Analysis of Financial Performance of the AGM Company
Introduction
AGM’s financial performance will be analyzed by evaluating five financial ratios in the following categories: efficiency, profitability, liquidity, investment, and gearing. The report will depend on data from the AGM’s financial statements for the previous and current year and will make suitable comparisons of the results with industry averages.
Profitability Ratio
According to the financial statements, AGM Company generated £115 million in revenue in the UK and £35 million in other regions. This data could be segmented to offer valuable insights into potential growth and profitability opportunities of the company’s operations in each region (Bitar et al., 2018). Suppose there are more sales and profits in the UK than in other locations; the company may focus on increasing its operations in the UK to achieve additional growth and profitability (Phadermrod et al., 2019).
AGM recorded an increase in the gross profit margin from 18.75% in 2021 to 35.26% in 2022 (GlobalDatabase, 2023). This increase indicates a better ability for AGM Company to generate after subtracting the costs of goods sold (Sawarni et al., 2022). AGM is creating a satisfactory value return from funds garnered by shareholders.
Efficiency Ratio
AGM’s inventory turnover increased slightly from 45.37 days in 2021 to 48.02 days in 2022, showing that the company’s goods took slightly longer to sell. The trade receivables collection days increased from 63.44 days in 2021 to 72.64 days in 2022, indicating that the company collected its receivables slightly later. On the other hand, the trade payable payment days reduced dramatically from 120.53 days in 2021 to 96.84 days in 2022, showing that the firm could negotiate improved payment terms with its suppliers.
Liquidity Ratio
AGM’s current ratio declined slightly from 1.17:1 in 2021 to 1.13:1 in 2022, indicating that the firm may have marginally greater difficulties fulfilling its short-term obligations. On the other hand, the quick ratio increased slightly from 0.93:1 in 2021 to 0.99:1 in 2022, showing that the company’s capacity to satisfy urgent commitments without relying on inventories has improved significantly.
Gearing Ratio
AGM’s gearing rate increased from 10.11% in 2021 to 10.26% in 2022, showing that the business depends less on debt funding. The interest cover rose from 50.97 times in 2021 to 54.92 times in 2022, showing an improvement in the company’s capacity to pay its interest costs (Dirman, 2020). The return on capital employed decreased slightly from 25.73% in 2021 to 25.32% in 2022 (GlobalDatabase, 2023), implying that the firm is becoming less efficient in generating profits from its capital invested. On the other hand, the return on shareholder money improved dramatically from 18.75% in 2021 to 21.18% in 2022, showing that the firm is providing better returns to its shareholders.
Investment Ratio
Earnings per share for AGM grew from 23.44p in 2021 to 25.32p in 2022, suggesting higher earnings for shareholders. A company’s investment portfolio is determined and measured by ratios such as the price-earnings and earnings per share (EPS) (Sari and Sedana, 2020). The P/E rate dropped from 16.8 in the previous year to 14.7 in 2022, implying that the market is undervaluing the company’s stock.
The segment analysis is beneficial because it gives information on the financial performance of various geographic or product segments within a firm. Regarding segment analysis, examining revenue produced in various locations is beneficial to find any areas where the organization may be outperforming or underperforming (Oláh et al., 2019). According to AGM’s financial filings, revenue in the UK grew from £61,972,000 in 2021 to £67,148,000 in 2022, while sales in other areas increased from £44,568,000 in 2021 to £50,723,000 in 2022. This growth shows that the corporation is thriving well in the UK and other regions and that its growth into new markets is paying off (Öztürk and Karabulut, 2018). However, a more extensive segment analysis may be valuable in identifying specific areas where the firm may focus its efforts to achieve greater development (Liu et al., 2019; Bian et al., 2019). This analysis will help board members rationally judge resource allocation and future growth prospects by examining revenue by segment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, AGM’s financial performance in 2022 was largely favorable, with profitability, liquidity, and gear ratio gains. However, minor reductions were noted in some areas, such as efficiency, and the AGM Company should continue to check these ratios to maintain efficiency. Segment analysis is a valuable technique for finding areas where the organization excels and places where it may need to focus its efforts to achieve future growth.
Relevant Cost Analysis of the AutoChip Proposal
Relevant and Irrelevant Costs
Relevant Costs
The relevant costs are directly related to the manufacture of the AutoChip order. Therefore, they have variations depending on the acceptability and unacceptability of the order (Iaconan et al., 2018). These costs are also preventable, which means they may be avoided if the decision is not to accept the order. The cost of the feasibility report is inevitable in establishing the viability of the AutoChip purchase. It is, however, a sunk cost, which means that it has already been committed and cannot be reversed by accepting or refusing the order. Material RQS and Material ABC are additional incremental and direct costs since they are required for the AutoChip order’s manufacturing.
Thus, they can only be incurred once the AutoChip order is approved. The cost of casing-line equipment is a direct and additional cost that the company will incur if the AutoChip order is approved because it is necessary for manufacturing. Labor and production engineer costs are direct and avoidable and will only be incurred if the AutoChip order is accepted. Profit mark-up is an incremental and direct cost that indicates the profit earned by the company if the AutoChip order is approved.
Irrelevant Costs
On the other hand, the costs described as irrelevant fall either into sunk costs or fixed costs. These costs do not change regardless of whether the AutoChip order is accepted or rejected (Hansen et al., 2021). The cost of transportation is a direct cost; however, it qualifies as a sunk cost as it was previously incurred and will be unaffected by whether the order is accepted or rejected. Further, the fixed overhead cost is a fixed cost that cannot be changed depending on whether the AutoChip order is accepted or rejected. Sunk costs are expenditures that have already been incurred and are not recovered, irrespective of the decision (Ronayne et al., 2021). Since they cannot be modified, sunk costs are irrelevant in decision-making.
Significance of Relevant Costing
Determining Avoidable Expenses
Managers need relevant costing to make decisions regarding a company’s future orientation. According to Banker et al. (2018), relevant costing helps managers identify expenditures that may be avoided. Avoidable costs refer to those that can be avoided by not performing a specific action. For example, the expense of the feasibility report can be avoided for the AGM Company. This expense will be incurred because the CEO ordered a feasibility assessment for the company. As a result, the cost of the feasibility report is a crucial expense that must be included when calculating the project’s profitability.
Identifying Additional Expenses
Another advantage of relevant costing is that it enables managers to determine additional expenses (Langfield-Smith et al., 2018). The expenses that will alter due to a certain course of action are known as incremental costs. In the instance of AGM, for example, the cost of the RQS material represents an incremental cost. If AGM accepts the AutoChip contract, it will be required to acquire the RQS material. When determining the profitability of the project, the cost of the RQS material is an additional expense that needs to be taken into account.
Comparison of Direct and Indirect Costs
Relevant costing creates an understanding of the difference between direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are expenditures immediately attributed to a certain product or service (Hansen et al., 2021). In contrast, indirect costs cannot be attributed to a specific product or service. For example, the labor cost required to manufacture the AutoChip is a direct expense. The labor is especially necessary for the manufacture of the AutoChip. The fixed overhead cost, on the other hand, is an indirect expense. It is not directly related to the creation of the AutoChip but is required for the company’s general functioning. Relevant costing helps managers make decisions that will boost the company’s profitability.
Opportunity costs must also be included in relevant costing. The potential gains acquired through a different course of action are opportunity costs (Sartal et al., 2020). If AGM accepts the AutoChip contract, it must employ 22 hours of surplus capacity in the casing-line equipment. Smaller businesses might have purchased this surplus capacity for £972 per hour. The opportunity cost of employing the additional capacity for AutoChip manufacture is thus £21,384 (22 hours x £972 per hour). This opportunity cost is important in decision-making because it indicates the possible gains the AGM Company would forego if the extra capacity were used for AutoChip manufacture. Generally, relevant costing is an important tool for managers when deciding on a company’s future orientation and assessing project profitability.
Investment Appraisal of a Project in an Associate Company
The Net Present Value (NPV) Technique
Zinon can utilize net present value (NPV) as an investment assessment tool to analyze possible investment projects based on an expected capital cost of 17%. The present value of all predicted cash inflows and outflows associated with an investment project is calculated using the cost of capital and discounted back to their present value (Konstantin et al., 2018). If the NPV is positive, the investment project is predicted to yield a higher return than the cost of capital and is thus considered acceptable (Odeck and Kjerkreit, 2019). If the NPV is negative, the investment project is predicted to yield less than the cost of capital and is hence judged unsuitable.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Using NPV
Advantages
The use of NPV in project appraisal has several advantages and shortcomings. On the advantages, NPV considers the time value of money, which acknowledges that money gained today is worth more than money received later (Maravas and Pantouvakis, 2018). The technique treats all cash flows over the whole life of the investment project, which aids in capturing the project’s overall economic effect. Further, NPV enables company managers to make simple comparisons of various investment projects by describing possible returns in financial terms (Costanza et al., 2021).
Disadvantages
However, NPV is disadvantageous because it relies on precise forecasting of future cash flows and capital costs, which can be difficult to anticipate accurately (Meredith and Zwikael, 2019). Another disadvantage is that it fails to consider the size of the investment project or the magnitude of its influence on the company’s overall financial status (Meredith and Zwikael, 2019). As a result, it becomes inappropriate to make comparisons between investment projects with varying durations or those that generate cash flows at varying intervals.
Other Alternative Methods to NPV in Project and Investment Appraisal
Accounting Rate of Return
Other investment appraisal techniques include the payback period, accounting rate of return (ARR), profitability index (PI), and internal rate of return. The payback period approach helps managers calculate the time taken for an investment to generate enough cash inflows (Hansen et al., 2021). The benefits of this approach are its simplicity and ability to assess the risk of an investment (Hansen et al., 2021).
However, it does not consider the time value of money or cash flow further than the payback period. ARR method calculates an investment’s average yearly return as a percentage of the original investment cost. ARR is simple to compute and considers the return on investment (Babaei and Jassbi, 2022). These methods help managers to estimate the viability of investment projects in companies.
Internal Rate of Return
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is an investment assessment approach that may be used with NPV. The IRR is the discount rate at which the net present value of an investment project equals zero (Magni, 2020). If the IRR exceeds the cost of capital, the investment project is predicted to yield a higher return than the cost and is thus judged acceptable. The investment project is deemed inappropriate since it is expected to yield less than the cost of capital when the IRR is less than the cost of capital. IRR is advantageous as it accounts for the time value of money, which acknowledges that money received today is worth more than money received later (Sarsour and Sabri, 2021).
Moreover, it gives a single percentage rate of return that may be used to rank investment proposals and compare them to the cost of capital. However, the drawbacks of IRR include its failure to consider the magnitude of the investment project or its influence on the company’s overall financial status (Babaei and Jassbi, 2022). Further, this technique may be inappropriate for quick comparison between investment projects with varying durations or those that yield cash flows at varying intervals.
Comparison of Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return
NPV and IRR are helpful investment assessment methodologies for evaluating new investment projects. The net present value (NPV) is a more widely used approach since it analyzes all cash flows throughout the full life of the investment project (Odeck and Kjerkreit, 2019).
In contrast, IRR gives a fixed percentage annual return that can be contrasted against the cost of capital (Magni, 2020). However, these approaches might not be suitable for every investment project because they depend on accurate capital cost and cash flow forecasts in the future. As a result, while making investment decisions, it is critical to evaluate additional considerations such as opportunity cost, risk, and synergies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NPV offers various benefits over other techniques in the financial appraisal of a project. The time value of money is considered by NPV, which implies that it examines the present value of cash flows throughout the investment term. The NPV also considers the opportunity cost of investing in a certain project, which aids in evaluating other investment possibilities. Furthermore, it is a common investment assessment approach because NPV is simple to comprehend and compute.
On the other hand, IRR is typically less precise and dependable than NPVs for making business investment decisions. NPV is a generally acknowledged and accurate investment assessment approach considering an investment’s time value and the opportunity cost of investing in a certain project.
Reference List
Babaei SA, B. and Jassbi, A.J. (2022). ‘Modified simple average internal rate of return.’ The Engineering Economist, 67(2), pp.157-169. Web.
Banker, R.D., Byzalov, D., Fang, S. and Liang, Y. (2018). ‘Cost management research.’ Journal of Management Accounting Research, 30(3), pp.187-209. Web.
Bian, Y., Song, K. and Bai, J. (2019). ‘Market segmentation, resource misallocation, and environmental pollution.’ Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, pp.376-387. Web.
Bitar, M., Pukthuanthong, K. and Walker, T. (2018). ‘The effect of capital ratios on banks’ risk, efficiency, and profitability: Evidence from OECD countries.’ Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions, and Money, 53, pp.227-262. Web.
Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., Stoeckl, N. and Kompas, T. (2021). ‘Pluralistic discounting recognizing different capital contributions: An example estimating the net present value of global ecosystem services.’ Ecological Economics, 183. Web.
Dirman, A. (2020). ‘Financial distress: the impacts of profitability, liquidity, leverage, firm size, and free cash flow.’ International Journal of Business, Economics, and Law, 22(1), pp.17-25. Web.
GlobalDatabase. (2023). ‘Avon Group Manufacturing Limited Company key information – Uk.globaldatabase.com. UK Companies Database and company check.’ UK business email database – UK.GlobalDatabase.com. Web.
Hansen, D.R., Mowen, M.M. and Heitger, D.L. (2021). ‘Cost management.’ Cengage Learning. Web.
Iacona, G.D., Sutherland, W.J., Mappin, B., Adams, V.M., Armsworth, P.R., Coleshaw, T., Cook, C., Craigie, I., Dicks, L.V., Fitzsimons, J.A. and McGowan, J. (2018). ‘Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation.’ Conservation Biology, 32(5), pp.979-988. Web.
Konstantin, P., Konstantin, M., Konstantin, P. and Konstantin, M. (2018). ‘Investment appraisal methods.’ Power and Energy Systems Engineering Economics: Best Practice Manual, pp.39-64. Web.
Langfield-Smith, K., Thorne, H. and Hilton, R.W. (2018). ‘Management Accounting: Information for creating and managing value.’ Sydney: McGraw-Hill Education. Web.
Liu, J., Liao, X., Huang, W. and Liao, X. (2019). ‘Market segmentation: A multiple criteria approach combining preference analysis and segmentation decision.’ Omega, 83, pp.1-13. Web.
Magni, C.A. (2020). ‘Internal rate of return.’ Investment Decisions and the Logic of Valuation: Linking Finance, Accounting, and Engineering, pp.487-554. Web.
Maravas, A. and Pantouvakis, J.P. (2018). ‘A new approach to studying net present value and the internal rate of return of engineering projects under uncertainty with three-dimensional graphs.’ Advances in Civil Engineering. Web.
Meredith, J. and Zwikael, O. (2019). ‘When is a project successful?.’ IEEE Engineering Management Review, 47(3), pp.127-134. Web.
Odeck, J. and Kjerkreit, A. (2019). ‘The accuracy of benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) in transportation: An ex-post evaluation of road projects.’ Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 120, pp.277-294. Web.
Oláh, J., Kovács, S., Virglerova, Z., Lakner, Z., Kovacova, M. and Popp, J. (2019). ‘Analysis and comparison of economic and financial risk sources in SMEs of the Visegrad group and Serbia.’ Sustainability, 11(7), p.1853. Web.
Öztürk, H. and Karabulut, T.A. (2018). ‘The relationship between earnings-to-price, current ratio, profit margin and return: an empirical analysis on Istanbul stock exchange.’ Accounting and Finance Research, 7(1), pp.109-115. Web.
Phadermrod, B., Crowder, R.M. and Wills, G.B. (2019). ‘Importance-performance analysis based SWOT analysis.’ International Journal of Information Management, 44, pp.194-203. Web.
Ronayne, D., Sgroi, D. and Tuckwell, A. (2021). ‘Evaluating the sunk cost effect.’ Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186, pp.318-327. Web.
Sari, I.A.G.D.M. and Sedana, I.B.P. (2020). ‘Profitability and liquidity on firm value and capital structure as intervening variable.’ International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 7(1), pp.116-127. Web.
Sarsour, W.M. and Sabri, S.R.M. (2021). ‘Investment valuation and the performance of companies with a modified internal rate of return: A simulation Markov chain.’ In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2423, No. 1, p. 030006). AIP Publishing LLC. Web.
Sartal, A., Bellas, R., Mejías, A.M. and García-Collado, A. (2020). ‘The sustainable manufacturing concept, evolution and opportunities within Industry 4.0: A literature review.’ Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 12(5). Web.
Sawarni, K.S., Narayanasamy, S., Chattopadhyay, S. and Chakrabarti, P. (2022). ‘Working capital management, financial performance and growth of firms: empirical evidence from India.’ Journal of Indian Business Research, (ahead-of-print). Web.