Upload
shubhagata-chakraborty
View
59
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Objective of the report is to analyze the performance of 34 companies (2 years) belonging to three different industries; Cement, Ceramic and Engineering. Data analysis was performed on three broad phases; (1) Ratio analysis (2) Industry wise ranking under major heads (based on every ratio and average) (3) Correlation among major heads. Considering one (1) being the best, companies have been ranked based on every ratio for two years separately. Afterward average ranking score was calculated and taken to evaluate their performance.
Citation preview
BUS 505TERM PAPER
“Financial Statements Analysis” Total 34 companies of Cement, Ceramic and Engineering Industries
SUBMITTED
TO BY
Syed Abdullah Al Mamun . Ph.D., ACMA
Assistant Professor
School of Business
Shubhagata Chakraborty (ID: 123-0193-060)
M.Saniul Haque (ID: 123-0195-060)
Jamil M. Ameen (ID: 123-0194-060)
Section: 01
North South University
2
Syed Abdullah Al Mamun, Ph.D., ACMA Assistant Professor
School Of Business
North South University (NSU)
Dear Sir,
We have the pleasure in submitting our report on “Financial Statements Analysis” –
total 34 companies of Cement, Ceramic and Engineering Industries”, which has
been assigned to us earlier as a group term paper.
The main purpose of the term paper is to begin to integrate the many concepts we have
studied and to give an opportunity to apply our learning in a real-world setting. We have
tried our level best to conclusive while preparing the report and our intention was never
directed to undermine any concerned.
We would like to express our special gratitude to you, as you have helped us with your
continuous support and guidance.
With Sincerest Thanks.
Shubhagata Chakraborty (ID: 123-0193-060)
Jamil M. Ameen (ID: 123-0194-060)
M.Saniul Haque (ID: 123-0195-060)
3
Financial statement analysis is a process of reviewing and evaluating a company's financial
performance, where ratio analysis is one of the tools to analyze financial statements. Here,
objective of the report is to analyze the performance of 34 companies (2 years) belonging to
three different industries; Cement, Ceramic and Engineering. Data analysis was performed on
three broad phases; (1) Ratio analysis (2) Industry wise ranking under major heads (based on
every ratio and average) (3) Correlation among major heads. Considering one (1) being the
best, companies have been ranked based on every ratio for two years separately. Afterward
average ranking score was calculated and taken to evaluate their performance.
Overall performance of Cement industry is quite stable. Among all 6 companies of the
industry, Heidelberg Cement BD performed consistently well in both the years. This is even
one of the best performing companies among all 34 companies. On the other hand, being a
very large company in Bangladesh Lafarge Surma Cement did really bad, it took last and
second last position in two consecutive years.
In case of ceramic industry, RAK Ceramics always had a consistent praise worthy
performance and so considering the overall ratios, the average ranking was 1.48 in 2010. No
other company of this industry or among all there industries were even close to this figure in
the stated year. Apart from RAK, performance of other companies in the industry is quite
identical; almost all of them scored around 3 in both the years.
Considering all the 23 companies of the engineering industry, Navana CNG was first with the
best performance ranking value of 6.43 and 6.07 in the years 2010 and 2011 respectively.
Moreover, Singer Bangladesh and Atlas Bangladesh also performed well in both the years
and scored close to Navana CNG. However, some companies like GPH Ispat Ltd , Kay &
Que, Renwick Jajneswar& Co , and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels LTD consistently performed
bad in both the years.
During correlation calculation among four ratio heads (Like correlation between Liquidity
ratio and Profitability ratio), both the years we identified positive correlation at 1%
significance level. Considering this, it can be said that all 34 companies had identical
performance in all the departments according to financial ratios calculation.
Executive Summary
4
Table of Contents
Page No.
1. Introduction 05
2. Literature Review 07
3. Methodology 09
4. Data Analysis 13
4.1 Industry Wise Ranking 13
4.1.1 Liquidity Ratio 14
4.1.2 Solvency Ratio 17
4.1.3 Profitability Ratio 20
4.1.4 Capital Market Performance Ratio 23
4.1.5 Overall Ranking Score 26
4.2 Correlation 29
4.2.1 Correlation_2010 30
4.2.1 Correlation_2011 34
5. Conclusion 38
6. Reference 39
7. Appendix 40
5
Financial Statements are useful because they provide information that allows investors
and creditors to make better decisions. However, because of selective reporting of
economic events as well as non-comparable accounting methods and estimates, financial
statements are only an approximation of reality. In addition, because of the tendency to
delay accounting recognition, financial statements also tend to lag reality.
A primary objective of financial analysis is to determine comparable risk and return of
companies and their securities. Financial statements include the
Income Statement
Owner’s Equity Statement
Balance Sheet
Cash Flow Statement
Notes
The financial statements are interrelated and should be used and analyzed together.
According to Drake (2010), financial statement analysis is the selection, evaluation, and
interpretation of financial data, along with other pertinent information, to assist in
investment and financial decision-making. Moreover, it is also the process of identifying
financial strengths and weaknesses of the firm by properly establishing relationship
between the items of the balance sheet and the profit and loss account.
One of the tools in financial statement analysis is financial ratio analysis. As financial
statements are usually lengthy, it will be more efficient and strategic to just pick up the
figures that matter and plug them in pre-defined formulas developed through time by
finance and accounting scholars. Methods of financial statement analysis may be divided
into two general categories, internal analysis and comparative or external analysis.
1. Introduction
6
Internal analysis uses figures from the financial statements of any one date or period to
gain an understanding of the customer. Comparative analysis may be used to determine
trends when two or more successive sets of figures are reviewed, or may be used to
evaluate a given company's financial statement against industry standards.
This report has been prepared to analyze the financial performance from 2010-2011 of all
the companies of the three industries, such as: Cement, Ceramics and Engineering. It is
required to do the ratio analysis of the companies. This analysis will help to find the trend
of performance of the assigned companies. This ratio analysis will reveal whether the
company is safe for investment or not. It will also reveal enable the existing and potential
investors to take their investment decision more efficiently.
Objective
The objective of this report is to analyze the performance of the 34 companies belonging
to three different industries. After doing the ratio analysis, trend analysis and comparison
will be done among other companies in both the years. We will be analyzing whether the
performance of the companies is improving or deteriorating and will be revealing the
necessary reasons for each scenario. We will also be analyzing the overall performance in
terms of the existing and potential investor’s viewpoint.
7
Financial ratios are widely used to develop insights into the financial performance of the
companies’ for both the external and internal users. The firm involves many interested
parties like, the owners, management, personnel, customers, suppliers, competitors,
regulatory agencies, and academics, each having their views in applying financial
statement analysis in their evaluations. Investors use financial ratios to forecast the future
success of companies as well as their current position in the market.
Financial ratios can also give mixed signals about a company’s financial health, and can
vary significantly among companies, industries, and over time. Other factors should also
be considered such as a company’s products, management, competitors, and vision for
the future. (Fieldsend, Longford and McLeay, 1987)
In trend analysis, ratios are compared over time, typically years. Year-to-year
comparisons can highlight trends and point up the need for action. Trend analysis works
best with three to five years of ratios. The second type of ratio analysis, cross-sectional
analysis, compares the ratios of two or more companies in similar lines of business. One
of the most popular forms of cross-section analysis compares companies’ ratios to
industry averages. These averages are developed by statistical services and trade
associations and are updated annually. (Ezzamel, Mar-Molinero and Beecher, 1987)
Time-series analysis is applied when a financial analysts evaluates performance over
time. Comparison of current to past performance, using ratio analysis, allows the firm to
determine whether it is progressing as planned. Using multiyear comparisons can see
developing trends, and knowledge of these trends should assist the firm in planning future
operations. As in cross-sectional analysis, any significant year-to-year changes can be
evaluated to access whether they are symptomatic of a major problem.
Cross-sectional analysis involves the comparison of different firms’ financial ratios at the
same point in time. The typical business is interested in how well it has performed in
relation to other firms in the industry. Frequently, a firm will compare its ratio values to
those of a key competitor or group of competitors that it wishes to follow. (Judy Ward,
1995)
2. Literature Review
8
Once the important ratios have been selected and calculated, it will still need some way
of judging whether they are high /low or good/bad. A good starting point is to compare
them with the equivalent figures for the same company in earlier years which is known as
benchmarking. In Cross-sectional analysis, firm’s ratio values are compared to those of a
key competitor or a group of competitors, primarily to isolate areas of opportunity for
improvement.
Financial statement analysis applies analytical tools and techniques to general-purpose
financial statements and relates data to derive estimates and inference useful in business
decisions. It is a screening tool in selecting investment or merger candidates, and is a
forecasting tool of future financial conditions and consequences. It is a diagnostic tool in
assessing financing, investing, and operating activities, and is an evaluation tool for
managerial and other business decisions. Financial statement analysis reduces our
reliance on hunches, guesses, and intuition, and in turn it diminishes our uncertainty in
decision-making. It does not lessen the need for expert judgment but rather establishes an
effective and systematic basis for making business decisions. (Bernstein and Wild, 1990)
In this regard, researches have been undertaken on the significance of financial statement
for investors to make decision and the importance of utilizing it in the stock market. Van
(2002) indicated that investors in a company’s common stock are concerned with present
and expected future earnings and the stability of these earnings about a trend with the
earnings of other companies.
In the stock market, the operating status is the pivotal factor for the stock value. It could
be reflected by the financial statement. Therefore, analyzing and researching the account
elements from the financial statement are very crucial. If the advanced analyses could be
done for these items, there will be more awareness of the financial and operating status of
those stock companies. Certainly it will be helpful for stockholders making decisions to
buy the target stocks. Besides, compared with the technical indices, these indices are
much more reliable, nonvolatile and valid (Han and Chen, 2007).
9
In order to prepare this report, we have fully depended on the secondary data. Annual
reports of the companies were collected from DSE library and company’s websites.
Among selected 35 sample companies, one company’s (Premier Cement Mills LTD)
financial reports was not available in the market (new company, no audited financial
reports published yet). Afterward we analyzed data on three broad phases; (1) Ratio
Analysis (2) Industry Wise Ranking under major heads (Based on every ratio and
average) (3) Correlation among major heads.
Sample Size: 34 Companies
Period: 2 years (2010, 2011)
Industry: 3 Industries
Cement Industry ( 6 Companies)
Ceramic Industry (5 Companies)
Engineering Industry (23 Companies)
Data Source: Financial Statements
Data Collection: DSE Library, Company website
Analysis: Three Broad Phases
Ratio Analysis (23 Ratios)
Industry Wise Average Ranking Under Major Heads and Overall (Based on
every ratio and average)
Correlation among major heads.
Software used in analysis:
M.S Excel
SPSS
3. Methodology
10
Performance indicators:
1. Ratio Analysis:
Performance indicators of ratio analysis depend on characteristics of each ratio. In some
ratios, higher value is considered as “Good Performance” wherein other ratios lower
value indicates good performance (Example: Debt Ratio). The formulas for calculating
the ratios are given below:
Liquidity Ratios
1. Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities
2. Quick (acid test) Ratio = (Cash + Short Term Investment + Accounts
Receivable)/ Current Liabilities
3. Cash Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities)/Current Liabilities
4. Operating Cash flow Ratio = Cash flow from operations/ Current Liabilities
5. Inventory Turnover Ratio = COGS/Inventory
6. Average selling period = 360 days/ITR
7. Receivable Turnover Ratio = Credit Sales/ Accounts Receivable
8. Average Collection Period = 360 days/ RTR
9. Accounts Payable Turnover = Purchase/ Accounts Payable
10. Average Payment Period = 360/APT
Solvency Ratios:
11. Debt Ratio = Total Liabilities/ Total Assets
12. Debt Equity Ratio = Debt/ Shareholder’s Equity
13. Interest Coverage Ratio (Earnings basis) = EBIT/Interest Expense
14. Interest Coverage Ratio (Cash basis) = (Cash Flow from operation + Interest
expense + Tax paid)/ Interest expense
15. Fixed-Payment Coverage Ratio = (EBIT + Lease Payment)/Interest + Lease
Payment
11
Profitability Ratios:
16. Gross Profit Margin = (Sales-COGS)/Sales
17. ROE = Net Income after tax/Total Equity Capital
18. ROA = Net Income after tax/ Total Assets
19. Asset Turnover = Sales/Total Assets
20. Earnings per share = Net Income After Tax/No. of Ordinary Shares
Capital Market Performance Ratios
21. P/E Ratio = Market price per share/EPS
22. TQ = (Debt + Market Capitalization)/Total Assets
23. Market to Book value = Total Market capitalization/(Total Assets – Intangible
Assets
Detail of the ratios is attached in appendix i
2. Ranking
During ranking calculation, we considered performance indicator factor of each ration.
Considering one (1) as the best performer, in some ratios company with highest value
was ranked No.1, where in case of other ratios if lower value indicates good performance
we ranked company with lowest value as No. 1.
Ranking Scale:
Lower the ranking score higher is the performance; one being the best.
1 2 3 4 5
Best Performer
12
Industry Wise Ranking Ranges:
Cement Industry: Ranked between 1- 6
Ceramic Industry: Ranked between 1-5
Engineering Industry: Ranked between 1-23
Steps:
1. Ranked the companies based on every ratio for two years separately
2. Calculated industry wise average raking score for all the companies for the two
year separately.
3. Finally performance of the companies were analyzed based on their average
ranking score under following four heads;
Liquidity Ratio
Solvency Ratio
Profitability Ratio
Capital Market Performance Ratio
3. Correlation:
Finally in order to show relation between major ratio heads, we calculated correlation
between the score of following heads
Liquidity ratio and profitability ratio,
Liquidity ratio and market performance ratio,
Solvency ratio and profitability ratio,
Solvency ratio and market performance ratio.
Finally, on basis of the analysis we come out some conclusion.
13
Data Analysis & Findindgs
Industry wise average ranking score analysis
"Correlation" between major heads
In order to present vast data in a systematic manner this section has been divided into two
main parts; 1) Industry wise average ranking score analysis (2) Correlation between
major heads.
4.1 Industry Wise Average Ranking:
This section is going to present industry wise average ranking score of each company.
Selected 34 companies are mainly categorized under 3 industries; Cement (6), Ceramic
(5), Engineering (23).Companies of each industry has been ranked based on their
performance against every ratio. For example; 6 Cement companies have been ranked
between 1- 6 against each ratio; similarly other two industries. Here, we are going to
evaluate performance of each company based on their average ranking score under
following four heads;
Liquidity Ratio
Solvency Ratio
Profitability Ratio
Capital Market Performance Ratio
4. Data Analysis and Findings
14
4.1.1 Liquidity ratio
Cement Industry
Considering the liquidity position of Cement Industry, Heidelberg cement is in the best
position among six companies in both the years. Average ranking score of the company
was 2 in 2010 and 2.6 in 2011. On the other hand, Aramit Cement and Meghna Cement
respectively took last positions in 2010 and 2011.
Performance of Confidence Cement seemed bit stable, both the year it scored 3.4. At the
same time, Aramit Cement and M.I Cement Factory LTD. performed well in 2011
compared to 2010. Aramit Cement especially performed well in Inventory Turnover
ratio and Payable turnover ratio.
From the above graph we can interpret that except Aramit Cement and M.I. Cement, all
the companies liquidity ratio performance improved in 2011 in comparison to 2010. Out
of all, Heidelberg Cement maintained a sound financial position from the others. So it
means this company has the greater ability to use its near cash or quick assets to
extinguish or retire its current liabilities immediately.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Aramit Cement ConfidenceCement
HeidelbergCement BD
Lafarge SurmaCement
MeghnaCement
M.I CementFactory Ltd.
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
15
Ceramic Industry
From the above graph, we can see that the performance of RAK Ceramics with liquidity
ratio average ranking score of 1.6 and is the best among all the other ceramic companies
in 2010. Shinepukur Ceramics and Fu-Wang Ceramic together achieved the least score of
3.9 in the same year.
In 2011, Fu-Wang Ceramic had the best liquidity ratio average ranking of 2.00 and
Standard Ceramics had the least score.
Looking at the overall graph, majority of the companies had a negative rise from 2010 to
2011. Monno Ceramic and RAK Ceramic were the only two companies with high
positive rise.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics ShinepukurCeramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
16
Engineering
From the above graph, in 2010, Navana CNG Ltd. held the best position with Liquidity
ratio score of 6.90. However, Atlas Bangladesh and Olympic Industries had scores of 7.6
and 7.5 respectively.
In 2011, Navana CNG Ltd. was still in the top position with the best and improved
liquidity ratio of 6.10. Majority of the companies had the ratio above the score 10 and
GHP Ispat Ltd. had the maximum score of 17.30.
By analyzing the overall graph, we can see that GPH Ispat Ltd. had the highest value of
17.30 in 2011 among all the 23 companies in this industry. Interestingly, a mixture of
increase and decrease in the values were seen among the companies between the two
years. But in between all the business hurdles, Navana CNG did manage to maintain their
liquidity ratio performance very satisfactory indeed.
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
17
4.1.2 Solvency Ratio
Cement Industry
In 2010, Heidelberg Cement BD had the least solvency ratio ranking of 1.60, which
proves that this company is in the best position to fulfill its long term obligations.
Interestingly, Aramit and Meghna Cement both had the same score of solvency ratio of
4.8.
In 2011, Heidelberg Cement BD continued with the best and improved score of 1.4. This
clearly portrays the size of the company’s net income after tax is very handsome.
However, Meghna Cement could not improve compared to its last year and had the score
of 5.40.
Considering overall performance of all 6 companies of two years together, it’s quite clear
that performance in terms of solvency Heidelberg, Confidence, and M.I Cement has
identical behavior. Similarly, other three companies also have identical behavior but in
them of performance they are not near to 1st group.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Aramit Cement ConfidenceCement
HeidelbergCement BD
Lafarge SurmaCement
MeghnaCement
M.I CementFactory Ltd.
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
18
Ceramic Industry
Monno Ceramic had the worst solvency ratio of 4.8 in 2010, which shows the company
was not stable enough to meet the long term obligations of its debtors. In this case, RAK
Ceramics again had the best score of 1.00. So we can conclude that the financial
condition of RAK ceramics was the best amongst all the other companies in the industry.
In 2011, RAK again had the best score of 1.60 and Monno ceramic (although improved
a little) but still was in the last position with a score of 4.60.
Considering two years together, Rak Ceramic has strongest position among five
companies. On the other hand, Monno Ceramic is holding the last position in two
consecutive years. Fu-wang Ceramic improved most among 5 companies in 2011; it
came down to 2.2 from previous 3.
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics ShinepukurCeramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
19
Engineering
In 2010, Singer Bangladesh had the best performance score of 4.40 out of 23 engineering
companies. It is to be mentioned that GHP Ispat Ltd. and Kay & Que both had the worst
performance score of 21 at a time.
In 2011, Golden Son LTD. showed the best performance with a score of 4.20. Atlas
Bangladesh is in second position among all the other companies with performance score
of 4.60.
A few companies consistently performed well in both the years; like Aftab Auto, Atlas
Bangladesh, Singer Bangladesh. On the other hand, Anwar Galvanizing improved
significantly in 2011; came down to 5.2 from 14.4.
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
20
4.1.3 Profitability Ratio
Cement Industry
Heidelberg Cement BD had the best profitability ratio performance with an average
ranking of 2.4 out of the 6 total cement companies in 2010. M.I. Cement Ltd. was also
very close with ranking of 2.80. That means these two companies had the ability to
generate earnings as compared to its expenses and other relevant costs incurred during
2010.
In 2011, Heidelberg Cement BD again had the best performance with an average ranking
of 2.20. Interestingly Aramit cement came in second with ranking of 3.00 instead of M.I.
Cement Ltd.
In terms of profitability performance, industry is quite stable, no major position change
within the industry. Three out of 6 companies hold exactly same position in both the
years.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Aramit Cement ConfidenceCement
HeidelbergCement BD
Lafarge SurmaCement
MeghnaCement
M.I CementFactory Ltd.
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
21
Ceramic Industry
Out of the 5 companies, RAK ceramics had the best profitability ratio performance with
an average ranking of 2.00 in 2010. Others companies like Fu-Wang Ceramic,
Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. and Standard Ceramic were also very neck to neck with the
ranking of 3.00, 3.20 and 3.20 respectively.
In 2011, the scenario was almost the same with RAK Ceramic still on the top with the
2.00 ranking point. The financial performance of Monno Ceramic was also good with the
ranking of 2.40. Unfortunately Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. fell at the bottom compared to
the last year.
Despite several big position changes in terms of profitability performance, Rak Ceramics
hold its position strongly in both the years. Monno Ceramic also improved lot in 2011
came down to 2.40 from 3.60.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics ShinepukurCeramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
22
Engineering
Olympic Industries and Singer Bangladesh combinely ranked first with equal score of
3.60 in 2010. Among the 23 engineering companies, Anwar Galvanizing and Aziz Pipes
became last in position with ranking score of 19.80.
In 2011, Olympic Industries solely had the best ranking score of 3.00. Because of this
consistency, it proves that this company had the ability to generate earnings as compared
to its expenses and other relevant costs incurred during in both 2010 and 2011. However,
National Tube which had the ranking score of 9.20 in 2010 had the worst ranking score
of 21.40 in 2011.
Considering two years together, Olympic Industries just out of competition, no other
companies is near to their position. Moreover, Navana CNG and Singer Bangladesh were
also so stable in both the years.
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
23
4.1.4 Capital Market Performance Ratio
Cement Industry
In 2010, Heidelberg Cement and Meghna Cement combinely had the ranking score of
2.00 and M.I. Cement factory had the far end ranking score of 5.67
In 2011, Heidelberg Cement again ranked first with 2.00 and Aramit cement climbed to
the second position with ranking value of 2.67. It is noticed that all the companies
ranking value were close to each other and much variation was not seen in 2011.
In term of capital market performance, fluctuation was usually high. Confidence Cement
and Meghna Cement lost their strong position in 2011 whereas M.I Cement and Lafarge
improved significantly in 2011.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Aramit Cement ConfidenceCement
HeidelbergCement BD
Lafarge SurmaCement
MeghnaCement
M.I CementFactory Ltd.
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
24
Ceramic Industry
In 2010, RAK Ceramics again topped the chart crossing all the other companies of the
industry with ranking value of 1.00. So the capital market performance ratio is very good
in this company. Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. also had a good ranking value of 2.00.
In 2011, although RAK Ceramics held the first position among the 5 companies but its
average ranking value rose up to 1.67. Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. maintained a good
ranking value of 2.00. Monno Ceramic capital market performance in this case is
unsatisfactory with average ranking value of 4.67.
Considering performance of both the year, we can industry is quite stable in term of
capital market performance, no major position change in two years. Almost all of the
companies hold their own position; especially Shinepukur Ceramics scored same (2) in
both the years.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics ShinepukurCeramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
25
Engineering
In 2010, Rongpur Foundry had the best value of 3.33 and Deshbandhu Polymar Ltd. had
the worst value of 23.00. A lot of variations were observed among the 23 companies in
2010.
In 2011, Monno Jute Stafflers, surprised the market with the best average value of 1.67.
This company was far behind with average value of 12.33 in 2010. So a huge
improvement was seen. On the other hand, National polymer and National tube
combinely scored the least with value of 20.67.
In terms of Capital market performance, company wise score fluctuated at significant
level. Some companies lost their strong position 2011, whereas some companies
drastically improved; like Monno Jute Stafflers came down to 1.67 from 12.33.
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
26
4.1.5 Overall Ranking Score
Cement Industry
After analyzing all the ratios (liquidity ratio, solvency ratio, Profitability ratio and capital
market performance ratio), the overall ranking score of Heidelberg Cement BD has the
best value of 2.00 among all the 6 cement companies in 2010.This is even one of the best
performing companies among all 34 companies. Lafarge Surma Cement, although a very
big company in Bangladesh, had the worst value of 4.45. However, in 2011, Meghna
Cement had the worst value of 4.39 and Heidelberg Cement BD again topped all the
companies in 2011 with a value of 2.16.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
Aramit Cement ConfidenceCement
HeidelbergCement BD
Lafarge SurmaCement
MeghnaCement
M.I CementFactory Ltd.
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
27
Ceramic Industry
In case of ceramic industry, RAK Ceramics always had a consistent praise worthy
performance and so considering the overall ratios, the average ranking was 1.48 in 2010.
No other company of this industry was not even close to this figure in the stated year. In
2011, Fu-Wang Ceramic dethroned RAK Ceramics and took the lead with a value of
2.31. It should be mentioned that, Shinepukur Ceramics LTD and Monno Ceramics both
had almost similar increase of value in both the years. Apart from RAK, performance of
other companies in the industry is quite identical; almost all of them scored around 3 in
both the years.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics ShinepukurCeramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
28
Engineering
Considering all the 23 companies of the engineering industry, Navana CNG was first
with the best performance ranking value of 6.43 and 6.07 in the years 2010 and 2011
respectively. Moreover, Singer Bangladesh and Atlas Bangladesh also performed well in
both the years and scored close to Navana CNG. Other companies had a rise and fall in its
value like Anwar Galvanizing had 15.65 in 2010 and 10.80 in 2011. Another key
information is- Deshbandhu Polymer LTD., Golden Son LTD., Kay & Que, Monno Jute
Stafflers and National Polymer; these 5 companies out of 23 companies in the industry
had achieved improved value in 2011 compared to 2010. However, some companies like
GPH Ispat Ltd, Kay &Que, Renwick Jajneswar & Co, and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels LTD
consistently performed bad in both the years.
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00Y-2010
Y-2011
Worst
Best
29
4.2Correlation
In order to show relation between major ratio heads, we calculated correlation between
the score of following heads for two years separately.
Liquidity ratio and profitability ratio,
Liquidity ratio and market performance ratio,
Solvency ratio and profitability ratio,
Solvency ratio and market performance ratio.
We calculated correlation between major ratio heads in both industries wise and overall.
Correlation
2010
Cement Industy Ceramic Industry
Engineering Industry
Overall
2011
Cement Industry Ceramic Industry
Engineering Industry
Overall
30
4.2.1 Correlation_ 2010
Cement Industry:
Liquidity Ratio Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance
Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Pearson Correlation 1 .772 .297 .105
Sig. (2-tailed) .072 .568 .843
N 6 6 6 6
Solvency Ratio
Pearson Correlation .772 1 .474 .300
Sig. (2-tailed) .072 .342 .563
N 6 6 6 6
Profitability Ratio
Pearson Correlation .297 .474 1 .225
Sig. (2-tailed) .568 .342 .668
N 6 6 6 6
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .105 .300 .225 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .843 .563 .668
N 6 6 6 6
The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.297
The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio =0.105
The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.474
The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.300
From the above table, we can see that all the ratios (Liquidity ratio, Solvency ratio,
Profitability ratio and Capital Market Performance ratio) positively correlated with each
other’s. Among them, we can also see that there is a moderate correlation between
Liquidity ratio & Solvency ratio. Moreover, there is insignificant correlation among the
variables.
31
Ceramic Industry:
Liquidity
Ratio
Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Pearson Correlation 1 .291 .498 .369
Sig. (2-tailed) .635 .393 .541
N 5 5 5 5
Solvency Ratio
Pearson Correlation .291 1 .964** .672
Sig. (2-tailed) .635 .008 .214
N 5 5 5 5
Profitability Ratio
Pearson Correlation .498 .964** 1 .701
Sig. (2-tailed) .393 .008 .187
N 5 5 5 5
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .369 .672 .701 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .541 .214 .187
N 5 5 5 5
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.498
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.369
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.964**
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.672
From the above table, we can see that all the ratios calculated for Ceramics industry
positively correlated with each other and among them Liquidity ratio & Solvency ratio
have the lower correlation between them. Here, we find that there is a strong correlation
between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio which is also highly significant at 1%
significance level. Moreover, companies performed better in both Solvency ratio and
Profitability ratio sides simultaneously. At the same time, we can also see that Solvency
ratio and Profitability ratio are moderately correlated with Capital Market Performance
ratio but they are not statistically significant.
32
Engineering Industry:
Liquidity
Ratio
Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Pearson Correlation 1 .467* .715
** .170
Sig. (2-tailed) .025 .000 .437
N 23 23 23 23
Solvency Ratio
Pearson Correlation .467* 1 .261 .326
Sig. (2-tailed) .025 .230 .129
N 23 23 23 23
Profitability Ratio
Pearson Correlation .715** .261 1 .129
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .230 .558
N 23 23 23 23
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .170 .326 .129 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .437 .129 .558
N 23 23 23 23
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.715**
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.170
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.261
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.326
Here, we can see that all the ratios are positively correlated with each other and among
those Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio are less positively correlated with Capital
Market Performance ratio. Moreover, Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio both are
strongly positive correlated with Liquidity ratio which is also highly significant both at
1% and 5% significance level. Engineering sector companies robustly performed side by
side in these three segments.
33
Overall Correlation of 3 Industries:
Liquidity
Ratio
Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Pearson Correlation 1 .774** .880
** .619
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 34 34 34 34
Solvency Ratio
Pearson Correlation .774** 1 .650
** .621
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 34 34 34 34
Profitability Ratio
Pearson Correlation .880** .650
** 1 .540
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 34 34 34 34
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .619** .621
** .540
** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 34 34 34 34
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio= 0.880**
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.619**
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.650**
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.621**
During correlation calculation among the ratios, we identified positive correlation among
companies and all are highly significant at 1% significance level. So, we can say that in
2010, all 34 companies had similar performance in all the departments according to
financial ratios calculation.
We figure out two points from the above tables. Firstly, 34 companies identically
performed within their respective industry’s performance which is somewhat significant
and somewhat not. However, when we compute overall correlation among these
companies, they were not only identically performed but also their positive correlations
were also highly statistically significant. Secondly, Cement industry is the only industry
among the three, whose identical performance is statistically insignificant.
34
4.2.2 Correlation_ 2011
Cement Industry:
Liquidity
Ratio
Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation 1 .892* .244 .397
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .641 .436
N 6 6 6 6
Solvency Ratio Pearson Correlation .892* 1 .362 .263
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .481 .615
N 6 6 6 6
Profitability Ratio Pearson Correlation .244 .362 1 .481
Sig. (2-tailed) .641 .481 .334
N 6 6 6 6
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .397 .263 .481 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .436 .615 .334
N 6 6 6 6
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.244
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.397
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.362
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.263
From the above table, we can see that all the ratios (Liquidity ratio, Solvency ratio,
Profitability ratio and Capital Market Performance ratio) positively correlated with each
other’s. Here, we find that there is a strong correlation between Liquidity ratio and
Solvency ratio which is also strongly significant at 5% significance level. Moreover,
Ceramic companies hold strong position in both Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio
simultaneously. Among them, there are moderate correlation between Liquidity ratio &
Profitability ratio and between Solvency ratio & Capital Market Performance ratio.
35
Ceramic Industry:
Liquidity
Ratio
Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Pearson Correlation 1 .317 .197 -.278
Sig. (2-tailed) .603 .751 .651
N 5 5 5 5
Solvency Ratio
Pearson Correlation .317 1 .333 .609
Sig. (2-tailed) .603 .584 .276
N 5 5 5 5
Profitability Ratio
Pearson Correlation .197 .333 1 -.045
Sig. (2-tailed) .751 .584 .943
N 5 5 5 5
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation -.278 .609 -.045 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .651 .276 .943
N 5 5 5 5
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.197
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = -0.278
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.333
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.609
From the above table, we can see that all the variables positively correlated with each
other’s, except Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio. Both of these ratios are negative
correlated with Capital Market Performance ratio. Here, we can say that they inversely
performed within the industry. Moreover, we can see that there is a moderate correlation
among the other ratios. Therefore, Ceramics companies performed somewhat in a
different way in 2011 which is unconventional.
36
Engineering Industry:
Liquidity
Ratio
Solvency
Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation 1 .583** .380 .366
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .086
N 23 23 23 23
Solvency Ratio Pearson Correlation .583** 1 .264 .219
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .224 .314
N 23 23 23 23
Profitability Ratio Pearson Correlation .380 .264 1 .153
Sig. (2-tailed) .073 .224 .485
N 23 23 23 23
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .366 .219 .153 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .086 .314 .485
N 23 23 23 23
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.380
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.366
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.264
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.219
Here, we can see that all the ratios are positively correlated with each other and among
those Profitability ratio and Capital Market Performance ratio has relatively weak
positive correlated. Moreover, we can also see that Liquidity ratio and Solvency ratio
both are strongly positive correlated and is also highly significant at 1% significance
level. Companies of engineering sector robustly performed side by side in these two
segments.
37
Overall 3 Industries:
Liquidity
Ratio Solvency Ratio
Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Pearson Correlation 1 .813** .760
** .688
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 34 34 34 34
Solvency Ratio
Pearson Correlation .813** 1 .639
** .566
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 34 34 34 34
Profitability Ratio
Pearson Correlation .760** .639
** 1 .545
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 34 34 34 34
Capital Market
Performance Ratio
Pearson Correlation .688** .566
** .545
** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001
N 34 34 34 34
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.760**
2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.688**
3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.639**
4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.566**
During correlation calculation among the ratios, we identified positive correlation among
all the companies and all are highly significant at 1% significance level. So, we can say
that in 2011, all 34 companies had similar performance in all the departments according
to financial ratios calculation.
We also figure out two points from the above tables. Firstly, 34 companies identically
performed within their respective industry’s performance which is somewhat significant
and somewhat not. However, when we compute overall correlation among these
companies, they were not only identically performed but also their positive correlations
were also highly statistically significant. Secondly, Ceramic industry is the only industry
among the three whose identical performance is not only statistically insignificant; but
also their Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio were negative correlated with Capital
Market Performance ratio. So, their performance was not normal compared to others.
38
From the above analysis we can say that Cement industry is more stable than the other
two. Within the Cement industry, Heidelberg Cement BD performed consistently well in
both the years. This is even one of the best performing companies among all 34
companies.
Now, if we look industry wise analysis, we can get a clear picture about the listed
companies. In the Cement industry, we found that apart from Heidelberg Cement, M.I.
Cement maintained an average position in both the years which is significant from the
others. In case of Ceramic industry, we also found that R.A.K Ceramics had admirable
performance in the observation years. Moreover, within the observed years, Fu-Wang
ceramic improved their financial performance among the others.
Engineering industry consists of 23 companies and is the vast one among the three
industries. If we look to that industry, we can see that Navana CNG was first with the
best performance ranking value of 6.43 and 6.07 in the respective years. In addition to,
there are other companies performed well but not as significant as Navana CNG and they
are- Singer Bangladesh, Atlas Bangladesh, Deshbandhu Polymer LTD., Golden Son
LTD., Kay & Que, Monno Jute Stafflers and National Polymer.
Beside, ratios calculation we tried to figure out what’s the correlation among the ratios
that help to perform these companies better. During correlation calculation among four
ratio heads (Like correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio), we identified
some of the positive correlation highly significant at both 1% and 5% significance level.
Considering this, it can be said that all 34 companies had identical performance in all the
departments according to financial ratios calculation.
5. Conclusion
39
REFERENCE
Bernstein and Wild, (1990) “Financial Statement Analysis”. Pg.3-4.
Chang, L.S., Most, K.S.,(1997) “An international comparison of investor uses of financial
statements in International Journal of Accounting”, 17(1), pg. 43-60.
Ezzamel, Mar-Molinero, and Beecher, (1987)“The distributional properties of financial
ratios.”Journal of Business Finance and Accounting.Pg 14/4, 463-481.
Fieldsend, Longford and McLeay, (1987) “Sector and size effects in ratio analysis: indirect
tests of ratio proportionality.”Accounting and Business Research. Pg. 17/66, 133-140.
Judy Ward, November, (1995) “Measuring performance-Too Big”. The Wall Street Journal.
Norman, A. S.,(2011) “ Financial analysis as a consideration for stock exchange investment
decisions in Tanzania in Journal of Accounting and Taxation”, 3(4), pg. 60-69.
Van, H., (2002) “Financial Management Policy”. (12th ed.). Pearson Ed. Inc.: New Delhi,
India.
40
(Cash + Short Term Investment + Accounts
Receivable)/ Current Liabilities
Appendix-1: Financial Ratios and its interpretation
Liquidity Ratios
1. Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities
The ratio is mainly used to give an idea of the company's ability to pay back its
short-term liabilities (debt and payables) with its short-term assets (cash,
inventory, receivables). The higher the current ratio, the more capable the
company is of paying its obligations.
2. Quick (acid test) Ratio =
The Acid-test or quick ratio or liquid ratio measures the ability of a company to
use its near cash or quick assets to extinguish or retire its current liabilities
immediately. The quick ratio is more conservative than the current ratio, because
it excludes inventory from current assets. Inventory is excluded because some
companies have difficulty turning their inventory into cash.
3. Cash Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities)/Current Liabilities
Cash ratio is the ratio of cash and cash equivalents of a company to its current-
liabilities. It is an extreme liquidity ratio since only cash and cash equivalents are
compared with the current liabilities. It measures the ability of a business to repay
its current liabilities by only using its cash and cash equivalents and nothing else.
4. Operating Cash flow Ratio = Cash flow from operations/ Current Liabilities
A measure of how well current liabilities are covered by the cash flow generated
from a company's operations. The operating cash flow ratio can gauge a
company's liquidity in the short term. Using cash flow as opposed to income is
sometimes a better indication of liquidity simply because, as we know, cash is
how bills are normally paid off.
Appendices
41
5. Inventory Turnover Ratio = COGS/Inventory
A ratio showing how many times a company's inventory is sold and replaced over
a period. The days in the period can then be divided by the inventory turnover
formula to calculate the days it takes to sell the inventory on hand or "inventory
turnover days."
6. Average selling period = 360 days/ITR
The approximate amount of time that it takes for a business to receive payments
owed (in terms of receivables), from its customers and clients.
7. Receivable Turnover Ratio = Credit Sales/ Accounts Receivable
Receivable Turnover Ratio is one of the accounting activity ratios, a financial
ratio. This ratio measures the number of times, on average; receivables (e.g.
Accounts Receivable) are collected during the period. A popular variant of the
receivables turnover ratio is to convert it into an Average Collection Period in
terms of days. Remember that the Receivable turnover ratio is figured as
"turnover times" and the Average collection period is in "days".
8. Average Collection Period = 360 days/ RTR
Average Collection Period represents the average number of days it takes the
company to convert receivables into cash. Average collection period measures the
average number of days that accounts receivable are outstanding. This activity
ratio should be the same or lower than the company's credit terms. As a rule,
outstanding receivables should not exceed credit terms by more than 10-15 days.
9. Accounts Payable Turnover = Purchase/ Accounts Payable
Accounts payable turnover ratio is an accounting liquidity metric that evaluates
how fast a company pays off its creditors (suppliers). The ratio shows how many
times in a given period (typically 1 year) a company pays its average accounts
payable. An accounts payable turnover ratio measures the number of times a
company pays its suppliers during a specific accounting period.
42
10. Average Payment Period = 360/APT
Average payment period (APP) is one of the activity ratios which measure the
relationship between accounts payable and average purchases per day. Activity
ratios help businesses to measure how efficiently various accounts are converted
into sales or cash. Other activity ratios include average collection period, total
asset turnover and inventory turnover analysis.
Solvency Ratios:
11. Debt Ratio = Total Liabilities/ Total Assets
Debt Ratio is a financial ratio that indicates the percentage of a company's assets
that are provided via debt. This ratio also indicates what proportion of debt a
company has relative to its assets. The measure gives an idea to the leverage of
the company along with the potential risks the company faces in terms of its debt-
load.
12. Debt Equity Ratio = Debt/ Shareholder’s Equity
A measure of a company's financial leverage that calculated by dividing its total
liabilities by stockholders' equity. It indicates what proportion of equity and debt
the company is using to finance its assets.
13. Interest Coverage Ratio (Earnings basis) = EBIT/Interest Expense
The interest coverage ratio (ICR) is a measure of a company's ability to meet
its interest payments. Interest coverage ratio is equal to earnings before
interest and taxes (EBIT) for a time period, often one year, divided by interest
expenses for the same time period. The interest coverage ratio is a measure of
the number of times a company could make the interest payments on its debt
with its EBIT. It determines how easily a company can pay interest expenses
on outstanding debt.
43
(Cash Flow from operation + Interest
expense + Tax paid)/ Interest expense
(EBIT + Lease Payment)/Interest + Lease
Payment
14. Interest Coverage Ratio (Cash basis) =
This ratio indicates the company’s ability to use its cash flow to satisfy its
fixed financing obligations. Finally, there is the fixed-charge coverage ratio,
which compares EBIT with fixed charges:
15. Fixed-Payment Coverage Ratio =
Fixed charge coverage ratio is the ratio that indicates a firm’s ability to satisfy
fixed financing expenses such as interest and leases. This means that the fixed
charges that a firm is obligated to meet are met by the firm. This ratio is
calculated by summing up Earnings before interest and Taxes or EBIT and
Fixed charge which is divided by fixed charge before tax and interest.
Profitability Ratios:
16. Gross Profit Margin = (Sales-COGS)/Sales
A financial metric used to assess a firm's financial health by revealing the
proportion of money left over from revenues after accounting for the cost of
goods sold. Gross profit margin serves as the source for paying additional
expenses and future savings.
17. ROE = Net Income after tax/Total Equity Capital
Return on equity or return on capital is the ratio of net income of a business
during a year to its stockholders' equity during that year. It is a measure of
profitability of stockholders' investments. It shows net income as percentage of
shareholder equity.
18. ROA = Net Income after tax/ Total Assets
This ratio indicates how profitable a company is relative to its total assets. The
return on assets (ROA) ratio illustrates how well management is employing the
44
company's total assets to make a profit. The higher the return, the more efficient
management is in utilizing its asset base. The ROA ratio is calculated by
comparing net income to average total assets, and is expressed as a percentage.
19. Asset Turnover = Sales/Total Assets
The amount of sales generated for every dollar's worth of assets. Asset turnover
measures a firm's efficiency at using its assets in generating sales or revenue - the
higher the number the better. It also indicates pricing strategy: companies with
low profit margins tend to have high asset turnover, while those with high profit
margins have low asset turnover.
20. Earnings per share = Net Income After Tax/No. of Ordinary Shares
Earnings per share (EPS) are the portion of the company’s distributable profit
which is allocated to each outstanding equity share (common share). Earnings
per share are a very good indicator of the profitability of any organization,
and it is one of the most widely used measures of profitability.
The earnings per share is a useful measure of profitability, and when
compared with EPS of other similar companies, it gives a view of the
comparative earning power of the companies. EPS when calculated over a
number of years indicates whether the earning power of the company has
improved or deteriorated. Investors usually look for companies with steadily
increasing earnings per share.
Capital Market Performance Ratios
21. P/E Ratio = Market price per share/EPS
A valuation ratio of a company's current share price compared to its per-share
earnings. In general, a high P/E suggests that investors are expecting higher
earnings growth in the future compared to companies with a lower P/E. However,
the P/E ratio doesn't tell us the whole story by itself. It's usually more useful to
compare the P/E ratios of one company to other companies in the same industry.
45
Total Market capitalization / (Total Assets –
Intangible Assets)
22. TQ = (Debt + Market Capitalization)/Total Assets
This ratio is of a company's market value to its total asset value. When Tobin's Q
ratio is less than one, it means that the market value of the company is less than
the total asset value, indicating that it is undervalued. Likewise, when it is more
than one, it indicates that the market value is higher than the total asset value and
that the company might be overvalued. Tobin's Q ratio is also called simply a Q
ratio.
23. Market to Book value =
This ratio is the ratio of the current share price to the book value per share. It
measures how much a company worth at present, in comparison with the amount
of capital invested by current and past shareholders into it.
46
Appendix-2: Ratio Liquidity Ratio
Current
Ratio
Quick (acid
Test) Ratio
Cash
Ratio
Operating
Cash Flow
Ratio
Inventory
Turnover
Ratio (ITR)
Average
Sel l ing
Period
Receivable
Turnover
Ratio (RTR)
Average
Col lection
Period
Accounts
Payabel
Turnover (APT)
Average
Payment
Period
2010 0.728 0.211 0.030 -0.109 4.151 86.724 6.444 55.868 5.634 63.897
2011 0.690 0.260 0.012 0.129 6.450 55.812 3.799 94.753 2.445 147.253
2010 1.415 0.285 0.068 0.346 12.558 28.667 11.414 31.539 60.980 5.904
2011 1.236 0.318 0.065 0.092 17.108 21.043 8.317 43.284 25.804 13.951
2010 2.379 1.637 1.325 0.615 5.249 68.585 14.121 25.494 4.114 87.505
2011 2.143 1.540 1.162 0.542 6.398 56.272 10.629 33.871 3.644 98.792
2010 0.228 0.030 0.017 1.000 0.880 409.027 42.467 8.477 0.618 582.567
2011 0.426 0.099 0.033 1.000 0.945 380.782 11.431 31.492 1.070 336.489
2010 1.200 0.259 0.033 0.153 1.974 182.376 13.196 27.281 7.978 45.124
2011 1.193 0.367 0.039 -0.187 2.413 149.185 7.676 46.900 8.078 44.563
2010 1.288 0.428 0.068 0.668 6.879 52.335 9.895 36.384 6.428 56.007
2011 3.471 2.345 2.094 -0.064 5.537 65.013 11.725 30.703 31.564 11.405
2010 0.756 0.118 0.013 0.103 1.656 217.368 10.010 35.966 12.032 29.921
2011 2.686 1.181 0.975 0.394 2.132 168.843 14.813 24.303 15.536 23.171
2010 0.961 0.197 0.061 -0.024 1.960 183.658 10.831 33.237 7.426 48.476
2011 0.949 0.180 0.058 0.134 1.893 190.129 10.516 34.235 3.783 95.168
2010 2.061 0.976 0.774 0.398 1.684 213.799 10.324 34.869 5.338 67.446
2011 2.149 0.963 0.656 0.170 1.625 221.606 6.807 52.885 5.251 68.556
2010 1.117 0.350 0.024 0.088 1.500 240.027 4.035 89.213 7.536 47.768
2011 0.981 0.372 0.015 0.265 1.400 257.209 3.234 111.313 4.436 81.156
2010 0.890 0.149 0.007 0.168 1.506 239.058 8.725 41.262 4.181 86.106
2011 0.904 0.215 0.058 0.191 2.226 161.735 10.631 33.865 4.547 79.179
2010 3.294 1.445 0.788 0.167 2.127 169.233 3.746 96.109 3.519 102.300
2011 2.845 1.346 0.509 0.080 1.961 183.609 2.346 153.421 3.384 106.375
2010 1.070 0.129 0.086 0.110 0.366 983.914 8.523 42.240 5.802 62.053
2011 1.267 0.134 0.058 0.764 2.195 164.039 27.616 13.036 3.456 104.173
2010 2.078 0.676 0.561 0.280 8.568 42.019 58.075 6.199 19.910 18.081
2011 2.253 0.526 0.502 0.180 8.259 43.590 320.682 1.123 30.447 11.824
2010 0.582 0.258 0.011 0.100 2.832 127.127 3.523 102.194 5.615 64.114
2011 0.577 0.218 0.009 0.028 2.497 144.151 3.848 93.556 4.511 79.810
2010 0.557 0.077 0.036 0.205 5.097 70.629 21.937 16.411 7.702 46.743
2011 0.598 0.085 0.036 0.273 5.451 66.046 19.462 18.498 5.274 68.255
2010 1.787 1.213 0.485 0.231 3.704 97.199 2.638 136.466 70.787 5.086
2011 1.584 0.933 0.255 -0.109 2.697 133.504 2.343 153.655 74.123 4.857
2010 1.890 0.865 0.400 0.317 0.518 694.502 1.127 319.570 2.954 121.864
2011 1.821 0.612 0.055 0.200 0.626 575.408 0.985 365.622 2.649 135.908
2010 0.885 0.109 0.018 0.100 4.569 78.786 23.442 15.357 207.747 1.733
2011 0.937 0.215 0.031 -0.310 4.012 89.736 9.070 39.692 176.197 2.043
2010 2.859 1.653 1.362 0.370 2.010 179.134 8.424 42.735 9.722 37.028
2011 1.707 0.723 0.696 0.228 1.393 258.355 23.086 15.594 1.697 212.181
2010 2.592 0.790 0.452 0.350 2.431 148.115 4.535 79.387 1131.399 0.318
2011 1.912 0.731 0.012 -0.549 4.047 88.952 2.549 141.236 4254.553 0.085
2010 6.788 5.503 4.478 -0.762 1.073 335.562 1.682 213.998 4.119 87.395
2011 4.574 3.158 2.023 0.153 1.467 245.329 2.206 163.175 3.792 94.946
2010 1.225 0.291 0.031 0.112 3.272 110.034 10.800 33.332 73.291 4.912
2011 0.566 0.209 0.025 -0.212 1.913 188.144 7.973 45.154 85.506 4.210
2010 1.816 0.472 0.030 -0.268 1.599 225.165 4.429 81.290 1.069 336.655
2011 1.866 0.408 0.018 0.435 1.283 280.539 4.116 87.465 1.331 270.375
2010 1.836 0.947 0.062 -0.587 5.878 61.242 4.766 75.540 7.013 51.330
2011 1.648 0.754 0.083 0.182 6.440 55.904 4.453 80.847 9.150 39.344
2010 3.375 1.242 1.163 2.039 2.250 159.992 89.511 4.022 6.520 55.216
2011 3.793 1.814 1.722 1.503 2.254 159.694 64.325 5.597 3.930 91.597
2010 1.330 0.277 0.097 0.164 2.197 163.838 11.732 30.685 1.635 220.141
2011 1.257 0.330 0.088 0.162 2.267 158.774 7.465 48.224 1.587 226.828
2010 2.291 0.465 0.148 0.018 1.584 227.236 4.463 80.665 0.978 368.242
2011 1.926 0.182 0.020 0.215 0.893 403.233 4.552 79.085 0.831 433.349
2010 1.225 0.556 0.535 0.484 7.179 50.149 181.474 1.984 7.708 46.706
2011 1.248 0.639 0.611 0.395 8.331 43.213 160.759 2.239 9.642 37.337
2010 1.026 0.093 0.025 0.156 3.429 104.983 37.203 9.677 2.699 133.390
2011 1.121 0.111 0.042 0.137 3.644 98.781 40.666 8.853 3.263 110.315
2010 1.486 0.155 0.135 0.178 2.289 157.252 160.730 2.240 190.083 1.894
2011 1.537 0.099 0.087 0.122 2.220 162.174 284.098 1.267 105.319 3.418
2010 1.390 0.110 0.052 -0.063 0.691 521.227 6.543 55.024 4.451 80.878
2011 1.220 0.061 0.022 -0.046 0.374 962.264 7.984 45.088 2.181 165.078
2010 1.302 0.252 0.221 0.039 0.338 1066.064 15.514 23.205 3.159 113.976
2011 1.082 0.230 0.121 0.191 0.620 580.717 5.727 62.857 6.912 52.087
2010 6.023 3.991 3.046 0.054 3.565 100.992 8.901 40.444 7.295 49.347
2011 3.746 1.803 0.885 0.070 2.916 123.438 7.375 48.812 5.970 60.299
Companies Industry Year
Quasem Drycel ls
Rangpur Foundry
Renwick Ja jneswar & Co
S. Alam Cold Rol led Steels LTD
Singer Bangladesh
Kay and Que
Monno Jute Stafflers
Navana CNG Limited
National Polymer
National Tube
Olympic Industries
BD. Thai Almunium
BSRM Steels Limited
Deshbandhu Polymer LTD
Estern Cables
Golden Son LTD
GPH Ispat Ltd
Aftab Auto
Anwar Galvanizing
Atlas Bangladesh
Aziz Pipes
BD. Autocars
Bangladesh Lamps
Fu-wang Ceramic
Menno Ceramic
Rak Ceramics
Shinepukur Ceramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Cement
Industry
Aramit Cement
Liquidity Ratios
Ceramic
Industry
Engineering
Confidence Cement
Heidelberg Cement BD
Lafarge Surma Cement
Meghna Cement
M.I Cement Factory Ltd.
47
Debt Ratio
Debt
Equity
Ratio
Interest
Coverage Ratio
(Earnings Bas is )
Interest
Coverage
Ratio (Cash
Bas is )
Fixed-
Payment
Coverage
Ratio
2010 0.865 0.478 2.737 0.141 2.737
2011 0.858 0.300 1.973 3.113 1.973
2010 0.195 0.012 13.232 11.842 13.232
2011 0.327 0.121 23.420 13.344 23.420
2010 0.338 0.114 826.766 910.486 826.766
2011 0.343 0.119 762.633 1036.394 762.633
2010 0.845 1.792 -3.416 14.714 -3.416
2011 0.652 0.620 -2.714 7.149 -2.714
2010 0.815 1.539 0.462 3.295 0.462
2011 0.836 1.500 0.448 -1.149 0.448
2010 0.415 0.050 11.960 17.223 11.960
2011 0.282 0.121 8.365 2.694 8.365
2010 0.471 2.891 2.564 3.392 2.564
2011 0.180 2.219 11.349 12.558 11.349
2010 0.705 0.340 1.053 0.861 1.053
2011 0.692 0.182 1.501 2.324 1.501
2010 0.275 0.002 9.241 11.860 9.241
2011 0.289 0.006 16.631 12.262 16.631
2010 0.467 0.340 2.221 1.725 2.221
2011 0.371 0.223 1.701 2.577 1.701
2010 0.587 0.030 2.096 6.343 2.096
2011 0.547 0.002 2.895 7.872 2.895
2010 0.233 0.008 15.932 5.556 15.932
2011 0.280 0.006 16.291 4.946 16.291
2010 0.511 0.000 1.046 2.855 1.046
2011 0.369 0.000 11.164 48.713 11.164
2010 0.513 0.078 561.063 448.434 561.063
2011 0.474 0.070 243.709 146.936 243.709
2010 1.409 -0.851 38.662 339.876 38.662
2011 1.438 -0.758 22.600 86.021 22.600
2010 0.819 0.784 1.409 3.242 1.409
2011 0.794 0.710 1.411 3.782 1.411
2010 0.265 0.072 3.881 4.340 3.881
2011 0.402 0.151 2.623 0.277 2.623
2010 0.314 0.054 4.040 9.290 4.040
2011 0.345 0.061 1.222 2.511 1.222
2010 0.847 1.008 2.528 2.477 2.528
2011 0.864 0.648 2.358 -5.926 2.358
2010 0.337 0.127 3.229 5.208 3.229
2011 0.432 0.045 6.042 10.153 6.042
2010 0.455 0.180 8.595 47.999 8.595
2011 0.574 0.185 5.137 -15.464 5.137
2010 0.101 0.002 21.905 -22.695 21.905
2011 0.144 0.005 25.090 8.287 25.090
2010 0.744 1.074 0.510 1.592 0.558
2011 0.847 1.406 0.721 -0.644 0.763
2010 0.809 2.487 1.323 -1.110 1.279
2011 0.811 2.430 1.461 6.051 1.264
2010 0.490 0.047 3.164 -6.288 3.164
2011 0.563 0.046 2.814 6.004 2.814
2010 0.257 0.136 14.158 17.668 4.637
2011 0.215 0.075 18.367 20.641 5.767
2010 0.550 0.220 1.578 2.299 1.578
2011 0.606 0.151 1.754 2.790 1.754
2010 0.487 0.157 26.515 10.420 26.515
2011 0.560 0.155 -2.064 12.609 -2.064
2010 0.555 0.198 7.912 11.158 4.300
2011 0.543 0.193 7.779 9.395 6.584
2010 0.426 0.019 2.689 3.222 2.689
2011 0.190 0.002 2.671 2.897 2.671
2010 0.527 0.000 1.621 1.874 1.621
2011 0.526 0.000 1.649 1.616 1.649
2010 0.686 0.514 8.718 -8.056 8.718
2011 0.733 0.527 11.799 -4.558 11.799
2010 0.777 0.738 1.972 2.009 1.972
2011 0.762 0.218 2.342 4.559 2.342
2010 0.238 0.129 363.574 52.888 363.574
2011 0.403 0.307 52.940 19.113 52.940
Companies Industry Year
Quasem Drycel ls
Rangpur Foundry
Renwick Ja jneswar & Co
S. Alam Cold Rol led Steels LTD
Singer Bangladesh
Solvency Ratios
Kay and Que
Monno Jute Stafflers
Navana CNG Limited
National Polymer
National Tube
Olympic Industries
BD. Thai Almunium
BSRM Steels Limited
Deshbandhu Polymer LTD
Estern Cables
Golden Son LTD
GPH Ispat Ltd
Aftab Auto
Anwar Galvanizing
Atlas Bangladesh
Aziz Pipes
BD. Autocars
Bangladesh Lamps
Fu-wang Ceramic
Menno Ceramic
Rak Ceramics
Shinepukur Ceramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Cement
Industry
Aramit Cement
Ceramic
Industry
Engineering
Confidence Cement
Heidelberg Cement BD
Lafarge Surma Cement
Meghna Cement
M.I Cement Factory Ltd.
Solvency Ratios
48
Gross
Profi t
Margin
Return on
Equity
(ROE)
Return on
Assets
(ROA)
Assets
Turnover
Earnings
Per Share
(EPS)
P/E Ratio TQMarket to book
va lue
2010 0.228 0.600 0.081 0.935 5.670 23.192 1.939 1.875
2011 0.192 0.280 0.040 0.766 3.300 32.182 1.323 1.280
2010 -2.028 0.092 0.074 0.532 7.390 28.214 2.110 2.103
2011 -1.480 0.079 0.053 0.600 5.290 19.244 1.103 1.021
2010 0.237 0.158 0.104 1.159 13.267 20.424 2.916 2.842
2011 0.157 0.190 0.125 1.063 17.675 18.945 1.852 1.773
2010 0.822 -0.585 -0.090 0.316 -1.872 -15.342 1.663 1.487
2011 0.756 -0.339 -0.118 0.329 -2.459 -10.813 1.490 1.370
2010 0.741 0.069 0.013 1.585 2.030 163.350 2.352 2.068
2011 0.684 0.098 0.016 1.484 2.960 40.608 0.904 0.658
2010 0.224 0.249 0.146 1.370 4.080 0.000 0.029 0.000
2011 0.191 0.087 0.062 0.574 5.360 17.487 1.175 1.088
2010 0.251 0.053 0.028 0.493 3.860 12.241 1.871 0.342
2011 0.290 0.074 0.061 0.548 10.740 4.036 2.066 0.246
2010 0.209 0.014 0.004 0.883 2.840 32.063 0.237 0.133
2011 0.215 0.097 0.030 0.816 18.640 3.146 0.150 0.094
2010 0.375 0.119 0.086 0.569 2.540 48.228 4.156 4.217
2011 0.412 0.138 0.098 0.593 2.990 20.575 2.020 2.046
2010 0.342 0.093 0.049 0.376 2.280 36.316 1.975 1.794
2011 0.344 0.038 0.024 0.266 1.520 22.658 0.675 0.535
2010 0.195 0.031 0.013 0.712 4.880 9.775 0.139 0.127
2011 0.200 0.039 0.017 0.914 6.210 5.746 0.101 0.100
2010 0.227 0.216 0.166 0.558 12.175 25.021 4.155 4.149
2011 0.289 0.225 0.162 0.541 16.151 7.028 1.145 1.140
2010 0.230 0.002 0.001 0.187 0.133 350.385 0.295 0.295
2011 0.110 0.065 0.041 0.778 5.222 5.211 0.213 0.213
2010 0.088 0.373 0.181 3.167 21.580 13.091 2.414 2.376
2011 0.080 0.319 0.168 3.267 16.770 14.103 2.402 2.365
2010 0.111 -0.019 0.008 0.924 0.720 81.708 0.975 0.626
2011 0.077 0.024 -0.011 0.889 -0.990 -28.384 0.632 0.300
2010 0.218 0.093 0.017 0.610 5.643 9.216 0.297 0.155
2011 0.212 0.083 0.017 0.624 0.521 100.780 1.798 1.652
2010 0.235 0.055 0.040 0.408 8.567 23.197 0.992 0.939
2011 0.223 0.057 0.034 0.495 6.540 23.211 0.885 0.796
2010 0.414 0.040 0.027 0.145 24.539 3.815 0.141 0.105
2011 0.361 0.010 0.007 0.167 0.440 128.250 0.907 0.867
2010 0.101 0.467 0.072 1.473 3.299 49.604 3.685 3.530
2011 0.081 0.298 0.041 1.295 3.003 37.114 1.580 1.492
2010 0.130 0.084 0.055 0.621 2.100 0.000 0.084 0.000
2011 0.148 0.102 0.058 0.251 1.520 22.605 1.336 1.310
2010 0.142 0.030 0.016 0.546 6.818 10.396 0.268 0.169
2011 0.143 0.102 0.043 0.908 24.710 2.270 0.177 0.098
2010 0.355 0.061 0.055 0.171 1.648 55.091 3.036 3.034
2011 0.335 0.127 0.109 0.351 3.863 15.415 1.683 1.679
2010 0.126 0.175 0.045 1.314 2.205 0.000 0.275 0.000
2011 0.175 0.299 0.046 0.923 3.658 0.000 0.215 0.000
2010 0.225 0.042 0.008 0.652 4.530 9.492 0.553 0.077
2011 0.236 0.048 0.009 0.562 0.510 80.000 1.181 0.721
2010 0.170 0.099 0.051 1.967 39.094 8.583 0.459 0.435
2011 0.164 0.066 0.029 1.624 2.683 92.425 2.692 2.672
2010 0.440 0.317 0.235 1.107 6.676 22.829 5.478 5.377
2011 0.434 0.254 0.200 0.924 6.907 10.061 2.069 2.011
2010 0.191 0.056 0.025 0.951 24.268 2.783 0.170 0.071
2011 0.179 0.058 0.023 0.988 25.559 2.116 0.108 0.049
2010 0.233 0.114 0.057 0.577 35.700 1.892 0.186 0.107
2011 0.113 -0.025 -0.012 0.360 -7.150 -7.565 0.161 0.088
2010 0.284 0.363 0.140 1.805 54.891 2.246 0.392 0.315
2011 0.250 0.345 0.138 2.100 73.567 1.123 0.233 0.155
2010 0.188 0.079 0.045 1.054 2.095 55.215 2.509 2.498
2011 0.190 0.027 0.022 0.530 2.046 27.161 0.592 0.590
2010 0.197 0.128 0.061 1.672 2.226 60.090 3.649 3.649
2011 0.197 0.145 0.069 1.817 2.598 27.923 1.923 1.923
2010 0.413 0.090 0.028 0.198 54.120 1.924 0.216 0.054
2011 0.568 0.091 0.024 0.182 54.960 1.769 0.184 0.043
2010 0.284 0.100 0.022 0.292 20.747 3.545 0.244 0.079
2011 0.226 0.158 0.038 0.443 27.462 2.220 0.136 0.084
2010 0.255 0.677 0.516 1.172 54.167 6.051 2.997 2.899
2011 0.257 0.182 0.109 1.484 10.176 20.118 2.369 2.185
Profitability Ratios Capital Market Performance Ratios
Companies Industry Year
Quasem Drycel l s
Rangpur Foundry
Renwick Ja jneswar & Co
S. Alam Cold Rol led Steels LTD
Singer Bangladesh
Kay and Que
Monno Jute Stafflers
Navana CNG Limited
National Polymer
National Tube
Olympic Industries
BD. Thai Almunium
BSRM Steels Limited
Deshbandhu Polymer LTD
Estern Cables
Golden Son LTD
GPH Ispat Ltd
Aftab Auto
Anwar Galvanizing
Atlas Bangladesh
Aziz Pipes
BD. Autocars
Bangladesh Lamps
Fu-wang Ceramic
Menno Ceramic
Rak Ceramics
Shinepukur Ceramics LTD
Standard Ceramic
Cement
Industry
Aramit Cement
Ceramic
Industry
Engineering
Confidence Cement
Heidelberg Cement BD
Lafarge Surma Cement
Meghna Cement
M.I Cement Factory Ltd.
Profitability and Capital market Performance Ratios
49
Appendix-3: Average Ranking Score
Y-2010 Y-2011 Y-2010 Y-2011 Y-2010 Y-2011 Y-2010 Y-2011 Y-2010 Y-2011
Aramit Cement 4.70 3.90 4.80 4.40 3.00 3.00 3.67 2.67 4.21 3.67
Confidence Cement 3.40 3.40 2.00 2.20 4.20 4.20 2.33 4.33 3.14 3.42
Heidelberg Cement BD 2.00 2.60 1.60 1.40 2.40 2.20 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.16
Lafarge Surma Cement 3.50 3.60 5.20 4.80 5.00 5.00 5.33 3.33 4.45 4.17
Meghna Cement 4.30 4.50 4.80 5.40 3.60 3.20 2.00 4.33 3.90 4.39
M.I Cement Factory Ltd. 3.10 3.00 2.60 2.80 2.80 3.40 5.67 4.33 3.21 3.20
Premier Cement Mills LTD
Fu-wang Ceramic 3.90 2.00 3.00 2.20 3.00 2.80 3.33 2.67 3.42 2.31
Menno Ceramic 2.30 3.10 4.80 4.60 3.60 2.40 3.67 4.67 3.33 3.47
Rak Ceramics 1.60 3.40 1.00 1.60 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.67 1.48 2.46
Shinepukur Ceramics LTD 3.90 3.70 3.00 3.80 3.20 4.20 2.00 2.00 3.31 3.64
Standard Ceramic 3.30 2.80 3.20 2.80 3.20 3.60 5.00 4.00 3.45 3.12
Aftab Auto 10.50 11.60 5.60 6.60 9.40 7.20 3.67 11.67 8.33 9.44
Anwar Galvanizing 15.70 10.60 14.40 5.20 19.80 14.00 9.67 16.33 15.65 10.80
Atlas Bangladesh 7.60 7.60 5.20 4.60 7.60 6.60 8.67 5.33 7.17 6.42
Aziz Pipes 15.70 15.80 6.40 6.80 19.80 19.80 7.33 17.33 13.53 14.82
BD. Autocars 12.40 11.40 18.60 18.60 14.40 15.20 14.00 5.00 14.48 13.20
Bangladesh Lamps 12.50 14.30 9.80 13.40 13.80 13.80 8.67 11.00 11.73 13.60
BD. Thai Almunium 13.00 14.10 8.80 14.60 13.40 18.00 18.33 8.00 12.74 14.41
BSRM Steels Limited 14.50 14.90 18.00 18.80 10.20 11.40 4.33 7.00 13.14 14.08
Deshbandhu Polymer LTD 10.60 8.60 10.80 8.40 14.80 15.00 23.00 9.00 12.22 10.08
Estern Cables 12.80 15.30 9.00 15.00 17.60 11.00 14.00 18.00 13.17 14.55
Golden Son LTD 12.40 11.40 7.60 4.20 14.60 10.20 5.00 8.00 10.95 9.07
GPH Ispat Ltd 14.20 17.30 21.00 21.40 12.80 9.80 16.00 17.00 15.63 16.44
Kay and Que 13.80 12.00 21.00 18.40 15.80 16.20 14.00 9.00 15.95 14.10
Monno Jute Stafflers 11.70 10.90 13.40 11.40 9.00 13.00 12.33 1.67 11.54 10.43
Navana CNG Limited 6.90 6.10 7.60 6.60 5.80 5.00 3.67 7.00 6.43 6.07
National Polymer 10.70 10.20 17.20 15.60 13.20 11.80 19.67 20.67 13.81 13.02
National Tube 12.30 12.30 7.80 15.80 9.20 21.40 19.00 20.67 11.32 16.17
Olympic Industries 7.50 7.60 11.60 10.60 3.60 3.00 14.67 17.67 8.37 8.39
Quasem Drycells 10.90 10.50 11.40 9.40 14.40 16.80 6.00 12.00 11.26 11.87
Rangpur Foundry 12.30 13.20 14.00 13.40 10.00 9.40 3.33 5.33 11.13 11.46
Renwick Jajneswar & Co 15.70 15.40 14.40 14.00 10.80 10.80 20.00 20.00 14.77 14.55
S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels LTD 13.60 15.30 17.80 16.00 12.40 10.20 17.67 19.67 14.76 14.79
Singer Bangladesh 8.70 9.60 4.40 7.00 3.60 6.40 9.00 5.33 6.57 7.77
Average Ranking
Cement Industry
Ceramic Industry
Overall Ranking Score
Engineering
Liquidity Ratio Solvency Ratio Profitability
Ratio
Capital Market
Performance RatioCompanies Industry