ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/37228/6/chapter4.pdfthe Sakthi Sugars (1435.26), lowest trend value to the Ponni Sugars (45.71)

88

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter a detailed analysis has been carried out to present Profitability

analysis of Select Private Sector Sugar Mills in Tamil Nadu based on the parameter, such

as Return on Total Assets (ROTA) using ratio and statistical analysis.

The factors identified by the researcher, for the purpose of applying the multiple

regression techniques, the ratio of return on total assets is taken as the dependent variable

and the remaining twenty three variables are considered as the independent variables.

In order to identify the prominent factors responsible for the profitability of Sugar Mills,

and also to measure the extent of influence of the independent variables on the dependent

variable, the following tools were applied by the researcher like Trend Analysis, Compound

Growth Rate Analysis, Factor Analysis, Multiple Regression Analysis and Path Analysis.

Data for the following financial aspects have been collected for the study Viz.,

Current ratio(X1), Working Capital to Total Assets(X2), Net Worth to Sales(X3), Net

profit ratio(X4), Return on Sales(X5), Net Worth to Shareholders fund(X6), Quick assets

to Current liabilities(X7), Return on Equity(X8), Working Capital Turnover ratio(X9),

Proprietary ratio(X10), Total liabilities to Total assets(X11), Miscellaneous Expenses to

Sales(X12), Raw material to Sales(X13), Net worth to Working capital(X14), Net profit to

Net Worth(X15), Debt-Equity Ratio(X16), Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio(X17), Fixed

Assets Turnover(X18), Inventory Turnover(X19), Debtors Turnover(X20), Interest

Coverage Ratio(X21), Net profit to Total assets(X22) and Return on capital Employed(X23).

4.2. TREND ANALYSIS

The following pages bring out trend analysis with selected variables like

Net Worth, Investment, EBIT, Net Profit, Total Income, Raw Material, Stock, Working

Capital, Total Asset, Current Asset, Current Liabilities, Miscellaneous Expenses, Total

Sales, Total Debtors and Total Shareholders Fund of private sector sugar companies in

Tamil Nadu.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

89

TABLE 4.1

TREND ANALYSIS – USING METHOD OF LEAST SQUARE FOR PREDICTION FOR THE YEAR OF 2010 AND

2015 FOR THE NETWORTH

S.NO. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI EID JEYPORE KOTHARI PONNI RAJSHREE SAKTHI

SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 127.67 53.55 36.22 69.52 106.71 39.31 18.04 62.12 172.512 117.66

2 2002 174.94 69.18 77.94 79.05 111.68 40.02 54.16 214.68 198.538 120.47

3 2003 222.22 84.81 119.66 88.58 116.65 40.73 90.28 367.25 224.564 123.27

4 2004 269.5 100.44 161.38 98.11 121.63 41.44 126.4 519.82 250.589 126.07

5 2005 316.77 116.07 203.1 107.64 126.6 42.15 162.52 672.4 276.615 128.88

6 2006 364.05 131.71 244.81 117.16 131.57 42.86 198.64 824.97 302.641 131.68

7 2007 411.33 147.34 286.53 126.69 136.54 43.57 234.76 977.54 328.667 134.48

8 2008 458.6 162.97 328.25 136.22 141.51 44.29 270.88 1130.11 354.692 137.29

9 2009 505.88 178.6 369.97 145.75 146.49 45 306.99 1282.69 380.718 140.09

10 2010 553.16 194.23 411.69 155.27 151.46 45.71 343.11 1435.26 406.744 142.89

12 2015 789.54 272.39 620.28 202.91 176.32 49.26 523.71 2198.12 536.872 156.91

*MAPE 11.76 38.02 28.1 10.472 61.01 6.13185 27.25 26.5 20.68 11.879

**MAD 45.76 49.26 54.47 11.231 51.38 2.5664 43.35 150.8 48.08 12.427

***MSD 4310.83 4087.88 3761.35 145.416 3196.1 7.8671 2765.54 37130.4 3813.59 347.364

Fitted Trend

Equation Yt = 80.39 +

47.2765*t

Yt = 37.916

+ 15.6315*t

Yt = -

5.49733

+ 41.7184*t

Yt =

59.9967 + 9.52770*t

Yt = 101.737

+ 4.97206*t

Yt =

38.5987 + 0.710788*t

Yt = -18.0813

+ 36.1195*t

Yt = -

90.468 + 152.573*t

Yt =

146.487 + 26.0257*t

Yt = 114.859

+ 2.80333*t

Mean Absolute Percentage Error ** Mean Absolute Deviation *** Mean Squared Deviation Source: Annual Report of selected Sugar Industry


90

The table 4.1 implies that trend analysis using method of least square for prediction

for the year of 2010 and 2015 for the net worth. In the year 2010 highest trend value to

the Sakthi Sugars (1435.26), lowest trend value to the Ponni Sugars (45.71). and for the

future period 2015 the trend value is highest in the Sakthi Sugars i.e., 2198.12 and

followed by Bannari Amman sugars i.e., 789.54 and the lowest trend value to the Ponni

Sugars i.e., 49.26 followed by Kothari Sugars. There was continuous increasing trend in

selected Sugars for the period 2001 to 2015.


91

TABLE 4.2


2015 FOR THE INVESTMENT

S.

NO. YEAR

BANNARI


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 2.73 5.2 81.32 3.21 -5.42 7.16 -11.7 21.575 18.1396 68.91

2 2002 3.22 5.19 73.88 2.8 -1.07 7.21 -4.82 38.917 23.4659 71.83

3 2003 3.72 5.19 66.44 2.4 3.28 7.26 2.05 56.259 28.7922 74.75

4 2004 4.22 5.18 59 2 7.62 7.31 8.92 73.601 34.1185 77.66

5 2005 4.72 5.18 51.57 1.59 11.97 7.37 15.79 90.943 39.4448 80.58

6 2006 5.21 5.17 44.13 1.19 16.32 7.42 22.67 108.285 44.7712 83.5

7 2007 5.71 5.17 36.69 0.78 20.67 7.47 29.54 125.627 50.0975 86.42

8 2008 6.21 5.16 29.26 0.38 25.02 7.53 36.41 142.969 55.4238 89.33

9 2009 6.71 5.16 21.82 -0.02 29.37 7.58 43.29 160.311 60.7501 92.25

10 2010 7.2 5.15 14.38 -0.43 33.72 7.63 50.16 177.653 66.0764 95.17

12 2015 9.69 5.13 -22.81 -2.44 55.46 7.9 84.52 264.36 92.708 109.75

*MAPE 42.1253 0.955671 1598.1 112.818 212.676 2.44915 1378.89 33.934 14.1727 9.2118

**MAD 2.4405 0.049879 43.84 0.51 7.925 0.18651 10.19 23.654 4.0752 7.7265

***MSD 15.5417 0.00412 3285.6 0.343 112.238 0.06597 148 809.754 21.5471 79.1832

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

2.22733 +

0.497758*t

Yt =

5.20333 -

0.004969*t

Yt =

88.7527 -

7.43721*t

Yt = 3.61 -

0.403636*t

Yt = -9.77

+

4.34873*t

Yt = 7.102

+

0.0530909*t

Yt = -

18.5687 +

6.87267*t

Yt =

4.23333

+

17.3419*t

Yt =

12.8133 +

5.32630*t

Yt = 65.996

+ 2.91709*t

* Mean Absolute Percentage Error ** Mean Absolute Deviation *** Mean Squared Deviation

Source : Annual Report of selected Sugar Industry


92

The table 4.2 predicts that the trend analysis by using the least square method for

the period 2010 and 2015 for the investment of the selected Sugar Mills. The trend value

which is highest in the year 2010 to the Sakthi Sugars (177.653) which they invest more

while compared to other Sugar Mills. Jeypore Sugars which is lowest (-0.43) compared to

other Sugars in the investment. For the year 2015 Sakthi Sugars which shows highest trend

value (264.36) followed by Thiru Arooran Sugars (109.75) for the investment.

The lowest trend value for the year 2015 to the EID Parry Sugars which shows the minus

value (-22.81) followed by Jeypore sugars.


93

TABLE 4.3


2015 FOR EBIT

S.No. Year BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID

PARRY JEYPORE KOTHARI PONNI RAJSHREE SAKTHI

SHREE

AMBIKA THIRU

1 2001 19.56 13.51 45.15 27.73 35.03 5.24 11 31.918 40.0673 18.02

2 2002 18.03 19.33 44.14 30.32 35.73 8.06 19.51 50.651 43.0679 23.68

3 2003 16.5 25.14 43.13 32.91 36.43 10.88 28.01 69.384 46.0685 29.35

4 2004 14.97 30.96 42.12 35.51 37.13 13.7 36.51 88.117 49.0691 35.01

5 2005 13.44 36.78 41.1 38.1 37.83 16.52 45.02 106.85 52.0697 40.68

6 2006 11.91 42.59 40.09 40.69 38.54 19.35 53.52 125.584 55.0703 46.34

7 2007 10.38 48.41 39.08 43.29 39.24 22.17 62.02 144.317 58.0709 52.01

8 2008 8.85 54.22 38.07 45.88 39.94 24.99 70.53 163.05 61.0715 57.68

9 2009 7.32 60.04 37.06 48.47 40.64 27.81 79.03 181.783 64.0721 63.34

10 2010 5.79 65.86 36.05 51.07 41.34 30.63 87.53 200.516 67.0727 69.01

12 2015 -1.8584 94.938 30.9879 64.0331 44.8413 44.729 130.048 294.181 82.0758 97.333

*MAPE 13.0798 127.994 51.063 51.322 85.42 317.32 45.126 122.97 749.02 85.836

**MAD 1.6132 19.505 12.575 13.573 21.61 9.154 15.55 38.82 27.38 22.415

***MSD 4.4733 693.801 244.849 277.62 1212.24 170.13 547.699 2032.67 1234.34 864.729

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

21.0907 -

1.52994*t

Yt =

7.69467 +

5.81624*t

Yt =

46.1633 -

1.01170*t

Yt =

25.134 +

2.59327*t

Yt =

34.3313 +

0.700667*t

Yt =

2.42267 +

2.82042*t

Yt = 2.49933

+ 8.50321*t

Yt =

13.1853 +

18.7330*t

Yt =

37.0667 +

3.00061*t

Yt =

12.3527 +

5.66533*t




94

The above table 4.3 conveys that the trend movement for the year 2010 and 2015.

In the year 2010 the EBIT was highest in Sakthi Sugars (200.516) and followed by

Rajshree Sugars has 87.53. The EBIT was lowest in Bannari Amman Sugars by 5.79.

In the year 2015 the EBIT was highest in Sakthi Sugars by 294.181and followed by

Rajshree Sugars (130.048). The EBIT was lowest in Bannari Amman Sugars by

-1.85842. The mean square deviation was highest in the Sakthi Sugars by 2032.67 and

lowest in the Bannari Amman Sugars by 4.4733.


95

TABLE 4.4


2015 FOR NET PROFIT

S.NO. YEAR BANNARI


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 316.71 40.18 223.78 156.04 104.6 67.06 68.47 139.61 -3.1882 59.88

2 2002 372.81 85.22 224.09 164.94 128.96 81.89 113.67 279.42 -1.7964 112.44

3 2003 428.92 130.26 224.4 173.85 153.33 96.71 158.87 419.24 -0.4046 165.01

4 2004 485.03 175.3 224.7 182.76 177.69 111.54 204.08 559.05 0.98727 217.58

5 2005 541.13 220.34 225.01 191.66 202.05 126.37 249.28 698.87 2.37909 270.15

6 2006 597.24 265.38 225.32 200.57 226.41 141.19 294.48 838.68 3.77091 322.72

7 2007 653.34 310.42 225.62 209.48 250.78 156.02 339.69 978.5 5.16273 375.28

8 2008 709.45 355.46 225.93 218.38 275.14 170.85 384.89 1118.32 6.55455 427.85

9 2009 765.55 400.5 226.24 227.29 299.5 185.68 430.09 1258.13 7.94636 480.42

10 2010 821.66 445.54 226.55 236.19 323.86 200.5 475.3 1397.95 9.33818 532.99

12 2015 1102.19 670.74 228.08 280.73 445.67 274.64 701.31 2097.02 16.2973 795.83

*MAPE 44.725 41.7 24.51 369.567 76.497 132.676 66.999 288.29 309.402 186.577

**MAD 16.293 91.7 52.7 9.496 18.935 7.057 6.7246 38.36 11.262 11.626

***MSD 422.126 14500.6 3544.98 144.21 506.229 112.826 75.4683 1834.52 197.783 181.093

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt = -

11.796 +

13.1735*t

Yt = -4.856

+ 45.0395*t

Yt =

223.477 +

0.306788*t

Yt = 1.068

+ 1.142*t

Yt = -54.61 +

7.08182*t

Yt = -

5.79533 +

2.67042*t

Yt = 2.01267

+ 2.87206*t

Yt = -

38.81 +

11.5504*t

Yt = -4.58 +

1.39182*t

Yt = -15.6287

+ 3.26776*t




96

The table 4.4 implies that trend analysis using method of least square for

prediction for the year of 2010 and 2015 for the Net Profit. In the year 2010 highest trend

value to the Sakthi Sugars (1397.95), lowest trend value to the Shree Ambika Sugars

(9.33818) and for the future period 2015 the trend value is highest in the Sakthi Sugars

i.e., 2097.02 and followed by Bannari Amman sugars i.e., 1102.19 and the lowest trend

value to the Shree Ambika Sugars i.e., 16.2973.


97

TABLE 4.5


2015 FOR TOTAL INCOME

S.NO. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 1.38 -9.49 14.5 2.21 -47.53 -3.12 4.88 -27.26 140.278 -12.36

2 2002 14.55 -6.09 11.9 3.35 -40.45 -0.45 7.76 -15.709 188.15 -9.09

3 2003 27.72 -2.68 9.3 4.49 -33.36 2.22 10.63 -4.1589 236.022 -5.83

4 2004 40.9 0.72 6.71 5.64 -26.28 4.89 13.5 7.3915 283.893 -2.56

5 2005 54.07 4.12 4.11 6.78 -19.2 7.56 16.37 18.9418 331.765 0.71

6 2006 67.25 7.52 1.51 7.92 -12.12 10.23 19.25 30.4922 379.637 3.98

7 2007 80.42 10.93 -1.09 9.06 -5.04 12.9 22.12 42.0425 427.509 7.25

8 2008 93.59 14.33 -3.69 10.2 2.04 15.57 24.99 53.5929 475.38 10.51

9 2009 106.77 17.73 -6.29 11.35 9.13 18.24 27.86 65.1433 523.252 13.78

10 2010 119.94 21.13 -8.89 12.49 16.21 20.91 30.73 76.6936 571.124 17.05

12 2015 185.81 38.14 -21.88 18.2 51.62 34.26 45.09 134.445 810.482 33.39

*MAPE 8.3 300.643 162.505 7.429 7.6 19.8 18.1 30.1 50.4 27.66

**MAD 51.87 9.613 15.154 15.161 15.099 27.12 45.27 149.9 72.5 73.75

***MSD 5016.98 149.658 362.475 420.918 564.477 1230.32 3072.34 28045 11237.3 8961.69

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

260.603 +

56.1056*t

Yt = -

12.8907 +

3.40230*t

Yt =

17.102 -

2.59909*t

Yt =

147.13 +

8.90636*t

Yt = 80.24

+

24.3622*t

Yt =

52.2307

+

14.8272*t

Yt = 23.2647

+ 45.2032*t

Yt = -

0.208667

+

139.816*t

Yt =

92.4067 +

47.8717*t

Yt =

7.30667 +

52.5681*t

* Mean Absolute Percentage Error ** Mean Absolute Deviation ***Mean Squared Deviation



98


the period 2010 & 2015 for the total income to the selected Sugar Mills. The trend value

which is highest in the Shree Ambika Sugars (571.124) for the period 2010 which they

have more total income while compared to other Sugar Mills. EID Parry Sugars which is

lowest (-8.89) compare to other Sugar Mills for the total income. For the year 2015 Shree

Ambika sugars which shows highest trend value (810.482) followed by Bannari Amman

Sugars (185.81) for the total income. The lowest trend value for the year 2015 to the EID

Parry sugars (-21.88).


99

TABLE 4.6


2015 FOR RAW MATERIAL

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID

PARRY JEYPORE KOTHARI PONNI RAJSHREE SAKTHI SHREE AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 168.92 17.26 140.56 90.87 39.44 40.44 38.26 21.728 85.119 20.19

2 2002 195.45 51.18 138.95 94.39 60.46 50.3 67.77 126.479 112.544 52.73

3 2003 221.97 85.09 137.33 97.92 81.47 60.16 97.27 231.23 139.969 85.27

4 2004 248.49 119.01 135.72 101.44 102.48 70.01 126.78 335.981 167.394 117.81

5 2005 275.02 152.93 134.1 104.96 123.49 79.87 156.29 440.732 194.819 150.35

6 2006 301.54 186.84 132.49 108.48 144.5 89.72 185.8 545.482 222.243 182.89

7 2007 328.06 220.76 130.88 112 165.51 99.58 215.3 650.233 249.668 215.43

8 2008 354.59 254.67 129.26 115.52 186.52 109.44 244.81 754.984 277.093 247.97

9 2009 381.11 288.59 127.65 119.04 207.53 119.29 274.32 859.735 304.518 280.51

10 2010 407.63 322.51 126.03 122.57 228.54 129.15 303.82 964.486 331.943 313.06

12 2015 540.25 492.09 117.96 140.17 333.6 178.43 451.36 1488.24 469.066 475.76

*MAPE 13.65 42.74 33.55 9.714 14.111 16.778 22.26 39.3 47.47 29.45

**MAD 36.9 65.73 39.93 10.961 13.032 13.239 30.63 152.2 43.61 39.94

***MSD 1937.38 7389.59 2100.99 212.243 265.881 342.634 1526.21 28941 4598.32 2672.49

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

142.401 +

26.5230*t

Yt = -

16.6547 +

33.9161*t

Yt =

142.175 -

1.61430*t

Yt =

87.3513 +

3.52139*t

Yt =

18.4333 +

21.0108*t

Yt =

30.586 +

9.85636*t

Yt = 8.75333

+ 29.5070*t

Yt = -

83.0227

+

104.751*t

Yt = 57.6947 +

27.4248*t

Yt = -12.354

+ 32.5409*t




100

The table 4.6 implies that the trend movement for the year 2010 and 2015.

In the year 2010 the trend value for the raw material is highest in Sakthi Sugars by

964.486 which they purchase more raw materials for production and followed by Bannari

Amman Sugars has 407.63. The Jeypore Sugars (122.57) which they purchase low raw

material compared to other Sugar Mills. In the year 2015 the raw material trend value was

highest in Sakthi Sugars by 1488.24 and followed by Bannari Sugars has 540.25. The

lowest trend value for the EID Parry Sugars (117.96). The mean square deviation was

highest in the Dharani Sugars by 7389.59and lowest in the Jeypore Sugars by 212.243.


101

TABLE 4.7


2015 FOR STOCK



S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 27.6 -33.49 -7.44 -1.17 -2.33 -6.87 -10.29 -85.799 -15.9282 -16.63

2 2002 24.07 -22.69 -4.61 -0.43 -1.95 -4.25 -6.75 -67.907 -8.873 -12.37

3 2003 20.55 -11.88 -1.78 0.32 -1.57 -1.63 -3.2 -50.015 -1.8179 -8.1

4 2004 17.02 -1.08 1.04 1.06 -1.2 0.99 0.34 -32.122 5.2373 -3.84

5 2005 13.49 9.73 3.87 1.81 -0.82 3.61 3.89 -14.23 12.2924 0.42

6 2006 9.96 20.53 6.7 2.55 -0.44 6.23 7.43 3.6621 19.3476 4.68

7 2007 6.43 31.34 9.53 3.3 -0.06 8.85 10.98 21.5544 26.4027 8.94

8 2008 2.91 42.15 12.36 4.05 0.32 11.47 14.52 39.4466 33.4579 13.21

9 2009 -0.62 52.95 15.19 4.79 0.69 14.09 18.07 57.3388 40.513 17.47

10 2010 -4.15 63.76 18.02 5.54 1.07 16.71 21.61 75.2311 47.5682 21.73

12 2015 -21.79 117.79 32.16 9.27 2.96 29.81 39.34 164.692 82.8439 43.04

*MAPE 109.37 149.29 114.421 407.681 98.8279 366.646 399.76 222.14 184.288 122.51

**MAD 30.57 36.24 14.951 14.068 7.5343 9.437 15.517 29.2 16.882 33.08

***MSD 1200.24 1877.29 327.419 272.578 78.93 129.254 315.496 1196.17 597.275 1804.09

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

31.1313 -

3.52824*t

Yt = -

44.3007 +

10.8058*t

Yt = -

10.27 +

2.82873*t

Yt = -

1.91933 +

0.745697*t

Yt = -2.706

+

0.377636*t

Yt = -

9.49533

+

2.62042*t

Yt = -

13.8393 +

3.54497*t

Yt = -

103.691

+

17.8922*t

Yt = -

22.9833 +

7.05515*t

Yt = -

20.8893 +

4.26188*t


102

The table 4.7 implies that the trend movement for the year 2010 and 2015. In the

year 2010 the trend value for the stock was highest in Sakthi Sugars by 75.2311 and

followed by Dharani sugars has 63.76. The trend value for the stock was lowest in

Bannari Amman sugars by -4.15. In the year 2015 the value of the stock was highest in

Sakthi Sugars by 164.692 and followed by Dharani Sugars has 117.79. The value of the

stock was lowest in Bannari Amman Sugars by -21.79. The mean square deviation was

highest in the Dharani Sugars by 1877.29and lowest in the Kothari Sugars by 78.93.


103

TABLE 4.8


2015 FOR WORKING CAPITAL



S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 165.71 66.44 92.93 66.11 8.83 24.16 36.27 197.651 61.532 53.82

2 2002 183.82 74.51 88.92 57.75 14.51 25.45 45.7 234.026 75.679 59.36

3 2003 201.92 82.59 84.91 49.38 20.18 26.75 55.13 270.402 89.825 64.89

4 2004 220.03 90.67 80.9 41.02 25.86 28.05 64.55 306.778 103.972 70.42

5 2005 238.14 98.75 76.89 32.65 31.54 29.35 73.98 343.154 118.119 75.96

6 2006 256.25 106.83 72.88 24.29 37.21 30.65 83.4 379.53 132.265 81.49

7 2007 274.36 114.9 68.87 15.92 42.89 31.94 92.83 415.906 146.412 87.02

8 2008 292.47 122.98 64.86 7.55 48.56 33.24 102.26 452.282 160.559 92.56

9 2009 310.58 131.06 60.85 -0.81 54.24 34.54 111.68 488.658 174.705 98.09

10 2010 328.69 139.14 56.83 -9.18 59.91 35.84 121.11 525.033 188.852 103.62

12 2015 419.23 179.52 36.78 -51 88.29 42.33 168.24 706.913 259.585 131.29

*MAPE 12.67 31.93 147.73 149.406 71.969 48.002 51.67 28.3 52.15 39.187

**MAD 34.67 29.72 28.53 18.163 11.878 11.102 29.01 87.6 26.17 24.015

***MSD 2929.92 1519.31 1144.35 543.171 178.667 185.534 1533.56 11947.4 1188.1 977.249

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

147.597 +

18.1090*t

Yt =

58.3587 +

8.07770*t

Yt =

96.9427 -

4.01085*t

Yt =

74.4773 -

8.36533*t

Yt =

3.15733 +

5.67576*t

Yt =

22.858

+

1.298*t

Yt = 26.8467

+ 9.42624*t

Yt =

161.275

+

36.3759*t

Yt =

47.3853 +

14.1467*t

Yt = 48.29 +

5.53327*t


104


the period 2010 & 2015 for the Working Capital in selected Sugar Mills. The trend value

which is highest in the year 2010 to the Sakthi Sugars (706.913) which they have

adequate Working Capital to meet day to day expenses while compared to other Sugars

companies. Jeypore Sugars which is lowest (-9.18) compare to other Sugar Mills for the

Working Capital. For the year 2015 Sakthi Sugars which shows highest trend value

(706.913) followed by Bannari Amman Sugars (419.23) for the Working Capital.

The lowest trend value for the year 2015 to the Jeypore Sugars which shows the minus

value (-51.00).


105

TABLE 4.9


2015 FOR TOTAL ASSETS

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 289.05 130.36 213.91 95.62 113.48 70.23 39.05 296.86 249.033 275.64

2 2002 352.42 159.59 249.53 117.47 132.09 71.55 91.76 515.65 304.37 281.43

3 2003 415.78 188.82 285.16 139.32 150.7 72.87 144.48 734.44 359.708 287.21

4 2004 479.15 218.05 320.78 161.17 169.31 74.19 197.19 953.23 415.046 292.99

5 2005 542.51 247.28 356.41 183.02 187.92 75.51 249.91 1172.01 470.383 298.78

6 2006 605.88 276.51 392.03 204.86 206.53 76.83 302.63 1390.8 525.721 304.56

7 2007 669.24 305.74 427.65 226.71 225.14 78.15 355.34 1609.59 581.058 310.35

8 2008 732.61 334.97 463.28 248.56 243.75 79.47 408.06 1828.38 636.396 316.13

9 2009 795.97 364.2 498.9 270.41 262.36 80.79 460.77 2047.17 691.734 321.92

10 2010 859.33 393.43 534.53 292.25 280.97 82.11 513.49 2265.96 747.071 327.7

12 2015 1176.16 539.57 712.65 401.49 374.02 88.71 777.07 3359.9 1023.76 356.62

*MAPE 8.04 30.01 15.19 29.8 24.75 18.82 24.65 12.7 18.09 9.19

**MAD 43.95 75.28 52.83 44.14 39.72 13.677 50.3 117.7 65.49 27.54

***MSD 3501.95 9001.67 4424.8 2775.09 2076.62 289.673 3159.27 19849.2 6100.28 1081.51

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

225.687 +

63.3647*t

Yt =

101.134 +

29.2291*t

Yt =

178.287

+

35.6239*t

Yt =

73.776 +

21.8478*t

Yt =

94.8653 +

18.6105*t

Yt =

68.9147

+

1.31988*t

Yt = -

13.6693 +

52.7159*t

Yt =

78.0727

+

218.788*t

Yt =

193.695 +

55.3376*t

Yt =

269.857 +

5.78424*t




106

The above table 4.9 says that trend analysis using method of least square for

prediction for the year of 2010 and 2015 for the total assets. In the year 2010 highest

trend value to the Sakthi Sugars (2265.96), lowest trend value to the Ponni Sugars (82.11)

and for the future period 2015 the trend value is highest to the Sakthi Sugars i.e., 3359.9

and followed by Rajshree Sugars i.e., 777.07 and lowest trend value to the Ponni Sugars

i.e., 88.71.


107

TABLE 4.10


2015 FOR CURRENT ASSETS

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 213.55 43.36 178.89 147.97 57.15 33.77 46.71 271.72 101.834 86.67

2 2002 250.18 72.83 173.35 159.77 66.58 38.68 69.81 332.871 137.511 109.69

3 2003 286.81 102.29 167.81 171.57 76.01 43.59 92.9 394.022 173.188 132.71

4 2004 323.44 131.76 162.27 183.37 85.44 48.49 115.99 455.17 208.865 155.73

5 2005 360.07 161.22 156.73 195.17 94.87 53.4 139.09 516.32 244.542 178.75

6 2006 396.71 190.68 151.19 206.97 104.3 58.31 162.18 577.47 280.22 201.76

7 2007 433.34 220.15 145.65 218.77 113.73 63.22 185.27 638.62 315.897 224.78

8 2008 469.97 249.61 140.12 230.57 123.16 68.13 208.37 699.77 351.574 247.8

9 2009 506.6 279.07 134.58 242.36 132.59 73.03 231.46 760.92 387.251 270.82

10 2010 543.23 308.54 129.04 254.16 142.02 77.94 254.55 822.07 422.928 293.84

12 2015 726.39 455.85 101.34 313.16 189.18 102.48 370.02 1127.83 601.314 408.93

*MAPE 9.66 65.9 23.42 11.642 10.037 26.593 21.16 18.44 25.79 31.1

**MAD 38.74 93.8 30.04 23.759 10.576 15.066 28.96 88.13 41.26 53.37

***MSD 3065.86 16119.7 1247.07 817.672 208.485 313.01 1014.98 9680.83 2483.74 6479.28

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

176.915 +

36.6317*t

Yt =

13.9007 +

29.4635*t

Yt =

184.425 -

5.53879*t

Yt =

136.169 +

11.7995*t

Yt = 47.72

+

9.43036*t

Yt =

28.864 +

4.90764*t

Yt = 23.62 +

23.0933*t

Yt =

210.569

+

61.1508*t

Yt =

66.1567 +

35.6772*t

Yt =

63.6547 +

23.0181*t




108

The above table 4.10 implies that trend analysis using method of least square for

prediction for the year of 2010 and 2015 for the current assets. In the year 2010 highest

trend value to the Sakthi Sugars (822.078), lowest trend value to the Ponni Sugars (77.94)

and for the future period 2015 the trend value is highest to the Sakthi Sugars i.e., 1127.83

and followed by Bannari Amman Sugars i.e., 726.39 and the lowest trend value to the

EID Parry Sugars i.e., 101.34 followed by Ponni Sugars.


109

TABLE 4.11


2015 FOR CURRENT LIABILITIES

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 47.84 -23.07 85.95 81.86 48.32 9.62 10.44 69.236 27.999 32.85

2 2002 66.36 -1.69 84.43 102.02 52.07 13.23 24.11 95.824 54.656 50.33

3 2003 84.89 19.7 82.9 122.19 55.83 16.83 37.77 122.411 81.313 67.82

4 2004 103.41 41.09 81.37 142.35 59.58 20.44 51.44 148.999 107.97 85.3

5 2005 121.93 62.47 79.84 162.52 63.34 24.05 65.11 175.586 134.627 102.79

6 2006 140.45 83.86 78.32 182.68 67.09 27.66 78.78 202.174 161.285 120.27

7 2007 158.98 105.24 76.79 202.85 70.84 31.27 92.44 228.761 187.942 137.76

8 2008 177.5 126.63 75.26 223.01 74.6 34.88 106.11 255.349 214.599 155.24

9 2009 196.02 148.01 73.73 243.18 78.35 38.49 119.78 281.936 241.256 172.73

10 2010 214.55 169.4 72.2 263.34 82.11 42.1 133.44 308.524 267.913 190.21

12 2015 307.16 276.33 64.56 364.16 100.88 60.15 201.78 441.461 401.198 277.64

*MAPE 13.774 220.73 27.116 10.895 18.842 20.501 17.701 29.03 13.373 34.83

**MAD 15.347 68.18 20.283 20.319 12.116 5.3337 12.322 47.55 16.06 34.3

***MSD 321.259 8090.85 960.071 904.455 255.599 42.4556 262.509 3265.98 706.009 3052.63

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

29.318 +

18.5227*t

Yt = -

44.458 +

21.3858*t

Yt =

87.4827 -

1.52794*t

Yt =

61.6913 +

20.1648*t

Yt =

44.5627 +

3.75461*t

Yt =

6.006 +

3.60964*t

Yt = -

3.22667 +

13.6670*t

Yt =

42.6487

+

26.5875*t

Yt =

1.342 +

26.6571*t

Yt =

15.3647 +

17.4848*t




110


the period 2010 & 2015 for the current liabilities to the selected Sugar Mills.

The trend value which is highest in the year 2010 to the Sakthi Sugars (308.524) they

have more current liabilities while compared to other Sugar Mills. Ponni Sugars which is

lowest (42.10) compare to other Sugar Mills in the current liabilities. For the year 2015

Sakthi Sugars which shows highest trend value (441.461) followed by Shree Ambika

sugars (401.198) for the current liabilities. The lowest trend value for the year 2015 to the

Ponni Sugars (60.15).


111

TABLE 4.12

TREND ANALYSIS – USING METHOD OF LEAST SQUARE FOR PREDICTION FOR THE YEAR OF 2010 &

2015 FOR MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES


Source: Annual Report of selected Sugar Industry

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 20.33 1.98 4.22 14.33 6.84 3.99 3.37 15.9547 4.4467 5.4

2 2002 24.87 3.38 6.42 15.42 8.15 4.93 7.1 23.7341 15.0495 15.13

3 2003 29.42 4.78 8.62 16.52 9.47 5.86 10.83 31.5135 25.6522 24.86

4 2004 33.96 6.18 10.82 17.61 10.79 6.8 14.56 39.2929 36.2549 34.59

5 2005 38.51 7.58 13.01 18.71 12.11 7.74 18.29 47.0723 46.8576 44.32

6 2006 43.05 8.98 15.21 19.8 13.43 8.67 22.02 54.8517 57.4604 54.05

7 2007 47.6 10.38 17.41 20.89 14.75 9.61 25.76 62.6311 68.0631 63.78

8 2008 52.15 11.78 19.61 21.99 16.06 10.54 29.49 70.4105 78.6658 73.51

9 2009 56.69 13.18 21.81 23.08 17.38 11.48 33.22 78.1899 89.2685 83.24

10 2010 61.24 14.58 24.01 24.18 18.7 12.42 36.95 85.9693 99.8713 92.97

12 2015 83.97 21.58 35 29.64 25.29 17.09 55.6 124.866 152.885 141.62

*MAPE 19.0109 25.4498 15.6127 20.7381 16.4722 21.6747 19.1896 26.508 55.156 38.056

**MAD 6.2191 1.3699 2.5063 4.0313 1.9604 1.3264 3.505 10.519 9.983 12.313

***MSD 61.7667 2.8319 14.3616 30.3154 4.5593 2.6886 18.1453 151.947 162.747 234.159

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

15.7813 +

4.54558*t

Yt =

0.585333 +

1.39939*t

Yt =

2.02067

+

2.19879*t

Yt =

13.2367 +

1.09388*t

Yt = 5.518

+

1.31818*t

Yt =

3.05667 +

0.935879*t

Yt = -

0.361333 +

3.73097*t

Yt =

8.17533

+

7.77939*t

Yt = -

6.156 +

10.6027*t

Yt = -4.332

+ 9.72982*t


112

The above table 4.12 conveys that the trend movement for the year 2010 and

2015. In the year 2010 the miscellaneous expenses was highest in Shree Ambika Sugars

by 99.8713 and followed by Thiru Arooran Sugars has 92.97. The miscellaneous

expenses is lowest in Ponni Sugars by 12.42. In the year 2015 it is highest in Shree

Ambika Sugars by 152.885 and followed by Thiru Arooran Sugars has 141.62.


113

TABLE 4.13


2015 FOR TOTAL SALES

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 284.07 74.24 209.51 154.52 75.59 72.67 77.93 177.17 169.198 64.57

2 2002 342.76 107.8 207.71 162.8 100.55 84.71 118.93 306.8 200.038 112.01

3 2003 401.45 141.35 205.92 171.07 125.51 96.74 159.94 436.42 230.877 159.46

4 2004 460.13 174.91 204.13 179.35 150.47 108.78 200.94 566.05 261.717 206.91

5 2005 518.82 208.47 202.34 187.62 175.44 120.81 241.94 695.68 292.556 254.36

6 2006 577.51 242.02 200.54 195.9 200.4 132.85 282.94 825.3 323.396 301.8

7 2007 636.19 275.58 198.75 204.17 225.36 144.88 323.95 954.93 354.235 349.25

8 2008 694.88 309.14 196.96 212.45 250.32 156.92 364.95 1084.56 385.075 396.7

9 2009 753.57 342.69 195.17 220.72 275.29 168.95 405.95 1214.18 415.914 444.14

10 2010 812.25 376.25 193.38 228.99 300.25 180.99 446.95 1343.81 446.754 491.59

12 2015 1105.69 544.03 184.42 270.37 425.06 241.16 651.97 1991.94 600.951 728.82

*MAPE 11.48 38.99 25.63 11.176 9.809 18.779 18.24 29.8 114.4 28.96

**MAD 64.65 75.77 47.53 21.437 15.852 22.917 44.05 149.7 83 57.23

***MSD 6961.19 8977.2 2905.81 674.211 421.78 789.511 2356.55 27804.4 14283.3 5363.96

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

225.387 +

58.6866*t

Yt =

40.684 +

33.5564*t

Yt =

211.297 -

1.79212*t

Yt =

146.25 +

8.27436*t

Yt =

50.6227 +

24.9626*t

Yt =

60.6353

+

12.0350*t

Yt = 36.928

+ 41.0025*t

Yt =

47.5427

+

129.627*t

Yt =

138.359 +

30.8395*t

Yt = 17.12 +

47.4469*t




114

The table 4.13 expresses that the trend movement for the year 2010 and 2015.

In the year 2010 the sales was highest in Sakthi Sugars by 1343.81and followed by

Bannari Amman Sugars has 812.25. The sales were lowest in Ponni Sugars by 180.99.

In the year 2015 the sales was highest in Sakthi Sugars by 1991.94 and followed by

Bannari Amman Sugars has 1105.69. The sales are lowest in EID Parry Sugars

i.e., 184.42. There is continuous increasing trend in all Sugar Mills except EID Parry Sugars.


115

TABLE 4.14


2015 FOR THE TOTAL DEBTORS

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 36.14 2.5 62.43 9.58 4.81 1.09 -0.61 13.616 5.9955 7.68

2 2002 40.39 4.24 57.69 9.34 5.49 1.6 1.96 18.4187 14.5556 8.83

3 2003 44.65 5.98 52.95 9.09 6.18 2.11 4.52 23.2213 23.1157 9.98

4 2004 48.9 7.72 48.21 8.85 6.86 2.62 7.09 28.024 31.6758 11.12

5 2005 53.15 9.46 43.47 8.6 7.54 3.12 9.66 32.8267 40.2359 12.27

6 2006 57.4 11.2 38.73 8.35 8.22 3.63 12.22 37.6293 48.7961 13.42

7 2007 61.65 12.94 33.99 8.11 8.9 4.14 14.79 42.432 57.3562 14.57

8 2008 65.9 14.68 29.25 7.86 9.59 4.65 17.36 47.2347 65.9163 15.71

9 2009 70.15 16.42 24.51 7.61 10.27 5.16 19.92 52.0373 74.4764 16.86

10 2010 74.4 18.16 19.77 7.37 10.95 5.66 22.49 56.84 83.0365 18.01

12 2015 95.66 26.86 -3.93 6.14 14.36 8.21 35.32 80.8533 125.837 23.75

*MAPE 27.423 41.5931 25.53 35.6419 47.6882 282.704 95.5 25.291 96.599 39.3843

**MAD 12.363 3.3128 11.9 2.6622 3.1204 3.025 4.3313 8.993 10.198 4.3324

***MSD 246.35 18.2537 351.612 10.1714 15.8213 11.141 31.8938 157.368 131.225 29.4168

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt =

31.8913 +

4.25121*t

Yt = 0.764

+

1.73945*t

Yt =

67.1707 -

4.73976*t

Yt =

9.82933 -

0.246061*t

Yt = 4.13 +

0.682*t

Yt =

0.583333

+

0.508121*t

Yt = -

3.17667 +

2.56667*t

Yt =

8.81333

+

4.80267*t

Yt = -

2.56467 +

8.56012*t

Yt =

6.53133 +

1.14794*t




116

The above table 4.14 implies that the trend movement for the year 2010 and 2015.

In the year 2010 for the total debtors the trend value is highest in Shree Ambika Sugars

(83.0365) followed by Bannari Amman Sugars (74.4). The lowest trend value to Ponni

Sugars i.e., 5.66. In the year 2015 it is highest in Shree Ambika Sugars(125.837) followed

by Bannari Amman Sugars (95.66) . The lowest trend value to EID Parry Sugars (-3.93).

The mean square deviation was highest in the Bannari Amman Sugars and lowest in the

Ponni Sugars.

.


117

TABLE 4.15


2015 FOR TOTAL SHAREHOLDERS FUND

S.No. YEAR BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 2001 38.77 21.16 120.5 23.37 -148.21 4.56 40.02 72.299 66.78 110.91

2 2002 101.63 26.39 120.02 28.34 -115.41 10.75 50.05 154.918 94.119 111.79

3 2003 164.5 31.62 119.54 33.3 -82.6 16.94 60.07 237.536 121.457 112.67

4 2004 227.37 36.85 119.06 38.27 -49.8 23.14 70.1 320.154 148.795 113.56

5 2005 290.24 42.08 118.58 43.24 -17 29.33 80.13 402.773 176.134 114.44

6 2006 353.11 47.31 118.1 48.21 15.81 35.52 90.16 485.391 203.472 115.32

7 2007 415.97 52.54 117.61 53.17 48.61 41.71 100.18 568.01 230.811 116.2

8 2008 478.84 57.77 117.13 58.14 81.41 47.91 110.21 650.628 258.149 117.08

9 2009 541.71 63 116.65 63.11 114.22 54.1 120.24 733.246 285.487 117.96

10 2010 604.58 68.23 116.17 68.08 147.02 60.29 130.26 815.865 312.826 118.84

12 2015 918.92 94.37 113.76 92.92 311.03 91.25 180.4 1228.96 449.517 123.25

*MAPE 22.76 32.11 20.068 21.7936 50.28 20.4134 10.648 19.97 23.43 10.141

**MAD 48.18 14.026 20.265 7.3953 47.15 5.9234 8.559 70.03 28.53 11.598

***MSD 3280.89 290.338 564.576 75.6891 3080.8 64.1247 115.951 7205.25 1097.24 173.635

Fitted Trend

Equation

Yt = -

24.1013 +

62.8679*t

Yt =

15.9333 +

5.22939*t

Yt =

120.983 -

0.481333*t

Yt =

18.4007 +

4.96770*t

Yt = -

181.013 +

32.8030*t

Yt = -

1.63133

+

6.19206*t

Yt = 29.9933

+ 10.0270*t

Yt = -

10.3193

+

82.6184*t

Yt =

39.442 +

27.3384*t

Yt =

110.029 +

0.881515*t




118

The table 4.15 estimates that the trend analysis by using the least square method for the

period 2010 & 2015 for the total share holder’s funds to the selected Sugar Mills. The trend

value which is highest in the year 2010 to the Sakthi Sugars (815.865) which they have more

shareholders funds while compared to other Sugar Mills. Ponni Sugars which has lowest trend

value (60.2). In the year 2015 it is highest in Sakthi Sugars (1228.96) followed by Bannari

Amman Sugars(918.92). The lowest trend value to Ponni Sugars(91.25). The mean square

deviation was highest in the Sakthi Sugars and lowest to the Jeypore Sugars.

4.3. COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS

The following pages bring out Compound Annual Growth Rate Analysis of selected

Sugar Mills in Tamil Nadu.


119

TABLE 4.16

COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE RESULTS DURING THE YEAR 2000-01 TO 2009-10

S.NO. RATIO BANNARI

AMMAN DHARANI

EID


SHREE

AMBIKA

THIRU

AROORAN

1 NETWORTH 0.17 0.152 0.21 0.089 0.018 0.01 0.215 0.257 0.102 0.007

2 INVESTMENT 0.015 -0.003 -0.059 -0.259 0.422 0.014 0.732 0.007 0.2 0.038

3 EBIT -0.136 0.137 -0.125 0.088 0.164 0.184 0.206 0.112 0.044 0.012

4 TOT INCOME 0.115 0.188 0.051 0.048 0.13 0.126 0.220 0.159 0.129 0.149

5 NET PROFIT 0.26 0.435 0.407 0.204 -1.892 0.407 0.185 0.466 -2.549 -1.813

6 RAW MATERIAL 0.098 0.203 0.063 0.028 0.155 0.124 0.24 0.207 0.14 0.208

7 STOCK -1.922 0.296 0.092 0.064 -2.167 0.279 -2.22 -2.072 -2.075 -1.861

8 WC 0.038 0.095 -0.022 -0.119 0.132 0.051 0.166 0.097 0.053 0.056

9 TOT ASSETS 0.107 0.123 0.093 0.112 0.05 0.026 0.194 0.18 0.106 0.027

10 CA 0.086 0.18 -0.002 0.047 0.069 0.093 0.186 0.09 0.123 0.09

11 CL 0.179 0.29 0.039 0.108 0.044 0.172 0.232 0.09 0.299 0.127

12 M EXPENSES 0.091 0.14 0.185 0.054 0.121 0.096 0.242 0.136 0.16 0.168

13 SALES 0.139 0.169 0.04 0.048 0.147 0.113 0.197 0.148 0.08 0.122

14 DEBTORS 0.088 0.195 -0.07 -0.066 0.127 0.132 0.294 0.178 0.145 0.051

15 SHAREHOLDERS

FUND 0.196 0.134 -0.034 0.093 -2.017 0.237 0.12 0.242 0.163 0.01



120

From the above table 4.16 the compound annual growth rate shows that, the

Networth was highest in Sakthi Sugars at 0.257 per cent and followed by Rajshree Sugars

at 0.215 Per cent. It was lowest in Ponni Sugars at 0.010 per cent. The compound annual

growth rate shows that, the Investment was highest in Rajshree sugars at 0.732 per cent.

It was lowest in Jeypore Sugars at -0.259 per cent. It is clear that, annual growth rate

reveals that, the Earning before Interest and tax was highest in Rajshree sugars at 0.206

per cent. It was lowest in Bannari Amman Sugars at -0.136 per cent. The compound

annual growth rate exhibits that, the total income was highest in Rajshree Sugars at 0.220

per cent. It was lowest in Jeypore Sugars at 0.048 per cent. It is clear that, annual growth

rate views that, the Net Profit was highest in Sakthi Sugars at 0.466 per cent.

It was lowest in Sree Ambika Sugars at -2.549 per cent. The compound annual growth

rate exhibits that, the raw material was highest in Rajshree Sugars at 0.240 per cent.

It was lowest in Jeypore Sugars at 0.028 per cent. It is clear that, annual growth rate

reveals that, the Stock was highest in Dharani Sugars at 0.296 per cent. It was lowest in

Rajshree Sugars at-2.220 per cent. The compound annual growth rate indicates that, the

Working Capital was highest in Rajshree Sugars at 0.166 per cent. It was lowest in

Jeypore Sugars at-0.119 per cent. It is clear that, annual growth rate views that, the

Total Assets was highest in Rajshree sugars at 0.194 per cent. It was lowest in Ponni

Sugars at 0.026 per cent. The compound annual growth rate exhibits that, the Current

asset was highest in Rajshree sugars at 0.186 per cent. It was lowest in EID Parry Sugars

at -0.002 per cent. It is clear that, annual growth rate reveals that, the Current liabilities

was highest in Sree Ambika Sugars at 0.299 per cent. It was lowest in EID Parry Sugars

at 0.039 per cent. The compound annual growth rate shows that, the miscellaneous

expense was highest in Rajshree sugars at 0.242 per cent. It was lowest in Jeypore Sugars

at 0.054 per cent. It is clear that, annual growth rate views that, the Sales was highest in

Rajshree Sugars at 0.197 per cent. It was lowest in EID Parry Sugars at 0.040 per cent.

The compound annual growth rate indicates that, the Debtors were highest in Rajshree

Sugars at 0.294 per cent. It was lowest in EID Parry Sugars at -0.070 per cent. It is clear

that annual growth rate shows that, the Shareholders fund was highest in Sakthi Sugars at

0.242 per cent. It was lowest in Kothari Sugars at -2.017 per cent respectively.


121

4.4. FACTOR ANALYSIS

The following tables and interpretation show that factor analysis of selected Sugar

Mills in Tamil Nadu.

TABLE 4.17

FACTOR LOADING OF BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS

MEASUREMENT SCALE ITEMS ON EXTRACTED FACTORS

Variables Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Factor V C2

x6 .981 .043 -.133 -.039 .067 0.988

x16 .877 -.122 -.373 .190 .152 0.982

x8 .851 -.106 -.130 .464 .155 0.992

x17 .822 .166 -.368 .311 -.152 0.958

x10 -.806 .319 .450 -.136 -.121 0.987

x4 -.657 .575 .296 -.285 -.082 0.938

x13 -.038 -.975 -.078 -.047 .180 0.993

x12 -.359 -.861 -.183 -.219 .208 0.995

x23 -.306 .753 .514 .083 .221 0.981

x22 -.544 .735 .371 .028 -.075 0.980

x9 -.152 .726 .629 .067 .151 0.973

x15 -.662 .662 .198 .168 -.122 0.959

x2 .249 -.605 -.540 .423 -.244 0.958

x7 .318 -.010 -.904 .016 .017 0.919

x11 -.283 .447 .819 -.131 -.029 0.969

x1 .274 -.480 -.767 -.027 .196 0.933

x21 -.418 .384 .689 -.439 .083 0.997

x14 -.128 .527 .652 -.494 .166 0.991

x19 -.450 .481 .617 .294 .019 0.901

x3 -.070 -.172 .125 -.969 -.027 0.990

x18 .376 .146 .115 .840 .304 0.974

x20 -.043 .063 .306 .015 .941 0.985

x5 .360 -.334 -.464 .152 .707 0.979

Y .449 -.212 -.391 .336 .682 0.977

Eigan

values 13.273 4.497 2.368 2.015 1.14

Variance

(in %) 55.305 18.739 9.868 8.395 4.749

Cumulative

Eigan

values

(in %)

55.305 74.044 83.913 92.308 97.057

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.



122

Table 4.17 shows that the factor loadings of Bannari Amman Sugars for the

period from 2001-2010. It can be observed from table 4.2 that 96.24 per cent of total

variation in X6 (Net Worth to Shareholders Fund) is accounted by Factor I. Similarly, it is

seen that nearly 76.91 per cent, 72.42 per cent, 67.57 per cent, 64.96 per cent and

43.16 per cent variations in X16 (Debt-Equity Ratio), X8 (Return on Equity), X17 (Long

Term Debt Equity Ratio), X10 (Proprietary Ratio) and X4 (Net Profit Ratio) respectively

are explained by Factor I. This shows that though Factor I is an important factor as far as

explaining the variations in variables namely X6 (Net Worth to Shareholders Fund), X16

(Debt-Equity Ratio), X8 (Return on Equity), X17 (Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio), X10

(Proprietary Ratio) and X4 (Net Profit Ratio) are concerned but in terms of profitability,

its explanation is quite moderate. But all the five derived factors taken together explain

97.7 per cent variations in the profitability of Bannari Amman Sugars. This shows that no

individual factor can be solely responsible for the variations in the profitability of

Bannari Amman Sugars; it is the combination of different factors which are associated

with the profitability. Similarly, it is seen that the first factor accounts for only 55.31 per cent

of variation in the variable set, while second factor’s contribution is 18.74 per cent. All

the five factors taken together could explain as much as 97.06 per cent of variations in the

variables associated with profitability. Similarly, X13 (Raw Materials to Sales) has

relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the five factors together could explain

nearly 99.3 per cent of the variation in X13 (Raw Material to Sales).Similarly, X7 (Quick

Assets to Current Liabilities) has relatively high factor loading with Factor III and all the

five factors together could explain nearly 91.9 per cent of the variation in X7 (Quick

Assets to Current Liabilities). The variable X3 (Networth to Sales) is the dominant

variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 93.9 per cent variations in X3

(Networth to Sales) is associated with Factor IV. Finally, the variable X20 (Debtors Turn

Over) is the dominant variable in fifth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e.,

88.55 per cent variations in X20 (Debtors Turn Over) is associated with Factor V

respectively.


123

TABLE 4.18

FACTOR LOADING OF DHARANI SUGARS



x15 .975 .010 -.100 .139 .077 0.986

x4 .960 .168 .162 .105 .055 0.990

x22 .910 .290 .127 .138 .114 0.960

x23 -.889 -.164 .076 -.390 -.052 0.978

Y .855 .361 .256 .192 .047 0.966

x21 -.732 .581 -.280 .036 -.184 0.987

x9 -.622 -.515 -.246 -.215 .083 0.766

x3 .074 .943 .279 .116 .062 0.990

x5 .303 .876 -.025 .342 -.006 0.977

x18 .361 .866 .031 .310 .016 0.978

x19 .208 .862 .367 .142 .223 0.991

x8 .128 .824 .481 .151 .069 0.954

x14 .565 .715 .144 .176 .268 0.954

x16 -.498 .670 .079 -.279 -.022 0.781

x17 -.029 -.306 -.940 .045 .000 0.980

x10 -.247 -.255 -.828 .132 -.296 0.917

x6 -.061 .143 .757 -.215 -.068 0.648

x11 -.524 -.038 -.691 -.188 .268 0.861

x1 .235 .399 .160 .816 .295 0.993

x7 -.377 -.350 .332 -.783 -.020 0.988

x2 -.079 .079 .588 -.746 -.131 0.932

x12 .448 .307 -.057 .680 .337 0.874

x20 -.444 -.464 -.440 -.609 -.106 0.988

x13 .008 .075 -.078 .320 .893 0.912

Eigan

values 7.828 5.562 3.696 2.918 2.147

Variance

(in %) 32.618 23.174 15.401 12.157 8.946

Cumulative

Eigan

values (in

%)

32.618 55.792 71.193 83.351 92.297





124

It can be observed from the table 4.18 that the factor loading of Dharani Sugars,

five distinct factors have emerged and these given factors explain 92.3 per cent of

variations in the selected variables and 95.06 per cent of total variation in X15 (Net Profit

to Networth) are accounted by Factor I. Similarly, it is seen that nearly 92.16 per cent,

82.81 per cent, 79.03 per cent, 53.58 per cent and 38.69 per cent variations in X4

(Net Profit Ratio), X22 (Net Profit to Total Assets), X23 (Return on Capital Employed),

X21 (Interest Coverage Ratio) and X9 (Working Capital Turnover Ratio) respectively are

explained by Factor I. Similarly, X3 (Net Worth to Sales) has relatively high factor

loading with Factor II and all the five factors together could explain nearly 99 per cent of

the variation in X3 (Net Worth to Sales). Next, X17 ( Long Term Debt Equity Ratio) has

relatively high factor loading with Factor III and all the five factors together could explain

nearly 98 per cent of the variation in X17 (Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio). The variable

X1 (Current Ratio) is the dominant variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is as high

i.e., 66.59 per cent variations in X1 (Current Ratio) is associated with Factor IV, while all the

five factors together account 99.3 per cent of the variations in X13 (Raw Materials to Sales).

Similarly, X13 (Raw Materials to Sales) are accounted predominant place in factor V.


125

TABLE 4.19

FACTOR LOADING OF EID PARRY SUGARS



x4 .910 -.097 -.089 -.329 -.100 0.964

x6 -.893 -.059 -.308 .085 .238 0.960

x22 .892 -.032 -.297 -.322 .044 0.991

x10 .875 .086 .210 -.196 .115 0.869

Y .871 .086 .016 -.234 .356 0.948

x15 .856 -.042 -.470 -.112 -.132 0.985

x3 -.787 -.249 -.171 -.330 .198 0.859

x11 .149 -.959 .143 -.096 -.059 0.975

x7 .110 .957 .097 -.107 -.148 0.971

x1 -.158 .925 .068 .092 -.110 0.906

x2 .225 .846 .304 .233 .133 0.931

x9 .019 -.807 .117 -.174 -.342 0.813

x14 -.153 -.789 .094 -.242 -.307 0.808

x12 -.492 -.667 -.154 -.444 -.178 0.939

x17 -.046 .134 .984 .046 .060 0.994

x16 .032 .008 .951 .071 -.266 0.981

x21 .033 .232 -.782 .287 .408 0.915

x18 .409 .344 .567 .451 .412 0.980

x20 -.155 .068 .132 .891 -.031 0.841

x13 -.483 .310 .122 .803 .069 0.994

x8 -.428 .233 -.390 .684 .117 0.871

x5 .534 -.215 .190 -.646 .208 0.828

x19 -.084 .128 -.211 -.091 .886 0.861

x23 -.085 .541 -.307 .492 .558 0.948

Eigan values 7.775 6.906 4.025 1.882 1.541

Variance (in %) 32.396 28.777 16.773 7.842 6.420

Cumulative Eigan

values (in %) 32.396 61.173 77.945 85.787 92.207





126

It is clear that from the above table 4.19 that factor loading of EID Parry Sugars,

those five distinct factors have emerged and these given factors explain 92.23 per cent of

variations in the selected variables and 82.81 per cent of total variation in X4 (Net Profit

Ratio) are accounted by Factor I. Similarly, it is seen that nearly 79.74 per cent,

79.57 per cent, 76.56 per cent, 75.86 per cent, 73.27 per cent and 61.94 per cent

variations in X6 (Net Worth to Shareholders Fund), X22 (Net profit to total assets), X10

(Proprietary Ratio), X15 (Net Profit to Net Worth) and X3 (Net Worth to Sales)

respectively are explained by Factor I. Similarly, X11 (Total Liabilities to Total Assets)

has relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the five factors together could

explain nearly 97.5 per cent of the variation in X11 (Total Liabilities to Total Assets).

Next, X17 (Long Term Debt Equity Ratio) has relatively high factor loading with Factor

III and all the five factors together could explain nearly 99.4 per cent of the variation in

X17 (Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio). The variable X20 (Debtors Turnover Ratio) is the

dominant variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 79.39 per cent

variations in X20 (Debtors Turnover Ratio) is associated with Factor IV, while all the five

factors together account 84.1 per cent of the variations in X20 (Debtors Turnover Ratio). Finally,

the variable X19 (Inventory Turn Over Ratio) is the dominant variable in fourth factor as its

factor loading is as high i.e., 78.5 per cent variations in X19(Inventory Turn Over Ratio) is

associated with Factor IV, while all the five factors together account 86.1 per cent of the

variations in X19 (Inventory Turn Over Ratio).


127

TABLE 4.20

FACTOR LOADING OF JEYPORE SUGARS


Variables Factor

I

Factor

II

Factor

III

Factor

IV

Factor

V

Factor

VI C

2

x5 .930 -.160 -.225 -.154 -.104 .066 0.990

x4 .914 -.172 -.304 .056 .171 .064 0.990

x15 .886 -.137 -.345 .131 .218 .035 0.986

Y .882 -.155 .091 .371 .188 -.039 0.947

x22 .850 -.223 -.099 .362 .239 -.093 0.918

x21 .843 -.231 -.177 .304 .328 .042 0.946

x12 -.739 -.315 .485 -.103 .047 .066 0.963

x23 .721 -.100 .360 .414 .392 .001 0.994

x10 .661 -.209 -.131 .626 .288 -.126 0.977

x7 -.265 .951 .082 -.100 .044 -.002 0.930

x1 -.205 .934 .006 -.044 -.244 .068 0.931

x18 .056 .913 .169 .269 .214 .013 0.929

x11 .315 -.887 -.042 .106 .234 -.184 0.937

x3 -.179 -.878 .129 -.150 -.372 -.057 0.925

x2 -.329 .828 .024 -.119 -.340 .202 0.874

x8 -.184 .244 .927 -.006 .094 .173 0.973

x6 -.278 -.146 .925 -.091 .129 .117 0.975

x20 .274 -.135 -.706 .255 .542 .008 0.745

x17 -.255 -.416 -.024 -.850 .030 -.148 0.899

x16 -.270 .173 .470 -.808 -.059 .033 0.916

x19 .261 .018 .294 .405 .773 .247 0.983

x13 -.490 .020 .051 .280 -.770 .225 0.897

x9 -.009 .137 .094 -.018 .003 .984 0.682

x14 .031 .119 .124 .069 .000 .978 0.922

Eigan values 10.731 4.997 3.404 1.959 1.135

Variance (in %) 44.714 20.821 14.184 8.162 4.731

Cumulative

Eigan values (in

%)

44.714 65.535 79.719 87.881 92.612




128

It can be observed from table 4.20 that the factor loading of Jeypore Sugars shows

that 96.04 per cent of total variation in X22 (Net Profit to Total Assets) is accounted by

Factor I. Similarly, it is seen that nearly 90.44 per cent, 77.79 per cent, 72.42 per cent,

69.09 per cent, 66.91 per cent and 47.33 per cent variations in X23 (Return on Capital

Employed), X4 (Net Profit Ratio), X21 (Interest Cover Ratio), X15 (Net Profit to Net

Worth) and X5 (Return on Sales) respectively are explained by Factor I and 69.06 per cent of

the variations in the profitability (Y) are explained by Factor I and its explanation is

moderate and also all the five derived factors taken together explain 91.8 per cent

variations in the profitability of jeypore sugars. This shows that no individual factor can

be solely responsible for the variations in the profitability of Jeypore Sugars ; it is the

combination of different factors which are associated with the profitability. Similarly, X11

(Total Liabilities to Total Assets) has relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the

five factors together could explain nearly 99.4 per cent of the variation in X16 (Debt-

Equity Ratio). Next, X8 (Return on Equity) has relatively high factor loading with Factor

III and all the five factors together could explain nearly 92.5 per cent of the variation in

X6 (Networth to Shareholders Fund). The variable X17 ( Long Term Debt Equity Ratio) is

the dominant variable in five factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 77.97 per cent

variations in X17 is associated with Factor IV, while all the five factors together account

91.6 per cent of the variations in X17 , the variable X20 (Debtors Turn Over) is the

dominant variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 81 per cent

variations in X19 (Inventory Turnover Ratio) is associated with Factor V, finally the

variable X9 (Working Capital Turnover Ratio) is the dominant variable in sixth factor

loading is as high i.e 92.2 per cent variations in X14(Networth to Working Capital) is

associated with Factor VI.


129

TABLE 4.21

FACTORS LOADING OF KOTHARI SUGARS


Variables Factor I Factor

II

Factor

III

Factor

IV

Factor

V C

2

x13 .911 .108 .312 .155 -.028 0.964

x10 .877 .422 .067 -.039 -.012 0.953

x16 .866 .056 .326 .179 .277 0.968

x17 .864 .106 .351 .140 .278 0.978

x6 .860 .237 -.135 .155 .236 0.894

x8 .790 .483 -.332 -.028 .150 0.991

x20 .671 .357 .070 .121 .560 0.911

x7 .153 .887 -.058 .201 .284 0.935

x1 .365 .878 -.113 .153 .161 0.966

x2 .223 .874 -.279 .186 .206 0.968

x21 -.079 .818 .480 -.130 .008 0.923

x11 -.400 -.766 .127 -.389 -.208 0.957

x12 -.493 -.669 -.104 -.191 -.020 0.738

x5 -.028 .272 -.958 .017 .029 0.994

Y -.014 .349 -.932 .004 .050 0.993

x15 .364 .274 .848 -.119 .163 0.967

x22 .525 .234 .805 -.092 .045 0.989

x4 .614 .269 .695 -.065 .216 0.983

x23 -.422 -.050 .643 .350 .443 0.913

x14 .114 .195 -.044 .958 -.009 0.971

x9 .153 .218 -.034 .944 .125 0.979

x3 -.326 -.579 .051 -.096 -.731 0.988

x19 .464 .536 .182 .058 .642 0.951

x18 .581 .256 .405 .034 .598 0.926

Eigan values 12.031 5.258 2.488 1.935 1.092

Variance (in %) 50.130 21.907 10.366 8.062 4.551

Cumulative Eigan

values (in %) 50.130 72.037 82.403 90.465 95.016





130

It can be revealed from table 4.21 that the factor Loading of Kothari Sugars shows

that, 82.99 per cent of total variation in X13 (Raw Materials to Sales) is accounted by

Factor I. Similarly, it is seen that nearly 76.91 per cent, 75 per cent, 74.65 per cent,

74.65 per cent, 73.96 per cent, 62.41 per cent and 45.02 per cent variations in X10

(Proprietary Ratio), X16 (Debt-Equity Ratio), X17 (Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio ), X6

(Net Worth To Shareholders Fund), X8 (Return on Equity) and X20 (Debtors Turn Over)

respectively are explained by Factor I and 0.02 per cent of the variations in the

profitability (Y) are explained by Factor I and its explanation is low. But all the five

derived factors taken together explain 99.3 per cent variations in the profitability of Kothari

sugars. This shows that no individual factor can be solely responsible for the variations in

the profitability of Kothari sugar ltd; it is the combination of different factors which are

associated with the profitability. Similarly, X7 (Quick Assets to Current Liabilities) has

relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the five factors together could explain

nearly 93.5 per cent of the variation in X7. Next, X5 (Return on Sales) has relatively high

factor loading with Factor III and all the five factors together could explain nearly

99.4 per cent of the variation in X5. The variable X14 (Net worth to Working Capital) is

the dominant variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 91.78 per cent

variations in X14 is associated with Factor IV, while all the five factors together account

97.1 per cent of the variations in X14. Similarly, X3 (Net Worth to Sales) are accounted

predominant place in factor V.


131

TABLE 4.22

FACTOR LOADING OF PONNI SUGARS


Variables Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV C2

x23 .970 -.109 .046 .207 0.998

x4 .961 -.228 .058 -.047 0.981

x22 .953 -.290 -.019 .055 0.996

Y .943 -.198 -.203 .061 0.973

x15 .942 -.261 .143 .072 0.981

x5 .930 .124 .009 -.036 0.882

x21 .919 -.309 .151 .098 0.972

x16 -.218 .929 .286 .044 0.994

x6 -.340 .916 .191 .092 1.000

x8 -.195 .910 .251 .208 0.972

x10 .448 -.833 -.285 .103 0.986

x13 -.183 -.818 .277 .259 0.846

x7 -.391 .782 .372 .102 0.913

x17 -.126 .681 .229 .589 0.879

x1 -.177 .679 .659 .186 0.961

x3 -.542 .593 .081 -.274 0.727

x9 .049 -.297 -.941 -.023 0.977

x14 -.173 -.035 -.930 -.251 0.959

x2 .385 -.036 .889 .223 0.990

x11 .178 -.514 -.800 -.139 0.955

x20 -.020 -.289 -.722 .275 0.681

x12 -.510 -.546 .564 .157 0.901

x19 .057 -.109 .047 .966 0.950

x18 .366 .238 .205 .862 0.976

Eigan values 10.68 6.40 3.31 2.06

Variance (in %) 44.51 26.66 13.78 8.59

Cumulative Eigan

values (in %) 44.51 71.17 84.96 93.55





132

It can be examined from table 4.22 the factor loading of Ponni Sugars shows that,

94.09 per cent of total variation in X23 (Return on Capital Employed) is accounted by


86.49 per cent and 84.46 per cent variations in X4 (Net profit ratio), X22 (Net profit to

total assets), X15 (Net Profit to Networth), X5 (Return on Sales) and X21 (Interest

Coverage Ratio) respectively are explained by Factor I and 88.92 per cent of the

variations in the profitability (Y) are explained by Factor I and its explanation is high and

also all the four derived factors taken together explain 97.3 per cent variations in the

profitability of Ponni sugars. This shows that no individual factor can be solely

responsible for the variations in the profitability of Ponni sugars; it is the combination of

different factors which are associated with the profitability. Similarly, X16 (Debt Equity

Ratio) has relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the four factors together

could explain nearly 99.4 per cent of the variation in X16 . Next, X9 (Working Capital

Turnover Ratio) has relatively high factor loading with Factor III and all the five factors

together could explain nearly 97.7 per cent of the variation in X9 (Working Capital

Turnover Ratio). The variable X19 (Inventory Turnover) is the dominant variable in

fourth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 93.3 per cent variations in X19 (Inventory

Turnover) is associated with Factor IV, while all the four factors together account 95 per cent

of the variations in X19.


133

TABLE 4.23

FACTOR LOADING OF RAJSHREE SUGARS



II

Factor

III

Factor

IV Factor V C

2

x22 .980 -.073 -.141 -.066 -.016 0.990

x23 .951 -.217 -.021 .166 .104 0.990

x4 .882 -.257 .114 -.357 -.044 0.986

x21 .851 .319 -.003 -.152 .313 0.947

Y .831 -.330 -.082 .147 .300 0.918

x15 .818 -.321 -.299 -.223 -.187 0.946

x5 .688 -.527 .332 -.296 .118 0.963

x11 -.249 .937 .141 .164 -.085 0.994

x1 .011 -.866 -.262 -.371 -.142 0.977

x2 .242 -.835 -.370 -.191 -.021 0.930

x7 -.112 -.796 -.334 -.413 -.048 0.931

x14 -.441 .790 .300 .043 -.138 0.929

x9 -.498 .787 -.077 .164 -.193 0.937

x6 -.007 .202 .893 .284 .077 0.925

x3 .094 -.013 .883 -.256 .141 0.874

x16 -.223 .190 .882 .167 -.285 0.973

x17 -.199 .207 .877 .215 -.277 0.975

x12 .118 .357 .770 .099 -.031 0.745

x10 .301 -.349 -.731 -.179 .346 0.899

x19 -.216 .187 .225 .883 -.061 0.916

x8 .006 .381 .221 .878 -.136 0.983

x18 -.148 .150 -.628 .669 .101 0.897

x13 -.055 .378 .087 .620 -.379 0.682

x20 .175 -.008 -.226 -.173 .900 0.922

Eigan values 10.731 4.997 3.404 1.959 1.135

Variance (in %) 44.714 20.821 14.184 8.162 4.731

Cumulative Eigan

values (in %) 44.714 65.535 79.719 87.881 92.612





134

It can be observed from table 4.23 factor loading of Rajshree Sugars reveals that,

96.04 per cent of total variation in X22 (Net Profit to total assets) is accounted by Factor I.

Similarly, it is seen that nearly 90.44 per cent, 77.79 per cent, 72.42 per cent, 69.09 per cent,

66.91 per cent and 47.33 per cent variations in X23 (Return on capital employed), X4

(Net Profit Ratio), X21 (Interest Coverage Ratio), X15 (Net Profit to Net Worth) and X5

(Return on sales) respectively are explained by Factor I and 69.06 per cent of the

variations in the profitability (Y) are explained by Factor I and its explanation is moderate

and also all the five derived factors taken together explain 91.8 per cent variations in the

profitability of Rajshree sugar ltd. This shows that no individual factor can be solely

responsible for the variations in the profitability of Rajshree Sugars ; it is the combination

of different factors which are associated with the profitability. Similarly, X11 (Total

liabilities to total assets) has relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the five

factors together could explain nearly 99.4 per cent of the variation in X11 . Next, X6

(Networth to Shareholders Fund) has relatively high factor loading with Factor III and all

the five factors together could explain nearly 92.5 per cent of the variation in X6 (Networth

to shareholders fund). The variable X19 (Inventory Turnover ratio) is the dominant

variable in five factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 77.97 per cent variations in X19

(Inventory Turnover Ratio) is associated with Factor IV, while all the five factors together

account 91.6 per cent of the variations in X14 (Net Worth to Working Capital). Finally,

the variable X20 (Debtors Turnover Ratio) is the dominant variable in fourth factor as its

factor loading is as high i.e., 81 per cent variations in X19 is associated with Factor V,

while all the five factors together account 92.2 per cent of the variations in X20 .


135

TABLE 4.24

FACTOR LOADING OF SAKTHI SUGARS


Variables Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV C2

x5 .963 .138 .010 .068 0.951

x16 -.951 .101 -.058 .237 0.974

x9 .941 .023 .314 -.057 0.988

Y .937 .034 .332 -.067 0.994

x18 -.929 .142 -.071 -.293 0.974

x19 .912 -.147 -.070 .322 0.962

x17 .888 -.366 .024 .229 0.976

x1 .752 .498 .371 .059 0.955

x14 -.712 -.077 .640 -.005 0.922

x13 .678 .107 .658 -.015 0.904

x2 .647 .622 .347 .043 0.928

x12 .609 -.339 .540 -.159 0.803

x11 -.293 .926 .078 .130 0.966

x4 .003 .907 -.017 -.043 0.825

x3 -.056 .858 -.034 .452 0.945

x21 .549 .744 .326 -.088 0.969

x10 .548 .704 .409 -.040 0.965

x27 .203 -.682 .226 -.214 0.603

x23 -.614 .629 -.147 .378 0.937

x8 .062 -.012 -.799 .315 0.742

x15 .548 -.240 .748 -.174 0.948

x22 .605 .123 .739 -.155 0.951

x7 -.416 -.098 -.660 -.146 0.640

x20 .196 .084 -.003 .964 0.975

x6 -.131 .386 -.185 .863 0.943

Eigan values 13.342 7.288 3.990 1.832

Variance (in %) 46.008 25.132 13.757 6.318

Cumulative Eigan values

(in %) 46.008 71.140 84.898 91.215


Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Source : Annual Report of selected Sugar Industry


136

It can be showed from table 4.24 the factor loading of Sakthi Sugars views that,

92.74 per cent of total variation in X5 (Return on Sales) is accounted by Factor I.

Similarly, it is seen that nearly 90.44 per cent, 88.55 per cent, 87.8 per cent, 86.3 per cent,

83.17 per cent, 79.57 per cent, 78.85 per cent, 70.06 per cent, 56.55 per cent, 50.69 per cent,

45.97 per cent, 41.86 per cent and 37.09 per cent variations in X16 ( Debt-Equity Ratio),

X9 (Working Capital Turnover Ratio), X18 (Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio), X19

(Inventory Turnover), X17 ( Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio), X1 (Current ratio), X14

(Networth to Working Capital), X13 (Raw material to sales), X2 (Working Capital to

Total Assets ) and X12 (Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales) respectively are explained by

Factor I and 87.8 per cent of the variations in the profitability (Y) are explained by Factor

I and its explanation is high and also all the four derived factors taken together explain

99.4 per cent variations in the profitability of Sakthi sugars. This shows that no individual

factor can be solely responsible for the variations in the profitability of Sakthi sugars; it is

the combination of different factors which are associated with the profitability. Similarly,

X11 ( Total Liabilities to Total Assets) has relatively high factor loading with Factor II

and all the four factors together could explain nearly 96.6 per cent of the variation in X11

(Total Liabilities to Total Assets). Next ,X8 (Return on Equity) has relatively high factor

loading with factor III and all four factors together could explain nearly 92.9 per cent of

variation in X8.The variable X20 ( Debtors Turnover Ratio ) is the dominant variable in

fourth factor as its factor loading is as high i.e., 92.93 per cent variations in X20 ( Debtors

Turnover Ratio ) is associated with Factor IV, while all the four factors together account

97.5 per cent of the variations in X20 ( Debtors Turnover Ratio).


137

TABLE 4.25

FACTOR LOADING OF SHREE AMBIKA SUGARS



II

Factor

III

Factor

IV

Factor

V

Factor

VI C

2

x14 .849 .301 .237 -.318 -.136 .100 0.997

x3 .845 .159 -.394 -.272 -.015 .167 0.997

x4 -.818 -.083 .094 .503 -.159 -.174 0.993

x13 .690 .418 -.484 -.300 .101 .112 0.998

x6 .683 -.389 .468 -.112 -.336 -.189 0.998

x16 .676 .234 .375 .025 -.422 .409 0.998

x10 -.650 .531 -.213 .351 .190 .261 0.977

x7 -.086 -.976 .158 .005 .036 -.102 0.997

x1 -.092 -.974 -.108 .145 -.035 -.082 0.998

x11 .257 .871 -.014 -.282 .297 -.052 0.995

x18 .085 .751 -.326 .157 -.127 -.506 0.974

x19 -.508 .688 -.245 .246 .094 .318 0.962

x2 -.585 -.649 -.208 .395 .183 -.045 0.998

x9 -.101 .102 .975 .084 .056 -.080 0.988

x20 .242 -.128 .938 -.097 -.154 -.070 0.993

x17 .126 -.060 .913 -.324 -.112 -.012 0.971

x8 -.295 -.274 .724 .321 .273 -.310 0.960

Y -.205 -.172 .284 .909 .048 -.091 0.989

x15 -.370 .075 -.441 .798 .135 .060 0.996

x22 -.347 .086 -.488 .784 .127 .059 0.999

x5 -.315 -.156 -.047 .704 -.535 -.230 0.961

x12 .280 .302 -.487 -.607 .445 .141 0.993

x21 -.208 .051 -.025 .056 .955 .036 0.963

x23 .207 .069 -.329 -.100 .073 .896 0.974

Eigan values 8.607 6.789 3.510 2.326 1.409 1.027

Variance (in %) 35.861 28.289 14.627 9.691 5.872 4.280

Cumulative Eigan

values (in %) 35.861 64.150 78.776 88.467 94.339 98.619





138

It can viewed from above table 4.25 factor loading of Shree Ambika Sugars

exhibits that, 72.08 per cent of total variation in X14 (Net worth to Working Capital) is

accounted by Factor I. Similarly, it is seen that nearly 71.4 per cent, 66.91 per cent,

47.61 per cent, 46.65 per cent, 45.7 per cent, and 42.25per cent variations in X3

(Net Worth to Sales), X4 (Net Profit Ratio), X13 (Raw Materials to Sales), X6 (Net Worth

to Shareholders Fund), X16 (Debt Equity Ratio) and X10 (Proprietary Ratio) respectively

are explained by Factor I and 4.2 per cent of the variations in the profitability (Y) are

explained by Factor I and its explanation is low. But all the six derived factors taken

together explain 98.9 per cent variations in the profitability of Shree Ambika Sugars. This

shows that no individual factor can be solely responsible for the variations in the

profitability of Shree Ambika Sugars; it is the combination of different factors which are

associated with the profitability. Similarly, X7 (Quick assets to current liabilities) has

relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all the six factors together could explain

nearly 99.7 per cent of the variation in X7 (Quick Assets to Current Liabilities). Next, X9

(Working Capital Turnover Ratio) has relatively high factor loading with Factor III and

all the six factors together could explain nearly 98.8 per cent of the variation in X9

(Working Capital Turnover Ratio). Similarly, X15 (Net Profit to Net Worth) has relatively

high factor loading with Factor IV and all the six factors together could explain nearly

99.6 per cent of the variation in X15 (Net Profit to Net Worth). Next, X21 (Interest

Coverage Ratio) has relatively high factor loading with Factor V and all the six factors

together could explain nearly 96.3 per cent of the variation in X21 . The variable X23

(Return on Capital Employed) is the dominant variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is

as high i.e., 80.28 per cent variations in X23 is associated with Factor VI, while all the six

factors together account 97.4 per cent of the variations in X23.


139

TABLE 4.26

FACTOR LOADING OF THIRU AROORAN SUGARS



II

Factor

III

Factor

IV

Factor

V

Factor

VI C

2

x4 .909 .056 -.084 -.050 .071 .242 0.903

x15 .865 .231 .206 -.196 .217 .146 0.951

x20 .858 -.096 .048 .062 -.325 .294 0.944

x22 .857 .267 .155 -.235 .164 .164 0.939

x8 .836 .019 .167 .340 .337 -.086 0.964

Y .795 .294 -.063 -.282 .271 -.009 0.875

x3 -.769 -.133 .415 -.420 -.039 .094 0.968

x1 -.731 .401 -.353 -.306 -.011 .163 0.940

x11 .680 -.435 .285 .358 -.024 -.226 0.913

x14 -.078 -.917 .026 .323 -.150 -.006 0.975

x2 .279 .794 .096 -.084 .437 .084 0.923

x6 -.021 -.735 .354 .058 .149 .294 0.778

x9 .440 -.654 -.114 .584 -.018 -.116 0.989

x19 .268 .653 .391 .190 .129 .258 0.770

x13 -.133 .100 .918 .084 .110 -.137 0.908

x7 -.473 -.024 -.821 .118 .069 -.078 0.923

x10 -.108 .300 -.767 -.052 -.481 -.202 0.965

x16 -.144 -.155 -.068 .865 .109 .072 0.815

x5 .070 .306 -.209 -.848 .053 .209 0.908

x17 .420 .367 -.434 .571 .282 -.274 0.980

x12 .516 .243 .482 .536 .017 .245 0.905

x21 .005 .072 .119 .076 .962 .015 0.951

x18 .358 .282 .080 .036 .827 -.220 0.948

x23 .249 .027 .035 -.103 -.108 .934 0.959

Eigan values 8.190 5.031 3.325 2.851 1.538 1.158

Variance (in %) 34.125 20.963 13.853 11.880 6.409 4.823

Cumulative Eigan

values (in %) 34.125 55.088 68.941 80.821 87.230 92.053





140

It can be showed from above table 4.26 the factor loading of Thiru Arooran sugars

shows that, 82.63 per cent of total variation in X4 (Net Profit Ratio) is accounted by


69.89 per cent, 63.2 per cent, 59.14 per cent, 53.44 per cent and 46.24 per cent variations in

X15 (Net profit to Net Worth), X20 (Debtors Turnover Ratio), X22 (Net profit to Total

Assets), X8 (Return on Equity), X3 (Net Worth to Sales), X1 (Current Ratio) and X11

(Total Liabilities to Total Assets) respectively are explained by Factor I and 63.2 per cent

of the variations in the profitability (Y) are explained by Factor I and its explanation is

low. But all the six derived factors taken together explain 87.5 per cent variations in the

profitability of Thiru Arooran sugars. This shows that no individual factor can be solely

responsible for the variations in the profitability of Thiru Arooran sugars; it is the

combination of different factors which are associated with the profitability. Similarly, X14

(Net worth to Working Capital) has relatively high factor loading with Factor II and all

the six factors together could explain nearly 97.5 per cent of the variation in X14

(Net worth to Working Capital). Next, X13 (Raw Materials to Sales) has relatively high factor

loading with Factor III and all the six factors together could explain nearly 90.8 per cent of the

variation in X13. Similarly, X16 (Debt Equity Ratio) has relatively high factor loading

with Factor IV and all the six factors together could explain nearly 81.5 per cent of the

variation in X16. Next, X21 (Interest Coverage Ratio) has relatively high factor loading

with Factor V and all the six factors together could explain nearly 95.1 per cent of the

variation in X21 (Interest Coverage Ratio). The variable X23 (Return on Capital

Employed) is the dominant variable in fourth factor as its factor loading is as high

i.e., 87.24 per cent variations in X23 (Return on Capital Employed) is associated with

Factor VI, while all the four factors together account 95.9 per cent of the variations in X23.


141

4.5. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

The following tables and interpretation carry out the Multiple Regression Analysis of

selected variables with return on total assets of Sugar Mills in Tamil Nadu.

TABLE 4.27

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED VARIABLES

WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF BANNARI AMMAN

SUGARS

S.No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value

Y Return on Total assets -4.124 .004

X1 Current Ratio -.044 -.507 .630

X2 Working Capital to Total Assets -.027 -.460 .662

X3 Net Worth to Sales -.010 -.095 .927

X4 Net Profit Ratio -.001 -.016 .988

X5 Return on Sales .862 16.514 .000**

X6 Net Worth to Shareholders Fund .040 .698 .511

X7 Quick Assets to Current Liabilities .058 1.019 .347

X8 Return on Equity .051 .598 .572

X9 Working Capital Turnover Ratio .014 .197 .850

X10 Proprietary Ratio -.075 -1.074 .324

X11 Total Liabilities to Total Assets .014 .195 .852

X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales -.062 -.935 .386

X13 Raw Material to Sales -.064 -1.068 .327

X14 Net Worth to Working Capital .011 .181 .862

X15 Net profit to Net Worth -.011 -.163 .876

X16 Debt Equity Ratio .071 1.024 .345

X17 Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio .040 .682 .521

X18 Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio .268 5.133 .001**

X19 Inventory Turnover Ratio -.086 -1.224 .267

X20 Debtors Turnover Ratio -.028 -.473 .653

X21 Interest Cover Ratio -.020 -.301 .774

X22 Net Profit to Total Assets -.014 -.196 .851

X23 Return on Capital Employed -.013 -.211 .840

R2=0.983; R = 0.992; F-value 208.18 p-Value = 0.000

**significant at 1% level. * Significant at 5% level Source : Annual Report of selected Sugar Industry


142

Table 4.27 shows that, the Multiple regression co-efficient values of Bannari

Amman Sugars. These presented values indicate that two variables are individually

contribute significantly to variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence of

other variables are kept constant. The t and Sig (p) values give a rough indication of the

impact of each predictor variable like Return on Sales (t- 16.514, p- 0.001, p< 0.01),

Fixed Assets Turnover (t – 5.133 p- 0.000, p<0.001). In connection with this, the R2 value

in terms of these variables is 98.3 percent. Overall ANOVA results, the p-value is less

than the 0.01 (p<0.01). Hence, this model is statistically significant.


143

TABLE 4.28


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF DHARANI SUGARS

S. No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value

Y Return on Total Assets -22.817 .000

X1 Current Ratio -.011 -.642 .556

X2 Working Capital to Total Assets .325 22.126 .000**

X3 Net Worth to Sales -.035 -1.964 .121


X5 Return on Sales .250 5.931 .002**

X6 Net Worth to Shareholders Fund -.021 -1.497 .209

X7 Quick Assets to Current Liabilities .001 .053 .960

X8 Return on Equity -.003 -.163 .878

X9 Working Capital Turnover Ratio .440 13.338 .000**

X10 Proprietary Ratio -.001 -.060 .955

X11 Total Liabilities to Total Assets -.005 -.246 .818



X14 Net Worth to Working Capital -.027 -1.553 .195

X15 Net Profit to Net Worth -.014 -.487 .652

X16 Debt Equity Ratio .000 -.016 .988

X17 Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio -.003 -.224 .833

X18 Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio .017 .285 .790

X19 Inventory Turnover Ratio -.006 -.289 .787

X20 Debtors Turnover Ratio .011 .860 .438



X23 Return on Capital Employed .605 19.762 .000**

R2=0.993; R = 0.996; F-value 1931.476 p-Value = 0.000

**significant at 1% level. * Significant at 5% level



144

From the above table 4.28 reveals that the multiple regressions co-efficient values

of Dharani sugars. These presented values indicate that four variables are individually

contribute significantly to variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence

of other variables are kept constant. The t and Sig (p) values give a rough indication of

the impact of each predictor variable like Working Capital to total assets (t-22.13,

p- 0.000, p< 0.01), Return on Sales (t – 5.931, p- 0.002, p<0.001), Working Capital

turnover ratio (t- 13.338, p- 0.000, p< 0.01) and Return on capital employed (t- 19.762,

p- 0.000, p< 0.01). In connection with this, the R2 value in terms of these variables is

99.3 percent. Overall ANOVA results, the p-value is less than the 0.01 (p<0.01).

Hence, this model is statistically significant.


145

TABLE 4.29


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF EID PARRY

SUGARS

S. No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression Co-

efficient

t’ value p-value

Y Return on Total Assets -1.082 .311

X1 Current Ratio -.008 -.048 .963

X2 Working Capital to Total Assets .036 .203 .845


X4 Net Profit Ratio .291 1.202 .268

X5 Return on Sales .278 1.628 .148


X7 Quick Assets to Current Liabilities -.012 -.068 .948


X9 Working Capital Turnover Ratio -.043 -.246 .813

X10 Proprietary Ratio .888 5.455 .001**


X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales .007 .034 .974

X13 Raw Material to Sales -.151 -.789 .456

X14 Net Worth to Working Capital -.036 -.202 .846

X15 Net Profit to Net Worth .187 .851 .423

X16 Debt Equity Ratio -.258 -1.749 .124



X19 Inventory Turnover Ratio .272 1.934 .094


X21 Interest Cover Ratio .264 1.788 .117

X22 Net Profit to Total Assets .399 1.771 .120

X23 Return on Capital Employed .186 1.143 .290

R2=0.788; R = 0.888; F-value 29.756 p-Value = 0.000



146

EID Parry Sugars reveals that the multiple regression co-efficient of the three

variables with the ratio of return on total assets are significant. Table 4.29 indicating that

the one factor, individually contribute significantly to variations in the, t and sig(p) value

give a rough indication of impact of each predictor variable like proprietary ratio

(t-5.455, p-0.001, P<0.01) ratio of return on total assets when the influence of other

variables are kept constant. The R2 value in terms of these variables is 78.8 per cent.

In connection with this, the R2 value in terms of these variables is 99.3 percent. Overall

ANOVA results, the p-value is less than the 0.01 (p<0.01). Hence, this model is

statistically significant.


147

TABLE 4.30


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF JEYPORE SUGARS

S. No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value

Y Return on Total Assets 2.984 .024

X1 Current Ratio .050 1.578 .175

X2 Working Capital to Total Assets .075 2.531 .050*

X3 Net Worth to Sales -.044 -1.291 .253



X6 Net Worth to Shareholders Fund -.101 -1.443 .208


X8 Return on Equity .124 2.917 .027*

X9 Working Capital Turnover Ratio .051 1.808 .130

X10 Proprietary Ratio .021 .191 .856

X11 Total Liabilities to Total Assets -.065 -2.019 .099

X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales -.058 -1.339 .238

X13 Raw Material to Sales .012 .277 .793

X14 Net Worth to Working Capital .050 1.709 .148

X15 Net Profit to Net Worth .139 1.589 .173

X16 Debt Equity Ratio -.036 -.760 .481

X17 Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio -.052 -1.708 .148

X18 Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio .042 1.246 .268

X19 Inventory Turnover Ratio .071 .995 .365

X20 Debtors Turnover Ratio -.134 -2.730 .034**

X21 Interest Cover Ratio .186 1.532 .186

X22 Net Profit to Total Assets 1.087 28.537 .000**


R2=0.994; R = 0.997; F-value 339.81 p-Value = 0.000

**significant at 1% level. * Significant at 5% level



148

It’s clear that, Table 4.30 shows that the multiple regression co-efficient values of

Jeypore Sugars. These presented values indicate that three variables are individually


other variables are kept constant. The R2 value in terms of these variables is

99.4 per cent. The p-value is significant for the following variables when the other

variables are kept constant namely, Working Capital to total assets (t- 2.531,

p- 0.05, p< 0.05), Debtors turnover (t-2.730, p-0.034, P<0.01), Return on equity

(t- 2.917, p- 0.027, p< 0.05) and Net Profit to total assets (t-28.537, p- 0.00, p< 0.01)

respectively. Overall ANOVA results, the p-value is less than the 0.01 (p<0.01).Hence,

this model is statistically significant.


149

TABLE 4.31


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF KOTHARI SUGARS

S. No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value


X1 Current Ratio .000 -.013 .990



X4 Net Profit Ratio .038 .865 .436

X5 Return on Sales .909 59.459 .000**



X8 Return on Equity .095 4.627 .006**

X9 Working Capital Turnover Ratio -.013 -1.790 .148



X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales -.105 -9.921 .000**

X13 Raw Material to Sales -.126 -7.083 .001**

X14 Net Worth to Working Capital -.014 -1.921 .127

X15 Net Profit to Net Worth -.001 -.034 .975



X18 Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio -.002 -.115 .914





X23 Return on Capital Employed -.001 -.104 .922

R2=0.9997; R = 0.9998; F-value 4374.91, p-Value = 0.000

**significant at 1% level.* Significant at 5% level



150

It can be observed from, Table 4.31 that the multiple regression co-efficient values of

Kothari Sugars. These presented values indicate that four variables are individually


other variables are kept constant. The R2 value in terms of these variables is 99.97 per cent.

The p-value is significant for the following variables when the other variables are kept

constant namely, Return on Sales (t- 59.459, p- 0.00, p< 0.01), Return on equity

(t- 4.627, p- 0.006, p< 0.01), Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales (t- -9.921, p- 0.000,

p< 0.01) and Raw Material to Sales (t- -7.083, p- 0.001, p< 0.01) respectively. Overall

ANOVA results, the p-value is less than the 0.01 (p<0.01). Hence, this model is

statistically significant.


151

TABLE 4.32


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF PONNI SUGARS

S.No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value


X1 Current Ratio .067 .896 .405


X3 Net Worth to Sales .040 .454 .666



X6 Net Worth to Shareholders Fund .127 2.011 .091


X8 Return on Equity .120 2.104 .080




X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales -.092 -1.603 .160



X15 Net Profit to Net Worth -.917 -3.507 .010**

X16 Debt Equity Ratio .117 1.971 .096

X17 Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio .092 1.606 .159

X18 Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio .077 1.188 .280

X19 Inventory Turnover Ratio .005 .074 .943



X22 Net Profit to Total Assets 1.859 7.112 .000**


R2=0.976; R = 0.988; F-value 140.884 p-Value = 0.000



152

Table 4.32 shows that the multiple regression co-efficient values of Ponni Sugars.

These presented values indicate that two variables are individually contribute significantly to

variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence of other variables are kept

constant. The R2 value in terms of these variables is 97.6 per cent. The p-value is

significant for the following variables when the other variables are kept constant namely,

Net Profit to Net worth (t- -3.507, p- 0.01, p< 0.01) and Net Profit to total assets

(t- 7.112, p- 0.00, p< 0.01), respectively. Overall ANOVA results, the p-value is less

than the 0.01 (p<0.01). Hence, this model is statistically significant.


153

TABLE 4.33


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF RAJSHREE SUGARS

S.No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value

Y Return on Total Assets - .323 .755

X1 Current Ratio .114 .926 .385




X5 Return on Sales .151 .830 .434

X6 Net Worth to Shareholders Fund -.078 -.619 .556


X8 Return on Equity -.099 -.800 .450


X10 Proprietary Ratio .245 2.330 .050*

X11 Total Liabilities to Total Assets -.171 -1.354 .218




X15 Net Profit to Net Worth -.207 -1.059 .325

X16 Debt Equity Ratio -.141 -1.146 .289

X17 Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio -.142 -1.174 .279



X20 Debtors Turnover Ratio .177 1.551 .165


X22 Net Profit to Total Assets -.443 -1.274 .243

X23 Return on Capital Employed .940 7.800 .000**

R2=0.884; R = 0.940; f-Value 60.845 p-Value = 0.000



154

Table 4.33 refers that the multiple regression co-efficient values of Rajshree Sugars.

These presented values indicate that two variables are individually contribute significantly to

variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence of other variables are kept

constant. The R2 value in terms of these variables is 88.4 per cent. The p-value is

significant for the following variables when the other variables are kept constant namely,

Proprietary ratio (t- 2.330, p- 0.05, p< 0.05) Return on capital employed (t- 7.800,

p- 0.000, p< 0.01) respectively. Overall ANOVA results, the p-value is less than the 0.01

(p<0.01). Hence, this model is statistically significant.


155

TABLE 4.34


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF SAKTHI SUGARS

S.No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value

Y Return on Total Assets - 18.686 .000

X1 Current Ratio -.036 -.333 .749


X3 Net Worth to Sales -.969 -11.063 .000**


X5 Return on Sales .162 .601 .567



X8 Return on Equity .400 1.739 .126


X10 Proprietary Ratio -.022 -.148 .887


X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales .015 .138 .894



X15 Net Profit to Net Worth .153 1.456 .189

X16 Debt Equity Ratio .024 .252 .808





X21 Interest Cover Ratio .027 .276 .791

X22 Net Profit to Total Assets .126 1.152 .287


R2=0.969; R = 0.939; f-Value 122.4 p-Value = 0.000



156

Table 4.34 reveals that the multiple regression co-efficient values of Sakthi

Sugars. These presented values indicate that two variables are individually contribute

significantly to variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence of other

variables are kept constant. The R2 value in terms of these variables is 96.9 per cent.

The p-value is significant for the following variables when the other variables are kept

constant namely, Net Worth to sales (t- 11.063, p- 0.000, p< 0.01). Overall ANOVA

results, the p-value is less than the 0.01 (p<0.01). Hence, this model is statistically

significant.


157

TABLE 4.35

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED VARIABLESWITH

THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF SHREE AMBIKA SUGARS

S.No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value


X1 Current Ratio -.002 -.012 .991


X3 Net Worth to Sales .204 1.297 .251

X4 Net Profit Ratio -.295 -1.608 .169

X5 Return on Sales -.758 -2.769 .032*







X12 Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales -1.183 -5.246 .002**

X13 Raw Material to Sales .265 1.380 .226

X14 Net Worth to Working Capital .202 1.397 .221

X15 Net Profit to Net Worth .791 4.829 .003**

X16 Debt Equity Ratio .066 .485 .648



X19 Inventory Turnover Ratio -.179 -1.241 .270

X20 Debtors Turnover Ratio .411 1.411 .217

X21 Interest Cover Ratio .044 .212 .840

X22 Net Profit to Total Assets .527 .262 .804

X23 Return on Capital Employed -.163 -1.283 .256

R2=0.923; R = 0.961; F-value 24.27 p-Value = 0.000



158

Table 4.35 shows that the multiple regressions co-efficient values of Shree

Ambika Sugars. These presented values indicate that two variables are individually

contribute significantly to variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence

of other variables are kept constant. The t and Sig ( p) values give a rough indication of

the impact of each predictor variable like Return on Sales (t- -2.769, p- 0.032, p< 0.05),

Miscellaneous Expenses to sales (t – -5.246 p- 0.002, p<0.01) and Net Profit to Networth

(t – 4.829, p- 0.003, p<0.01). In connection with this, the R2 value in terms of these

variables is 92.3 percent. Overall ANOVA results, the p-value is less than the 0.01

(p<0.01). Hence, this model is statistically significant.


159

TABLE 4.36


WITH THE RATIO OF RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS OF THIRU AROORAN

SUGARS

S.No. Ratios

Multiple

Regression

Co-efficient

t’ value p-value


X1 Current Ratio .212 1.206 .267

X2 Working Capital to Total Assets .215 1.179 .277




X6 Net Worth to Shareholders Fund -.072 -.435 .676




X10 Proprietary Ratio .290 2.093 .075





X15 Net Profit to Net Worth .897 5.743 .000**


X17 Long Term Debt-Equity Ratio .190 1.200 .269






X23 Return on Capital Employed -.193 -1.175 .279

R2=0.805; R = 0.897; F-value 32.985 p-Value = 0.000



160

Table 4.36 refers that the Multiple Regressions co-efficient values of Thiru Arooran

Sugars. These presented values indicate that four variables are individually contribute

significantly to variations in the ratio of return on total assets when influence of other

variables are kept constant. The t and Sig (p) values give a rough indication of the impact

of each predictor variable like Net Profit to Networth (t-5.743, p- 0.000, p< 0.01). In connection

with this, the R2 value in terms of these variables is 80.5 percent. Overall ANOVA results,

the p-value is less than the 0.01 (p<0.01). Hence, this model is statistically significant.


161

4.6. PATH ANALYSIS

The following tables and interpretation bring out the Path Analysis with direct and

indirect effects of independents variables on return on total assets of selected Sugar Mills

in Tamil Nadu.

TABLE 4.37

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF INDEPENDENTS VARIABLES ON

RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS

S.NO RATIO STANDARDIZED

COEFFICIENTS - BETA

1 X5- Return on Sales 0.862

2 X18- Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio 0.268


It can be observed from table 4.37 that, return on total assets of Bannari Amman

Sugars for the period of 2000-01 to 2009-10, the following independent factors have

significant correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X5- Return on

Sales (0.862) and X18- Fixed assets turnover Ratio (0.268) and other variables have

contributed directly towards the ratio of return on total assets whereas it is also indirectly

reasonable when the respective variable is combined with other indirect effects but it is

found to be statistically not significant. Finally, an insight into this reveals that the

variables X5 (Return on sales) and X18 (Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio) contributes towards

increase the financial position of the company.


162

TABLE 4.38


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – DHARANI SUGARS


COEFFICIENTS – BETA

1 X2- Working Capital to Total Assets 0.325


3 X9- Working Capital Turnover Ratio 0.440

4 X23- Return on Capital Employed 0.605


It can be examined from table 4.38 that, return on total assets of Dharani Sugars

for the period of 2000-01 to 2009-10, the following independent factors have significant

correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X2- Working Capital to

Total assets (0.325), X5- Return on Sales (0.250), X9- Working Capital turnover ratio

(0.440), X23- Return on Capital employed (0.605) and other variables have contributed

directly towards the ratio of return on total assets whereas it is also indirectly reasonable

when the respective variable is combined with other indirect effects but it is found to be

statistically not significant. Finally, an insight this reveals that the variables X2 (working

Capital to total assets), X5 (Return on Sales), X9 (Working Capital turnover ratio) and X23

(Return on Capital employed ), contributes towards increase the financial position of the

company.


163

TABLE 4.39


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – EID PARRY SUGARS



1 X10- Proprietary Ratio .888


It can be showed from table 4.39 that, return on total assets of EID Parry Sugars


correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X10- Proprietary ratio (.888)

and other variables have contributed directly towards the ratio of return on total assets

whereas it is also indirectly reasonable when the respective variable is combined with

other indirect effects but it is found to be statistically not significant. Finally, an insight

this reveals that the variables X10(Proprietary ratio) contributes towards increase the

financial position.


164

TABLE 4.40


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – JEYPORE SUGARS

S.NO. RATIO STANDARDIZED

COEFFICIENTS - BETA

1 X2- Working Capital to Total Asset 0.075

2 X8- Return on Equity 0.057

3 X20- Debtors Turnover -0.033

4 X22- Net Profit to Total Assets 1.087


Table 4.40 shows that the return on total assets of Jeypore Sugars for the period

of 2000-01 to 2009-10, the following independent factors have significant correlation

co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X2- Working Capital to Total Asset

(0.075), X8- Return on Equity (0.057), and X20- Debtors Turnover (-0.033), X22- (Net Profit

to Total Assets ) (1.087) and other variables have contributed directly towards the ratio of

return on total assets whereas it is also indirectly reasonable when the respective variable

is combined with other indirect effects but it is found to be statistically not significant.

Finally, an insight this reveals that the variables X2 (Working Capital to Total Asset)

X8 (Return on Equity) and X22(Net Profit to Total Assets ) contributes towards increase

the financial position and X20 (Debtors Turnover) reduces the financial position of the

company.


165

TABLE 4.41


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – KOTHARI SUGARS




2 X8- Return on Equity 0.095

3 X12- Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales -0.105

4 X13- Raw Material to Sales -0.126


It can be revealed from table 4.41 that return on total assets of Kothari Sugars


correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X5- Return on Sales(0.909),

X8- Return on Equity (0.095), X12- Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales (-0.105) and

X13- Raw Material to Sales (-0.126) and other variables have contributed directly towards

the ratio of return on total assets whereas it is also indirectly reasonable when the

respective variable is combined with other indirect effects but it is found to be

statistically not significant. Finally, an insight this reveals that the variables X5 (Return

on Sales) and X8 (Return on Equity), contributes towards increase the financial position

and X12 (Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales ) , X13 (Raw Material to sales) reduces the

financial position of the company.


166

TABLE 4.42


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – PONNI SUGARS


COEFFICIENTS - BETA

1 X15- Net Profit to Net Worth -0.917

2 X22- Net Profit to Total Assets 1.859


It can be viewed from table 4.42 that return on total assets of Ponni Sugars for

the period of 2000-01 to 2009-10, the following independent factors have significant

correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X15- Net Profit to Networth

(-0.917) and X22- Net Profit to Total assets (1.859) and other variables have contributed



statistically not significant. Finally, an insight this reveals that the variables X15 (Net Profit to

Net Worth )contributes towards decrease the financial position and X22 (Net Profit to Total

Assets) increase the financial position of the company.


167

TABLE 4.43


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – RAJSHREE SUGARS



1 X10- Proprietary Ratio 0.245

2 X23- Return On Capital Employed 0.940


It can be observed from table 4.43 that return on total assets of Rajshree Sugars


correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X10- Proprietary ratio

(0.245) , X23- Return On Capital Employed (0.940), and other variables have contributed



statistically not significant. Further, an insight this reveals that the variables X10

(Proprietary ratio) and X23 (Return On Capital Employed) contributes towards increase

financial position.


168

TABLE 4.44


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS - SAKTHI SUGARS



1 X3 - Net Worth to Sales -0.969


It can be showed from table 4.44 that return on total assets of Sakthi Sugars for

the period of 2000-01 to 2009-10, the following independent factors have significant

correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X3 - Net Worth to Sales

(-0.969) and other variables have contributed directly towards the ratio of return on total

assets whereas it is also indirectly reasonable when the respective variable is combined

with other indirect effects but it is found to be statistically not significant. Further, an

insight this reveals that the variables X3 (Net Worth to Sales) reduces the financial

position of the company.


169

TABLE 4.45


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – SHREE AMBIKA SUGARS




2 X12- Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales 0.268

3 X15 -Net Profit to Net Worth 0.791


It can be revealed from table 4.45 that return on total assets of Shree Ambika


significant correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X5- Return on

Sales (-0.758), X12- Miscellaneous Expenses to Sales (0.268) and X15- Net Profit to

Net Worth (0.791) and other variables have contributed directly towards the ratio of



Finally, an insight this reveals that the variables X5 Return on Sales , X12 Miscellaneous

Expenses to sales and X15 (Net profit to Net Worth) contributes towards increase the

financial position of the company.


170

TABLE 4.46


RETURN ON TOTAL ASSETS – THIRU AROORAN SUGARS



1 X15- Net Profit to Net Worth 0.897


It can be examined from table 4.46 that return on total assets of Thiru Arooran


significant correlation co-efficient with the ratio of return on total assets; X15- Net Profit to

Net Worth (0.897) and other variables have contributed directly towards the ratio of



Finally, an insight this reveals that the variables X15 Net profit to Networth contributes

towards increase the financial position of the company.


Documents

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/37228/6/chapter4.pdfthe Sakthi Sugars (1435.26), lowest trend value to the Ponni Sugars (45.71)