Upload
maria-zaritskaya
View
255
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Accounting&CorporateReporting
Analysis:TeamAssignmentMA05
Group Members:
Maria Zaritskaya, Jimin Qian, David Law, Shreyansh Prasad, Ruitao Mao & Elektra
Papazoglou
Word Count: 2647 (including in-text referencing and titles)
2
Objective
This report aims to evaluate an investment
opportunity in the beer brewing industry, by
comparing six companies that operate and
compete in the same market. The objective is to
determine which of the companies would be the
best investment option for ABInBev, the largest
amongst them. In order to achieve this,
statements of financial position, cash flow and
income were comprehensively analyzed and the
appropriate ratios calculated and compared. Each
company’s strategy, corporate social
responsibility, geographical area of operations and
corporate governance were also evaluated in
order to determine the preferred acquisition
target.
Introduction
Strategy
The global beer market is concentrated, evolving
through mergers rather than organic growth – with
all 6 analyzed companies, themselves products of
previous merger activity, including the world’s
largest brewer, ABInBev. Formed from two mergers
in 2008, and swelled by a $20.1 billion takeover of
Mexico's Gruppo Modelo (2013), ABInBev controls
almost a fifth of global beer output.
26%
35%
7%3%
17%
12%
BEER SALES BY VOLUME (%),
TOP 6 INTERNATIONAL
BREWERS, 2013
SABMiller ABInBev
Tsingtao Molson Coors
Heineken Carlsberg
3
Globalization has driven merger activity as companies look to expand into larger developing
markets and benefit from increased economies of scale.
Geographically, Heineken is the most international brewer, present in 178 countries around
the world and surpassing sales of 1mhl (million hectoliters) in China (2013). AbInBev
dominates North and South America (the regions accounting for 89.5% of ABInBev's EBITDA
and 71.3% of volume sold, as outlined in the annual report). However, AbInBev has no
exposure to the African market, which is not highlighted in the annual report available to the
public, but becomes evident by cross-analysing sales and volume figures for all regions.
SAB Miller has businesses across Eastern Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa, with nearly 70%
of SAB’s sales in emerging markets. While SAB has showcased growth in the world's
developing markets, it lacks a truly international beer brand. SAB Miller is the only company
out of the 6 without a global brand, but with a strong geographical presence in developing
markets.
Tsingtao is sold in 62 countries around the world and accounts for more than 50% of China’s
beer exports. Tsingtao’s main focus, however, is still on its local market (especially in Northern
China).
Recently, emerging markets have become the main battleground for brewers, as sales
stagnate in developed markets. In this respect, ABInBev’s best option would be to acquire a
company with a strong presence in developing countries and a good distribution network to
maximize cost synergies.
Analysis
Corporate Social Responsibility
Brewers are aiming to improve their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); most have a
separate CSR report in addition to their annual reports. The most significant aspects of CSR,
regarding beer brewers, are:
4
1) Environment Stewardship:
All 6 companies are on track to achieve their goals on environment protection in terms of
water intensity (hectolitre of water used per hectolitre of beer produced – hl/hl) and CO2
emissions (kg/hl). This data, however, is not included in ABInBev’s and Tsingtao’s
sustainability reports. This information is most likely contained only in internal management
reports, as it may reflect unfavourably on the company’s public image.
Overall, Carlsberg achieved the best performance regarding environmental stewardship in
2013.
2) Alcohol responsibility:
Different policies have been adopted by all 6 brewers to promote responsible drinking and
emphasize the harm of alcohol for underage consumers and pregnant women. For instance,
Heineken launched a “Dance More, Drink Slow” (Heineken Sustainability Report, 2013)
campaign throughout 2013 and SABMiller strictly regulates alcohol advertising, focusing on
marketing ethics.
3) Community:
Brewer are gradually trying to become more involved in local communities. In 2013,
Heineken invested EUR18.9 million towards local community growth, while Molson Coors
donated USD8.9 million to community development, including donations and volunteering.
All 5 potential acquisition targets fit in with ABInBev’s culture of promoting responsible
drinking, reducing negative environmental impact and maintaining close links with
community.
5
Corporate Governance
ABInBev’s controlling shareholder is the Stichting foundation with a 41.24 % voting interest
in the company. Heineken’s ownership structure, as outlined in its annual report has been
set-up to ensure “the growth and independence of the company” (Heineken Annual Report,
2013) with 50.005% of Heineken shares still privately owned by the Heineken family.
Carlsberg’s largest shareholder was the Carlsberg Foundation, holding 30% of the share
capital and 75% of the votes. Molson Coors’ shares are owned 19% by insiders and 7% by
institutional investors. Tsingtao is the only company of the 5 where the controlling interest
(58%) belongs to a state enterprise. SAB Miller’s largest shareholder is the tobacco
manufacturer Altria Group (26.7%).
Heineken’s and Carlsberg’s ownerships structures could, therefore, hinder an acquisition
attempt, as was the case when SABMiller made bid for Heineken in September 2014.
Tsingtao, being state owned, could be a risky proposal if the Chinese state is not willing to
attract an external investor.
Molson Coors and SABMiller, in this respect, are considered the best acquisition
opportunities.
Profitability
To establish the best acquisition target for ABInBev in terms of profitability, company
performance was evaluated on 5 ratios:
• Gross profit margin
• Operating profit margin
• Net profit margin
• Return on assets (ROA)
• Return on equity (ROE)
6
ABInBev’s gross profit margin and operating profit margin in 2013 (59.27% and 32.88%,
respectively) are significantly above industry average, reflecting the benefits of streamlined
production and distribution and making a strong case for further integration.
Out of the 5 potential acquisition targets SABMiller is the unsurpassed leader, showcasing a
78.28% gross profit margin, an 18.97% operating profit margin and a 15.13% net profit
margin in 2013. There was, however a decrease in the net profit margin from 20.57% in
2012, which is not explained in the annual report and must be the subject of internal
management reports.
Overall, the 5 target companies’ gross profit, operating profit and net profit margins
remained fairly consistent year-on-year, with the exception of Heineken, whose net profit
margin declined by a substantial 8.5%.
ROE and ROA must be evaluated together in order to provide an accurate picture of the
companies’ performance. The big factor that separates ROE and ROA is financial leverage. If
a company takes on debt, ROE would rise above ROA. If ROA is low or the company is
carrying a lot of debt, a high ROE can give investors a false impression about the company's
$43.195
$23.213 $24.580
$11.314
$4.527 $6.000
$16.518
$3.511 $2.031 $1.012 $0.316 $0.760
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
ABInBev SABmiller Heineken Carlsberg Tsingtao Molson Coors
$ I
N B
ILLI
ON
S
BREWERIES
SalesRevenue&NetProfitoftopsix
Brewersin2013Revenues Net Profit
7
finances. Therefore, it must be noted that analysing a company on just one of these ratios
may lead to a distorted view of the overall performance and reflects the limitation of using
financial ratios out of context.
As we see, ABInBev’s ROE is rather high at 29.87%, yet the ROA is 11.66%. That means
ABInBev carries substantial debt, amassing capital for a potential acquisition. Of the 5
potential acquisition targets Tsingtao has the highest ROA at 7.22%, followed by SAB Miller
with 6.24% in 2013. However, ROA for SABMiller has fallen from its 2012 level of 8%,
suggesting falling efficiency in asset utilization.
Throughout the industry ROE year-on-year has, as a rule, remained fairly stable, fluctuating
by 0.5% on average. SABMiller is the only company of the 5 potential acquisition targets,
whose ROE has decreased by 3.33%. A possible explanation is that SABMiller has not
reinvested its earnings, retaining capital in an attempt to acquire its rival, Heineken.
Efficiency
Based on the asset turnover ratio, Tsingtao ranked first in 2013, yet its efficiency in utilizing
assets was actually declining. The other four all witnessed progress.
Looking at the ratio changes from 2012 to 2013, Heineken appears to have improved its
efficiency (the ratio increased from 0.51 to 0.58). However, further examining sales and
assets figures separately, it can be deduced that total assets decreased substantially in 2013
due to the disposal of intangible assets and property. Despite the fact that revenue also
increased, we can draw the conclusion that the increase of Heineken’s asset turnover rate
8
is not able to illustrate efficiency improvement. This instance fully reveals the limitations of
the asset turnover ratio in reflecting the efficiency of asset utilization. While it helps to
measure the efficiency to some degree, it can never be the only indicator for judgment. Sales
and assets still need to be taken into consideration. The example of Carlsberg is similar but
less evident. Only SABMiller’s and Molson Coors’ increase in asset turnover truly reflect
improvements in efficiency.
In terms of the asset turnover ratio in 2013 acquisition of SABMiller is recommended.
Liquidity
Based on the current ratio, Tsingtao ranked first as the only company with a current ratio
above 1, followed by Molson Coors with a ratio of 0.72 in 2013.
The industry average current ratio was 0.75. Generally, companies with a current ratio
below 1 are likely to encounter problems due to a shortage of available cash, as current
assets are not sufficient to cover short-term liabilities. However, for the brewery industry
this is not the case, as creditors usually provide long-term financing. Hence, a ratio below 1
should not be viewed as worrying. ABInBev’s own current ratio decreased from 1.01 to 0.73
in 2013, reflecting its growing amount of debt to finance acquisitions.
The acid test ratio provides a stricter evaluation of liquidity in comparison with the current
ratio, as it excludes inventory. The two companies with the highest acid test ratios are
Tsingtao and Molson Coors. However, Heineken and Carlsberg both demonstrate an acid
test ratio of 0.5 and 0.45 compared to current ratios of 0.69 and 0.59, respectively. This
indicates that Heineken relies more on inventory as current assets than Carlsberg, and that
the ability to cover current liabilities is not as strong. The example of these two companies
9
exposes the limitations of the current ratio and stresses the importance of the acid test ratio
when making decisions.
In terms of overall liquidity, SABMiller and Heineken’s performance in 2013 was the same
as in 2012. Molson Coors shows better liquidity performance, while Tsingtao’s and
Carlsberg’s liquidity ratios decreased from their 2012 levels.
Based on the above analysis Tsingtao and Molson Coors are recommended.
Cash flow
ABInBev’s cash flow ratio remained almost constant at 1.06-1.07 over two financial years
(2012-2013). Despite increased expenses for the Gruppo Modelo acquisition, cash from
issuing securities in 2013 made up for the larger expenditures.
SABMiller increased its cash flow ratio from 0.99 in 2012 to 2.5 in 2013. Given the nature of
the industry and the increased fear of a buyout by ABInBev, the increase in cash inflow may
depict SABMiller’s preparations to acquire another industry player. Indeed, in September
2014 a bid to acquire Heineken was made.
Heineken’s cash flow ratio increased only by little (by 0.04) since 2012. Carlsberg, in contrast,
exhibited a lower cash flow ratio in 2013 compared to 2012. If this ratio remains at a value
lower than 1, Carlsberg may face liquidity problems in the future.
Molson Coors’ cash flow ratio increased 0.92 to 0.97 reflecting the 2012 acquisition of EU-
based StarBev, which resulted in higher profits and beer volumes sold.
10
The highest cash flow ratio in 2013 was SABMiller (2.5), followed by Heineken (1.05). This
metric could be used in combination with liquidity measures to estimate which company
would have the most cash at its disposal in 2014. Nevertheless, it must be considered that
even cash flow ratios larger than 1 can dramatically decrease over a single year.
Gearing
ABInBev would be interested in the solvency of its acquisition – the ability to meet long-
term financial obligations. The gearing ratio indicates the proportion of debt the companies
use to finance assets. It quantifies the risk to acquire a specific company, related to how
much debt a company has and its ability to pay off its liabilities and cost of capital.
Four of the six companies have similar ratios (50.0% on average), meaning that these
companies have half as many liabilities as they do assets.
ABInBev and Heineken both have ratios averaging 62.81%. This indicates that the companies
are more leveraged, having taken on more debt. Heineken, with a relatively higher leverage
than its competitors may cause concern as a riskier investment but when one considers the
beer industry it may not be surprising to have increased debt when purchasing capital assets
and buying out smaller competitors to expand company beer portfolios and market share.
In fact, Heineken did indeed complete a takeover of the Asia Pacific Brewery Company in
2012 for approximately $4.1bil, explaining its current higher debt ratio.
11
Investment
Investment ratios focus on returns to shareholders, here calculated by the Price/Earnings
ratio (P/E). A high P/E suggests that the investors expect a higher growth in earnings for the
company in the future.
Based on our findings shown in Table.7 we find that AbinBev had a P/E of 22.1 in 2013. In
comparison, Tsingtao had the highest P/E at 33.49 which could indicate either high growth
expectations or inflated share-prices. Therefore, although Tsingtao appears to be the best
investment in this case, it could come with increased risk, as stock may be overpriced.
Conversely SABMiller had a P/E of 15.52 and 25.57 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Its P/E is
lower than that of Tsingtao. However, SABMiller’s P/E grew by 67% as compared to 33% for
Tsingtao. Since P/E is generally a consideration as to which company has better growth
prospects, SABMiller would be the safer investment opportunity.
Industry-specific
An analysis of industry-specific ratios is essential to provide a complete evaluation of the
best target for acquisition. The following have been chosen:
• Percentage change in volumes sold
• Percentage change of cost of sales (COS)/hl
• Percentage change of revenue/hl
In terms of volumes sold, the only company to have experienced a decline from 2012 was
Carlsberg (-1.56%). Molson Coors showed outstanding sales volume growth of 24%,
followed by Tsingtao with 10.13%, and SAB Miller's 6.99%. Heineken's volume sales
performance was fairly stable with a sales volume increase of 2.79%. The increase of
12
ABInBev’s sales volume figures (5.46%) were lower than 3 of its potential acquisition
targets’, reflecting falling beer consumption in developed markets.
Based on volume figures alone, it would be tempting to pronounce Molson Coors the best
acquisition target. Yet, as will be shown, volume growth figures on their own can be
misleading.
COS/hl and revenue/hl must be viewed in combination. Declining revenue will usually result
in falling COS. Ideally, revenue/hl should increase, and COS/hl – decrease. Alternatively,
COS/hl should decrease by a wider margin than revenue/hl. Based on this assumption, SAB
Miller showcases the best performance. Although its revenue/hl marginally declined (-
0.29%) from 2012 levels, its cost of sales/hl decreased substantially (-6.62%), reflecting
efficient use of its distribution network.
An initial look at Molson Coors' decrease of COS/hl (-10.16%) would seem impressive, but,
considering the corresponding revenue/hl decline (-11.28%), the company showed a poor
performance overall.
The only other potential acquisition target with a higher revenue/hl than COS/hl is Heineken.
However, ABInbev's performance reflects a need to reduce COS/hl and utilize an efficient
distribution network, which makes Heineken's acquisition less appealing than SAB Miller's.
Considering the 3 ratios, Molson Coors' volume sales do not appear as impressive, taking
into account plummeting revenue/hl. It can be deduced, therefore, that volume growth for
this company has been achieved primarily because of price cuts in order to gain market
share.
Based on industry specific ratio analysis, the acquisition of SABMiller is recommended.
13
Conclusion
On the basis of comprehensive analysis, SABMiller is considered the best investment
opportunity for ABInBev.
SABMiller’s environmental stewardship and alcohol consumption policy are in line with
ABInBev’s culture of promoting responsible drinking and reducing negative environmental
impact. Across the industry SABMiller shows solid financial results, outperforming its
competitors in most respects and exceeding industry average figures.
A merger of ABInBev and SAB Miller would create a brewing giant with exposure to all of the
world’s markets. ABInBev’s existing geographical market spread would be especially
complemented by SAB Miller’s current share of the beer industry in Africa and other
developing markets, enabling ABInBev to enter a growing lucrative market and take
advantage of an existing distribution network, deriving cost synergies from a single
distribution network and providing true value to its shareholders.