We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Comparing of Financial Statement for Similar Companies Essay

Introduction Freds, Belk, Big Lots and Dollar Tree are all famous variety store in United State. All of them provide various and qualified goods to customers. This analysis report, discussing different financial data based on the 10-K document of the four companies, wants to give readers a meaningful describe to these companies so investors can have clear opinions to help decide. Company Profiles Freds, Inc. Freds) is to meet the general merchandise and pharmacy needs of the small – to medium- sized towns it serves by offering a wider variety of quality merchandise and a more attractive price-to-value relationship than either drug stores or smaller variety/dollar stores and a shopper-friendly format which is more convenient than larger sized dis count merchandise stores. The company’s sales of p harmaceuticals have a percentage of 33. 5% in 2010, 34. 1% in 2011, and 34. 9% in 2012, comparing to the total sales. And its major sales of others include households good and food products, etc. showing that the company tries its best to execute its business strategy. Big Lots, Inc. is a Fortune 500 retail corporation. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio, USA and currently operates over 1,400 stores in 47 states. Its department stores focus mainly on selling closeout and overstock merchandise. There are some items in the stores, such as foodstuffs, that are replenished on a continual basis. What’s more, Big Lots also operates a wholesale division, which provides merchandise in bulk for resale from a variety of categories.

Big Lots uses an existing building, such as a grocery or department store that had either moved or ceased operations. Dollar Tree, Inc. began its operations in 1953 and was incorporated in Virginia. The company is an American chain of discount variety stores that se lls every item for $1. 00 or less. The company targets low to lower-middle income consumers and sells everyday products from food and personal care products to non-essentials. It sells its product in three business segments:1) Consumable merchandise, which accounted for 48. % of its sales in 2011, 2) Variety merchandise, which accounted for 46. 9% of 2011 sales, and 3)seasonal goods, explained 5% of 2011 sales. Belk, Inc. , together with its subsidiaries, is the largest privately owned mainline department store business in the United States, with 303 stores in 16 states, as of the fiscal year ended January 28, 2012. Generated revenues of $3. 7 billion for the fiscal year 2012, and together with its predecessors, have been successfully operating department stores since 1888. Belk Stores Services, Inc. , a subsidiary of Belk, Inc. rovides a wide range of services t o the Belk division offices and stores, such as merchandising, merchandise planning and allocation, advertising and sales promotion, information systems, human resources, public relations, accounting, real estate and store planning, credit, legal, tax, distribution and purchasing. Accounting Policies (see Exhibit 1) All of the four companies are United State location so that part of their accounting policies are the same, but because the area location and business strategy, they have some different accounting policies.

We will write a custom essay sample on Comparing of Financial Statement for Similar Companies specifically for you
for only $16.38 $13.9/page

Order now

The four companies do not amortized goodwill and tested them for impairment annually, using an income approach and a market approach in determining fair value for purposes of goodwill impairment tests. All four of them report income taxes in accordance with FASB ASC 740, the asset and liability method is used for computing future income tax consequences of events . The major differences exist in revenue recognition, merchandise inventories and Stock-based compensation.

Based on their requirements, Freds records its sales when the merchandise is shipped from the Company’s warehouse; Dollar tree records sales revenue at the time a sale is made to its customer ; Big Lots’ sales Revenue is recognized when the customer makes the final payment and takes possession of the merchandise and sales of Belk is recorded at the time of delivery. Freds values inventories at the lower of cost or market using the retail first -in, first-out method for goods in stores and the cost first -in, first-out method for goods in our distribution centers. And the rest of hree companies values inventories at the lower of cost or market using the average cost retail inventory method. Under the average cost retail inventory method, inventory is segregated into departments of merchandise having similar characteristics at its current retail selling value. Profitability, Liquidity/Solvency (see Exhibit 2) If we analyze the current ratio and quick ratio they are relatively small. So paying the short term debts might be a problem for the company as well as the liquidity is getting decreased from year 2010 – 2012 as 1. 43 to 1. 23 to 0. 88.

So it might be difficult for the company to stay with the current obligations. If we analyze the debt -equity ratio seems to be in high end for the Belk, but it is gradually decreasing 1. 36, 1. 06 to 1. 03. This seems to be a good sign for the company. But still the ratio is high and need quite bit of work to get it down to an acceptable value. Freds’ ROE keeps a increase from 5. 99% in 2010, to 7. 17% in 2011 then to 7. 89% in 2012 because its profit margin increasing from 1. 32% to 1. 61% and 1. 78%, respectively in 2011 and 2012, in the same time, its assets turnover keeps a steadily level from 3. 20 to 3. 06, just a slightly decrease.

Additionally, the gross margin just has a higher change from 27. 92% in 2010, to 28. 66% in 2012 than profit margin. The inventory turnover has a decrease from 4. 33 to 4. 15 respectively in 2010 and 2012, due to the cost of goods sold increasing slower than inventory. What’s more, the current ratio and quick ratio keeps falling down, and debt/equity ratio grows up during the 3 years, showing that the debt increases faster than equity. Big Lot’s ROE continues to grow from 20. 01% in 2010 to 25. 15% in 2012. However, it s profit margin and gross margin have been going downwards since 2010, dropping to 3. 98% and 39. 9% respectively in 2012. What’s more, its current ratio and quick ratio have also decreased, the former one has slacked from 2. 069 in 2010 to 1. 721 in 2012, a nd the later one has slummed from 0. 72 to 0. 31, which indicate that the company’s fund are more tighten up in recent years. Through further study, we found that the D-E ratio is increasing from 1. 208 in 2010 to 1. 704 in 2012, which presented the company’s new financing strategy from borrowing, other than getting capital from the shareholders. The ROE of Dollar Tree increased rapidly from 22. 43% in 2010 to 27. 23% in 2011 and to 36. 32% in 2012. On examining the three omponents of ROE, the profit margin was 6. 3% in 2010 but in 2012 it increased at 7. 36%. In addition, its assets turnover maintains a steady growth. It was 2. 28 in 2010, 2. 47 in 2011 and 2. 85 in 2012. Over the three years, the debt -equity ratio also grows steadily. Besides, the current ratio and quick ratio of Dollar Tree in the past three years obviously declined. That mostly resulted from the increasing debt and surging sales . Return on Equity almost doubled from 2010 to 2011 as 6. 31% to 11. 33% and has a steady growth from 2011 to 2012 as 15. 30%. This implies Net Income increased and it is proportional to good increase in profit margins as from 2% to 3. 63% almost doubled from 2010 to 2011 and 4. 95% in 2012 which is a steady growth. When we compare the Total asset turnover in last 3 years seems to be decreasing, though it is 13. 1 in 2010 decreased significantly form 2011 and 2012 as 1. 14 and 1. 50 respectively. This might be due to competition from other department and specialty stores and other retailers, including luxury goods retailers, mail o rder retailers and offprice and discount stores. Opportunities/Threats Opportunities: from the above, we get the idea that the variety store industry has a good time during the several years.

These four companies are keeping increase in profit and they have lower financial distress so that they could borrow more money from banks and investors, which gives them more chances to execute expansion strategy: more available cash from borrowing, better financial statement which can give more confidence to in vestors and higher return to support the future development. Threats: we should notice that most of the four companies have a higher gross margin increasing than profit margin, and a continuous lower inventory turnover.

They show that these companies’ structures include threaten in the future. What’s more, the high debt means that the banks and investors tighten polices and requirements to the companies so their business and expansion will be influenced by investors. Meanwhile, the raising interest rat e of debt gives higher financial distress to the companies. Overall Assessment Retail industry is a highly competitive and dynamic business to work with. So it needs to be change whenever it needs to be. Here we can see that when one company doing well other companies are struggling to stay in the race.

If we analyze the overall challenges retail business facing is like high Employee turnovers, also Auditing issues as they regularly engaged in competition with one another, and this competition can creat e price wars, forcing a need to keep tight control over inventory, as the nation prospers and people have more money to spend, the retail industry generally flourishes. As for the companies we can see that Fred’s, Dollar tree and Belk is seems to be doing well in this difficult situations, but the Big Lotus is losing some ground as profit margins getting lower as well as their funds getting tightens up.

However when we see the COGS each company has a problem as COGS selling slower than the inventory, this might be hurting all four companies as if their items old they have to write off them and which might eventually losing money. Exhibit 1: Significant Accounting Policies Freds Revenue recognition Merchandise inventories Goodwill Stock-based compensation Income taxes Dollar tree Big Lots Belk Sales are recorded when the merchandise is shipped from the Company’s warehouse sales revenue at the time a sale is made to its customer Revenue is recognized when the customer makes the final payment and takes possession of the merchandise.

Sales from retail operations are recorded at the time of delivery. Valued at the lower of cost or market using the retail first-in, first-out method for goods in our stores and the cost first-in, firstout method for goods in our distribution centers. Stated at the lower of cost or market, determined on a weighted-average cost basis. Under the retail inventory method, the valuation of inventories at cost and the resulting gross margins are computed by applying a calculated cost-to-retail ratio to the retail value of inventories. Valued at the lower of cost or market using the average cost retail inventory method. Under the average ost retail inventory method, inventory is segregated into departments of merchandise having similar characteristics at its current retail selling value. Valued using the lower of cost or market value, determined by the retail inventory method. Under the retail inventory method (“RIM”), the valuation of inventories at cost and the resulting gross margins Goodwill is not amortized and tested for impairmen t annually. Use an income approach and a market approach in determining fair value for purposes of goodwill impairment tests. Goodwill is not amortized and tested for impairment annually. Use an income approach and a market pproach in determining fair value for purposes of goodwill impairment tests. Goodwill is not amortized and tested for impairment annually. Use an income approach and a market approach in determining fair value for purposes of goodwill impairment tests. Goodwill is not amortized and tested for impairment annually. Use an income approach and a market approach in determining fair value for purposes of goodwill impairment tests. Uses the fair value recognition provisions of FASB ASC 718, account for stock based compensation by using the grant date fair value of share awards and the estimated number of shares that will ultimately be ssued in conjunction with each award. Recognizes all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, in the financial statements based on their fair values. Value and expense stock options with graded vesting as a single award with an average estimated life over the entire term of the award. Uses the fair value recognition provisions of FASB ASC 718, account for stock based compensation by using the grant date fair value of share awards and the estimated number of shares that will ultimately be issued in conjunction with each award. reports income taxes in accordance with FASB ASC 740,the asset and liability ethod is used for computing future income tax consequences of events reports income taxes in accordance with FASB ASC 740,the asset and liability method is used for computing future income tax consequences of events reports income taxes in accordance with FASB ASC 740,the asset and liability method is used for computing future income tax consequences of events reports income taxes in accordance with FASB ASC 740,the asset and liability method is used for computing future income tax consequences of events Exhibit 2: Industry Ratio Summary 2012 Freds, Inc. 2011 Profitability Return on equity 7. 89% 7. 17% 5. 99% 25. 15% 23. 50% 20. 01% 6. 32% 27. 23% 22. 43% 15. 30% 11. 33% 6. 31% Profit margin 1. 78% 1. 61% 1. 32% 3. 98% 4. 49% 4. 23% 7. 36% 6. 75% 6. 13% 4. 95% 3. 63% 2. 00% Gross margin 28. 66% 28. 61% 27. 92% 39. 79% 40. 63% 40. 61% 35. 87% 35. 49% 35. 49% 0. 33% 0. 33% 0. 32% Total asset turnover 3. 06 3. 16 3. 20 3. 169 3. 057 2. 831 2. 85 2. 47 2. 28 1. 5 1. 41 13. 1 A/R turnover 62. 61 64. 58 61. 93 42. 45 41. 39 40. 11 76. 42 78. 53 72. 33 104. 9 131. 3 118. 7 Inventory turnover 4. 15 4. 33 4. 33 3. 8 3. 86 4. 02 4. 2 4. 2 4. 1 2. 9 2. 97 2. 83 Short term liquidity Current ratio 2. 47 2. 91 2. 81 1. 721 1. 941 2. 069 2. 08 2. 5 2. 74 2. 51 3. 34 3. 32 0. 33 . 52 0. 57 0. 31 0. 53 0. 72 0. 59 1 1. 31 0. 88 1. 23 1. 43 0. 49 0. 40 0. 43 1. 704 1. 283 1. 208 0. 73 0. 63 0. 6 1. 03 1. 06 1. 36 Quick ratio Long term solvency Debt/Equity ratio 2010 2012 Big Lots 2011 2010 2012 Dollar Tree 2011 2010 Belk. inc 2012 2011 2010 Profit Margin Return on Equity 40. 00% 35. 00% 30. 00% 25. 00% Freds, inc 20. 00% Big Lots 15. 00% Dollar Tree 10. 00% Belk. inc 5. 00% 0. 00% 2012 2011 8. 00% 7. 00% 6. 00% 5. 00% 4. 00% 3. 00% 2. 00% 1. 00% 0. 00% Freds, inc Big Lots Dollar Tree Belk. inc 2012 2010 2011 2010 Debt-to-Equity Ratio Inventory turnover 2. 00 5. 00 4. 00 Freds, inc 3. 00 Big Lots 1. 50 Freds, inc

Big Lots 1. 00 Dollar Tree Dollar Tree 2. 00 Belk. inc 1. 00 Belk. inc 0. 50 0. 00 0. 00 2012 2011 2010 2012 2011 2010 Exhibit 3: Income statement Fred,inc Statement of Income January 28, 2012 Net sales Cost of goods sold 1879059 1340519 100% 71. 34% Gross profit 538540 Depreciation and amortization 100% 71. 39% 1788136 1288899 100% 72. 08% 28. 66% 527018 28. 61% 499237 27. 92% 34190 1. 82% 29236 1. 59% 26387 1. 48% Selling, general and administrative expenses 453195 24. 12% 451064 24. 49% 434356 24. 29% Operating income Interest income Interest expense 51155 -156 553 2. 72% -0. 01% 0. 03% 46718 -234 424 2. 54% -0. 01% 0. 02% 38494 -189 82 2. 15% -0. 01% 0. 03% Income before income taxes 50758 2. 70% 46528 2. 53% 38201 2. 14% Provision for income taxes 17330 0. 92% 16941 0. 92% 14586 0. 82% 33428 1. 78% 29587 1. 61% 23615 1. 32% $ $ January 30, 2010 1841755 1314737 Net income $ January 29, 2011 $ $ $ Big Lots, Statement of Income January 27, 2012 Net sales Cost of goods sold Gross profit Selling, general and administrative expenses Other Operating Expense Operating income $ January 28, 2011 5,202,269. 00 3,131,862. 00 2,070,407. 00 100. 00% 60. 20% 39. 80% 1,634,532. 00 January 29, 2012 4,952,244. 00 2,939,793. 00 2,012,451. 00 100. 00% 59. 36% 40. 64% 31. 42% 1,567,500. 0 90,280. 00 1. 74% 345,595. 00 6. 64% $ 4,726,772. 00 2,807,466. 00 1,919,306. 00 100. 00% 59. 39% 40. 61% 31. 65% 1,532,356. 00 32. 42% 78,606. 00 1. 59% 74,904. 00 1. 58% 357,345. 00 7. 22% 325,010. 00 6. 88% $ Earnings Before Interest And Taxes Interest Expense 345,422. 00 6. 64% 357,957. 00 7. 23% 325,185. 00 6. 88% 3,530. 00 0. 07% 2,573. 00 0. 05% 1,840. 00 0. 04% Income Before Tax 341,892. 00 6. 57% 355,384. 00 7. 18% 323,345. 00 6. 84% Income Tax Expense 134,657. 00 2. 59% 132,837. 00 2. 68% 121,975. 00 2. 58% Net income 207,064. 00 3. 98% 222,524. 00 4. 49% 200,369. 00 4. 24% Dollar Tree, Statement of Income January 28,2012

Revenues $ January 29,2011 Selling and admistrtive expense 64. 13% 35. 87% 3,794. 8 2,087. 60 1,596. 2 Gross margin 100% 4252. 2 2378. 3 cost of sales 6630. 5 $ 5882. 40 24. 07% 1,457. 60 100% January 30,2010 $ 5,231. 20 100% 64. 51% 35. 49% 3,374. 40 1,856. 80 64. 51% 35. 49% 24. 78% 1,344. 00 25. 69% Restructing charges Goodwill impairment — — — intangible and other asset impairment — — — operating expense $ 1,596. 2 24. 07% operating income interest expense interest income other income 782. 1 2. 9 –0. 3 11. 80% 0. 04% Income before income taxes Net income $ 1,457. 60 24. 78% 10. 71% 0. 10% 0. 00% 630 5. 6 –5. 5 779. 5 ncome taxes $ 11. 76% 291. 2 488. 3 4. 39% 7. 36% 1344 25. 69% 9. 80% 0. 10% -0. 10% 512. 8 5. 2 — 629. 9 $ $ 10. 71% 507. 6 9. 70% 232. 6 397. 3 3. 95% 6. 75% 187. 1 320. 5 3. 58% 6. 13% $ Belk, Statement of Income 2012 2011 Revenues 3,699,592 100% Cost of goods sold (Including occupancy, distribution and buying $ expenses) 2,461,515 66% 938008 2012 3513275 100% 2353536 66% 25% 914078 3143 0. 08% 2302 —- Operating income Interest expense Interest income Loss on extinguishment of debt Gain on investments Income before income taxes Income tax expense Net income Gain on sale of property and equipment Asset impairment and exit costs

Pension curtailment charge $ 100% 2271925 68% 26% 886263 26% 6416 0. 18% 2011 0. 06% 0. 06% 0. 00% 6096 —– 0. 17% 0. 00% 39915 2719 1. 19% 0. 08% 300190 Selling, general and administrative expenses 3346252 8. 11% 245981 7. 00% 147441 4. 41% -50218 328 -922 —–250098 66950 183148 -1. 35% 0. 01% 0. 02% 0. 00% 0. 0676 1. 80% 0. 0495 -50679 569 ——–195871 68243 127628 -1. 44% 0. 02% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 0557 1. 94% 0. 0363 -51321 1027 —43 97190 30054 67136 -1. 53% 0. 03% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 029 0. 89% 2 $ $ $ $ Exhibit 4: Balance Sheet Freds,inc Balance Sheets January 28, 2012 January 29, 2011 January 30, 2010 January 31, 2009 ASSETS

Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents 27130 4. 29% 49182 8. 26% 54742 9. 58% Account Receivables Inventories 31883 331882 5. 04% 52. 51% 28146 313384 4. 73% 52. 62% 28893 294024 Other non-trade receivables 32090 5. 08% 26378 4. 43% Prepaid expenses and other current assets Total current assets 12321 435306 1. 95% 68. 88% 12723 429813 Property and equipment 161112 25. 49% 139931 Equipment under capital leases 97 0. 02% – Intangible assets, net 32191 5. 09% 22193 3. 73% 16035 2. 81% 9042 1. 66% Other noncurrent assets, net Total assets $ 3276 631982 0. 52% 100% $ 3591 595528 0. 60% 100% $ 4040 571441 0. 71% 100% $ 4442 544775 0. 82% 00% LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY Current liabilities: Accounts payable $ 106886 16. 91% $ 81002 13. 60% $ 87393 15. 29% $ 69955 12. 84% 658 0. 10% 201 0. 03% 718 0. 13% 243 0. 04% Current portion of indebtedness $ $ $ $ 35128 6. 45% 5. 06% 51. 45% 28857 301537 5. 30% 55. 35% 25193 4. 41% 15782 2. 90% 2. 14% 72. 17% 10945 413797 1. 92% 72. 41% 11912 393216 2. 19% 72. 18% 23. 50% 137569 24. 07% 138036 25. 34% – 39 Accrued expenses and other 44876 7. 10% 45371 7. 62% 39621 6. 93% 46659 8. 56% Deferred income taxes 23878 3. 78% 21142 3. 55% 19373 3. 39% 13061 2. 40% Total current liabilities 176298 27. 90% 147716 24. 80% 147105 5. 74% 137667 25. 27% Long-term portion of indebtedness 6640 1. 05% 3969 0. 67% 4179 0. 73% 4866 0. 89% Deferred income taxes 5633 0. 89% 2069 0. 35% 2009 0. 35% 1328 0. 24% Other noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities 19799 208370 3. 13% 32. 97% 17886 171640 3. 00% 28. 82% 17209 170502 3. 01% 29. 84% 13833 157694 2. 54% 28. 95% Common stock, Class A voting, no par value 105384 16. 68% 131367 22. 06% 131685 23. 04% 136877 25. 13% Common stock, Class B nonvoting, no par value Retained earnings 317364 50. 22% 291649 48. 97% 268350 46. 96% 249141 45. 73% Accumulated other comprehensive income 864 0. 14% 872 0. 15% 904 0. 16% 1063

How to cite this page

Choose cite format:

Comparing of Financial Statement for Similar Companies. (2019, Jun 20). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-essay-comparing-of-financial-statement-for-similar-companies/

We will write a custom paper sample onComparing of Financial Statement for Similar Companiesspecifically for you

for only $16.38 $13.9/page
Order now

Our customer support team is available Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. If you contact us after hours, we'll get back to you in 24 hours or less.

By clicking "Send Message", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
No results found for “ image
Try Our service

Hi, I am Colleen from Paperap.

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Click to learn more https://goo.gl/CYf83b