.25

7 1286.226 0.1826 57.134412.865

6

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

Trend in DebtNet Worth

Interpretation:


41

STEEL AND ALUMINUM INDUSTRY

Hindalco

YearShare

Capital ReserveNet

Worth


Trend in Debt

Capital Employed

Debt Equity Ratio


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 74.46 4507.10 4581.56 100.00 957.73 100.00 5539.29 0.21 82.71 17.292002-

03 92.46 6098.63 6191.09 135.13 2395.02 250.07 8586.11 0.39 72.11 27.892003-

04 92.48 6765.42 6857.90 149.68 2564.60 267.78 9422.50 0.37 72.78 27.222004-

05 92.78 7573.80 7666.58 167.34 3800.00 396.77 11466.58 0.50 66.86 33.142005-

06 98.57 9507.69 9606.26 209.67 4903.44 511.99 14509.70 0.51 66.21 33.792006-

07 104.33 12313.71 12418.04 271.04 7368.60 769.38 19786.64 0.59 62.76 37.242007-

08 122.65 17173.67 17296.32 377.52 8328.58 869.62 25624.90 0.48 67.50 32.502008-

09 170.46 23584.69 23755.15 518.49 8324.29 869.17 32079.44 0.35 74.05 25.952009-

10 191.37 27715.61 27906.98 609.12 6356.90 663.75 34263.88 0.23 81.45 18.552010-

11 191.46 29504.17 29695.63 648.16 7271.50 759.24 36967.13 0.24 80.33 19.672011-

12 191.48 31299.68 31491.16 687.3514570.9

1 1521.40 46062.07 0.46 68.37 31.63

Total 1422.50 176044.17 177466.67 3873.5066841.5

7 6979.17 244308.24 4.34 795.12 304.88average 142.25 17604.42 17746.67 387.35

6684.157 697.917 24430.82 0.4337 79.512

42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00


Interpretation:


43

National Aluminium

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net Wort

h Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equit

y Ratio


Net

worthDeb

t2001-

02644.3

12580.9

33225.2

4100.0

01563.

45100.0

0 4788.69 0.48 67.3532.6

52002-

03644.3

72665.7

33310.1

0102.6

31324.

44 84.71 4634.54 0.40 71.4228.5

82003-

04644.3

73112.3

63756.7

3116.4

8654.3

9 41.86 4411.12 0.17 85.1614.8

42004-

05644.3

74053.0

04697.3

7145.6

4 0.00 0.00 4697.37 0.00 100.00 0.002005-

06644.3

75248.3

65892.7

3182.7

1 0.00 0.00 5892.73 0.00 100.00 0.002006-

07644.3

77050.9

17695.2

8238.6

0 0.00 0.00 7695.28 0.00 100.00 0.002007-

08644.3

18230.1

48874.4

5275.1

6 0.00 0.00 8874.45 0.00 100.00 0.002008-

09644.3

19125.5

09769.8

1302.9

2 0.00 0.00 9769.81 0.00 100.00 0.002009-

10644.3

19751.2

710395.

58322.3

2 0.00 0.0010395.5

8 0.00 100.00 0.002010-

111288.

62 75.991364.6

1 42.31 14.88 0.95 1379.49 0.01 98.92 1.082011-

121288.

6210426.

4611715.

08363.2

3 0.00 0.0011715.0

8 0.00 100.00 0.00

total8376.

3362320.

6570696.

982191.

993557.

16227.5

274254.1

4 1.071022.8

677.1

4average

837.633

6232.065

7069.698 219.2

355.72

22.752

7425.414 0.107

102.286

7.714

44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2009 and its decrease in year2010 and immediately it up in year of 2011.. The lowest trend in equity was in year 2004 and it merge with the debt the and the highest was in year 2011-12

45

Jindal Stainless

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati

o%to Capital Employed

Net

worth Debt2001-

02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002002-

03 0.05 391.80 391.85100.0

0 787.61100.0

0 1179.46 2.01 33.22 66.782003-

04 19.98 537.25 557.23142.2

0 765.14 97.15 1322.37 1.37 42.14 57.862004-

05 21.98 770.79 792.77202.3

11346.7

0170.9

9 2139.47 1.70 37.05 62.952005-

06 26.11 983.101009.2

1257.5

52193.8

2278.5

4 3203.03 2.17 31.51 68.492006-

07 27.641374.1

31401.7

7357.7

32656.3

2337.2

6 4058.09 1.89 34.54 65.462007-

08 30.921757.1

41788.0

6456.3

14290.0

5544.6

9 6078.11 2.40 29.42 70.582008-

09 32.431257.9

11290.3

4329.2

95639.7

6716.0

6 6930.10 4.37 18.62 81.382009-

10 37.121876.4

81913.6

0488.3

57528.4

3955.8

6 9442.03 3.93 20.27 79.732010-

11 37.462215.1

32252.5

9574.8

68490.9

31078.

0610743.5

2 3.77 20.97 79.032011-

12 37.902144.2

32182.1

3556.8

89244.0

31173.

6811426.1

6 4.24 19.10 80.90

total271.5

913307.

9613579.

553465.

5042942.

795452.

2956522.3

4 27.86286.8

4713.1

6average

27.159 1330.8

1357.96

346.55

4294.279

545.23 5652.23 2.786

28.684

71.3165

46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

2000.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2007-08 .It shows the continuous increase every year. In year 2008 it decreases and again continuous up slightly every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2001-02 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2009-10.

47

Essar Steel

Year

Share Capit

alReser

veNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02330.3

51543.6

4 1873.99100.0

05748.4

9100.0

0 7622.48 3.07 24.5975.4

12002-

03330.3

5 96.87 427.22 22.805248.1

7 91.30 5675.3912.2

8 7.5392.4

72003-

04507.9

7 86.59 594.56 31.734674.9

7 81.33 5269.53 7.86 11.2888.7

22004-

05507.9

8 686.54 1194.52 63.744510.5

9 78.47 5705.11 3.78 20.9479.0

62005-

06581.1

71246.0

0 1827.17 97.507985.6

6138.9

2 9812.83 4.37 18.6281.3

82006-

071140.

483080.9

5 4221.43225.2

66943.2

4120.7

811164.6

7 1.64 37.8162.1

92007-

081140.

483447.2

5 4587.73244.8

16116.5

8106.4

010704.3

1 1.33 42.8657.1

42008-

091140.

483554.2

4 4694.72250.5

27311.3

9127.1

912006.1

1 1.56 39.1060.9

02009-

102213.

736838.7

0 9052.43483.0

618187.

24316.3

827239.6

7 2.01 33.2366.7

72010-

11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002011-

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total7892.

9920580.

7828473.7

71519.

4266726.

331160.

7695200.1

037.9

1 235.96664.

04Average

789.299

2058.078 2847.38

151.942

6672.63

116.08 9520.01

3.7906 23.5958

66.404

48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00


Interpretation:


49

Hindustan Time

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth


Trend in

Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worthDebt

2001-02

422.53 644.74 1067.27 100.00 3.76 100.00 1071.03 0.00 99.65

0.35

2002-03

422.53 747.21 1169.74 109.60 0.76 20.21 1170.50 0.00 99.94

0.06

2003-04

422.53

1084.34 1506.87 141.19

607.80

16164.89 2114.67 0.40 71.26

28.74

2004-05

422.53

1655.21 2077.74 194.68

571.32

15194.68 2649.06 0.27 78.43

21.57

2005-06

422.53

3007.25 3429.78 321.36

758.02

20160.11 4187.80 0.22 81.90

18.10

2006-07

422.53

7204.53 7627.06 714.63 0.39 10.37 7627.45 0.00 99.99

0.01

2007-08

422.53

11425.66

11848.19

1110.14 0.39 10.37

11848.58 0.00 100.00

0.00

2008-09

422.53

13935.05

14357.58

1345.26 8.69 231.12

14366.27 0.00 99.94

0.06

2009-10

422.53

17701.44

18123.97

1698.16 60.47

1608.24

18184.44 0.00 99.67

0.33

2010-11

845.06

21688.13

22533.19

2111.29 0.39 10.37

22533.58 0.00 100.00

0.00

2011-12

845.06

26036.20

26881.26

2518.69 0.39 10.37

26881.65 0.00 100.00

0.00

total5492.

89105129

.76110622.

6510365.

012012.

3853520.

74112635.

03 0.91 1030.7769.23

average

549.289

10512.98

11062.265

1036.501

201.24

5352.07 11263.5

0.0908 103.08

6.923

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

5000.00

10000.00

15000.00

20000.00

25000.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2009-2010 .It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2001-02 its immediately increase in year 2003 and in year 2006 it decreases at high value 1n year 2006 it minor up and downs and 2009-10 it is highest.

51

JSW

Year

Share Capit

alReser

veNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

021351.

99 549.91 1901.90100.0

05612.3

1100.0

0 7514.21 2.95 25.3174.6

92002-

031352.

03 660.58 2012.61105.8

2 76.46 1.36 2089.07 0.04 96.34 3.662003-

041352.

05 131.90 1483.95 78.024787.0

3 85.30 6270.98 3.23 23.6676.3

42004-

05190.1

02680.5

9 2870.69150.9

43836.4

1 68.36 6707.10 1.34 42.8057.2

02005-

06218.0

33859.1

6 4077.19214.3

74096.0

5 72.98 8173.24 1.00 49.8850.1

22006-

07225.0

15068.2

5 5293.26278.3

14173.0

3 74.35 9466.29 0.79 55.9244.0

82007-

08248.0

87140.2

4 7388.32388.4

77546.5

3134.4

614934.8

5 1.02 49.4750.5

32008-

09248.0

87422.2

4 7670.32403.3

011272.

63200.8

618942.9

5 1.47 40.4959.5

12009-

10248.0

89179.2

3 9427.31495.6

811585.

10206.4

221012.4

1 1.23 44.8755.1

32010-

11284.1

516132.

7116416.8

6863.1

811951.

34212.9

528368.2

0 0.73 57.8742.1

32011-

12284.1

517934.

3118218.4

6957.9

112302.

22219.2

030520.6

8 0.68 59.6940.3

1

total6001.

7570759.

1276760.8

74036.

0177239.

111376.

24153999.

9814.4

7 546.31553.

69average

600.175

7075.91 7676.09 403.6

7723.91

137.62 15400

1.447 54.6307

55.369

52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00


Interpretation:


53

Jindal Saw

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth

Trend in Net Wort

h Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 46.48 225.68 272.16 100.00 225.63100.0

0 497.79 0.83 54.67 45.332002-

03 38.98 290.34 329.32 121.00 211.18 93.60 540.50 0.64 60.93 39.072003-

04 38.98 335.56 374.54 137.62 564.22250.0

6 938.76 1.51 39.90 60.102004-

05147.1

1 679.23 826.34 303.62 997.69442.1

8 1824.03 1.21 45.30 54.702005-

06148.3

6 854.86 1003.22 368.611379.9

6611.6

0 2383.18 1.38 42.10 57.902006-

07151.1

41831.1

8 1982.32 728.371159.3

9513.8

5 3141.71 0.58 63.10 36.902007-

08152.1

22168.6

9 2320.81 852.741636.5

6725.3

3 3957.37 0.71 58.65 41.352008-

09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002009-

10154.7

43481.6

1 3636.351336.1

1 737.06326.6

7 4373.41 0.20 83.15 16.852010-

11 55.253961.2

2 4016.471475.7

81611.6

6714.2

9 5628.13 0.40 71.36 28.642011-

12 55.253497.6

7 3552.921305.4

52485.3

61101.

52 6038.28 0.70 58.84 41.16

total988.4

117326.

0418314.4

56729.3

011008.

714879.

1029323.1

6 8.15 577.99422.0

1average

98.841

1732.604 1831.45

672.9295

1100.87

487.91

2932.316

0.815 57.7992

42.2008

54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

Trend in Net WorthTrend in Debt

Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2011-12. There are various up and down in year 2008 -09 The lowest trend in debt was in year 2008 and the highest was in year 2011-12

55

Uttam Galva

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth


Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 72.41 44.09 116.50 100.00 358.56100.0

0 475.06 3.08 24.52 75.482002-

03 72.41 54.39 126.80 108.84 371.19103.5

2 497.99 2.93 25.46 74.542003-

04 74.90 78.33 153.23 131.53 399.97111.5

5 553.20 2.61 27.70 72.302004-

05 85.33177.8

9 263.22 225.94 505.18140.8

9 768.40 1.92 34.26 65.742005-

06 87.53255.7

0 343.23 294.62 857.02239.0

2 1200.25 2.50 28.60 71.402006-

07108.2

9441.2

0 549.49 471.67 982.94274.1

4 1532.43 1.79 35.86 64.142007-

08115.4

7595.5

7 711.04 610.331048.1

5292.3

2 1759.19 1.47 40.42 59.582008-

09113.9

7709.9

4 823.91 707.221410.9

0393.4

9 2234.81 1.71 36.87 63.132009-

10122.2

6775.5

4 897.80 770.642043.4

9569.9

2 2941.29 2.28 30.52 69.482010-

11122.2

6824.7

9 947.05 812.922130.8

0594.2

7 3077.85 2.25 30.77 69.232011-

12122.2

6902.5

7 1024.83 879.682016.4

1562.3

6 3041.24 1.97 33.70 66.30

total1097.

094860.

01 5957.105113.3

912124.

613381.

4718081.7

124.5

0 348.67751.3

3average

109.71 486 595.71

511.3391

1212.461

338.147

1808.171

2.4501 34.8671

75.1329

56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00

1000.00


Interpretation:


57

Tata Steel

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worthDeb

t2001-

02 367.973077.9

9 3445.96100.0

04707.8

2100.0

08153.7

8 1.37 42.2657.7

42002-

03 367.972816.8

4 3184.81 92.424225.6

1 89.767410.4

2 1.33 42.9857.0

22003-

04 369.184146.6

8 4515.86131.0

53373.2

8 71.657889.1

4 0.75 57.2442.7

62004-

05 553.676506.2

5 7059.92204.8

82739.7

0 58.199799.6

2 0.39 72.0427.9

62005-

06 553.669201.6

3 9755.29283.0

92516.1

5 53.4512271.

44 0.26 79.5020.5

02006-

07 580.6713368.

4213949.0

9404.8

09645.3

3204.8

823594.

42 0.69 59.1240.8

82007-

086203.3

021097.

0027300.3

0792.2

418021.

69382.8

045321.

99 0.66 60.2439.7

62008-

096203.3

023501.

1529704.4

5862.0

126946.

18572.3

756650.

63 0.91 52.4347.5

72009-

10 887.4136281.

3437168.7

51078.

6225239.

20536.1

162407.

95 0.68 59.5640.4

42010-

11 959.414730.0

2 5689.43165.1

028301.

14601.1

533990.

57 4.97 16.7483.2

62011-

12 971.4151245.

0552216.4

61515.

3023693.

82503.2

975910.

28 0.45 68.7931.2

1

total18017.

95175972

.37193990.

325629.

50149409

.923173.

65343400

.2412.4

5610.89 146.

47average

1801.795

17597.237

19399.03

562.95

14940.99

317.365

34340.024

1.2452

61.089 14.647

58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2001-02 and the highest was in year 2009 and decrease in year 2010 and then increase in year2011.. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2005 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2011-12

59

Bhushan Industries

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth

Trend in Net Wort

h Debt

Trend in

Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 33.04 424.08 457.12 100.00 594.53 100.00 1051.65 1.30 43.4756.5

32002-

03 40.47 462.48 502.95 110.03 777.82 130.83 1280.77 1.55 39.2760.7

32003-

04 40.47 548.21 588.68 128.78 930.60 156.53 1519.28 1.58 38.7561.2

52004-

05 40.47 690.12 730.59 159.821317.4

7 221.60 2048.06 1.80 35.6764.3

32005-

06 41.27 848.40 889.67 194.632036.1

8 342.49 2925.85 2.29 30.4169.5

92006-

07 42.471172.0

3 1214.50 265.693241.9

8 545.30 4456.48 2.67 27.2572.7

52007-

08 42.471582.8

5 1625.32 355.565718.1

3 961.79 7343.45 3.52 22.1377.8

72008-

09 42.471985.5

9 2028.06 443.668066.2

51356.7

410094.3

1 3.98 20.0979.9

12009-

10 79.153912.5

2 3991.67 873.2211404.

111918.1

715395.7

8 2.86 25.9374.0

72010-

11111.1

65185.2

5 5296.411158.6

516592.

632790.8

821889.0

4 3.13 24.2075.8

02011-

12128.4

17267.9

5 7396.361618.0

319816.

563333.1

527212.9

2 2.68 27.1872.8

2

total641.8

524079.

4824721.3

35408.0

670496.

2611857.

4895217.5

927.3

5334.34 765.

66average

64.185

2407.948

2472.133

540.8061

7049.63

1185.75

9521.759

2.7354

33.434 76.566

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00


Interpretation:


61

Steel Authority

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

024130.4

01300.6

5 5431.05100.0

014011.

63100.0

019442.

68 2.58 27.93 72.072002-

034130.4

01605.1

6 5735.56105.6

112969.

65 92.5618705.

21 2.26 30.66 69.342003-

044130.4

0 907.27 5037.67 92.768688.7

6 62.0113726.

43 1.72 36.70 63.302004-

054130.4

06176.2

510306.6

5189.7

75769.7

9 41.1816076.

44 0.56 64.11 35.892005-

064130.4

08471.0

112601.4

1232.0

34297.6

2 30.6716899.

03 0.34 74.57 25.432006-

074130.4

013182.

7517313.1

5318.7

83680.5

2 26.2720993.

67 0.21 82.47 17.532007-

084130.4

018933.

1723063.5

7424.6

63045.2

4 21.7326108.

81 0.13 88.34 11.662008-

094130.4

023853.

7027984.1

0515.2

67538.7

9 53.8035522.

89 0.27 78.78 21.222009-

104130.4

09186.3

013316.7

0245.2

016511.

25117.8

429827.

95 1.24 44.65 55.352010-

114130.4

032939.

0737069.4

7682.5

520165.

49143.9

257234.

96 0.54 64.77 35.232011-

124130.5

335680.

7939811.3

2733.0

316097.

21114.8

855908.

53 0.40 71.21 28.79

total45434.

53152236

.12197670.

653639.

64112775

.95804.8

7310446

.6010.2

7664.18 435.8

2average

4543.45

15223.61

19767.07

363.96

11277.595

80.4874

31044.66

1.0269

66.418 43.5821

62

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2001-02 and the highest was in year 2008-09 anditdecrese in yaer 2010 and then increase in year 2011 and 2012. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2009-10 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2010-11.

63

Steel Authority

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

024130.4

01300.6

5 5431.05100.0

014011.

63100.0

019442.

68 2.58 27.93 72.072002-

034130.4

01605.1

6 5735.56105.6

112969.

65 92.5618705.

21 2.26 30.66 69.342003-

044130.4

0 907.27 5037.67 92.768688.7

6 62.0113726.

43 1.72 36.70 63.302004-

054130.4

06176.2

510306.6

5189.7

75769.7

9 41.1816076.

44 0.56 64.11 35.892005-

064130.4

08471.0

112601.4

1232.0

34297.6

2 30.6716899.

03 0.34 74.57 25.432006-

074130.4

013182.

7517313.1

5318.7

83680.5

2 26.2720993.

67 0.21 82.47 17.532007-

084130.4

018933.

1723063.5

7424.6

63045.2

4 21.7326108.

81 0.13 88.34 11.662008-

094130.4

023853.

7027984.1

0515.2

67538.7

9 53.8035522.

89 0.27 78.78 21.222009-

104130.4

09186.3

013316.7

0245.2

016511.

25117.8

429827.

95 1.24 44.65 55.352010-

114130.4

032939.

0737069.4

7682.5

520165.

49143.9

257234.

96 0.54 64.77 35.232011-

124130.5

335680.

7939811.3

2733.0

316097.

21114.8

855908.

53 0.40 71.21 28.79

total45434.

53152236

.12197670.

653639.

64112775

.95804.8

7310446

.6010.2

7664.18 435.8

2average

4543.45

15223.61

19767.07

363.96

11277.595

80.4874

31044.66

1.0269

66.418 43.5821

64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

900.00


Interpretation:


65

Sterlite Industries

Year

Share Capita

lReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worthDeb

t2001-

02 27.791383.2

5 1411.04100.0

01257.

46100.00 2668.50 0.89 52.88

47.12

2002-03 17.95

1236.04 1253.99 88.87

1727.45

137.38 2981.44 1.38 42.06

57.94

2003-04 35.90

1382.17 1418.07

100.50

2412.12

191.82 3830.19 1.70 37.02

62.98

2004-05 54.89

3502.97 3557.86

252.14

2439.50

194.00 5997.36 0.69 59.32

40.68

2005-06 55.87

4044.66 4100.53

290.60

2034.79

161.82 6135.32 0.50 66.83

33.17

2006-07 111.70

4346.23 4457.93

315.93

2809.75

223.45 7267.68 0.63 61.34

38.66

2007-08 141.70

13014.60

13156.30

932.38

3257.81

259.08

16414.11 0.25 80.15

19.85

2008-09 141.70

13897.32

14039.02

994.94

3830.04

304.59

17869.06 0.27 78.57

21.43

2009-10 168.08

22067.40

22235.48

1575.82

5322.20

423.25

27557.68 0.24 80.69

19.31

2010-11 336.12

22873.03

23209.15

1644.83

5760.94

458.14

28970.09 0.25 80.11

19.89

2011-12 336.12

24389.67

24725.79

1752.31

5330.23

423.89

30056.02 0.22 82.27

17.73

total28436.

9619456

3.7 223001 103717488

.51739

8240489.

21 13.61 953.53146.

5average

2843.696

19456.37 22300.1 103.7

1748.85 1740

24048.921 1.361 95.353

14.65

66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

2000.00


Interpretation:


67

Welspun Industries

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth


Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02139.2

8 0.10 139.38 100.00 268.97100.0

0 408.35 1.93 34.1365.8

72002-

03140.7

3 1.64 142.37 102.15 277.37103.1

2 419.74 1.95 33.9266.0

82003-

04141.3

6 74.38 215.74 154.79 165.21 61.42 380.95 0.77 56.6343.3

72004-

05 75.64 217.21 292.85 210.11 384.67143.0

2 677.52 1.31 43.2256.7

82005-

06 86.53 408.26 494.79 354.99 802.70298.4

3 1297.49 1.62 38.1361.8

72006-

07 69.91 576.77 646.68 463.971514.6

3563.1

2 2161.31 2.34 29.9270.0

82007-

08 88.881400.5

9 1489.471068.6

41803.1

1670.3

8 3292.58 1.21 45.2454.7

62008-

09 93.251451.0

6 1544.311107.9

92173.7

4808.1

7 3718.05 1.41 41.5458.4

62009-

10102.1

62644.4

1 2746.301970.3

71978.9

6735.7

5 4725.26 0.72 58.1241.8

82010-

11102.3

32956.8

7 3059.202194.8

62662.4

7989.8

8 5721.67 0.87 53.4746.5

32011-

12113.8

93449.0

4 3562.932556.2

73365.0

71251.

09 6928.00 0.94 51.4348.5

7

total1153.

9613180.

3314334.0

210284.

1315396.

905724.

3929730.9

215.0

8485.75 614.

25average

115.396

1318.033

1433.402

1028.413

1539.69

572.44

2973.092

1.5075

48.57 61.425

68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00

3000.00

3500.00

4000.00


Interpretation:


69

Jindal steel

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

0212.90

452.23 465.13100.0

0 697.51100.0

0 1162.64 1.50 40.01 59.992002-

0314.63

558.18 572.81123.1

5 885.25126.9

2 1458.06 1.55 39.29 60.712003-

0415.40

839.80 855.20183.8

61025.9

6147.0

9 1881.16 1.20 45.46 54.542004-

0515.40 1302.9

8 1318.38283.4

41495.8

6214.4

6 2814.24 1.13 46.85 53.152005-

0615.40 1829.3

1 1844.71396.6

02745.3

7393.6

0 4590.08 1.49 40.19 59.812006-

0715.40 2481.3

3 2496.73536.7

83507.7

2502.8

9 6004.45 1.40 41.58 58.422007-

0815.40 3740.9

8 3756.38807.6

03863.3

5553.8

8 7619.73 1.03 49.30 50.702008-

0915.47 5399.8

5 5415.321164.

264962.6

5711.4

810377.9

7 0.92 52.18 47.822009-

1093.12 6652.8

8 6746.001450.

358383.2

61201.

8815129.2

6 1.24 44.59 55.412010-

1193.43 8594.1

2 8687.551867.

7712114.

671736.

8520802.2

2 1.39 41.76 58.242011-

1293.48 10751.

9310845.4

12331.

6914372.

462060.

5425217.8

7 1.33 43.01 56.99

total400.0

342603.

5943003.6

29245.

5154054.

067749.

5797057.6

814.1

8484.21 615.7

9average

40.003

4260.36

4300.362

924.55

5405.41

774.96

9705.77 1.418

48.4208 61.5792

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

500.00

1000.00

1500.00

2000.00

2500.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and the highest was in year 2011- 12 It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2009-10.

71

TELECOM INDUSTRIES

crompton greave

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 52.37 346.98 399.35100.0

0511.8

0100.00 911.15 1.28 43.83 56.17

2002-03 52.37 372.25 424.62

106.33

459.22

89.73 883.84 1.08 48.04 51.96

2003-04 52.37 272.12 324.49 81.25

333.65

65.19 658.14 1.03 49.30 50.70

2004-05 52.37 34.07 86.44 21.65 31.45 6.14 117.89 0.36 73.32 26.68

2005-06 52.37 468.77 521.14

130.50

249.77

48.80 770.91 0.48 67.60 32.40

2006-07 73.32 586.01 659.33

165.10

270.04

52.76 929.37 0.41 70.94 29.06

2007-08 73.32 842.67 915.99

229.37 87.56

17.11 1003.55 0.10 91.27 8.73

2008-09 73.32

1153.99 1227.31

307.33 53.67

10.49 1280.98 0.00 0.00 0.00

2009-10

128.30

1622.00 1750.30

643.11 26.78 5.23 1777.08 0.02 98.49 1.51

2010-11

128.30

2161.51 2289.81

841.35 13.40 2.62 2303.21 0.01 99.42 0.58

2011-12

128.30

2572.58 2700.88

992.39 2.26 0.44 2703.14 0.00 99.92 0.08

total866.7

110432.

9511299.6

63618.

372039.

60398.

5213339.2

6 4.76 742.15257.8

5avera

ge86.67

11043.2

95 1129.97361.8

37203.9

639.8

521333.92

60.476

274.2145

525.78

54

72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2004-05 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2004-05 and 2005-06 and it is decreases.

73

ABB infrastructure

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in

Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02 42.38 453.92 496.30100.0

0 12.37 100.00 508.67 0.02 97.57 2.432002-

03 42.38 546.16 588.54118.5

9 10.10 81.65 598.64 0.02 98.31 1.692003-

04 42.38 666.94 709.32142.9

2 1.49 12.05 710.81 0.00 99.79 0.212004-

05 42.38 846.67 889.05179.1

4 2.73 22.07 891.78 0.00 99.69 0.312005-

06 42.389138.6

5 9181.031849.

90 1.55 12.53 9182.58 0.00 99.98 0.022006-

07 42.381569.4

9 1611.87324.7

81626.9

113152.

06 3238.78 1.01 49.77 50.232007-

08 42.382062.2

9 2104.67424.0

72118.9

717129.

91 4223.64 1.01 49.83 50.172008-

09 42.382367.3

5 2409.73485.5

42423.7

319593.

61 4833.46 0.00 0.00 0.002009-

10 42.382381.3

2 2423.70890.5

42423.7

019593.

37 4847.40 1.00 50.00 50.002010-

11 42.382492.1

4 2534.52931.2

62534.5

220489.

25 5069.04 1.00 50.00 50.002011-

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

total423.8

022524.

9322948.7

35446.

7311156.

0790186.

5034104.8

0 4.06 694.95205.0

5avera

ge 42.382252.4

92294.87

3544.6

731115.6

19018.6

5 3410.480.40

64 69.494720.50

53

74

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

5000.00

10000.00

15000.00

20000.00

25000.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2001-02 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous up and down every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2001-02 and 2005-06 and it continous increases but in year 2011 it slopes downward direction.

75

VIDEOCON

Year

Share

Capital

Reserve

Net Worth


Trend in

Debt

Capital

Employed

Debt Equit

y Ratio


Net

worthDeb

t

2001-02 18.16 -20.37 -2.21 100.00

262.97

100.00 260.76

-118.9

9 -0.85100.85

2002-03 32.89 -39.48 -6.59 298.19

119.96 45.62 113.37

-18.20 -5.81

105.81

2003-04 32.89 -41.21 -8.32 376.47 90.07 34.25 81.75

-10.83 -10.18

110.18

2004-05

206.53

3420.56 3627.09

-164121.

723249.

571235.

726876.6

6 0.90 52.7447.2

6

2005-06

266.85

3847.63 4114.48

-186175.

574961.

191886.

609075.6

7 1.21 45.3454.6

6

2006-07

266.95

5357.91 5624.86

-254518.

555259.

642000.

0910884.

50 0.94 51.6848.3

2

2007-08

275.31

6538.49 6813.80

-308316.

748005.

593044.

3014819.

39 1.17 45.9854.0

2

2008-09

275.42

6929.63 7205.05

-326020.

369084.

553454.

6016289.

60 0.00 0.00 0.002009-

10347.9

69085.

92 9433.88 3466.3011773

.774477.

2321207.

65 1.25 44.4855.5

22010-

11333.9

49619.

04 9952.98 3657.0318656

.027094.

3528609.

00 1.87 34.7965.2

12011-

12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

total2056.

9044698

.1246755.0

2

-1231254

.9561463

.3323372

.75108218

.35

-140.6

9 258.17641.

83

average

205.69

4469.81

4675.502

-123125.

496146.

3332337.

2810821.

835

-14.06

8625.817

264.1

83

76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

-350000.00

-300000.00

-250000.00

-200000.00

-150000.00

-100000.00

-50000.00

0.00

50000.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and its moves downward as negative impact every year. It shows the continuous decrease every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2001--02 and there is no effect .its continuous increseases by year.

77

Siemans

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net Worth

Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equit

y Ratio


Net

worthDeb

t2001-

02 33.14 0.00 33.14 100.00 6.40100.0

0 39.54 0.19 83.8116.1

92002-

03 33.14 457.91 491.051481.7

4 3.10 48.44 494.15 0.01 99.37 0.632003-

04 33.14 573.02 606.161829.0

9 2.89 45.16 609.05 0.00 99.53 0.472004-

05 33.14 747.62 780.762355.9

4 2.57 40.16 783.33 0.00 99.67 0.332005-

06 33.721051.8

01085.5

23275.5

6 2.00 31.25 1087.52 0.00 99.82 0.182006-

07 33.721555.6

81589.4

04796.0

2 1.53 23.91 1590.93 0.00 99.90 0.102007-

08 67.43 200.25 267.68 807.72 1.06 16.56 268.74 0.00 99.61 0.392008-

09 67.432847.8

72915.3

08796.9

2 0.59 9.22 2915.89 0.00 99.98 0.022009-

10 67.433409.1

13476.5

410490.

46 0.24 3.75 3476.78 0.00 99.99 0.012010-

11 68.063746.9

83815.0

411511.

89 0.00 0.00 3815.04 0.00 100.00 0.002011-

12 68.103892.2

03960.3

011950.

21 0.00 0.00 3960.30 0.00 100.00 0.00

total538.4

518482.

4419020.

8957395.

5620.3

8318.4

419041.2

7 0.211081.6

818.3

2avera

ge53.84

51848.2

441902.0

895739.5

562.03

831.84

4 1904.130.021

5108.16

81.83

2

78

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

12000.00

14000.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2001-02 and the highest was in year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and was in stable by all year

79

idea cellular

Year

Share Capit

alReser

veNet

Worth

Trend in Net Wort

h Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Emplo

yed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt

2001-02

2016.69

-1299.

87 716.82 100.001510.5

1100.0

0 2227.33 2.11 32.1867.8

2

2002-03

2526.53

-1547.

18 979.35 136.621795.3

0118.8

5 2774.65 1.83 35.3064.7

0

2003-04

2742.53

-1719.

90 1022.63 142.662263.5

4149.8

5 3286.17 2.21 31.1268.8

8

2004-05

2742.53

-1695.

74 1046.79 146.032698.0

3178.6

2 3744.82 2.58 27.9572.0

5

2005-06

2742.53

-1574.

00 1168.53 163.022915.6

0193.0

2 4084.13 2.50 28.6171.3

9

2006-07

2592.86

-913.7

1 1679.15 234.254250.5

1281.4

0 5929.66 2.53 28.3271.6

82007-

082635.3

6906.9

1 3542.27 494.166514.7

6431.3

010057.0

3 1.84 35.2264.7

82008-

093100.1

08176.

0 11276.11573.0

97579.3

6501.7

718855.5

5 0.67 59.8040.2

0

2009-10

3299.84

8112.9 11412.7

1592.14

6526.42

432.07

17939.21 0.57 63.62

36.38

2010-11

3308.27

8979.6 12287.8

1714.22

10557.4

698.93

22845.35 0.86 53.79

46.21

2011-12

3308.85

9590.7 12899.6

1799.56

10138.1

671.18

23037.77 0.79 55.99

44.01

total31016.

0927015

.9 58032.08095.7

656749.

63756.

99114781.

6718.4

9 451.91648.

09avera

ge3101.6

092701.

595803.20

1809.57

585674.9

66375.6

9911478.1

671.84

86 45.19164.8

09

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

1800.00

2000.00


Interpretation:


81

reliance communication

YearShare

Capital ReserveNet

Worth


Trend in Debt

Capital Employe

d

Debt Equit

y Ratio


Net

worth Debt2004-

05 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002005-

06 0.05 14783.43 14783.48 100.00 0.00 0.00 14783.48 0.00 100.00 0.002006-

07 1022.31 19503.23 20525.54 138.84 14567.84 100.00 35093.38 0.71 58.49 41.512007-

08 1032.00 23808.02 24840.02 168.03 20286.43 139.25 45126.45 0.82 55.05 44.952008-

09 1032.00 50658.32 51690.32 349.65 30903.61 212.14 82593.93 0.60 62.58 37.422009-

10 1032.00 49466.88 50498.88 341.59 24478.28 168.03 74977.16 0.48 67.35 32.652010-

11 1032.00 47112.47 48144.47 325.66 31452.74 215.91 79597.21 0.65 60.49 39.512011-

12 1032.00 44165.00 45197.00 305.73 27871.00 191.32 73068.00 0.62 61.86 38.14

total 6182.37 249497.35 255679.72 1729.50 149559.90 1126.64 405239.61 3.88 465.81 234.19

average 618.237 24949.735 25567.97 172.95 14955.99 112.6644 40523.96 0.388 46.5811 23.4189

82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2001-02 and the highest was in year 2005-6. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and 2005-06 and the highest was in year 2007-08.It is change the slope up and down.

83

bharat heavy electrical ltd

Year

Share Capit

alReserv

eNet

Worth

Trend in Net

Worth Debt

Trend in Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

02244.7

6 4224.85 4469.61100.0

0665.7

8100.00 5135.39 0.15 87.04

12.96

2002-03

244.76 4558.91 4803.67

107.47

531.09

79.77 5334.76 0.11 90.04 9.96

2003-04

244.76 5051.18 5295.94

118.49

540.03

81.11 5835.97 0.10 90.75 9.25

2004-05

244.76 5782.13 6026.89

134.84

536.98

80.65 6563.87 0.09 91.82 8.18

2005-06

244.76 7056.62 7301.38

163.36

558.24

83.85 7859.62 0.08 92.90 7.10

2006-07

244.76 8543.50 8788.26

196.62 89.33

13.42 8877.59 0.01 98.99 1.01

2007-08

489.52

10284.69

10774.21

241.05 95.18

14.30

10869.39 0.01 99.12 0.88

2008-09

489.52

12449.29

12938.81

289.48

149.37

22.44

13088.18 0.01 98.86 1.14

2009-10

489.52

15427.84

15917.36

356.12

127.75

19.19

16045.11 0.01 99.20 0.80

2010-11

489.52

19664.32

20153.84

450.91

163.35

24.54

20317.19 0.01 99.20 0.80

2011-12

489.52

24883.69

25373.21

567.68

123.43

18.54

25496.64 0.00 99.52 0.48

total3916.

16117927.

02121843.

182726.

043580.

53537.

79125423.

71 0.58 1047.4452.5

6avera

ge391.6

2 11792.712184.3

18272.6

04358.0

5353.7

7912542.3

70.057

9 104.7445.25

64

84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2001-02 and it is continous increase by the year 2011-12. It shows the continuous increase every year. The lowest trend in debt was in year 2002-03 and 2005-06 and it decrease every year.

85

BhartiAirtel

Year

Share Capita

l ReserveNet

Worth

Trend in

Net Wort

h Debt

Trend in

Debt

Capital Employ

ed

Debt Equi

ty Rati


Net

worth Debt2001-

0218533.

372970.9

021504.

27100.0

0 100.52 100.0021604.

79 1.00 99.53 0.472002-

031853.3

72971.1

24824.4

9 22.44 1.19 1.184825.6

8 1.00 99.98 0.022003-

041853.3

72971.4

94824.8

6 22.44 626.36 623.125451.2

2 1.13 88.5111.4

92004-

051853.3

72675.3

84528.7

5 21.064994.2

94968.4

59523.0

4 2.10 47.5652.4

42005-

061893.8

85437.4

27331.3

0 34.095796.2

95766.3

113127.

59 1.79 55.8544.1

52006-

072.00 9515.2

19517.2

1 44.265310.8

15283.3

414828.

02 1.56 64.1835.8

22007-

08489.52 18283.

8218773.

34 87.30 95.18 94.6918868.

52 1.01 99.50 0.502008-

09489.52 25627.

3826116.

90121.4

5 149.37 148.6026266.

27 1.01 99.43 0.572009-

10489.52 34650.

1935139.

71163.4

1 127.75 127.0935267.

46 1.00 99.64 0.362010-

11489.52 41932.

1042421.

62197.2

7 163.35 162.5042584.

97 1.00 99.62 0.382011-

12489.52 47528.

7048018.

22223.3

0 123.43 122.7948141.

65 1.00 99.74 0.26

total28436.

96194563

.71223000

.671037.

0117488.

5417398.

07240489

.2113.6

1 953.53146.

47avera

ge 2843.719456.

3722300.

07103.7

011748.8

51739.8

124048.

9211.36

1 95.3514.6

47

86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 110.00

1000.00

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00

7000.00


Interpretation:

The above chart shows that the lowest trend in equity was in year 2002-03 and 2011-12and the highest was in year 2011 at very less amount. It shows the up and down between start and ending year . The lowest trend in debt was in year 2001-02 and it increase in year 2005 and its continuous decrease by ending years 2011-12.

87

Summary Statistics Across Industries

Automobile Industry(N=8)Trend in Equity(Average)

Trend in Debt(Average)

1. Tata motors 403.27 335.66

2. Larsen& turbo 293.99 165.18

3. MarutiSuzuki 262.094 68.85

4. Mahindra & Mahindra 310.35 127.94

5. Ashok Leyland 192.791 163.218

6. Tvs motors 285.85 340.82

7. Bajaj motors 57.94 52.87

8. Exide industry 1033.33 46.25

Telecom industry(N=7)

1. Bhartiairtel 103.7 1739.8072. Reliance

communication 172.94 112.66

3. Idea cellular 809.57 375.69

4. Siemens 5739.55 31.84

5. Videocon industry -123125.4 2337.275

6. Crompton greave 361.83 39.851

7. Bhel 272.6 53.77

Steel and aluminum industry(N=13)

1.Tata steel 562.94 317.362.Hindalco 387.34 697.913.Jsw 403.6 137.624.Sterlite industries 103.7006 1739.8095.Essar steels 151.94 116.076.Hindustan zinc 1036.5 5352.0747.Jindal steels 924.55 774.958.Jindal saw 672.92 487.99.Welspun 1628.412 572.4310.Jindal stainless 346 545.2211.Bhushan steel 5408 1185.7412.National aluminum 219.199 22.9113.Uttam galva 511.33 487.9

88

Steel and aluminum industry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Trend in Equity(Average)Trend in Debt(Average)

Interpretation

In this table in show the various trend of net equity and trend of debt averages. In this the trend of equity are up and down, it means the borrowing are and net equity of the firms are very less in year 2002 to 2009 but in year 2011 in increases high and in the year 2012 it decreses very low.but in the case of trend in debt its very less liabilities an starting year but in year 2006 it increase at very huge amount and in year 2012 it stable .

89

Telecom industry

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

-140000

-120000

-100000

-80000

-60000

-40000

-20000

0

20000


Interpretation

This chart shows the various trends of net worth and the debt equity .the average trend of net equity is iscontinuous decrease by -120000 and the debt equity is stable by year according. There is minor up and down in debt equity.There is no change in trend in debt.

Aluminum industry

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Interpretation:

In this table it shows the trends in debt are change and the trend in equity are change during the time. the trend in equity are continuous decreases and the amount of trend in debt are changes means the lending power are increases.There are various ups and down of various firms of the steel and the aluminum companies. So the averages show the pattern of the various companies.

Average of different industries

91

Industries Trend in Equity(Average) Trend in Debt(Average)

steel &aluminum 950.49 956.761

automobile industries 354.951875 162.5985

telecom industries -16523.60143 670.1275714

steel &a-luminum

automobile industries

telecom industries

-20000

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

Trend in Debt(Average)Trend in Equity(Average)

Interpretation:

The above line chart shows that telecom industry is having the overall lowest average of trend in net worth or equity i.e. -16523.60142 and the highest is of steel &aluminum Industry i.e. 950.49, but on the other hand the lowest average of the trend in debt is of automobile Industry i.e. 162.5985 and the highest average is of the steel &aluminum Industry is 956.76.

92

DEBT EQUITY RATIO FOR AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY COMPANIES

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-2010

2010-11

2011-12

Tata motors

0.936

0.562

0.351

0.607

0.533

0.586

0.804

1.064 1.125

0.795

0.569

Larsen turbo

1.073

0.614

0.483

0.557

0.315

0.362

0.355

0.527 0.372

0.334

0.393

Maruti Suzuki

0.242

0.147

0.087

0.070

0.013

0.093

0.107

0.075 0.069

0.022

0.071

M&M0.92

60.73

30.41

00.52

70.30

50.46

20.59

60.77

5 0.3690.23

40.26

2Ashok Leyland

0.879

0.768

0.486

0.770

0.500

0.342

0.417

0.931 0.982

1.001

0.826

TVS motors

0.516

0.288

0.207

0.275

0.503

0.783

0.811

1.114 1.159

0.393

0.612

Bajaj motors

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.308

0.294

0.061

0.174 0.457

0.320

0.221

Honda seil cars

0.058

0.051

0.086

0.069

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000 0.000

0.000

0.000

Exide industry

3.143

0.951

0.594

0.676

0.575

0.517

0.354

0.260 0.041

0.079

0.000

TOTAL7.77

44.11

42.70

33.55

23.05

23.43

93.50

64.92

0 4.5753.17

82.95

5

AVERAGE

0.864

0.457

0.300

0.395

0.339

0.382

0.390

0.547 0.508

0.353

0.328

Interpretation

In this table we show the debt equity ratios of automobile industries. There are various firms in which we show different ratios and the averages of all the firms. A debt equity ratio generally means that a company has been aggressive its growth with debt. This can result in volatile earnings as a result of the additionalexpense. In this table it show the various debt ratio which increase the finance of the companies. The cost of debt financing may outweighs the return that the company generates on the debt through investments.ashok Leyland have much more finances compare to the other firms.

93

DEBT EQUITY RATIO FOR TELECOM INDUSTRYCOMPANIES

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-2010

2010-11

2011-12

bhartiairtel 1.0051.00

01.13

02.10

31.79

11.55

81.00

51.00

6 1.0041.00

41.00

3bharti heavy electrical limited 0.149

0.111

0.102

0.089

0.076

0.010

0.009

0.012 0.008

0.008

0.005

Reliance 0.00

00.00

00.71

00.81

70.59

8 0.4850.65

30.61

7siemans industries 0.193

0.006

0.005

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.004

0.000 0.000

0.000

0.000

videocon

-11.99

1

-18.2

03

-10.8

260.89

61.20

60.93

51.17

50.00

0 1.2481.87

40.00

0ABB infrastructure 0.025

0.017

0.002

0.003

0.000

1.009

1.007

0.000 1.000

1.000

0.000

crompton grease 1.282

1.081

1.028

0.364

0.479

0.410

0.096

0.000 0.015

0.006

0.001

idea cellular 2.107

1.833

2.213

2.577

2.495

2.531

1.839

0.672 0.572

0.859

0.786

TOTAL

-114.2

30

-14.1

54

-6.34

56.03

56.04

97.16

45.95

12.28

7 4.3325.40

52.41

1

AVERAGE

-14.27

9

-1.76

9

-0.79

30.75

40.75

60.89

60.74

40.28

6 0.5410.67

60.30

1

In this table we show the debt equity ratios of telecom industries. There are various firms in which we show different ratios and the averages of all the firms. A debt equity ratio generally means that a company has been aggressive its growth with debt. This can result in volatile earnings as a result of the additional expense. In this table it show the various debt ratio which increase the finance of the companies. The cost of debt financing may outweighs the return that the company generates on the debt through investments. Crompton grease have much more finances or debt ratiocompare to the other firms.

94

DEBT EQUITY RATIO FOR STEEL & ALUMINUM INDUSTRY COMPANIES

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-2010

2010-11

2011-12

Sail2.58

02.26

11.72

50.56

00.34

10.21

30.13

20.26

9 1.2400.54

40.40

4

tata steels1.36

61.32

70.74

70.38

80.25

80.69

10.66

00.90

7 0.6794.97

40.45

4

hindalco0.20

90.38

70.37

40.49

60.51

00.59

30.48

20.35

0 0.2280.24

5 0.46

JSW2.95

10.03

83.22

61.33

61.00

50.78

81.02

11.47

0 1.2290.72

80.68

0sterlite industry

0.891

1.378

1.701

0.686

0.496

0.630

0.248

0.273 0.239

0.248

0.216

essar steels3.06

812.2

847.86

33.77

64.37

11.64

51.33

31.55

7 2.0090.00

00.00

0hindustan zinc

0.004

0.001

0.403

0.275

0.221

0.000

0.000

0.001 0.003

0.000

0.000

jindal steels1.50

01.54

51.20

01.13

51.48

81.40

51.02

80.91

6 1.2431.39

41.32

5

jindal saw0.82

90.64

11.50

61.20

71.37

60.58

50.70

50.00

0 0.2030.40

10.70

0

welspun1.93

01.94

80.76

61.31

41.62

22.34

21.21

11.40

8 0.7210.87

00.94

4jindal stainless

0.000

2.010

1.373

1.699

2.174

1.895

2.399

4.371 3.934

3.769

4.236

bhushan steels

1.301

1.547

1.581

1.803

2.289

2.669

3.518

3.977 2.857

3.133

2.679

national aluminum

0.485

0.400

0.174

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000 0.000

0.011

0.000

uttamgalva3.07

82.92

72.61

01.91

92.49

71.78

91.47

41.71

2 2.2762.25

01.96

8

TOTAL20.1

9028.6

9525.2

4916.5

9318.6

4715.2

4614.2

1217.2

12 16.86118.5

6914.066

AVERAGE

1.442

2.050

1.804

1.185

1.332

1.089

1.015

1.229 1.204

1.326

1.005

In this table we show the debt equity ratios of steel and aluminum industries. There are various firms in which we show different ratios and the averages of all the firms. A debt equity ratio generally means that a company has been aggressive its growth with debt. This can result in volatile earnings as a result of the additional expense. In this table it show the various debt ratio which increase the finance of the companies. The cost of debt financing may outweighs the return that the company generates on the debt through investments. Essar steel have much more finances or debt ratio compare to the other firms. As the ratio is decreases by year to year.

95

DEBT EQUITY OF DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES ANNUAL AVERAGE

YEARS2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-2010

2010-11

2011-12

INDUSTRIES Automobile industry

0.864

0.457

0.300

0.395

0.339

0.382

0.390

0.547 0.508

0.353

0.328

Telecom industry

-14.2

79

-1.76

9

-0.79

30.75

40.75

60.89

60.74

40.28

6 0.5410.67

60.30

1Steel aluminum industry

1.442

2.050

1.804

1.185

1.332

1.089

1.015

1.229 1.204

1.326

0.972

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-

2010

2010-11

2011-12

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

YEARSautomobile indusrtytelecom industrysteel&aluminum industry

Interpretation

This table and the chart show different annual averages of different industries. The chart show

different annual averages of three industries at year 2002-2012.this chart show the trend of

telecom industries automobile and steel it goes downward means as negative. While

automobile and steel and aluminum industries are between the 0 – 2 ratios, it means the

financing pattern the othern industries are high then telecom industry.

96

Chapter – 5

Findings, Suggestions &

Conclusion

97

FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS & CONCLUSION

Automobile induResults and findings

As per the research in automobile industry the Exide industry has more net worth as compare

to the other industries and the debt trends is less

In Larsen& turbo we find that it should be changes between the pattern of the financing that

it will increase their ratios

We observed that TVS motors there is increase in net worthanddecrease the debt trends

We find that in Maruti Suzuki there is huge differences in average of net trend and debt

trends

In telecom industry we find that that it is negative impact on Videocon industry by the net

worth and debt ratio is almost equal.

The siemans industry has highest net worth as compare to the other industries and the debt

worth is lowest as compare to the net worth

The average trends of steels and aluminum companies is highest to the telecom industry

The telecom industry is go downward as compare to the steel and aluminum and automobile

industries

The welspun industries has highest net worth and the debt worth as compare to the other

firms of steel and aluminum companies

The overall finding that the telecom industries should improve their net worth and the debt

ratio that it will reach their targets

The net worth and the debt ratio and debt worth of steel and aluminum companies

is higher then telecom and the automobiles industries.

The telecom industry has very less ratio as compare to the increase her industries.

So it should improve or increases the financing ratio.

The automobile industry has also less average ratio as compare to the steel and

aluminum company.

Suggestions

98

The telecom industry should pay attention on the overall capital of the companies

that it will reach their targets.

The average of the automobile industries is less than to steel and aluminum

industry and automobile industry should concentrate on reserves and surpluses

and it should increase their efficiency

The financing pattern of steel and aluminum industry is more then automobile

and telecom industry as can see in the tables. so steel and aluminum industry

should stay and increase their worth.

Conclusions

This study investigated the financing patterns of different industries. The research is

based on different industries such as steel, aluminum, telecom and the automobile

industries.In particular, this paper examined financing patterns over time and explored

potential differences ,various trends of industries, averages of industries that to calculate

the financing trend. In I research the net equity trends and the debt trends from year

2002 to year2012 .We investigate that how firm financing patterns differ around the

industry for one industry to another industry. Using a unique firm-level survey database

in various industries, we find that firm size, financial development and trends ,averages

of different firms .patterns that are important factors in explaining the observed variation

in financing patterns.. We examine broader spectrum of external financing sources

which only includes debt and equity finance and in is helpful to study the trends of

financing pattern of different industries.

99

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beena P.L (2008) “Trends and Perspectives on Corporate Mergers in Contemporary India”,

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XLIII, No 39, September 27.

Beena S (2010) ‘Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in India: Extent, Nature and

Structure’, Working Paper No 434, July, CDS, Trivandrum

Chandrasekhar C. P. (2007) “Private Equity: A New Role for Finance?” Economic and

Political Weekly, March 31, 2007.

Chandrasekhar C. P. (2009) “Tata Rides the Recession”, Macroscan, 17th June.

Dennis Rajakumar. J (2001), Financing Patterns and Investment: A Study of the Private

Corporate Sector, Doctoral Thesis, CDS, JNU.

Deutsche Bank Research (2009) “Trends in India’s Corporate Financing”, Asia Current

Issues, October 27.Government of India (2006) Receipts Budget, 2008-09, Annex-12, http:/

/indiabudget.nic.in.

Grossman, Sanford. and Oliver, Hart (1986), “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A

Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, pp.691-719.

Hart, Oliver and John, Moore (1990) “Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm”, Journal of

Political Economy, 98, pp.1119-1158.

ISMR (2009), “Indian Securities Market: A Review”, Volume XII,

Mani Sunil, (2009) ‘Has India Become more Innovative Since 1991? Analysis of the

Evidence and Some Disquieting Features’ Working Paper No. 415, CDS, Trivandrum.

MazumdarSurajit (2007-2008) “The Private Corporate Sector”, in Alternative Economic

Survey, India 2007-08. P.116

Modigliani, F and Miller M.H (1958) “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance, and the

Theory of Investment,” American Economic Review, XLVIII (3), June,pp.261-297

100

Patrick, Bolton and David, S. Schartstein (1998) “Corporate Finance, the Theory of the Firm,

and Organizations,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 12, No. 4, pp. 95-114.

Rajan R and L zingales (1995) “What do we know about the Capital Structure? Some

Evidence from the International Data,” Journalof Finance (December).

SarkarJayati and SubrataSarkar (2004) “Corporate Governance Reforms and Corporate Sector

Development in India,” Chapter 8, in Darryl Reed and Sanjoy Mukherjee (ed) Corporate

Governance, Economic Reforms and Development: The Indian Experience, OUP, New Delhi

World Investment Report (Various years), UNCTAD, New York

WEBSITES

www.moneycontrol.com

www.indiabudget.nic.in.

www.nseindia.com.

www.googlesearch.com

www.yahoo.com

www.wikipedia.com

101

http://www.wikipedia.com/

http://www.yahoo.com/

http://www.googlesearch.com/

http://www.nseindia.com/

http://www.indiabudget.nic.in/

http://www.moneycontrol.com/

My Project

Documents

total avera ge

private corporate sector

indian corporate sector

net worth deb

target capital structure

capit al trend

capital structure policy

capital structure decision