Inter-Firm and Industry Analysis - Report Example

Inter-Firm Financial Analysis Inter-Firm Financial Analysis Introduction Financial analysis is essential due to its ability in enhancing the decision of an investor in making optimal investment. In addition, it allows investors to understand the ability of an organization to safeguard their capital investment. Furthermore, financial firms offering credit are able to measure the ability of the organization in servicing the credit offered (Khan & Jain, 2010). Consequently, undertaking financial analysis of an organization is a crucial financial task since it enhances the ability of the interest parties in measuring its attractiveness. Accordingly, the paper undertakes a comparative financial analysis of Abbeycrest Company and Delta Apparel Company that are based in UK and USA respectively. In addition, each of the firm has been compared with its competitors in their respective countries to understand their growth potential (Gibson, 2012). The financial statements have been used in undertaking the analysis. Consequently, the financial analysis has employed financial ratios to compare the financial performance and position of the firms under the analysis. In undertaking the financial analysis of the two firms, the return on common equity shareholders has been used as the primary factor of the analysis. The drivers of the return on common equity shareholders have also, been considered in evaluating the profitability of the organization. Inter-Firm and Industry Analysis Reformulated financial statements of the organization have been used in undertaking the financial analysis to ensure the financial analysis is uses accurate data. In addition, the income statement and balance sheet have been used in deriving the financial ratios employed to carry out the analysis. Inter-Firm Profitability Analysis Profitability analysis has been used to evaluate the potential of the two organizations in generating returns for the equity shareholders. This is depicted by the simulated return on equity of the two firms in the table below. The table below reflects the financial position and performance of the two organizations using financial ratios. In addition, comparative financial graphs of the two firms have been depicted in the analysis below. DRIVERS OF PROFITABILITY (ROCE)   2013% 2012% 2011% 2010% 2009% ROCE DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.11 -0.35 ABBEYCREST PLC -0.44 0.22 -1.58 -0.27 -0.03             First-Level Decomposition RNOA DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.07 -0.18 ABBEYCREST PLC -0.19 0.14 -0.61 -0.08 0.09             FLEV DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.70 0.83 0.61 0.54 0.82 ABBEYCREST PLC 0.85 1.22 1.25 0.86 0.78             SPREAD DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06 -0.20 (RNOA-NBC) ABBEYCREST PLC -0.28 0.07 -0.78 -0.22 -0.15             NBC DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 ABBEYCREST PLC 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.14 0.23             Second Level Decomposition PM DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.069 0.053 0.078 0.070 -0.179 ABBEYCREST PLC -0.064 0.055 -0.166 -0.036 0.045             ATO DELTA APPAREL, INC 0.89 0.99 1.05 0.94 1.00 ABBEYCREST PLC 3.04 2.50 3.66 2.27 1.98 ROCE Comparative Graph RNOA Comparative Graph FLEV Comparative Graph NBC Comparative Analysis Profit Margin Comparative Graph Asset Turnover Comparative Graph SPREAD Comparative Graph Inter-Firm Profitability Ratios Analysis On average of the five financial years that have been used in deriving the financial ratios above, Delta Apparel Company is more profitable compared to Abbeycrest Company. This has been depicted by the trend of the ROCE of the two firms over the five financial years. Delta Apparel has been able to maintain positive returns in the latest four of the five years while Abbeycrest has experienced negative ROCE in four years. In addition, the ROCE comparative graph depicts that the ROCE of Delta Apparel has been higher compared to that of Abbeycrest for much of the five financial years analyzed. Even though Abbeycrest was able to accumulate a higher ROCE to that of Delta Apparel Company in 2012, the firm experienced an abrupt negative decline in ROCE in 2013. This implies that common shareholders of Delta Apparel will earn more returns compared to shareholders of Abbeycrest Company. Consequently, the ability of the organization to generate returns to common shareholders is higher under Delta Apparel compared to Abbeycrest Company (Fridson & Alvarez, 2011). The high return to common shareholders for Delta Apparel Company compared to Abbeycrest Company has been contributed by RNOA, FLEV, SPREAD and NBC factors under the first stage ROCE decomposition. RNOA depicts how the two organizations utilize their net assets to generate income for the organization. Consequently, the organization with the best way of utilizing it asset resources will accumulate high returns for the common shareholders (Rajasekaran & Lalitha, 2011). This is because the firm will incur less asset expenses in generating the revenue that is essential in increasing the net income generated. The financial ratios for the two firms over the last five years depict that Delta Apparel has been more efficient in utilizing it assets optimally compared to Abbeycrest Company. Thus, Delta Apparel consumes fewer assets in generating revenue compared to Abbeycrest Company as reflected in the financial ratios over the last five financial years. This implies that the income that the organization generates from the sales revenue it accumulates during it operations will be high due to fewer financial value of assets utilized in generating the revenue (Wahlan, Baginski, & Bradshaw, 2010). Consequently, the ROCE of Delta Apparel will be considerably be high due to the higher income distributable to common shareholders compared to that of Abbeycrest Company. This is the cause of the high ROCE for Delta Apparel compared to that of Abbeycrest for the last five financial years. Similarly, the FLEV of the two organizations has contributed to their respective ROCE for the last five financial years. FLEV depicts the financial obligation that an organization is expected to service using the revenue it generates during the financial year operation (Moyer & McGuigan, 2012). Consequently, an organization that has a high FLEV ratio will generate less income since it will incur high expenses in servicing it financial obligations using the revenue it generates during that financial year. Accordingly, the financial ratios computed in the table above reflects that Abbeycrest faces higher financial obligations compared to financial obligations that Delta Apparel faces in each financial year operation. Consequently, the financial income that Abbeycrest accrues from it sales revenue will be fewer compared to the income generated by Delta Apparel due to the high financial expenses it incurs. This makes the ROCE of Abbeycrest to be lower compared to that of Delta Apparel. NBC also, influences the ROCE that a company generates during it financial year as it depicts the cost of capital the organization faces in accessing capital to expand it investment. A high NBC implies that the organization incurs high interest cost in it operations. Thus, the income that will be generated by the organization will be considerably low since the sales revenue generated will face high interest expense. The financial ratios computed in the table above depicts that Abbeycrest NBC is relatively higher compared to that of Delta Apparel Company (Bagad, 2010). Consequently, the income attributable to the common shareholders of Abbeycrest is reduced significantly compared to that of Delta Apparel due to high cost if faces in servicing it interest expenses. This has the effect of reducing the return on equity of Abbeycrest common shareholders compared to those of Delta Apparel as reflected by ROCE above. The second level of ROCE decomposition reflected in the inter-firm financial ratios above is also, a driver of the firm’s profitability. This has been reflected by the profit margin (PM) and asset turnover (ATO). The profit margin ratio measures the ability of a company in generating income after servicing operating expenses (Gibson, 2012). Consequently, a firm with high profit margin implies that the firm has a better cost controls that enhances the profitability. The profit margin for the two firms in the five financial years analyzed is higher for Delta Apparel compared to that of Abbeycrest. This implies that Delta Apparel controls it operating costs optimally compared to Abbeycrest in generating high income attributable to the common shareholders. Consequently, Delta Apparel will have high ROCE compared to Abbeycrest due to its ability to control costs to generate income (Fridson & Alvarez, 2011). The asset turnover reflects the ability of the firm’s assets to generate income using it assets. Thus, a firm that has a high asset turnover ratio generates high income using it assets (Sinha, 2009). The financial ratios computed in the inter-firm financial ratio table reflects Delta Apparel has a better asset utilization compared to that of Abbeycrest in generating income. Consequently, Delta Apparel has a better potential of generating income compared to Abbeycrest organization attributable to common shareholders. This financial strength of Delta Apparel has been responsible of generating higher ROCE compared to Abbeycrest firm. Income Statement Analysis The comparative financial analysis of the two firms has also, employed income statement trend to measure their performance of the five years. The income statement analysis has been undertaken using common sized income statement and horizontal income statement for the last five years. This allows the analysis to reflect the financial trend of the two firms over the last five financial years. Common Sized Income Statement A common sized income statement depicts vertical trend of the firm’s income statement over the last five financial years. Delta Apparel Common Size Income Statement 02/26/2011 % of Revenues 02/27/2010 % of Revenues 02/28/2009 % of Revenues 02/23/2008 % of Revenues 02/24/2007 % of Revenues       Operating Income 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Revenues 79.58 82.38 80.79 78.98 82.62 Cost of sales 20.42 17.62 19.21 21.02 17.38 Gross margin 12.57 11.84 11.94 13.26 13.20 Operating expenses -0.22 -0.09 -0.03 -0.25 -6.44 Other operating income (expense) 7.63 5.69 7.24 7.52 -2.26 Operating income from sales(before tax)       Taxes 0.73 0.35 -0.51 0.55 15.67 Tax as reported       Other tax adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tax benefit on net interest 6.89 5.33 7.75 6.97 -17.93 Operating income from sales (after tax)       Dirty surplus items 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equity Earnings 6.89 5.33 7.75 6.97 -17.93 Operating Income (after tax)       Financing Expense (Income) 0.24 0.31 0.41 0.64 1.16 Interest expense 0.16 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.04 Interest income       Other interest adjustments 0.08 0.11 0.30 0.58 1.11 Net interest expense       less Tax benefit from Net Interest Expense       Preferred dividends 0.08 0.11 0.30 0.58 1.11 Net Financial Expense (after tax)       Minority interest 6.81 5.23 7.46 6.39 -19.05 Comprehensive income to Common Abbeycrest Common Size Income Statement 02/26/2011 % of Revenues 02/27/2010 % of Revenues 02/28/2009 % of Revenues 02/23/2008 % of Revenues 02/24/2007 % of Revenues       Operating Income 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Revenues 91.19 91.96 85.65 94.04 91.87 Cost of sales 8.81 8.04 14.35 5.96 8.13 Gross margin 9.66 5.76 12.32 3.29 5.18 Operating expenses -5.50 3.22 -18.39 -4.53 0.83 Other operating income (expense) -6.35 5.51 -16.36 -1.85 3.77 Operating income from sales(before tax)       Taxes 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.73 -0.26 Tax as reported       Other tax adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tax benefit on net interest -6.35 5.51 -16.47 -2.58 4.03 Operating income from sales (after tax)       Dirty surplus items 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Equity Earnings -6.35 5.51 -16.47 -2.58 4.03 Operating Income (after tax)       Financing Expense (Income) 1.35 1.59 2.75 4.01 5.09 Interest expense 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.31 Interest income       Other interest adjustments 1.35 1.59 2.74 3.86 4.79 Net interest expense       less Tax benefit from Net Interest Expense       Preferred dividends 1.35 1.59 2.74 3.86 4.79 Net Financial Expense (after tax)       Minority interest -7.71 3.92 -19.21 -6.43 -0.76 Comprehensive income to Common The common size income statement for the two firms for the last five years depict that the income attributable to common shareholders movement in percentage of the total sales revenue in each financial year. Consequently, the trend analysis of common size income statement depict that income levels of Delta Apparel has been increasing while that of Abbeycrest organization has been declining over the last five years (Peterson & Fabozzi, 2012). Even though the common size income statement reflects that income for Abbeycrest increased significantly in 2012, the income level abruptly declined to negative level in 2013. Thus, the common size income statements depict that Delta Apparel is more profitable compared to Abbeycrest organization (Moyer & McGuigan, 2012). Horizontal Income statements The horizontal income statement depicts the movement of the firm’s profitability over the five financial years by using 2009 financial year as the base level. Consequently, the horizontal income statements depicted below for the two firms reflect the movement of the income of the firms compared to that of 2009 level. Delta Apparel Horizontal Income statements   31/12/2013 USD 31/12/2012 USD 31/12/2011 USD 31/12/2010 USD 31/12/2009 USD 31/12/2009 USD   Operating Income Revenues 131.81 124.76 106.31 101.22 100 355.20 Cost of sales 126.97 124.40 103.95 96.76 100 271.68 Gross margin 154.81 126.49 117.50 122.41 100 83.52 Operating expenses 125.49 111.90 96.11 101.61 100 71.47 Other operating income (expense) 4.44 1.80 0.52 3.93 100 0.10 Operating income from sales(before tax) -444.44 -313.68 -340.41 -336.31 100 12.15 Taxes   100   Tax as reported 6.17 2.82 -3.45 3.53 100 0.97 Other tax adjustments         100   Tax benefit on net interest 0 0 0 0 100 0 Operating income from sales (after tax) -51 -37 -46 -39 100 11 Dirty surplus items         100 - Equity Earnings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 Operating Income (after tax) -51 -37 -46 -39 100 11 Financing Expense (Income)   100   Interest expense 26.79 33.06 37.35 55.70 100 4.72 Interest income 470.79 570.79 269.66 130.34 100 0.00 Other interest adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 Net interest expense 9.38 11.98 28.24 52.78 100 4.72 less Tax benefit from Net Interest Expense 0 0 0 0 100 0 Preferred dividends         100   Net Financial Expense (after tax) 9 12 28 53 100 5 Minority interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 Comprehensive income to Common -47 -34 -42 -34 100 6 Comprehensive Income to Common as per Thomson -47 -34 -42 -34 100 6 Abbeycrest Horizontal Income Statement   12/31/2013 GBR 12/31/2012 GBR 12/31/2011 GBR 12/31/2010 GBR 12/31/2009 GBR 12/31/2009 GBR   % % % %   % Operating Income   Revenues 59.63 61.38 82.10 95.85 100 64.62 Cost of sales 59.19 61.44 76.55 98.11 100 59.36 Gross margin 64.59 60.71 144.89 70.30 100 5.25 Operating expenses 111.08 #DIV/0! 67.70 35.35 100 3.35 Other operating income (expense) -397.19 239.51 -1826.78 -524.91 100 0.53 Operating income from sales(before tax) -100.41 89.62 -356.03 -46.96 100 2.44 Taxes   Tax as reported 0.00 0.00 -34.73 -270.66 100 -0.17 Other tax adjustments             Tax benefit on net interest 0.00 0.00 -28.85 -239.89 100 0 Operating income from sales (after tax) -85.11 75.96 -306.51 -78.15 100 3 Dirty surplus items 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 - Equity Earnings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 Operating Income (after tax) -85.11 75.96 -306.51 -78.15 100 3 Financing Expense (Income)   Interest expense 15.86 19.14 44.26 75.43 100 3.29 Interest income 0.00 0.00 3.03 47.98 100 0.20 Other interest adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 Net interest expense 16.87 20.36 46.90 77.18 100 3.09 less Tax benefit from Net Interest Expense 0.00 0.00 -28.85 -239.89 100 0 Preferred dividends             Net Financial Expense (after tax) 15.51 18.72 40.79 51.61 100 3 Minority interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 Comprehensive income to Common 607.36 -318.00 2083.64 814.93 100 0 Comprehensive Income to Common as per Thomson 607.36 -318.00 2083.64 814.93 100 0 The horizontal income statements depicted in above reflect that the income generation for Delta has been declining while Abbeycrest has been increasing from 2009 financial year. This implies that the profitability of Abbeycrest is increasing while that of Delta Apparel has been decreasing. However, Abbeycrest earned zero profits in 2009 that implies the income levels in the subsequent years are benchmarked against a zero financial position. In contrast, the income level of Delta Apparel in 2009 benchmark year is six million US dollars. Consequently, the favorable trend of Abbeycrest profitability is not genuine. This should not be considered in measuring the attractiveness of an organization. Industry Analysis Delta vs. Competitors The performance of the competitors in the market has also, been used in measuring the financial performance of Delta Apparel organization. This is depicted in the profitability financial ratios below. DRIVERS OF PROFITABILITY (ROCE)   31/12/2013 % 31/12/2012 % 31/12/2011 % 31/12/2010 % 31/12/2009 % ROCE MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.38 0.28 0.45 0.64 0.88 CULP, INC 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.21 -0.81 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP 0.80 1.10 -75.34 -1.87 -5.59 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.14 -0.09 JOES JEANS INC -0.11 0.08 -0.02 0.04 0.40 Average 0.28 0.35 -14.91 -0.17 -1.04             First-Level Decomposition RNOA MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.69 0.29 0.43 0.34 -0.07 CULP, INC 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.19 -0.65 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP -7.43 -0.27 -0.61 -0.73 -0.79 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.13 0.14 0.21 0.20 -0.04 JOES JEANS INC -0.03 0.08 -0.01 0.05 0.48 Average -1.29 0.08 0.04 0.01 -0.21             FLEV MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.00 0.05 0.15 1.12 3.44 CULP, INC 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.35 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP -1.09 -3.66 81.29 0.91 4.80 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.18 JOES JEANS INC 1.61 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.05 Average 0.15 -0.69 16.31 0.45 1.76             SPREAD MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.18 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.04 CULP, INC 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.05 -0.78 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP -7.49 -0.37 -0.72 -0.89 -0.84 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.04 -0.05 -3.82 -4.51 -0.24 JOES JEANS INC -0.05 -0.29 -0.16 -0.05 0.36 Average -1.45 -0.10 -0.92 -1.06 -0.29             NBC MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.00 CULP, INC 0.11 0.07 0.17 0.14 0.13 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.05 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.09 0.19 4.03 4.71 0.19 JOES JEANS INC 0.02 0.38 0.15 0.09 0.12 Average 0.06 0.16 0.90 1.02 0.10             Second Level Decomposition PM MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.183 0.114 0.093 0.081 0.037 CULP, INC 0.069 0.053 0.078 0.070 -0.179 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP -0.236 -0.038 -0.088 -0.146 -0.229 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.046 0.045 0.057 0.045 -0.012 JOES JEANS INC -0.034 0.050 -0.009 0.031 0.311 Average 0.006 0.045 0.026 0.016 -0.015             ATO MICHAEL KORS HOLDINGS LIMITED 0.26 0.40 0.22 0.24 -0.52 CULP, INC 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.28 FREDERICKS OF HOLLYWOOD GROUP 0.03 0.14 0.15 0.20 0.29 G-III APPAREL GROUP, LTD 0.35 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.27 JOES JEANS INC 1.22 0.60 0.71 0.65 0.64 Average 0.45 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.19 The average profitability of the industry compared to that of Delta Apparel is better due to the higher ROCE of Delta compared to that of Apparel. Consequently, the financial performance of Delta is better compared to that of market. Abbeycrest vs. Competitors DRIVERS OF PROFITABILITY (ROCE)   2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 ROCE TOYE & COMPANY PLC 0.27 -0.36 0.06 -0.12 -0.15 CA SPERATI PLC 1.01 8.91 -3.12 -0.14 0.02 MULBERRY G PLC 0.24 0.41 0.41 0.11 -0.35 SUPERGROUP PLC 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.72 0.48 TED BAKER PLC 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.20 0.20 Average Ratios of UK competitors 0.38 1.87 -0.44 0.15 0.04   First-Level Decomposition RNOA TOYE & COMPANY PLC 0.17 -0.13 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 CA SPERATI PLC 1.03 8.91 -3.12 -0.15 -0.00 MULBERRY G PLC 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.04 SUPERGROUP PLC 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.61 0.28 TED BAKER PLC 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.21 Average Ratios of UK competitors 0.33 1.86 -0.50 0.13 0.10   FLEV TOYE & COMPANY PLC 0.85 1.39 1.12 1.07 1.23 CA SPERATI PLC -0.04 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 MULBERRY G PLC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUPERGROUP PLC -0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.51 TED BAKER PLC 0.20 0.07 -0.00 -0.00 -0.04 Average Ratios of UK competitors 0.20 0.29 0.23 0.21 0.34   SPREAD TOYE & COMPANY PLC 0.12 -0.16 0.01 -0.07 -0.09 CA SPERATI PLC 0.45 8.91 -3.12 -1.38 -3.29 MULBERRY G PLC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUPERGROUP PLC -0.21 0.36 0.31 0.48 0.24 TED BAKER PLC 0.16 0.16 0.52 0.70 0.28 Average Ratios of UK competitors 0.10 1.85 -0.46 -0.05 -0.57   NBC TOYE & COMPANY PLC 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.06 CA SPERATI PLC 0.58 0.00 0.00 1.23 3.29 MULBERRY G PLC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUPERGROUP PLC 0.38 -0.17 -0.11 0.13 0.04 TED BAKER PLC 0.03 0.03 -0.29 -0.49 -0.07 Average Ratios of UK competitors 0.21 -0.02 -0.07 0.18 0.66 The average financial ratios of the competitors compared to that of Abbeycrest implies that the profitability of Abbeycrest is lower compared to market performance. This is depicted by the higher average ROCE ratios for the market compared to ROCE of Abbeycrest. Thus, the market promises the common shareholders higher return for their capital investment compared to the return of the Abbeycrest investment. Conclusion The profitability analysis of the two firms undertaken using the reformulated financial statements reflect that the profitability of Delta is better compared Abbeycrest. This is due the higher return Delta promises to it common shareholders compared to Abbeycrest (Peterson & Fabozzi, 2012). Similarly, the industry analysis reveals that Delta Company promises shareholders better returns than the marker returns. In contrast, the returns that Abbeycrest promises to shareholders are lower to that of the market. Consequently, a rational investor should consider investing under Delta investment compared to Abbeycrest due to it high potential of generating high returns to the investors. Reference Bagad, V. (2010). Managerial Economics And Financial Analysis. New York: Technical Publications. Fridson, M. S., & Alvarez, F. (2011). Financial statement analysis: A practitioners guide. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Gibson, C. H. (2012). Financial Reporting and Analysis. Boston: South-Western Pub. Khan, M. Y., & Jain, P. K. (2010). Financial management. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill. Moyer, R. C., & McGuigan, J. (2012). Contemporary Financial Management. Boston: Cengage. Peterson, D. P., & Fabozzi, F. J. (2012). Analysis of financial statements. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Rajasekaran, V., & Lalitha, R. (2011). Financial accounting. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley. Sinha, G. (2009). Financial statement analysis. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt Ltd. Wahlan, J., Baginski, S., & Bradshaw, M. (2010). Financial reporting, financial statement analysis and valuation: A strategic approach, Seventh-Edition. Boston, OH: South-Western. Read More