European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 12 (2008) EuroJournals, Inc. 2008 http://www.eurojournalsn.

com

Budget and Budgetary Control for Improved Performance: A Consideration for Selected Food and Beverages Companies in Nigeria
Ishola Rufus Akintoye Room 116, Department of Economics, Faculty of the Social Sciences University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, West Africa Tel: 234-8035369293, 8082130269 E-mail: irakintoye@yahoo.com Abstract Budget and Budgetary control, both at management and operational level looks at the future and lays down what has to be achieved. Control checks whether or not the plans are realized, and puts into effect corrective measures where deviation or shortfall is occurring. This study examines how budget and budgetary control can impact on the performance of the selected food and beverages companies in Nigeria, as considered in this study, being a sample of the entire population of the firms in the Nigerian Manufacturing Industry. We reviewed the performance of the Nigeria manufacturing industry in previous and recent times. We found out that the performance of this industry leaves much to be desired due to factors such as neglect of the industry due to over dependence on crude oil, epileptic power supply, collapsing infrastructures, unfavourable sectoral reforming among others and have resulted in low capacity utilization of the manufacturing industry. An empirical investigation was undertaken, using the simple correlation analytics technique specifically the Pearson product movement correlation coefficient. In most of he cases considered, established the presence of strong relationship between turnover as a variable of budget and performance indicators EPS, DPS and NAS, of the selected food and beverages companies. Following our findings, we advise managers and business operators (not only in the manufacturing industry) to pay more attention to their budgetary control systems, for those without an existing budgetary control system, they should put one in place, and those with a dummy or passive budgetary control system, it is time they re-established a result-oriented budgetary control system as it goes a long way in repositioning the manufacturing industry from its creeping performance level to an improved high capacity utilization point.

Introduction
Following the uncertainties prevailing in the Nigerian business environment today, managers and stakeholders must be poised and prepared to compete favorably under these rapidly shifting conditions. Inorder to survive under these environmental complexities and vagueness managers and stakeholders of the manufacturing sector need sharp tools, proven management techniques to forecast the major changes which are likely to affect the business while they choose future direction and dimension of resources needed to attain selected goals. Budgetary control as proven management tool (Chandler, 1990) helps organization management, and enhances improved performance of any economy in different ways. Its primary

8 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) function is to serve as a guide in financial planning operators, it also establishes limits for departmental excesses. It helps administrative officials to make careful analysis of all existing operations, thereby justifying expanding, eliminating or restricting present practice. (Musselman and Hughes 1981). Budgeting and control entails a distinct pattern of decisions in an organization which is capable of determining its objectives, purposes or goals, and how these goals are achieved by establishing principal policies and plans. However, the inability to recognize the problem concerned and fixing a boundary off investigation creates an obstacle for the successful implementation of budgeting and control. Some organizations only look for narrow ranges of alternatives which they arrive at from their past expenses and present situation, other management levels even avoid long-term planning and budgeting in favor of todays problems thereby making the problems of tomorrow more severe (Steward 1993). The foregoing reflects on the need for organizations to set up a formal mechanism for scanning its environment for opportunities and give early signs of future problems, this course of action will improve the system of budgeting and control, resulting in an apriori expectation of improved performance, in the manufacturing sector as seen in this study.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Budget and Budgeting are concepts traceable to the bible days, precisely the days of Joseph in Egypt. It was reported that nothing was given out of the treasure without a written order. History has it that Joseph budgeted and stored grains which lasted the Egyptians throughout the seven years of famine. Budgets were first introduced in the 1920s as a tool to manage costs and cashflows in large industrial organizations. Johnson (1996) states that it was during the 1960s that companies began to use budgets to dictate what people needed to do. In the 1970s performance improvement was based on meeting financial targets rather than effectiveness companies then faced problems in the 1980s and 1990s when they were not willing to spend money on innovations inorder to stay with the rigid budgets, they were no longer concerned about how customers were being treated, only meeting sales targets became essential. Budgeting in business organizations are formally associated with the advent of industrial capitalism for the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century, which presented a challenge for industrial management. Glautier and Under (1987) state that the emergence of scientific management philosophy with its emphasis on detailed info as a basis for taking decision provided a tremendous impetus for the development of management accounting and indeed budgeting techniques. However, budgeting at the early stage of its development was concerned with preparing and presenting credible information to legitimize accountability and to permit correct performance evaluation and consequently, rewards. Over the years, the function and focus of budgeting has shifted considerably and business organization become more complex and their environment becomes dynamic coupled with the emergence trend, the term budget and budgeting have been differently defined and examined by various scholars in several ways. Omolehinwa (1989) defined a budget as a plan of dominant individuals in an organization expressed in monetary terms and subject to the constraints imposed by the participants and the environments, indicating how the available resources may be utilized, to achieve whatever the dominant individuals agreed to be the organisations priorities. The impressive thing about this definition is that, it recognizes the constraint imposed on budget by other participants who are to ensure that the objectives and targets enunciated in the budget are achieved. Pandey (2003) defines budget as a short term financial plan. It is an action plan to guide managers in achieving the objectives of the firm. Lucey (20030 in his formal definition, defines budget as a qualitative statement, for a defined period of time, which may include planned revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities and cashflows. A budget provides a focus for the organization, aids the co-ordination

9 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) of activities and facilitates control whereas control is generally exercised through the comparison of actual costs with a flexible budget. Lucey (2003) in his recent definition of budget defines it as a quantitative expression of a plan of action prepared for the business as a whole for departments, for functions such as sales and production or for financial resource items such as cash, capital expenditure, manpower purchase, etc. The process of preparing and agreeing budgets is a means of translating the overall objectives of the organization into detailed, feasible plans of action Welsh (2003) opines that budgeting is the only comprehensive approach to managing so far developed that, if utilized with sophistication and good judgement fully recognizes the dominant role of the manager and provides a framework for implementing such fundamental aspects of scientific management as management by objectives, effective communication, participative management, dynamic control, continuous feedback, responsibility accounting management by exception and management flexibility. The Tennessee board of Regents (2006) defines budgeting as the process whereby the plans of an institutions are translated into an itemized, authorized and systematic plan of operation, expressed in dollars for a given period. Budgeting, at both management level and operation level looks at the future and lays down what has to be achieved. Control checks whether the plans are being realized and put into effect corrective measures, where deviation or short-fall is occurring (Egan, 1997). Egan emphasized that without effective controls, an enterprise will be at the mercy of internal and external forces who can disrupt its efficiency, and be unaware, such enterprise will not be able to combat such forces. When a budgeting and control system is in use, budgets are established which set out in financial terms, the responsibility of managers in relation to the requirement of the overall policy of the company. Continuous comparison is made between the actual and budgeted results, which is intended to either secure, thorough action of managers, the objectives of policy or to even provide a basis for policy revision. Morgan (1997) opines that the budget had grown beyond a financial tool. It is above all managerial tool, in essence, it is the best tool for making sure that key resources, especially performance resource are assigned to priorities and to results. It is a tool that enables the manager to know when to review and revise plans, either because results are different from expectation or due to environmental, economic conditions, market conditions or technologies change, which no longer correspond to the assumptions of the budget. Morgan emphasized that budgets should be used as a tool for planning and control. According to Hudson and Andrew (1996), control involves the making of decisions based on relevant information which leads to plans and actions that improve the utilization of the productive assets and services available to organizations management. Effective control is said to be based on standards with which actual performance can be compared. If there are no standards, then there can be no effective measure of attainment. Hudson and Andrew identified and elaborated on five categories into which standards fall, they are: quantity, quality, time, complaint and value. Effective control is a key management task which ensures that efforts produced at all levels are commensurate with those required to ensure the long-term future effectiveness and success of the organization (Stewart, 1997). Budgeting: Financial and Human resources According to McBain, budgeting is not a substitute for effective decision making. Most budgets provide only for finances and specify where and how it should be spent, they do not provide for people (Mcbain, 1999). People think, perform, have competence, need finances to be sure, however without the people, finance alone is insufficient in arriving at an improved performance of any organization. In essence managers should also look into human resource budgeting and see how improvement in this results in better performance. In addition to being the managers planning tool, budgeting is also one of the most effective tool of communication and integration. It shows how each part of the organization relates to the end and needs of the whole. Budgeting therefore requires that the manager in charge of the whole and each

10 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) person in charge of parts discuss the budget jointly inorder to arrive at better result (Adedeji, A.O. 2004). Problems associated with budgeting and control Having reviewed the concepts Budget budgeting and control which are key to this study, stating their purpose and importance, there is need to consider some of the problems that are associated with these concepts, so that organizations who seek to survive in the complex economic environment will be familiar with these likely problems and apply necessary tools in by-passing them so as to experience improvement in the organizations performance. To remain competitive, companies need to align their budgetary planning and control systems with the overall strategy. The following questions confront all top level managers, as they formulate budgetary plans and allocate capital; which is better for a firm? Investing outrageous amount of capital, or scale back on capital investment? To reduce employment so as to raise the amount of assets at work per employee or elevate employment to meet the demands created by new investments? These questions become more compelling as investors demand that corporations consistently deliver shareholders value regardless of their long-term strategy for deploying human and financial capital. An important factor that distinguishes the winners from the losers in creating shareholder value is the equality in investment decisions, which in turn depends on the soundness of such budgetary planning and control system (Thaker, 1998). Unfortunately, many organizations make poor investment decisions from investing too little in positive NPV (Net Present Value) projects and much in negative NPV projects, resulting in investment myopia. Thaker, noted that such distortions can distract companies from what they ought to do, causing them to sink million of dollars in wrong products and ideas. For instance, coca-cola invested in pastes and wine, products for which its rate of return were not only below those of its soft drinks business, but also below its costs of capital. Such errors deplete shareholders value and lead to corporate control contests that results in chief executive officer replacements and hostile takeovers. Boquist (1998) observed that companies continue to blunder and fail because they have flawed budgetary planning and control systems, which they apparently fail to recognize. Some firms sense weakness of their budgetary analysis but viewed them as individual problems rather than systematic deficiencies. They misdirect efforts and produce greater frustration. As a result, corporate strategy and capital allocation become misaligned and remain so, despite disapproving financial performance. Boquist pointed out some of the drawbacks organizations encounter in the course of implementing budgetary planning and control systems. They include: (a) Lack of dynamic structure Present day economic environment demands that organization adapt new and instructure practices. Given the new competitive realities, there is need for management of embrace flexible and adaptable budgetary planning and control system which has the ability to quickly respond to environmental changes and complexities. A good budgetary planning and control system must involve not only an analysis of capital allocation requests when the project is executed, but also an analysis of all the capital needed to generate information such as market research, prior to investing in the project. (b) Absence of connection between compensation and financial measures Many companies adopt the NPV criterion in selecting a project but compensate managers based on product earnings or rate of returns. This misaligns their interest with those of shareholders. The reason for misalignment between compensation and budgetary allocation system is that the NPV cannot be used to determine compensation because it (NPV) is a stock/summary measure, based on projected cash flows and not on realized performance. Organisations are expected to adopt flow measures which are computed periodically, either quarterly or yearly as soon as they are realized.

11 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) (c) Lack of Integration Most often, capital budgeting and expense budgeting are distinct processes for instance organizations that do practice capital budgeting make assumptions about future cashflows that are dependent on certain advertising and sales promotion outlays. However, these outlays are typically covered by the expense budget. Boquist noted that even in organizations in which the determination of the expense request is tied at the outset of capital request, the people approving the two requests do not necessarily try to ensure consistency between the two budgets. (d) Finance function not a strategic partner Financial analysts doing budgetary planning are often seen as traffic caps than strategic partners. They often get into the budgetary process near the end, merely to rubber-stamp a conclusion that a marketing or manufacturing executive realized earlier. Budgetary planning then becomes a mere exercise, rather than values that produced the desired result, consequently, the quality of information for budgetary planning and control is seriously compromised. (e) Poorly trained financial professionals In recent time, training outlays are typically treated as expenses rather than investments (Hope and Frazer, 2003). If the most sophisticated budgetary planning and control system is put in place, absence of the necessary investment in upgrading those involved in budgeting, will only result in expecting to win a battle by sending in people with unfamiliar guns, which all together amount to total failure of such budgeting system (Adedeji, 2004). Performance of the Nigerian manufacturing industry: General Overview The Nigerian manufacturing industry is relatively small compared to its foreign counterparts. Between 1970 and 1990 it contributed an average of 8 percent to the GDP. The sector as a whole has not grown remarkably over the years due to factors such as; dummy budgetary control, neglect of the sector from over dependence on crude oil, epileptic power supply, collapsing infrastructures, among others. It employs about 1 percent of labour force (Sonola, 2004). Although the Nigerian Government maintains that the industry is the main instrument of rapid growth, structural change, and self sufficiency, it had however unwillingly pursued policies which had impaired the performance of same industry. Available data shows that the contribution of the industry to the GDP in 1981 stood at 9.89 and 11.20 in 1982 but fell gradually to 7.82 percent in 1984.The share of 8.57 and 8.04 was maintained in 1985 and 1986 respectively. Between 1987 and 1993 the percentage share of manufacturing industry to the GDP hovered around 8.0 percent. On the average, the percentage contribution during the period stood at 8.40 percent. Considering the growth rate of the sector, negative growth rates were recorded in 1983, 1984, and 1986. In 1982 a growth rate of 11.40 percent was recorded. In 1985, the rate was 16.55 percent between 1987 and 1993 the growth rate fluctuated between 1.62 and 11.39 percent during same period(Onwioduokit and Nwachukwu,1998) In 1994 and 2000, the growth rate also increased to 7.21 and 5.92 percent respectively, between 2001 and 2002 the manufacturing sector growth rate fluctuate to 5.92 and 6.08 percent. From the data available, the performance of the industry leaves much to be desired, but as this study progresses in establishing the relationship or otherwise between budget and performance of the selected food and beverages companies which are sample of the manufacturing sector) we hope to advice for or against the impact of the budgetary control system on performance of the sector from our findings and results. Methodology The method of analysis for this study is the use of simple correlation analytical technique specifically the Pearson Product Movement Correlation co-efficient which is computed to establish a relationship between budgetary and control and performance of the five selected food and beverage companies in Nigeria. We shall make use of secondary data precisely financial statement, of these companies, The

12 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) Nigeria Stock Exchange fact book, textbooks among others using turnover as the budget variable and earnings per share (EPS), dividends per share (DPS), Net Asset per share (NAS) as performance, indicators. The selected companies are: Cadbury Nigeria Plc, Flourmills Nig Plc, Nestle Nig Plc, Nigerian Bottling company Plc, 7up bottling Company Plc. It is important to state here that the budget variable is the independent variable (X) while performance indicators are the dependent variable represented by y. The Pearson Product Movement Correlation Co-efficient PPMC is represented below as: nxy - x y r= Vn x2 (x) 2 (ny2 (y) 2 To test for its significance we use: rVn-2 Decision criteria, where tc < tx, accept Ho, reject H1 t= V1 r2 To interpret r, Oyesiku (1995) came up with the rough idea equivalent stated below: When r > 0.70 = very strong relationship 0.50 r < 0.70 = strong relationship 0.20 r 0.50 = moderate relationship 0.10 r < 0.20 = weak relationship r < 0.10 = none or negative relationship For the purpose of this study, we restate our hypothesis: Ho: There is no relationship between budget and performance of the selected food and beverages companies considered in our study. H1: There is relationship between the budget and performance of the selected food and beverages companies considered in our study.

Data Presentation and Analysis The data utilized for this study consists of turnover as the budget variable, while the performance indicators for each of the companies are Earnings per share, Dividend per share and Net asset per share. We simply calculated the percentage change (% ) in Turnover between budget and actual figures to justify the efficiency of control and same to performance indicators. The table containing these data are presented below for each of the companies under consideration for a clearer understanding.

13
Table 1:
Years 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04 01 02 03 04

European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008)

Cadbury Nigeria Plc
X (% Turnover) 30 21 28 8 Ex = 87 30 21 28 8 Ex = 87 30 21 28 8 Ex = 87 Y(% performance) EPS 56 36 19 5 Ey = 116 DPS 66 17 17 22 Ey = 122 NAS 26 107 20 15 Ey = 168 XY 1680 756 532 40 Exy = 3008 1980 357 476 176 Exy = 2989 780 2247 560 120 Exy = 3707 X2 900 441 784 64 Ex2 = 2189 900 441 784 64 Ex2 = 2189 900 441 784 64 Ex2 = 2189 Y2 3136 1296 361 25 Ey2 = 4818 4356 289 284 484 Ey2 = 5418 676 11449 400 225 Ey2=12750

Turnover, EPS = = = =

n Exy - Ex Ey nEx2 (Ex) 2 (nEy2 (Ey) 2 4(3008 - (87 x 116) 4(2189 (87) 2 (4(4818 (116) 2 4(3008) 10092) 4(2189) 7569) (19272 13456) 1940 1187 (5816) = 1940 2627.5

= 0.74 Since r >0.70, the relationship between turnover as a budget variable and EPS as performance indicator is VERY STRONG.

r t,Eps

rt, DPS =
= =

4(2989) 10614 4 (2189) 7569) 4(5418) 14884 1342 1342 = 8057356

1187 (6788) 1342 2839

= 0.47 from the above r 0.50 shows that there a STRONG RELATIONSHP between turnover and DPS. 4(3707) 14616 Rt, NAS = 4(2189) 7569) (4(12750) 28224 212 212 = = 1187 (22776) r = 0.04 5200

rt,DPS

European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) :. From the above r t,NAS < 0.10, therefore we conclude that there is no relationship between turnover and NAS.
Table 2:
Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004

14

7up Bottling Company Plc

X (% Turnover) 18 20 46 20 Ex = 87 18 20 46 20 Ex = 104 18 20 46 20 Ex = 104 Y(% performance) EPS 24 5 19 20 Ey = 68 DPS 14 25 50 25 Ey = 114 NAS 24 2 72 50 Ey = 148 XY 432 100 874 400 Exy = 1806 280 500 2300 500 Exy = 3580 432 40 3310 1000 Exy = 4784 X2 324 400 2116 400 Ex2 = 3240 324 400 2116 400 Ex2 = 3240 324 400 2116 400 Ex2 = 3240 Y2 576 25 361 400 Ey2 = 1362 196 625 2500 625 Ey2 = 3946 576 4 5184 2500 Ey2 = 8264

rt, EPS =
= 2144 (824)

4(1806) 7072

4 (3240) 10816) 4(1362) 4624 152 152 = 1329

= 0.11 The result shows that there is weak relationship between turnover and EPS for 7-up bottling company Plc. 4(3580) 11856 t, DPS =

rt,EPS

4 (3240) 10816) 4(3946) 12996 2464 2464 = 2144 (2788) 2444

= 1.00 There is a VERY STRONG relationship between turnover and DPS of 7up bottling company plc.

rt,DPS

rt, NAS =

4(4784) 15392

4 (3240) 10816) 4(8264) 21904 3744 = 2144 (11152) t,NAS = 0.77 There is a VERY STRONG relationship between turnover and NAS of 7up bottling company.

15
Table 3:
Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004

European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008)

Flourmills Nigeria Plc
X (% Turnover) 40 27 25 Ex = 92 40 27 25 Ex = 92 40 27 25 Ex = 92 Y(% performance) EPS 288 436 7 Ey = 731 DPS 6 76 59 Ey = 141 NAS 28 17 96 Ey = 141 XY 11520 11772 175 Exy = 23462 240 2052 1475 Exy = 3767 1120 459 2400 Exy = 3979 X2 1600 729 625 Ex2 = 2954 1600 729 625 Ex2 = 2954 1600 729 625 Ex2 = 2954 Y2 82944 190096 49 Ey2 = 273089 36 5776 3481 Ey2 = 9293 784 289 9216 Ey2 = 10289

rt, EPS =

4(23467) 67252

4 (2954) 8464) 4(273089) 534361 26616 = 3352 (557995) t,EPS = 0.62 There is Strong relationship between turnover and EPS for Flourmills Nig Plc. 4(3767) 12972 t, DPS =

4 (2954) 8464) 4(9293) 19881 2096 2096 = = 3352 (17291) 7613

r= 0.28
There is a MODERATE ship between turnover and DPS of Flourmills Nig Plc. 4(3979) - 12972 t, NAS =

4 (2954) 8464) 4(10289) 19881 2944 = 3352 (21275) = 0.35 There is a MODERATE relationship between turnover and NAS for Flourmills Nig Plc.

rt,NAS

16
Table 4:
Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004 2001 2002 2003 2004

European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008)

Nestle Nigeria Plc
X (% Turnover) 41 38 26 16 Ex = 121 41 38 26 16 Ex = 121 41 38 26 16 Ex = 121 Y(% performance) EPS 47 26 0.8 Ey = 74 DPS 47 36 17 Ey = 100 NAS 16 7 9 Ey = 32 XY 1927 988 26 12.8 Exy = 2954 1927 1368 442 16.0 Exy = 3753 656 38 18.2 144 Exy = 1020 X2 1681 1444 676 256 Ex2 = 24057 1681 1444 676 256 Ex2 = 4057 1681 1444 676 256 Ex2 = 4057 Y2 2209 676 0.64 Ey2 = 2885 2209 1296 289 Ey2 = 3794 256 49 81 Ey2 = 386

rt, EPS =

4(2954) 8954

4 (4057) 14641) 4(2885) 5476 2862 = 1587 (6064) t,EPS = 0.92 Since rt, EPS > 0.70, there is VERY STRONG relationship between turnover and EPS of Nestle Nig. Plc. 4(3753) 12100 t, DPS =

4 (4057) 14641) 4(3794) 10000 2912 = 1587 (5176)

r= 1.02
The above result show that there is a VERY STRONG relationship between turnover and DPS of Nestle Nig. Plc. 4(1020) - 3872 t, NAS =

4 (4057) 14641) 4(386) 1024 3208 = 1587 (520) = 3.5 There is a VERY STRONG relationship between turnover and NAS of Nestle Nig. Plc.

rt,NAS

Conclusion and Recommendation

This study examined the relationship between budget and performance of the selected food and beverage companies considered. We reviewed previous literature and contributions to this study, the problems associated with budgetary control, performance of the Nigerian manufacturing industry in

17 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 12 (2008) previous and recent times, among other salient issues relevant to the subject of study. We found out that the performance of manufacturing sector which the selected food and beverages companies represent, leaves much to be desired, as a result of factors such as; over dependence on crude oil, neglect of the industry due to epileptic power supply, collapsing infrastructures, unfavourable sectoral reforms, among other factors, which altogether have resulted in low capacity utilization of the manufacturing industry.. However, an empirical investigation was undertaken, using the simple correlation analytical technique, specifically the Pearson product movement correlation coefficient (PPMC) to aid easy understanding of the layman who is also expected to maximize the advantage of the result-oriented budgetary control system. In most of the cases, considered, the result established the presence of a strong relationship between turnover as a budget variable and performance indicators i.e EPs (Earnings per share), DPs (Dividend per share) and NAs, (Net Asset per share) of the selected food and beverages companies. Following our findings, we hereby advise managers and business operators (not only in the manufacturing industry) to pay more attention to their budgetary control systems, while those without any should endeavour to ensure the set-up of a result-oriented system as it goes a long way in repositioning businesses and organizations from their creeping performance level to an improved and high capacity utilization point.

References
1] 2] 3] 4] 5] 6] 7] Dangote, A.(2001) Developing manufacturing Industry in Nigeria. Paper Presented at the First CBN Annual Monetary Policy Forum, Abuja. CBN (1995) Economic and Financial Department, Lagos Nigeria CBN (1996) CBN Briefs, Research Department, Lagos Nigeria CBN (2002) CBN Briefs, Research Department, Lagos Nigeria Nnanna O.J (1987) Assessment of Performance of the second tier foreign exchange market. CBN Bullion Vol. 11, No. 2. April/June 1987. Oguma P.A (1995) Revitalizing the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. CBN Bullion, Vol 19(2) April/June 1995. The Nigeria Stock Exchange Fact Book (2005).