Investment Decision Making Between Games Workshop And Hornby Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

The basis for this analysis is to advise Mr. Curry on an investment. The client has a huge portfolio of shares and has recently inherited a big sum of cash which he also wishes to invest in shares. He has a broad portfolio of shares, but not that sound enough when it comes to games retailing sector. So the author over here looks at suggesting the client , to invest in one of the following companies namely Games Work Shop group PLC Hornby PLC. To make it further effective, the author has considered the last three years financial statements of both the companies instead of just deciding on one financial statement. The financial analysis equipment was made use of, in order to compare between the companies which are explained in the statement. Eventually, the author benchmarked it with the industry in which they are present by gathering information from various sources available on the web, books, and journals. Ultimately, necessary recommendations have been made along with some vital measures to be taken before making a speculation. 2.COMPANIES PROFILE:- Games Workshop group PLC: It is basically a largest and successful gaming company which was found in 1975 by John Peake and Ian Living Stone . It is a production retailing company which is located in London. It has introduced a Stock Exchange in 1994. It was originally a manufacture of a wooden board for ames such as back Gammon. Mancala, Nine Mends Morris and GO games but later became an importer of United Stated of America role-Playing games namely Dungeons Dragons. Companys over all 65% sales operations is coming from USA , Canada ,France,Spain,Italy,Japan, Germany Australia (Games workshop ;2000-2010) Hornby PLC: It is basically a toy company which is abrand leader for UKs railway hobby model. Founder Frank Hornby started his company in ( 1863-1938) and company got patent rights in 1901,after that they establishment of Meccano Ltd in 1907, thus it became one of the classic toys.Meccano Ltd that was taken over by Lines Bros (the parent company of Rovex Scale Models Ltd, manufacture of Triang railways),later on it became Tri-ang Hornby in 1965. New diesels included the High Speed Train (HST) which was a popular model instantly.In year1986 it was floated on unlisted securities market ,and then it becomes a public company. British railways have made some changes for the privatization of Railways. Hornby introduced first commercially produced 00 gauge live steam locomotive in year 2003, companys expands range, more than 650 current items. Company position held for more than 50 years as Britains leading model railway manufacturer company.(Hornby;2008) 3.FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:- It would be via financial tools to help us measure up to the performance and do TIE benchmarking to understand the improved performer of the two. Horizontal and Vertical analysis is followed by ratios. where TIE is benchmarking would be compare the companies T -Trend I -Industry E -Expectation 3.1.COMMON-SIZE STATEMENTS:- In common size statements are generally Horizontal analysis compares the presentation of a company with its own historical data to recognize how the financial statement things change over time (Alexander 2009:816). Now a base year is chosen and all the financial statement items are expressed as an catalogue relative to the base year.It gives a quick guide to specific trends of an individual item(Elliott and Elliott 2008:706). With three years financial statements, this is carried out for Games work Shop Plc and Hornby PLC so that the companys trend is understood. Vertical analysis is carried out on one years statement. The entire items in the financial statement is expressed in comparison with a selected figure in the statement(i.e.)in profit and loss account all the things are expressed in terms of turnover and balance sheet its expressed in terms of capital employed or shareholders funds (Elliott and Elliott 2008:710). 3.2.RATIOS:- Ratio analysis describes the relation between different objects in the financial statements. They classify areas of fine and shocking performance and areas of significant vary. The relative usefulness of every ratio depends on what aspects of the companys affairs are mortal investigated. Ratios are powerful tool for understanding and interpreting company accounts(Elliott and Elliott 2008: 665). Number financial ratios can be considered as shown in the appendix but we are going to consider the key ratios of the financial performance, current financial position and the shareholders return and the related ratios under each are:- Financial Performance Profitability Ratio. Efficiency Ratio. Current Financial Position Liquidity Ratio. Gearing Ratio. Shareholder Return ROE/ROSF TSR Financial ratios analysis This section will critically demonstrate and analyze the financial health and performance of the two companies in term of its profitability, liquidity, efficiency, gearing, investment by comparing trends of those ratios as well as looking in deep insight of financial figures between the two companies over three financial years. Basically, investors are most concerned about their investment return and risk. Based on this sense, we have chosen those mentioned ratios to analysis and explain these two companies investment value, and also justifications of why they are important to evaluate also are provided with each ratio. Among those, profitability and investment ratios, nevertheless, will be mainly focused for the investment analysis and decision making. 1. Profitability Ratios: Profitability ratios are the most important ratios to investors in any given industry, because it simply shows how much profit the company has earned over years, does it achieve satisfactory level to investors, banks, and shareholders compared to that of its competitor or the industry. Also by drilling down into figures, profitability ratios can also tell how efficient and effective company conducts its business resources and operation activities such as sales, production or other cost-consumed ones. This section will examine the reasons why the profitability of GWB is growing upward contrary to that of HB through years, why even generating large sales in 2008 (always twice as much as HBs for 3 years), GWB only achieved very low profit (2,552), nearly one fourth to HBs (9.386) in 2008 and how important cost management can improve the profitability of GWB on one side but reduce HBs on the other side in 2009 and 2010. (in 1000 pounds) Now, this report is to analyze the profitability of the two companies by looking into its ROCE, and its relationship between ROS and AT and Net Profit Margin ratios: Return on Capital Employed: Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) is the key profitability ratio that measures companys profits and business performance. It shows the relationship between the PBIT with the capital employed to make that profit. Graphs to compare profitability between GWB and HB for 3 years from 2008 to 2010: ROCE, ROS and AT Describe: As seen in the graph: The ROCE of GWG is upward, and that of HB however is downward for the 3 financial years. Both AT of GWG and HB are slightly downward, however the ratio of GWG (averagely 2.33) is at higher level than that of HB (averagely 1.56) While ROS of GWG started at very low rate 2.31% in 2008 compared to the ratio of HB 16.85% but GWG has improved dramatically to 7.11% in 2009 and 12.68% in 2010 since HB dropped considerably to 11.21% in 2009 and 9.27% in 2010. Analyze: Since ROCE is equal by AT times ROS, and AT of both companies seems to stay unchanged, the significant changes in ROCE between them largely depends on the fluctuations of their ROS ratios Actually, a significant increase in ROCE of GWG is as a result of an increase in its ROS and a significant decrease in ROCE of HB is as a result of a decrease in its ROS Also, the average AT of GWG for 3 years is 1.5 times as much as that of HB means the greater effectiveness of using its assets to generate revenues for GWG over HB. Once again, because ROS is equal by PBIT/ Sales, and the Sales of both companies slightly increase in approximately same proportion (around 1.15 times by both over 3 years), the significant changes in ROS between them largely depends on the fluctuations of their PBIT. PBIT of GWG has soared dramatically from very low level 2.552 in 2008 to 8.933 in 2009 and 16.045, while a downward trend has been seen in HBs from 9.386 in 2008 to 6.899 in 2009 and 6.004 in 2010. Here is the key point to analyze why they have achieved different performances. Even generating large sales in 2008 (always twice as much as HBs for 3 years) GWB only achieved very low profit (2,552) nearly one fourth to HBs in 2008. GWG 2010 2009 2008 Sales 126,511 125,706 110,345 increase 115% 114% 100% HB 2010 2009 2008 Sales 64,736 61,569 55,692 increase 116% 111% 100% Profit is therefore measured as the difference between Sales and Operation Expenses. Operation Expenses and COGS are the key reasons for two companies performance differences: GWG 2010 2009 2008 OE 110,466 116,773 107,793 decrease 102.48% 108.33% 100.00% HB 2010 2009 2008 OE 58,732 54,670 46,306 Increase 126.83% 118.06% 100.00% Comment: There are two reverse pictures of business performance between the two companies: GWB has improved progressively, HB has not. GWG must do something right in its cost strategies from 2008 to 2009 and 2010 and vice versa for HB. To simplify, the reasons of positive changes for GWBs profitability and negative changes for HBs are mostly illustrated by the diagram below: COGS falls OE falls PBIT increases Profitability Increases ROCE increases ROS increases Sales slightly increases Diagram illustrated the financial ratio factors that make the positive increase in profitability of GWG over 3 years. The efficient way of cost management in GWB through 3 years has lead the reduction of its COGs and Operation Expenses, along with the slightly increase in sales which together results in the increase in ROS, ROCE ratios and finally the profitability. By the same way, the inefficient way of cost management in HB has made it less profitability performance than it did in previous years. GWG 2010 2009 2008 GWG 2010 2009 2008 COGS 30,683 35,919 32,896 Sales 126,511 125,706 110,345 Decrease 93.27% 109.19% 100.00% increase 115% 114% 100% HB 2010 2010 2010 HB 2010 2010 2010 COGS 32,636 32,168 26,297 Sales 64,736 61,569 55,692 Increase 124.11% 122.33% 100.00% increase 116% 111% 100% Net profit Margin (NPM) measures the profit before interest and tax PBIT made out of total sales of the company. It also shows the similar reserve trends between the two companies. Summary By all the analysis of past performance and comparison, GWB has performed more profitably and efficiently than HB has. GWB has successfully reduced its production cost as well as maintained its high revenues to generate better business performance and profitability over years. 2. Liquidity ratios: Liquidity ratios simply measure how companies can meet its current financial obligations in term of cash or how can assets be quickly transferred into cash when needed. With that view, current ratio indicates the relationship between companys total current assets and its total current liabilities, and how it can pay short term debts (less than 12 months) from the current assets which are mostly able to transform into cash. The higher is the ratio, the better. Below 1:1 is highly not expected and the ideal figure for this ratio is 2:1. In the charts, both of these companies have achieved the ratios above 1:1, however, the trends between them are different. GWB has consistent uptrend, starting at low level (relative to HB) 1.4 (times) in 2008, but rising moderately to 1.74 in 2009 and 2.04 in 2010. HB has fluctuated from high level (relative to GWB) 1.87 in 2008, but declining considerably to 1.48 in 2009, and recovering dramatically at 2.11 in 2010. Liquid ratios have shown the similar trends to the previous ratios between two companies because it is current ratio but deducts inventory asset which is not always easily to turn into cash. As a matter of fact, excluding inventory makes liquid ratios of GWB become relatively higher than those of HB, which means GWB has done better in term of inventory strategies over HB. GWBs inventory has been kept as a consistent level over 3 years around 10.300 accompanied with the increase in total assets which makes the relative proportion between inventory and total asset getting smaller hence higher liquid ratio. While HBs inventory has been fluctuated (11.890 in 2008, 14.368 in 2009, 12.273 in 2010) and by the same way finally makes that proportion become bigger and hence lower liquid ratio. HB 2010 2009 2008 Inventory 12,273 14,368 11,890 Current Asset 35,487 28,038 23,681 Proportion 34.58% 51.24% 50.21% GWB 2010 2009 2008 Inventory 10,138 10,678 10,392 Current Asset 37,571 31,234 29,320 Proportion 26.98% 34.19% 35.44% Proportion of inventory over total current assets for Games Workshop Group PLc(GWB) and Hornby PLC (HB) over 3 years The different picture has been seen in Cash ratio when GWB has shown a much higher ability to pay its short term loans in immediate cash than HB. This implies greater risks for HB in the business when it needs cash to cover other operational expenses 3. Efficiency ratios: Efficiency ratios evaluate the ability of a company to utilize and manage various resources. In the previous section, AT has been assessed to see how GWB use its assets more efficiently to generate revenues than HB. Specifically, Fixed Assets Turnover ratio measures how efficiently a company uses its fixed assets to generate its sales. The higher is the ratio, the better. The high ratio means the company has less money tied up in fixed assets for each pound generated and the declining ratio indicates that company has over invested in fixed assets such as plant, machinery, etcÃÆ' ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¦ In the chart, the increasing ratios of GWB for 3 years clearly show the efficient utilization of its fixed assets: 2.89 (times) in 2008, 3.23 in 2009 and 3.31 in 2010. On the contrary, HB has the declining and lower ratios over 3 years: 2.68 in 2008, 2.06 in 2009, 2.25 in 2010. Thus, HB has performed less efficiently using fixed assets to generate sales than GWB. Stock turnover period measures for how long inventories are being hold or how well a company can manage its stock level. The lower period is the ratio, the better. It can also help company improve its sales and liquidity performance. Once again, as analyzed in the profitability ratios, GWB has performed better than HB in term of inventory and COGSs. GWB keeps its consistent lower inventory level while reducing cost of goods sold to maximize its profits. In the chart, however in 2010, the period of GWB is getting higher to 121 days, compared to the previous years: 109 days in 2009 and 113 days in 2008, while HB has reduced this period over 3 years: from 166 days in 2008, to 164 days in 2009 and 138 days in 2010. Debtors period Debtors Period is one of most important ratios reflected the ability of a company to collect debts from its credit customers. If the period is high, a company will face difficulty to quickly withdraw its finance to invest in its business operations. It can be seen that GWBs period is much better (2.5 times lower) than HBs, while GWB only needs averagely 30 days to take its debts back and this periods tend to decrease, HB normally needs more than 70 days and this ratios seem not to positively change. 5. Creditors Period Creditors period, on the other hand, measures for how long company have to pay for its suppliers. The higher period is the ratio, the better because it can keep cash longer and push the finance risk to its suppliers. GWBs period is still better and 1.6 times longer than HBs for the 3 years, means the pressure of GWB to pay money back to its supplier is smaller than the other. 6. Capital gearing: Capital gearing ratio determines how well a company can pay for its long term loans. It measures the proportion of long term loans over total capital employed. Two reversed trends have been seen for the two companies. GWB started at very high rate of 32.21% in 2008 but dropped to 22.98% in 2009 and dipped to the lowest 0% in 2010, conversely the other started at very low rate of 0.44% in 2008, but climbed sharply to 18.40% in 2009 and 22.22% in 2010. High ratio also indicates the higher risk of HB to pay high interests to banks and the bigger nervousness of its creditors on HBs loans. 7. Investment ratios: This is the most important ratio for the investors and it consists of many ratios which are going to see in detail: EPS, DPS, PE (Data taken from the 5 financial year summary of GWB and HB 2010s annual reports) EPS represents the earning of the company as a function of the total number of ordinary shares in issue. (ORegan 2006:295).The shareholders are interested in EPS as it shows the earnings yield percentage and to estimate future growth which will affect the future share price (Elliott, 2008). The two reverse trends in investment picture have been matched with the previous trends described in profitability ratios. GWBs EPS has been improved substantially as the company generates better profits than it did in previous year. It reaches the highest point 48.4 (p/ share) in 2010, followed by 17.6 in 2009 and -2.4 in 2008, a spectacular trend for investors to look at. Conversely, less profitability, thus less EPS makes HB loose its attractiveness from investors by the downtrend: 9.76 in 2010, 11.17 in 2009 and 16.15 in 2008. P/E Ratio The Price/earnings ratio is one of the most important and controversy ratio that measures of the companys performance (ORegan 2006:298). It represents the markets view of growth potential of the company, its dividend policy and the degree of risk involved in investment. This indicates the relationship between the earnings of the company and its stock market price. The low P/E means the company is undervalued and vice versa, hence investors might put their money on those stocks rather than those (overvalued) which more than its worth. In this chart, the P/Es of GWB and HB are relatively 8.3 and 15.43 means GWB and HB investors will pay relatively 8.3 pounds and 15.43 pounds for every 1 pound of its earnings, which means that HBs stock is less value attractive than the other by investors. The upward trend of HB (6.19 in 2008, 13.43 in 2009 and 15.43 in 2010) shows its less value attractiveness than GWB (120.58 in 2008, 14.54 in 2009 and 8.83 in 2010) for years. However, the higher P/E ratio also means the greater of the confidence in future earning power of the company, HB therefore has higher market confidence in stock increase for future. Stock prices of HB is much more fluctuated, and lower than GWB demonstrates its better probability to increase while GWBs stock price is very high and has less space for share price rising. This point will be assessed more in Investment Advice section. DPS Another key investment ratio is very useful for investors to consider is DPS (Dividend per share). It indicates how much dividend a company pays for its shareholders every year or a quarter of a year. As seen in the graph, there were no dividend paid to GWBs shareholders in 2008 and 2009 but a very large dividend proposed 25 (pence/share) in 2010 while there were lower dividends paid to HBs shareholders for 3 years: 8.52 in 2008, 2.7 in 2009 and 5.04 in 2010. 7. INDUSTRY ANALYSIS:- Initially lets evaluate the performance of the industry they are present in .The factors that are affecting the retailing game industry are as follows: Market background: The UK traditional toys and games market grew consistently between 2004 and 2007, but recorded a slowdown in sales in 2008, which brought the value of the market to 2.09bn. The main product categories in the market are: infant/pre-school toys and games; activity toys; outdoor and sports toys and games; games and puzzles; dolls; action toys; vehicles; electronic toys; plush toys; and other products. Multichannel retailing (store, catalogue and internet) a vital requirement. Recession and growth: It is evident that the profit margins and the turnover of any given industry existing have went down just in 2009 due to the effect of the recession, but for the total trend, industry has generally performed well. The UK toys and games market is facing difficulty in 2009, as a result of negative economic growth and inflation. However, there has been some recovery in sales from 2010 as given below: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 656 667 684 680 699 (Fame,2010) Competitive industry environment: Costs rising for retailers. Highly seasonal retail market. Growth in Internet sales. More channels of distribution opening, particularly supermarkets and the Internet. Challenges from tougher economic conditions and competitors for kids time console games and Internet. TV and film plays major role in market. When the firms figures seem to hit the ground due to global economic conditions, survival seems to be tough. Now taking this into account, below figure is plotted which reveals a fact that Games Workshop Group PLC has a maximum PBT (Profit before Tax) of 29.57% as of the available year when compared to its close competitors namely Vivid Imagination limited and the Hornby PLC which could only manage to gain a PBT of 18.70% and 9.57% respectively. This clearly suggests us that the Games Workshop Group PLC has been maintaining a decent PBT which eventually gained them a strong market share. This economic hit has lead to the following consequences where, . Consumers do choosy shopping. The demand curve for the valuable goods had gone down. Market share: So as a result of the above changes that have occurred, any given firm in the market needs to make necessary changes as far as their operations are concerned. The comparisons are carried out below. However the necessary recommendations will be made at the end by the report that might possibly remedy the current scenario. Source:-Fame (2010) In the chart, the Games Workshop Group PLC is known to be the largest and the most successful tabletop fantasy war games company in the world since it managed to maintain some respectable numbers when compared to the other toy and game industries. (Games, 2010). Future prospect and forecast: Turnover of various Toy industries in the U.K (2003-2010). Source: (Mintel, 2010) The above graph shows that Toy industry had reached up to 2,050 million pounds in 2003 year, .after that industry turnover constantly improved to 2,150 million pounds in year 2006, in2007 it reached almost to 2,200 million pounds. In year 2008-2009 industry turnover has been declined below 2,050 million pounds, because of recession effect in market. And if we observe in the year 2010 industry turnover had slightly increased and reached as in year 2003 which is 2,050million pounds. In future prospector point of view Games work shop Group PLC is doing well compare to Hornby PLC even in recession period occurred during 2007-2009, and the ROCE ratio has increased as well compare with pervious .If we compare with competitor like Hornby PLC doing well some ratios, but some them are lagining behind with Games workshop PLC .The ROCE ratio of Hornby is declined compare with pervious years. Rising birth rate good news for market. Smaller average family sizes, older parents Recommendation: The performances of the two companies are understood by analysing their ratios. Among the ratios which has been calculated we have to consider the few key points in order to recommend for the investment. We can recommend the investor by taking the key ratios of the both companies which gives a clear idea of which company is making more profit and low risk. These are the two important aspects that has to be taken into consideration in order to choose a better company to invest. SWOT Analysis: SWOT analysis of Games Workshop PLC: STRENGHTS Good returns on capital employed. Increase in share price. Gearing ratio is zero in the current year states that it has low risk. Largest and the most successful table top fantasy war games company in the world. WEAKNESS No regular dividend to investors. OPPORTUNITIES Recovering from the inflation it has large scope to extend its business globally. Parents are supporting learning through play so that GWP can use this as an opportunity to increase the business. Increasing child population in UK. THREATS Recession: Recession is a huge threat for GWP as it is in a market of toys. Competitors: this is one of the threat for the company as the other companies in the same industry are also doing well. SWOT analysis of Hornby PLC: STRENGHTS Large product portfolio. Best performance in Europe despite of supply problem. Regular payment on dividend. WEAKNESS Supply Problem OPPORTUNITIES Product expansion in Europe markets London Olympic Games 2012 THREATS Recession: Should be a huge threat for the company currently. Competitors: this is a threat that the other companies which has entered after the Hornby are doing well in the market. Investment advice: Studying the ratios and performance the investment advice to Mr Stephen Curry is given depending on the following key elements: Business Performance, Return on Investment, current stock price trends After analysing the total financial ratios we can conclude that the Games Workshop Group PLC is doing better in the business performance than the Hornby PLC. The GWB generates more profits by selling much more products and at the same time regulating the inventory stock well to minimise the production cost, hence they are more efficient to utilize their business resources and better in cash liquidity. The current share price of Games Workshop PLC is 427.5p [Date: 12-11-10] which has an increase of 69.5p when it was 346p [Date:30-5-10] while Hornby PLC current share price is 150.5 [Date:12-11-10] has an increase of 24.5p when it was 126[Date:31-3-10]. This shows that there is a great increase of the share price of GWP than that of the Hornby PLC which is very important to any investor to think. Games Workshop PLC Share Price 427.5p Updated: 10-11-2010 https://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=GAW:LN Hornby PLC Share Price: 150.5P updated:10-11-2010 https://www.hornby.com/investor-relations/ Industry prospective, financial environment and competitions Stephens attitude to risk: From the investment ratio, there are two different options for any investor to choose . They are: Low risk-Long term investment. High risk-Short term investment. From the above share price charts of the two companies it is clear that the GWB comes under the first category and the HB comes under the second category. We can justify this satatement by analysing the P/Es of the two companies . when the P/E is low it means that the company is undervalued and vice versa. The P/E of GWB and HB are 8.3 and 15.43 respectilvely. It means that they pay 8.3 pounds and 15.3 pounds respectively for every 1 pound earnings. The upward trend of HB (6.19 in 2008, 13.43 in 2009 and 15.43 in 2010) shows its less value attractiveness than GWB (120.58 in 2008, 14.54 in 2009 and 8.83 in 2010) for years. However, the higher P/E ratio also shows the confidence in future earning power of the company. HB therefore has higher market confidence in stock increase for future. Stock prices of HB is much more fluctuated, and lower than GWB demonstrates its better probability to increase while GWBs stock price is very high and has less space for share price rising. As our investor Mr Stephen Curry has a broad portfolio in the of shares but he does not have very much exposure to the games retailing sector, we would like to recommend him to better choose the low risk-long term investment that is Games Workshop group PLC to invest. Thus by studying the ratios, performances and the share price of the two companies we suggest it will be wise and profitable for Mr.Stephen to invest in Games Workshop PLC. References: Elliott, B. and Elliott, J. (2008) Financial Accounting and Reporting. 12th Edition.   Harlow :  Pearson Alexander, D., Britton, A. and Jorissen, A. (2009) International Financial Reporting And Analysis. 4TH Edition. Andover: Patrick Bond ORegan, P. (2006) Financial Information Analysis. 2ND Edition.   Chichester, England :  John Wiley Sons Atrill, P. and McLaney, E. (2002) Financial Accounting For Non-Specialists. 3rd Edition. London :  Prentice Hall. Games work group PLC (2010) Investor Relation [online] available from https://investor.games-workshop.com/ [29Nov 2010] Hornby PLC(2010) Investor Relation [online] available from https://www.hornby.com/investor-relations// [29 Nov 2010] Fame (2010) Detailed Information on UK and Irish Companies [online] available from https://fame.bvdep.com/version- 20091031/cgi/template.dll?checkathens=1kick=1product=1user=ganesanb%40coventry.ac.ukpw=05%2fQR5RKeV2ntAm%2b1D%2f3ug%3d%3d [29 Nov 2010]