You are on page 1of 13

Table1: Current ratio

Years

Current assets

Current liabilities

Ratio

2003

288,997,580

189,006,552

1.53

2004

177,122,556

142,210,762

1.25

2005

206,490,630

148,633,390

1.39

2006

398,960,970

190,005,314

2.10

2007

391,339,953

276,101,207

1.42

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that current ratio was decreased
from 1.53 to 1.25, increased to 1.39 and increased to 2.10 and again decreased to
1.42 .The current ratio is less than the rule of thumb 2:1 except the year 2006.
Table2: Quick ratio

Years

Quick assets

Current liabilities

Ratio

2003

69,334,778

189,006,552

0.37

2004

80,262,817

142,210,762

0.56

2005

99,258,431

148,633,390

0.67

2006

94,319,524

190,005,313

0.50

2007

109,757,257

276,101,206

0.40

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that quick ratio was increased
from 0.37 to 0.67 and decreased to 0.40 it was due to improper maintenance of
quick assets. The quick ratio was below the rule thumb of 1:1 i.e. quick assets were
less than current liabilities.

Table3: Net working capital


Years

Net working capital

Net assets

Ratio

2003

99,991,031

325,654,257

0.31

2004

34,911,795

260,575,021

0.13

2005

60,668,199

287,272,474

0.21

2006

208,955,659

435,610,011

0.48

2007

115,238,248

352,622,327

0.33

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:

From the above graph it was analyzed that net working capital ratio
had decreased from 0.31 to 0.13 in 2004, increased to 0.21 in 2005, increased to
0.48 and again decreased to 0.33. it was due to the changes in working capital
requirements.

LEVERAGE RATIOS
Table1: Debt ratio
Years

Total debt

Capital employed

Ratio

2003

264452746

325654257

0.81

2004

452550346

260575021

1.74

2005

514161592

287272474

1.79

2006

668649834

435610011

1.53

2007

673709257

352622327

1.91

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that the debt ratio mostly
increased. It is due to increase in additional funds required year by year.
Table2: Debt equity ratio
Years

Total debt

Net Worth

Ratio

2003

264452746

61201511

4.32

2004

452550346

7940102

57.00

2005

514161592

-7955293

-64.63

2006

668649834

245159

2727.41

2007

673709257

-88281982

-7.63

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that the lenders contribution is more than the
owners contribution, in the years 2005 and 2006 there is no owners contribution.
So, the debt equity ratio became negative.
Table3: Capital employed to net worth
Years
2003

Capital employed
325654257

Net Worth
61201511

Ratio
5.32

2004

260575021

7940102

32.82

2005

287272474

-7955293

-36.11

2006

435610011

245159

1776.85

2007

352622327

-88281982

-3.99

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that capital employed to net
worth was 5.32%, increased to 32.83% in 2004, became negative in 2005,2007 and
in the year 2006 increased to 1776.85% due to changes in the value of net worth of
the firm.

ACTIVITY RATIOS
Table1: Inventory turnover
Years

Cost of goods sold

Average inventory

Ratio

2003

239132131

234147889

1.02

2004

155574480

137597980

1.13

2005

102243876

83065442

1.23

2006

72877770

182464926

0.40

2007

406536335

264313376

1.54

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that the inventory turnover ratio
was very low in all the years, due to excess inventory levels in all the years.
Table2: Debtors turnover
Years

Sales

Debtors

Ratio

2003

201486573

51412361

3.92

2004

130517437

54894708

2.38

2005

96920394

67056512

1.45

2006

124629659

73209660

1.70

2007

368853567

75541003

4.88

Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that in 2005 and 2006 debtors
turnover ratio is very low due to most of the goods were sold on credit.
Table3: Collection period
Years

Debtors

Sales

Ratio

2003

51412361

201486573

91.86

2004

54894708

130517437

151.41

2005

67056512

96920394

249.07

2006

73209660

124629659

211.47

2007

75541003

368853567
73.73
Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that collection
period increased up to 2005 and then decreased, due to most of
the goods were sold on credit debts are outstanding.

PROFITABILITY RATIOS
Table1: Gross profit ratio
Years

Gross profit/loss

Sales

Ratio

2003

-37645558

201486573

-18.68%

2004

-25057043

130517437

-19.20%

2005

-5323482

96920394

-5.49%

2006

51751887

124629659

41.52%

2007

-37682768

368853567
-10.22%
Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that gross profit ratio was
negative for most of the years except the year 2006 it is due to inefficiency in
producing goods.

Table2: Net profit ratio


Years

Net profit/loss

Sales

Ratio

2003

-67413729

201486573

-33.46%

2004

-62633704

130517437

-47.99%

2005

-35256615

96920394

-36.38%

2006

-8199872

124629659

-6.58%

2007

-93637848

368853567
-25.39%
Source: Annual Reports of CCSL

Interpretation:
From the above graph it was analyzed that in all the
years the net profit ratio is negative due to over all inefficiency in
the firm.

You might also like