financial analysis on greggs

Masters Programmes

Assignment Cover Sheet Submitted by: 1557875

Module Title: Financial Analysis for Management

Module Code: IB910Z

Date/Year of Module: Spring Term 2016

Submission Deadline: 13/04/2016

Word Count: 2000 / 688 (Section A / B)

Number of Pages: 27

Question: Section A and Section B Question B2 “This is to certify that the work I am submitting is my own. All external references and sources are clearly acknowledged and identified within the contents. I am aware of the University of Warwick regulation concerning plagiarism and collusion.

No substantial part(s) of the work submitted here has also been submitted by me in other assessments for accredited courses of study, and I acknowledge that if this has been done an appropriate reduction in the mark I might otherwise have received will be made.”

MIM 1557875

1

Table of Contents

Section A ........................................................................................................................ 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3

INTRODUTION ............................................................................................................... 4

OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 5

CONTEXT-EXTERNAL ................................................................................................... 6

CONTEXT-INTERNAL .................................................................................................... 7

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 8

Profitability ................................................................................................................... 8

Working Capital ........................................................................................................... 9

Liquidity ..................................................................................................................... 10

Solvency ..................................................................................................................... 11

Shareholders’ View ................................................................................................... 12

EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 14

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 15

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 16

Greggs PLC .............................................................................................................. 16

Ocado Group PLC ..................................................................................................... 20

Section B ...................................................................................................................... 24

QUESTION [A] [B] ......................................................................................................... 25

QUESTION [C] .............................................................................................................. 26

QUESTION [D] .............................................................................................................. 27

MIM 1557875

2

Section A Greggs Financial Analysis and

Comparison with Ocado

MIM 1557875

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report focuses on financial analysis of Greggs’ performance in comparison with Ocado, the online grocery retailer, over the last five years (2011-2015). As to provide accurate interpretations for informed decision in respect of the company’s future marketing plan and reorganisation.

The analysis is structured on the basis of CORE approach and showing that Greggs is overall in a good financial health. Although the profit margin has once slumped, the change of company’ strategy has received positive feedback and resulted in significant growth since 2014.

MIM 1557875

4

INTRODUCTION

Established as a single bakery store in 1951 by John Gregg, the family business started to grow in the hands of the son, Ian Gregg, by acquiring local bakeries since 1964. While continuing its expansion, Greggs also built reputation on its good quality. The company was first on the London Stock Exchange in 1984.

Confronted competitions in 1990s, Greggs kept focusing on maximum freshness and quality of food as competitive advantage. By 2000s, invested in a large technical centre has put up its research ability in improving exist products and developing new recipes. Nowadays, Greggs has more than 1671 shops across the UK, operating by 12 regional bakeries (planning to close 3 recently for future development), 2 distribution centres, and 2 centres of excellence. The company is looking forward to further expansion by transforming from a bakery chain to a modern food-on-the-go retailer, with diversified products under healthier concept.

This analysis aims not only for the purpose of Greggs’ future development, but also evaluating the result of its transformation through the financial figures and ratios change in the past five years.

MIM 1557875

5

CONTEXT-EXTERNAL

PEST Analysis

l Political Healthy eating policies raised by the UK government could potentially affect food industries and consumers’ behaviour.

l Economical The UK’s recovering economy might increase consumers’ willingness to pay more for better food quality with possibly higher disposable income. Which is a factor urging the company’s transformation.

l Social With health consciousness rising, consumers are changing their favour to healthier food products, like salads and soups instead of sausage rolls and pasties.

l Technological Advanced technologies could benefit Greggs by increasing efficiency and accuracy in production and distribution.

Porter’s Five Forces

l Competitive Rivalry Competitions come from various positions due to diversified products. It is highly competitive to operate well against the other resourceful chains.

l Buyer’s Power Most of the products can be easily replaced by similar choices provided by competitors, which means the bargaining power of customers is quite high with many alternatives.

l Supplier’s Power Greggs is likely to have strong bargaining power towards suppliers with its business size. Therefore, the power of suppliers is relatively low.

l Substitute Product With many supermarkets, bakeries, coffee shops providing similar products, the substitution level could be very high.

l New Entrants As a very competitive market and already has many dominant players. The threat of new entrants could be considered fairly low since the bar of entrance is beyond reach.

MIM 1557875

6

CONTEXT-INTERNAL

Business Model and Expansion

As a business built up by acquisitions, reaching a coherent standard is an important but challenging task. Greggs invested considerable resources in technology and process. The success of vertically integrated supply chain, from production to distribution and final retailing, which are usually well located, allows the company to provide daily fresh made foods to customers with high quality but affordable prices. Greggs’ newest target is to enter Northern Ireland market. Start from a planning ‘flagship’ store in Belfast city centre, up to 50 stores are expected in the future across Northern Ireland.

Marketing Strategy and Transformation

From 2014, the company started working on transforming to a food-oh-the-go retailer from a traditional bakery chain. The reorganization plan includes closing few regional bakeries and reinvest them into centre of excellence, to develop comprehensive product lines for target market. Furthermore, in order to provide better shopping experience. Greggs’ has been refitting stores and centralizing bakery facilities step by step, which also creating more efficient operations.

MIM 1557875

7

OVERVIEW

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749 Cost of Sales (272,778) (285,748) (307,598) (315,797) (305,116) Gross Profit 428,310 448,754 454,781 488,164 530,633 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 60,431 53,293 33,358 49,568 73,113 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Dividends (18,286) (19,406) (19,582) (19,570) (43,714) Retained Profit 26,217 21,161 4,607 17,986 13,886 ROCE (%) 26.49 21.41 13.18 18.58 26.28 Profit Margin (%) 6.35 5.52 3.17 4.67 6.89 EBITDA Margin (%) 13.02 11.67 8.75 10.84 13.55 Total Assets 309,000 328,357 333,798 368,936 384,247 Total Liabilities (110,617) (101,567) (97,621) (122,233) (117,973) Shareholders Funds (Equity) 198,383 226,790 236,177 246,703 266,274 Operating Cash Flow 72,184 57,287 73,324 96,540 103,721

Table-1 Key Financials of Greggs

For the bakery giant, 2013 is a meaningful turning point. Strong competitions had made its profit decline to the lowest point. However, Greggs responded with new strategy to transform towards food-on-the-go market. The serial changes including business model, operations, and product portfolios have reflected on the company’s profit margin with significant improvement. Additionally, its sufficient operating cash flow states the company has enough cash to support these activities and pay out dividends to reward shareholders.

MIM 1557875

8

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Profitability

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) is a key indicator to measure business performance by comparing the profit before interest and tax deduction with the capital invested to generate this profit. It tells how effective company utilising resources. Profit margins, defined as net income to net sales, are presented to show whether the profits are actually growing along with revenue.

Greggs’ ROCE hit to the bottom in 2013, and rose up in two consecutive years till 2015. Same pattern is also found in its profit margin, suggesting that Greggs’ profit might be affected by severe competitions from rivals. But the company’s transformation based on new target market had successfully brought it back. Overall, the company has shown its capability of generating profit and adaptability to fast moving market.

On the other hand, Ocado has been struggling with its profit before 2013 but started to turn better afterwards with positive but minor net income.

Figure-1 ROCE of Greggs and Ocado

Figure-2 Profit Margins of Greggs and Ocado

26.4921.41

13.1818.58

26.28

0.41 0.91 -0.84.4 5.41

-10

0

10

20

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ROCE(%)

Greggs Ocado

6.35 5.523.17

4.676.89

-0.08 -0.35 -1.580.77 1.07

-5

0

5

10

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ProfitMargin(%)

Greggs Ocado

MIM 1557875

9

Working Capital

Stock days, debtor days, and creditor days, are the average time of how quick a business turns its stock to revenue, receives payments and pays to trade suppliers. They are put into daily context in order to be more specific.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,274 17,658 15,405 15,290 15,444 Cost of Sales (272,778) (285,748) (307,598) (315,797) (305,116) Stock Days 19.10 22.56 18.28 17.67 18.48 Trade Debtors 1,119 4,750 5,331 7,311 9,496 Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749 Debtors Days 0.58 2.36 2.55 3.32 4.15 Trade Creditors (37,346) (36,390) (36,152) (40,865) (42,405) Cost of Sales (272,778) (285,748) (307,598) (315,797) (305,116) Creditors Days 49.97 46.48 42.90 47.23 50.73

Table-2 (a) Working Capital of Greggs

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Stock Days 12.63 13.55 16.02 15.84 14.90 Debtors Days 7.24 4.36 10.64 3.69 9.66 Creditors Days 44.81 46.47 35.52 35.18 31.69

Table-2 (b) Working Capital of Ocado

An average 20-day of stock days may be a little higher than expected as Greggs’ pride of freshness. Nevertheless, it is justifiable as its centralising business model would require more ingredient stocks in regional bakeries and distribution centres to maintain the supply. Considering most of the transactions are paid by cash, the debtor days are kept relatively short as typical cash business, and increased popularity of credit card payments could result in the upward trend. Ocado, as an online grocery retailer, debtor days are slightly higher due to the payments are taken through online transaction. The company also performs very efficiently with short stock days.

Ideally, creditor days greater than debtors is a good sign for business for the reason of cash. Long periods of creditor days for both companies could be regarded as an approach to maximise cash in hands by prolonging the time for obligated payments. Being the most powerful food chain and online grocery in the UK. They could take advantage of the bargaining power over their suppliers with high volume trades. However, long creditor days sometimes can also imply the business is having difficulty in sufficing payments with cash turnover problem.

MIM 1557875

10

Liquidity

Current ratio is current asset divided by current liabilities, to show whether a business is able to pay off its obligations at the moment. Considering the fact that inventories are not guaranteed to turn into revenue immediately. By further deducting the inventories from current asset, quick ratio can be more accurate to measure a company’s paying ability.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Current Asset 55,447 63,956 64,989 101,496 86,006 Current Liabilities (80,893) (79,415) (80,716) (102,119) (106,035) Current Ratio 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.99 0.81 Current Asset 55,447 63,956 64,989 101,496 86,006 Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,274 17,658 15,405 15,290 15,444 Current Liabilities (80,893) (79,415) (80,716) (102,119) (106,035) Quick Ratio 0.51 0.58 0.61 0.84 0.67

Table-3 (a) Liquidity of Greggs

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Current Ratio 1.45 1.17 1.13 0.88 0.70 Quick Ratio 1.31 1.03 0.98 0.71 0.54

Table-3 (b) Liquidity of Ocado

The ratio below 1 generally means an ill financial health. But it is less meaningful without appropriate context and other figures. With good profitability and steady cash flow as Greggs, the unusually low liquidity can be associated with long creditor days, justifying the assumption of the approach to maximise cash flow for company discussed in previous section. Ocado, on the other hand, has higher liquidity ratios. But while company’s performance turned up since 2014, the ratios dropped below 1 as well. The similar scenario like Greggs, but deserves more awareness since its profit margins are significantly lower in comparison with Greggs.

MIM 1557875

11

Solvency

Interest coverage ratio defines how many times over a company to cover its current interest payment. Gearing ratio is a measurement of a business’ leverage, total debt to equity is adopted among various definitions in this report.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 60,431 53,293 33,358 49,568 73,113 Interest Paid - - (182) - - Interest Coverage Ratio - - 183.29 - - Long Term Debts - - - - - Short Term Loans - - - - - Total Debts - - - - - Shareholders Funds (=Equity) 198,383 226,790 236,177 246,703 266,274 Gearing Ratio - - - - -

Table-4 (a) Solvency of Greggs

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Interest Coverage Ratio 0.21 0.75 0.26 1.72 2.21 Gearing Ratio 0.64 0.69 0.67 0.79 0.71

Table-4 (b) Solvency of Ocado

No debts to pay, suggesting the funds for Greggs’ investing activities are all from shareholders’ funds and retained profit instead of borrowed. This also reflects on interest coverage ratio that the company has no interest to pay except 2013, which is still well covered by its profit. Showing Greggs’ stability in operations and capable of sufficing investments for future growth.

In contrast, Ocado’ interest cover ratios stand above 1 after 2014, but barely higher than 1.5, the generally considered minimum for good financial health. Corresponding to the fact that though Ocado’s profitability is growing but still poor, and consequently, not generating sufficient profit to cover its interest expenses. Its gearing ratios also indicates a certain level of funds are borrowed capital.

MIM 1557875

12

Shareholders’ View

In financial performance, net profit is more related to shareholders’ perspective while operating profit is more in relation to all investors. Thus, Return on Equity (ROE) derived from net income to equity, would be an ideal measurement for shareholders’ evaluation.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Shareholders Funds (=Equity) 198,383 226,790 236,177 246,703 266,274 ROE (%) 22.43 17.89 10.24 15.22 21.63 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Ordinary Share Issued (th shares) 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 EPS (p) 44 40 24 37 57 EPS Growth (%) 18.90 (8.84) (40.37) 55.26 53.37 Share Price (p) 506 456 439 732 1314 P/E Ratio 11.50 11.37 18.36 19.72 23.08 Dividends Paid (18,286) (19,406) (19,582) (19,570) (43,714) Ordinary Share Issued (th shares) 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 Dividend per Share (p) 18 19 19 19 43 Dividend Payout Ratio 0.41 0.48 0.81 0.52 0.76

Table-5 (a) Shareholders’ View of Greggs

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ROE (%) (0.29) (1.17) (6.18) 3.35 4.88 EPS (p) (0.09) (0.41) (2.12) 1.24 2.00 EPS Growth (%) - - - - 61.64 P/E Ratio (994.76) (181.79) (193.18) 262.34 181.54 Dividend per Share (p) - - - - - Dividend Payout Ratio - - - - -

Table-5 (b) Shareholders’ View of Ocado

Figure-3 ROE of Greggs and Ocado

The changes of ROE are similar to ROCE and profit margin in profitability section, demonstrating the performance of two companies. They are also closed to the fluctuation of share price in Figure-4.

22.4317.89

10.2415.22

21.63

-0.29 -1.17-6.18

3.35 4.88

-10

0

10

20

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ROE(%)

Greggs Ocado

MIM 1557875

13

Figure-4 (a) Share price change of Greggs over 5 years (2011-2016)

Figure-4 (b) Share price change of Ocado over 5 years (2011-2016)

P/E ratio calculates a company’s current share price relative to its Earning per Share (EPS). It helps potential investors to evaluate whether to invest in the company and for shareholders, whether to realise their investments. An extremely high number may not be attractive enough, but it is showing shareholders’ high expectation on investing company’s future growth. Which can explain Ocado’s P/E ratios in 2014 and 2015. On the other hand, Greggs’ growing profits can justify its upward share price and retain P/E ratios from waving to high. An indication of stability and profitability for a sophisticated business.

Dividend policies can vary from different stages at which companies are. Dividend payout ratio, the ratio of Dividend per Share (DPS) to EPS, is showing how much earning is given back to shareholders, and how much is kept as retained profit for reinvestment, payments, or cash reserved. As a matured company with steady performance, Greggs has been constantly paying dividends around 20p per share every year. When the company performed well with increasing EPS, the dividends also rose to 43p as a record high. It is delivering a strong message to shareholders regarding positive prospect. Worth noted, in 2013, the poorest performance ended up with the peak ratio. Meaning even though the slumped earning for that year, Greggs still paid approximately same amount of dividends to prevent shareholders from disappointment, and therefore, causing the high ratio. In consideration that Ocado is still at growing stage, it is understandable for the company to preserve profit for expansion instead of paying small amount of dividends.

MIM 1557875

14

EVALUATION

Although P/E ratio is widely used as an evaluation tool for investment, it is actually incapable of providing further information besides whether the investment is worthy. There is other way to provide shareholders a more substantial measurement such as net present value and dividend yield. Aside from dividend payout ratio, delivering a whole picture of business development. Dividend yield, calculating DPS over share price, is more specifically pointing out the cash return rate on investment.

To conclude, from observing company’s dividend policy, not only profitability, but also the possible future movement of business can be acquired. Moreover, as dividend is paid in cash, the figure can also be used to measure business’ cash flow status. In other words, the decision making of either how business give out dividends or why choose not to would have great influence on share price change. As it comprises sufficient information in every aspect as long as interpreted within appropriate context.

Based on the analysis, Ocado demonstrates its great potentiality of future growth, but instability performance of last five years still remains to be reversed. As for Greggs, it shows an overall healthy financial status. The company utilises its cash from operation effectively in reinvestment and contenting shareholders. The steady and ample profit retained would also be supportive of any activities for development.

MIM 1557875

15

REFERENCES

l Atrill, P. & McLaney, E. 2015, Accounting and Finance for Non-Specialists (Ninth Edition), Pearson, Harlow.

l BBC News, 2014, Greggs Shares Fall 9% after Profits Drop, BBC News, 26 February 2014. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26351756

l BBC News, 2016, Greggs to Close Three UK Bakeries, Including Edinburgh, BBC News, 1 March 2016 Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35695591

l Campbell, J. 2016, Greggs Confirms Plans to Open up to 50 Stores in Northern Ireland, BBC News, Northern Ireland, 23 February 2016. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35645146

l Fame.

l London Stock Exchange.

l Greggs 2015 Annual Report, 30 March 2016. Available at: https://corporate.greggs.co.uk/results-centre

l Greggs’ Share Price, Google Finance. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=LON%3AGRG&ei=YDz9VoGRJIi9U_21kfAN

l Ocado Group PLC 2015 Annual Report, 2 February 2016. Available at: http://results15.ocadogroup.com/

l Ocado’ Share Price, Google Finance. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/finance?cid=11353934

MIM 1557875

16

APPENDIX

Greggs PLC

Key Financials � 31/12/2011 29/12/2012 28/12/2013 03/01/2015 02/01/2016

th GBP th GBP th GBP th GBP th GBP 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months

Income Statement Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749 Cost of Sales (272,778) (285,748) (307,598) (315,797) (305,116)

Gross Profit 428,310 448,754 454,781 488,164 530,633 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 60,431 53,293 33,358 49,568 73,113 Net Interest 69 49 (113) 175 (85) Profit before Taxation 60,500 53,342 33,152 49,743 73,028 Taxation (15,997) (12,775) (8,963) (12,187) (15,428) Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Dividends (18,286) (19,406) (19,582) (19,570) (43,714) Retained Profit 26,217 21,161 4,607 17,986 13,886 Depreciation (30,707) (32,298) (33,225) (37,463) (39,687) Amortization (144) (145) (161) (100) (454) EBITDA 91,282 85,736 66,744 87,131 113,254

Cash Flow OperatingCashFlow 72,184 57,287 73,324 96,540 103,721

Balance Sheet Fixed Assets 253,553 264,401 268,809 267,440 298,241 Current Assets 55,447 63,956 64,989 101,496 86,006

Total Assets 309,000 328,357 333,798 368,936 384,247 Current Liabilities (80,893) (79,415) (80,716) (102,119) (106,035) Long Term Liabilities (29,724) (22,152) (16,905) (20,114) (11,938) Total Liabilities (110,617) (101,567) (97,621) (122,233) (117,973)

Total Assets - Current Liabilities 228,107 248,942 253,082 266,817 278,212 Shareholders Funds (Equity) 198,383 226,790 236,177 246,703 266,274

Ratios ROE (%) 22.43 17.89 10.24 15.22 21.63 ROCE (%) 26.49 21.41 13.18 18.58 26.28 Profit Margin (%) 6.35 5.52 3.17 4.67 6.89 EBITDA Margin (%) 13.02 11.67 8.75 10.84 13.55 Current Ratio 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.99 0.81 Quick Ratio 0.51 0.58 0.61 0.84 0.67

MIM 1557875

17

Profitability � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749 Cost of Sales (272,778) (285,748) (307,598) (315,797) (305,116) Gross Profit 428,310 448,754 454,781 488,164 530,633 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 60,431 53,293 33,358 49,568 73,113 Net Interest 69 49 (113) 175 (85)

Profit before Taxation 60,500 53,342 33,152 49,743 73,028 Taxation (15,997) (12,775) (8,963) (12,187) (15,428)

Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Dividends (18,286) (19,406) (19,582) (19,570) (43,714)

Retained Profit 26,217 21,161 4,607 17,986 13,886 Net Margin (%) 8.620 7.256 4.376 6.165 8.748 Asset Utilisation 3.074 2.950 3.012 3.013 3.004 ROCE (%) 26.49 21.41 13.18 18.58 26.28 Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600

Profit Margin (%) 6.35 5.52 3.17 4.67 6.89 Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749 EBITDA 91,282 85,736 66,744 87,131 113,254

EBITDA Margin (%) 13.02 11.67 8.75 10.84 13.55

!"#$(%) = ")*+,-./02+34.-53-,6788*8-8 − #:++*/-;.,<.6.-.*8 ∗ >??

2+34.-@,+0./(%) = A*-B/C3D*5:+/3E*+ ∗ >??

$FB5G7@,+0./(%) = $FB5G75:+/3E*+ ∗ >??

MIM 1557875

18

Working Capital � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,274 17,658 15,405 15,290 15,444 Cost of Sales (272,778) (285,748) (307,598) (315,797) (305,116) Stock Days 19.10 22.56 18.28 17.67 18.48 Trade Debtors 1,119 4,750 5,331 7,311 9,496 Turnover 701,088 734,502 762,379 803,961 835,749

Debtors Days 0.58 2.36 2.55 3.32 4.15 Trade Creditors (37,346) (36,390) (36,152) (40,865) (42,405) Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,274 17,658 15,405 15,290 15,444 Creditors Days 49.97 46.48 42.90 47.23 50.73

Working Capital Days (S+D-C) (30.29) (21.57) (22.07) (26.24) (28.11)

H-3CIG,J8 = B/E*/-3+.*8#38-34H,6* ∗ KLM

G*<-3+G,J8 = 5+,N*G*<-3+85:+/3E*+ ∗ KLM

#+*N.-3+G,J8 = 5+,N*#+*N.-3+8#38-34H,6* ∗ KLM

Liquidity � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

th GBP th GBP th GBP th GBP 12 months 12 months 12 months 12 months

Current Assets 55,447 63,956 64,989 101,496 86,006 Current Liabilities (80,893) (79,415) (80,716) (102,119) (106,035)

Current Ratio 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.99 0.81 Current Assets 55,447 63,956 64,989 101,496 86,006 Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,274 17,658 15,405 15,290 15,444 Current Liabilities (80,893) (79,415) (80,716) (102,119) (106,035) Quick Ratio 0.51 0.58 0.61 0.84 0.67

#:++*/-!,-.3 = #:++*/-788*-8#:++*/-;.,<.6.-.*8

O:.CI!,-.3 = #:++*/-788*-8 − B/E*/-3+.*8#:++*/-;.,<.6.-.*8

MIM 1557875

19

Solvency � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Operating Profit (=EBIT) 60,431 53,293 33,358 49,568 73,113 Interest Paid - - (182) - - Interest Coverage Ratio - - 183.29 - - Long Term Debts - - - - - Short Term Loans - - - - -

Total Debts - - - - - Shareholders Funds (=Equity) 198,383 226,790 236,177 246,703 266,274

Gearing Ratio - - - - -

B/-*+*8-#3E*+,0*!,-.3 = ")*+,-./02+34.-B/-*+*8-2,.N

P*,+./0!,-.3 = 53-,6G*<-8$Q:.-J

Shareholders’ View � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Shareholders Funds (=Equity) 198,383 226,790 236,177 246,703 266,274

ROE (%) 22.43 17.89 10.24 15.22 21.63 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) 44,503 40,567 24,189 37,556 57,600 Ordinary Share Issued (th shares) 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160

EPS (p) 44 40 24 37 57 EPS Growth (%) 18.90 (8.84) (40.37) 55.26 53.37 Share Price (p) 506 456 439 732 1314 Share Price Taken Date 30/12/2011 28/12/2012 27/12/2013 31/12/2014 31/12/2015

P/E Ratio 11.50 11.37 18.36 19.72 23.08 Dividends Paid (18,286) (19,406) (19,582) (19,570) (43,714) Ordinary Share Issued (th shares) 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 101,160 Dividend per Share (p) 18 19 19 19 43 EPS (p) 44 40 24 37 57 Dividend Payout Ratio 0.41 0.48 0.81 0.52 0.76

!"$ = A*-B/C3D*$Q:.-J

2/$!,-.3 = HS,+*2+.C*$2H

G.E.N*/N2,J3:-!,-.3 = G.E.N*/N)*+HS,+*$2H

MIM 1557875

20

Ocado Group PLC

Key Financials � 27/11/2011 02/12/2012 01/12/2013 30/11/2014 29/11/2015


Income Statement Turnover 598,309 678,600 792,100 948,900 1,107,600 Cost of Sales (413,551) (471,300) (544,600) (636,000) (732,500) Gross Profit 184,758 207,300 247,500 312,900 375,100 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 1,072 3,000 (2,700) 16,300 21,400 Net Interest (3,495) (3,600) (9,800) (9,100) (9,500) Profit before Taxation (2,423) (600) (12,500) 7,200 11,900 Taxation 1,920 (1,800) 0 100 (100) Profit after Tax (=Net Income) (503) (2,400) (12,500) 7,300 11,800 Dividends 0 0 0 0 0

Retained Profit (503) (2,400) (12,500) 7,300 11,800 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 1,072 3,000 (2,700) 16,300 21,400 Depreciation (21,621) (22,800) (33,100) (40,000) (45,100) Amortization (5,460) (6,200) (9,500) (12,400) (13,200) EBITDA 28,153 32,000 39,900 68,700 79,700

Cash Flow OperatingCashFlow 22,872 36,100 57,700 74,900 83,000

Balance Sheet Fixed Assets 217,357 310,200 318,500 391,200 455,100 Current Assets 144,308 138,100 179,600 147,000 136,500 Total Assets 361,665 448,300 498,100 538,200 591,600 Current Liabilities (99,472) (117,600) (159,000) (168,000) (196,000) Long Term Liabilities (89,304) (125,000) (136,700) (152,000) (153,700) Total Liabilities (188,776) (242,600) (295,700) (320,000) (349,700)

Total Assets - Current Liabilities 262,193 330,700 339,100 370,200 395,600 Shareholders Funds (Equity) 172,889 205,700 202,400 218,200 241,900

Ratios ROE (%) (0.29) (1.17) (6.18) 3.35 4.88 ROCE (%) 0.41 0.91 (0.80) 4.40 5.41 Profit Margin (%) (0.08) (0.35) (1.58) 0.77 1.07 EBITDA Margin (%) 4.71 4.72 5.04 7.24 7.20 Current Ratio 1.45 1.17 1.13 0.88 0.70 Quick Ratio 1.31 1.03 0.98 0.71 0.54

MIM 1557875

21

Profitability � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Turnover 598,309 678,600 792,100 948,900 1,107,600 Cost of Sales (413,551) (471,300) (544,600) (636,000) (732,500) Gross Profit 184,758 207,300 247,500 312,900 375,100 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 1,072 3,000 (2,700) 16,300 21,400 Net Interest (3,495) (3,600) (9,800) (9,100) (9,500) Profit before Taxation (2,423) (600) (12,500) 7,200 11,900 Taxation 1,920 (1,800) 0 100 (100) Profit after Tax (=Net Income) (503) (2,400) (12,500) 7,300 11,800 Dividends 0 0 0 0 0 Retained Profit (503) (2,400) (12,500) 7,300 11,800 Operating Profit (=EBIT) 1,072 3,000 (2,700) 16,300 21,400 Total Assets - Current Liabilities 262,193 330,700 339,100 370,200 395,600 ROCE (%) 0.41 0.91 (0.80) 4.40 5.41 Turnover 598,309 678,600 792,100 948,900 1,107,600 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) (503) (2,400) (12,500) (7,200) 11,900 Profit Margin (%) (0.08) (0.35) (1.58) 0.77 1.07 Turnover 598,309 678,600 792,100 948,900 1,107,600 EBITDA 28,153 32,000 39,900 68,700 79,700 EBITDA Margin (%) 4.71 4.72 5.04 7.24 7.20

!"#$(%) = ")*+,-./02+34.-53-,6788*8-8 − #:++*/-;.,<.6.-.*8 ∗ >??

2+34.-@,+0./(%) = A*-B/C3D*5:+/3E*+ ∗ >??

$FB5G7@,+0./(%) = $FB5G75:+/3E*+ ∗ >??

MIM 1557875

22

Working Capital � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,310 17,500 23,900 27,600 29,900 Cost of Sales (413,551) (471,300) (544,600) (636,000) (732,500) Stock Days 12.63 13.55 16.02 15.84 14.90 Trade Debtors 11,872 8,100 23,100 9,600 29,300 Turnover 598,309 678,600 792,100 948,900 1,107,600 Debtors Days 7.24 4.36 10.64 3.69 9.66 Trade Creditors (50,771) (60,000) (53,000) (61,300) (63,600) Cost of Sales (413,551) (471,300) (544,600) (636,000) (732,500) Creditors Days 44.81 46.47 35.52 35.18 31.69 Working Capital Days (S+D-C) (24.94) (28.56) (8.86) (15.65) (7.14)

H-3CIG,J8 = B/E*/-3+.*8#38-34H,6* ∗ KLM

G*<-3+G,J8 = 5+,N*G*<-3+85:+/3E*+ ∗ KLM

#+*N.-3+G,J8 = 5+,N*#+*N.-3+8#38-34H,6* ∗ KLM

Liquidity � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Current Assets 144,308 138,100 179,600 147,000 136,500 Current Liabilities (99,472) (117,600) (159,000) (168,000) (196,000) Current Ratio 1.45 1.17 1.13 0.88 0.70 Current Assets 144,308 138,100 179,600 147,000 136,500 Stock & WIP (=Inventories) 14,310 17,500 23,900 27,600 29,900 Current Liabilities (99,472) (117,600) (159,000) (168,000) (196,000) Quick Ratio 1.31 1.03 0.98 0.71 0.54

#:++*/-!,-.3 = #:++*/-788*-8#:++*/-;.,<.6.-.*8

O:.CI!,-.3 = #:++*/-788*-8 − B/E*/-3+.*8#:++*/-;.,<.6.-.*8

MIM 1557875

23

Solvency � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Operating Profit (=EBIT) 1,072 3,000 (2,700) 16,300 21,400 Interest Paid (5,215) (4,000) (10,200) (9,500) (9,700) Interest Coverage Ratio 0.21 0.75 0.26 1.72 2.21 Long Term Debts (88,354) (122,400) (133,100) (144,800) (144,700) Short Term Loans (22,913) (19,800) (2,500) (26,500) (26,500) Total Debts (111,267) (142,200) (135,600) (171,300) (171,200) Shareholders Funds (Equity) 172,889 205,700 202,400 218,200 241,900 Gearing Ratio 0.64 0.69 0.67 0.79 0.71

B/-*+*8-#3E*+,0*!,-.3 = ")*+,-./02+34.-B/-*+*8-2,.N

P*,+./0!,-.3 = 53-,6G*<-8$Q:.-J

Shareholders’ View � 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Profit after Tax (=Net Income) (503) (2,400) (12,500) 7,300 11,800 Shareholders Funds (Equity) 172,889 205,700 202,400 218,200 241,900 ROE (%) (0.29) (1.17) (6.18) 3.35 4.88 Profit after Tax (=Net Income) (503) (2,400) (12,500) 7,300 11,800 Ordinary Share Issued (th shares) 590,400 590,400 590,400 590,400 590,400 EPS (p) (0.09) (0.41) (2.12) 1.24 2.00 EPS Growth (%) - - - - 61.64 Share Price (p) 85 74 409 324 363 Share Price Taken Date 25/11/2011 30/11/2012 29/11/2013 28/11/2014 27/11/2015 P/E Ratio (994.76) (181.79) (193.18) 262.34 181.54 Dividends Paid 0 0 0 0 0 Ordinary Share Issued (th shares) 590,400 590,400 590,400 590,400 590,400 Dividend per Share (p) - - - - - EPS (p) (0.09) (0.41) (2.12) 1.24 2.00 Dividend Payout Ratio - - - - -

!"$ = A*-B/C3D*$Q:.-J

2/$!,-.3 = HS,+*2+.C*$2H

G.E.N*/N2,J3:-!,-.3 = G.E.N*/N)*+HS,+*$2H

MIM 1557875

24

Section B Question B2

MIM 1557875

25

[A]

The Breakeven Point (BEP) is to determine the minimum sales number when a company covers all the cost (fixed and variable) and starts to making profit.

F$2 = T.U*N#38-8V/.-2+.C* − W,+.,<6*#38-8 =

KM???? + >?????>?? − (YM + >?? ∗ ?. ?M) = [???

The fixed cost consists of manufacturing (£350,000) and advertising (£100,000). Divide it by the gross profit of each product sold (subtract variable costs from unit price). The result indicates the company have to sell at least 9,000 bags to cover all the costs, under the premise that production capacity does not exceed 12,000 bags.

[B]

F$243+\.0S#,),C.-J = M????? + >?????>?? − (YM + >?? ∗ ?. ?M) = >]???

Due to the demand of enhancing capacity, the fixed cost of manufacturing has to add up additional £150,000, which make it rise to £500,000 in total. The advertising costs and variable remain unchanged. The calculation shows the company will have to sell another 3,000 bags to cover the increased fixed cost. That makes the new breakeven point come to 12,000 bags.

This means when the production reach over 12,000 bags (exclude 12,000), the company’s total gross profit would start over again just like the range between 9,000 to 12,000, but with more potentiality of growth (refer to Figure-1).

Figure-1 BEP and Profit

MIM 1557875

26

[C]

According to the market research survey, 10% reduction in the selling price will result in 25% increase in sales. The evaluation for whether price reduction should be implemented would be conducted on the basis of existing sales level.

F$243+£[? = KM???? + >?????[? − (YM + [? ∗ ?. ?M) = >>>>>. > => >>>>]

>. ]M` = >>>>]` = aaa[. L => aa[?

>. ]M` = >]???` = [L??

First of all, assuming the original sales number is X, the new sales number with 10% price reduction can be presented as 1.25X. Then, recalculate BEP again with reduced price, £90, a result as 11,112 bags can be obtained. Set 11,112 equals to 1.25X, the original sales X would be 8,890 bags. Since this number is below the BEP for original price, adopting reduced price would be better off for the company. Secondly, 9,600 bags could be reached by reversing the capacity threshold 12,000 bags for new price and new sales volume. The upper limit for not exceeding current capacity after price reduction.

In consideration of pushing production capacity over 12,000 bags. The new BEP would be 14,815 bags. Reverse it back to original sales number, 11,852 bags, which is below the original BEP for the capacity over 12,000. Under this circumstance, reducing price and increasing sales seems to be not appropriate. Finally, convert 12,000 sales from original price to 15,000 bags for new price, it is clear to see a more profitable result with new price since 15,000 is much more than the new BEP level.

F$243+£[?,/N\.0S#,),C.-J = M????? + >?????[? − (YM + [? ∗ ?. ?M) = >Ya>Y. a => >Ya>M

>. ]M` = >Ya>M` => >>aM]

` = >]???>. ]M` = >M???

In conclusion, the combination result indicates the decision of whether to reduce selling price by 10% should be separated into 4 scenarios:

1. If the original sales number is under 8,890, the company will lose money in either option. However, the loss would be lower with reduced price and increased sales.

2. If the original sales number is between 8,890 to 9,600, the strategy of price reduction should be implemented as it could bring more profit for the company.

3. If the original sales number is between 9,600 to 12,000, keep the original price would make the company most profitable.

4. If the original sales number is over 12,000, the company should reduce selling price to £90, which is the better off option in terms of profit.

MIM 1557875

27

[D]

Pricing strategy will not only fluctuate the sales number, but also affect the the position of product and its brand value. With the same product specification, a more affordable price usually has better penetration ability to market. But it will also lower the perception value of the product and even the brand value in consumers’ mind. On the other hand, like most of luxury brands, relatively higher prices could maintain their images of high-end product. Which is the most important part for these brands in respect of brand value.

In addition, learning curve of manufacturing new product is another key factor should be taken into consideration. Any new designs, fabrics or technologies used will potentially make manufacturing new product begins with a higher variable cost. And then gradually decrease with the more volume produced. The prediction of learning curve on the basis of previous experience will help the company to decide its price strategy.

financial analysis on greggs

Documents