You are on page 1of 80



































When we observed the financial statements comprising the balance

sheet and profit or loss account is that they do not give all the information
related to financial operations of a firm, they can provide some extremely
useful information to the extent that the balance sheet shows the financial
position on a particular date in terms of structure of assets, liabilities and
owners' equity and profit or loss account shows the results of operation during
the year. Thus the financial statements will provide a summarized view of the
firm. There fore in order to learnt about the firm the careful examination of in
valuable reports and statements through financial analysis or ratios is required.

Meaning and Definition:

Ratio analysis is one of the powerful technique which is widely used for
interpreting financial statements. This technique serves as a tool for assessing
the financial soundness of the business. The idea of ratio analysis was
introduced by Alexander Wall for the first time in 1919. Ratios are quantitative
relationship between two or more variables taken from financial statements.

Ratio analysis is defined as. "The systematic use of ratio to interpret the
financial statement so that the strength and weakness of the firm as well as its
historical performance and current financial condition can be determined.

In the financial statements we can find many items are co-related with
each other For example current assets and current liabilities, capital and long
term debt, gross profit and net profit purchase and sales etc.

Whole taking managerial decision the ratio of such items reveals the
soundness of financial position. Such information will be useful for creditors,
shareholders, management and all other people who deal with company.

Principles of Ratio Selection

The following principles should be considered before selecting the ratio:

(1) Ratio should be logically inter-related.

(2) Pseudo ratios should be avoided.

(3) Ratio must measure a material factor of business.

(4) Cost of obtaining information should be borne in mind.

(5) Ratio should be in minimum numbers.

(6) Ratio should be facilities comparable.

Advantages of Ratio Analysis

Ratio analysis is necessary to establish the relationship between two

accounting figures to highlight the significant information to the management
or users who can analyses the business situation and to monitor their
performance in a meaningful way. The following are the advantages of ratio

(1) It facilitates the accounting information to be summarized and simplified

in a required form.

(2) It highlights the inter-relationship between the facts and figures of various
segments of business.

(3) Ratio analysis helps to remove all type of wastages and inefficiencies.

(4) It provides necessary information to the management to take prompt

decision relating to business.

(5) It helps to the management for effectively discharge its functions such as
planning, organizing, controlling, directing and forecasting.

(6) Ratio analysis reveals profitable and unprofitable activities. Thus, the
management is able to concentrate on unprofitable activities and consider to
improve the efficiency.

(7) Ratio analysis is used as a measuring rod for effective control of

performance of business activities.

(8) Ratios are an effective means of communication and informing about

financial soundness made by the business concern to the proprietors, investors,
creditors and other parties.

(9) Ratio analysis is an effective tool which is used for measuring the operating
results of the enterprises.

(10) It facilitates control over the operation as well as resources of the


(11) Effective co-operation can be achieved through ratio analysis.

(12) Ratio analysis provides all assistance to the management to fix


(13) Ratio analysis helps to determine the performance of liquidity,

profitability and solvency position of the business concern.

Limitations of Ratio Analysis

Ratio analysis is one of the important techniques of determining the

performance of financial strength and weakness of a firm. Though ratio
analysis is relevant and useful technique for the business concern, the analysis
is based on the information available in the financial statements. There are
some situations, where ratios are misused, it may lead the management to
wrong direction. The ratio analysis suffers from the following limitations:

Ratio analysis is used on the basis of financial statements. Number of
limitations of financial statements may affect the accuracy or quality of ratio

Ratio analysis heavily depends on quantitative facts and figures and it ignores
qualitative data. Therefore this may limit accuracy.

Ratio Analysis is a poor measure of a firm's performance due to lack of

adequate standards laid for ideal ratios.

It is not a substitute for analysis of financial statements. It is merely used as a

tool for measuring the performance of business activities.

Ratio analysis clearly has some latitude for window dressing.

It makes comparison of ratios between companies which is questionable due

to differences in methods of accounting operation and financing.

Ratio analysis does not consider the change in price level, as such, these ratio
will not help in drawing meaningful inferences.


Accounting Ratios are classified on the basis of the different parties

interested in making use of the ratios. A very large number of accounting ratios
are used for the purpose of determining the financial position of a concern for
different purposes. Ratios may be broadly classified in to:

(1) Classification of Ratios on the basis of Balance Sheet.

(2) Classification of Ratios on the basis of Profit and Loss Account.

(3) Classification of Ratios on the basis of Mixed Statement (or) Balance Sheet
and Profit and Loss Account.

This classification further grouped in to:

I. Liquidity Ratios

II. Profitability Ratios

III. Turnover Ratios

IV. Solvency Ratios

V. Over all Profitability Ratios

These classifications are discussed hereunder:

1. Classification of Ratios on the basis of Balance Sheet: Balance sheet ratios

which establish the relationship between two balance sheet items. For
example, Current Ratio, Fixed Asset Ratio, Capital Gearing Ratio and
Liquidity Ratio etc.

2. Classification on the basis of Income Statements: These ratios deal with the
relationship between two items or two group of items of the income statement
or profit and loss account. For example, Gross Profit Ratio, Operating Ratio,
Operating Profit Ratio, and Net Profit Ratio etc.

3. Classification on the basis of Mixed Statements: These ratios also known

as Composite or Mixed Ratios or Inter Statement Ratios. The inter statement
ratios which deal with relationship between the item of profit and loss account
and item of balance sheet. For example, Return on Investment Ratio, Net
Profit to Total Asset Ratio, Creditor's Turnover Ratio, Earning Per Share Ratio
and Price Earning Ratio etc.


Ratio analysis is an accounting tool, which can be used to measure the

solvency, the profitability, and the overall financial strength of a business, by
analyzing its financial accounts (specifically the balance sheet and the profit
and loss account).

Accounting ratios are very easy to calculate and they enable a business
to highlight which areas of its finances are weak and therefore require
immediate attention.

Financial ratio analysis is a useful tool for determining a customer's

overall financial condition. Industry-wide financial ratios are published by a
variety of sources, including Dun & Bradstreet. Financial ratios are useful for
making quick comparisons. Banks and trade creditors use financial ratio
analysis to help them decide whether a business is a good credit risk or not.

Ratio analysis is a tool to help evaluate the overall financial condition

of a customer's business. Ratios are useful for making comparisons between a
customer and other businesses in an industry. A financial ratio is a simple
mathematical comparison of two or more entries from a company's financial
statements. Creditors use ratios to chart a company's progress, uncover trends
and point to potential problem areas.

There are five main categories of accounting ratio:

 Liquidity ratios, these measure the solvency of the business and its
ability to meet short-term debts.
 Profitability (or 'performance') ratios, these analyses the profit made
over the last year.
 Financial efficiency (or 'activity') ratios, these analyses the efficiency
of the business in terms of the use of its resources in generating sales.

 Gearing ratio, this measures the proportion of the capital of the business
which has come from external sources, and must be repaid with interest.
 Shareholders' ratios, these measure the strength of the company, its
share price and its dividends.

Ratio analysis involves the calculation and interpretation of key financial

performance indicators to provide useful insights.

Financial information is always prepared to satisfy in some way the needs

of various interested parties (the "users of accounts"). Stakeholders in the
business (whether they are internal or external to the business) seek
information to find out three fundamental questions:

(1) How is the business trading?

(2) How strong is the financial position?

(3) What are the future prospects for the business?

For outsiders, published financial accounts are an important source of

information to enable them to answer the above questions.


Ratio Analysis is one of the techniques of financial analysis where ratios

are used as a yardstick for evaluating the financial condition and performance
of a firm. Analysis and interpretation of various accounting ratios gives a
better understanding of financial condition and performance of firm. Trend
ratios indicate the direction of change in the performance – improvement,
deterioration or constancy- over the year.


Thus it is needed for following purposes:

 The ability of the firm to meet its current obligation.

 The limit or extent to which the firm has used its borrowed funds.
 The efficiency with which the firm is utilizing in generating sales revenue.
 The operating efficiency and performance of the company .


Ratio Analysis is an important factor for the day to day operation of the
business of the company. The study is conducted to evaluate the ratio analysis
of the company and identify and know the financial position of the company.


 Main Objective is to study the different ratios used in

 To know the mills financial performance based on ratios.
 To find out the companies efficiency based on past and present
profitability ratios
 To study the liquidity position of the company.
 To improve its future performance by analyzing its financial


 As it is very difficult to decide any inference from the mass of figures

included in financial statements. So in order to judge accurately the
financial health of the firm, it is generally regroup and analyze the
figures as disclosed by these financial statement.

 The use of Ratio Analysis or Accounting Ratios enables conclusions to

be drawn from the figures as to know the earning capacity, operational
efficiency, and financial condition etc. of a concern.
 The study includes the calculation of different financial ratios. It
compares three years financial statements of the company to know its
performance in these different years.
 To know whether the company is growing or incurring losses or it is
stagnant in its performance.


The study was carried out in MACRONIC LAB , in the field of Ratio
analysis for the period of 2011 to 2016.


 Research design
 Data Collection


The research design is a pattern or an outline of research project working. It

is a statement of only essential elements of study, those that provide basic
guidelines for the details of the project. The present study is being conducted
followed by Descriptive Research Design.


 Primary Data
 Secondary Data

Primary Data

The research vehicle for primary data collection is

unstructured interview with the managers to get information regarding all
variables for the performance of a firm.

Secondary Data

It is collected from Annual Report, relevant files & records of

Macronic Lab in Chennai.


 The study is done only on the Balance sheet and profit and Loss A/c
 Study is based on information provided by the company.
 The limitation of ratio analysis is itself a limitation in achievement the
set objective.


 CHAPTERIZATION I: Deals with Introduction
 CHAPTERIZATION II: Deals with Review of literature
 CHAPTERIZATION III: Deals with Company profile
 CHAPTERIZATION IV: Deals with Data Analysis and Interpretation
 CHAPTERIZATION V: Deals with Finding Suggestion and


Bollen (1999)
Conducted a study on Ratio Variables on which he found three different uses
of ratio variables in aggregate data analysis: (1) as measures of theoretical
concepts, (2) as a means to control an extraneous factor, and (3) as a correction
for heteroscedasticity. In the use of ratios as indices of concepts, a problem
can arise if it is regressed on other indices or variables that contain a common
component. For example, the relationship between two per capita measures
may be confounded with the common population component in each variable.
Regarding the second use of ratios, only under exceptional conditions will
ratio variables be a suitable means of controlling an extraneous factor. Finally,
the use of ratios to correct for heteroscedasticity is also often misused. Only
under special conditions will the common form forgers soon with ratio
variables correct for heteroscedasticity. Alternatives to ratios for each of these
cases are discussed and evaluated.
Cooper (2000)
Conducted a study on Financial Intermediation on which he observed that the
quantitative behavior of business-cycle models in which the intermediation
process acts either as a source of fluctuations or as a propagator of real shocks.
In neither case do we find convincing evidence that the intermediation process
is an important element of aggregate fluctuations. For an economy driven by
intermediation shocks, consumption is not smoother than output, investment
is negatively correlated with output, variations in the capital stock are quite
large, and interest rates are procyclical. The model economy thus fails to
match unconditional moments for the U.S. economy. We also structurally
estimate parameters of a model economy in whichintermediation and
productivity shocks are present, allowing for the intermediation process to

propagate the real shock. The unconditional correlations are closer to those
observed only when the intermediation shock is relatively unimportant.
Khatik S.K,Varghese Titto (2013)
“Financial analysis of steel authority of India limited” states that financial
analysis is used to analyze whether an entity is stable, solvent, liquid or
profitable enough to be invested in financial analysis is just like doctor who
examine the fitness of the human body. For analysis of the financial position
of the SAIL, gross profit ratio, net profit and operating ratio, productivity
investment and solvency ratios are calculated.

Rakesh and Kulkarni (2012) analyzed the Gujarat Food Testing industry
working capital evaluation on selected five company for the eleven years and
performed ratio analysis, descriptive statistics etc. The study concluded with
all the company financial performance with sound effective as well as current
and quick ratio, current asset on total asset, sales, turnover etc. are analyzed
with the help of hypothesis and used ANOVA. In this research also researcher
followed this attributes.

Each company could invest on the basis of current performance compared

with previous year or with other company. Decision making, additional
investment, liquidity position changes in working capital depend upon the
performance & return of company reports. Funds are highly required for day-
to -day business operations of the firm and how to utilize it and in what way
should avoid loses from the investment are discussed here plus, it happens by
ineffective management. The objective of the paper is to analyze the
performance of Food Testing industry in the selected companies from Tamil
Nadu. In addition, the data collected from the CMIE and used the tools of
ANOVA and descriptive statistics

Zahid and nanik (2011) concludes the overall performance of the Food
Testing sector was adversely affected by crisis through analysis of income
statement, debt payment ability, management and inventory sales, receivables,
productivity, fixed assets, etc.

Nusrat and Assocham (2014) analyzed the performance of sector analysis on

28 Food Testing companies from BSE with the attributes of net sales, net
profit, interest cost, raw material, power and fuel cost.
Virambhai (2010) Food Testing industry productivity and financial
efficiency focused on industry’s current position and its performance. It
concluded the company/management should try to increase the production,
minimize the cost and operating expenses, exercise proper control on liquidity
position, reduction of power, fuel, borrowing funds, overheads, interest
burden, etc

Ajay Kumar (2011) discussed on Indian Food Testing industry analysis with
inflation, Food Testing production, sales, Income, PAT, Income, etc. and
found the export and import performance in the crisis period.

South Asia network of economic research institute report on “Impact of

financial crisis on Food Testing industry of Pakistan” (2011) March by Imran
Alam states when developing countries saw record declines in their stock
markets. These declines were registered in those sectors which were
dependent on the markets of developed world. Its repercussions were seen in
developing countries also.

Ongoing financial crisis has affected them through many channels. However,
exports, employment and investment are suspected to be affected most. Food
Testing sector is the most important sector of Pakistan’s economy,

contributing about 57% to the export earnings and 46% to the employment.
The results revealed that rising unemployment rate; high cost of production,
lower demand and exchange rate volatility in foreign countries had Unpleasant
impact on Pakistan’s export indents. The main cause of the above mentioned
deteriorating conditions is said to be the ongoing financial crisis.




 Background of the MACRONIC Laboratory Task Group The Partnership

for Food Protection (MACRONIC) is a group of dedicated officials from
federal, state, local, and tribal governments that have been brought together
to build the foundation of an integrated food/feed safety system in the
United States. In August 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
hosted a national meeting, Gateway to Food Protection, which reenergized
efforts to work toward an integrated approach to address the challenges of
the growing global food supply. Following this meeting, the MACRONIC
initiative was established to provide guidance on implementing the
necessary infrastructure and food safety strategies essential to building an
integrated food/feed safety system. The MACRONIC is divided into
several focused workgroups charged with advancing federal, state, and
local partnerships in a coordinated and efficient manner. One of the
workgroups established to assist in accomplishing these goals was the
Laboratory Task Group (LTG).
 The LTG is co-led by FDA and state partners and has been meeting via
teleconference since January 2011. The MACRONIC LAB is comprised
of seven subcommittees: Accreditation, Regulatory Annex, Proficiency
Testing, Sampling, Methods, Analytical Worksheet Packages, and
Reporting (See Figure 1). These subcommittees are led by FDA and state
laboratory professionals and are comprised of members from multiple
federal, state and local agencies. Supporting reference documentation
identified by each subcommittee is embedded within these draft best

practices manual and consolidated in Appendix 2. Purpose of the
Food/Feed Testing Laboratories Best Practices Manual (Draft) The
MACRONIC LAB was charged to document best practices and procedures
for food/feed laboratories to support confidence in the integrity and
scientific validity of laboratory analytical data and facilitate the acceptance
of laboratory analytical data by regulatory agencies.
 The Food/Feed Testing Laboratories Best Practices Manual (Draft)
provides a set of tools, definitions, and references that laboratories can use
to improve their operations. This draft best practices manual is a summary-
level compilation of the work of the LTG subcommittees. It primarily
reflects the experiences and perspectives of FDA and state and local food
regulatory agencies who participated in the MACRONIC LAB. As such,
state, local, and tribal regulatory laboratories and FDA laboratories will be
most able to directly apply the manual’s best practices to improve their
operations. The manual may be particularly useful for governmental
laboratories that submit analytical data to regulatory agencies in support of
government food safety initiatives and routine enforcement. Laboratories
may be able to integrate these best practices into relevant initiatives and
frameworks (e.g., Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards
(MFRPS)). The manual does not implement the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) or other statutes, nor is it a
substitute for laboratory requirements that may be proposed as part of
FSMA rulemakings. The draft best practices manual generally may be
useful to laboratories working towards the goal of establishing a food or
feed testing program that may become a functional and productive part of
a national integrated food/feed safety system.


 This document lays down the guidelines for general as well as the
technical criteria for recognition, terms and conditions of recognition,
withdrawal cancellation of recognition and financial aspects of the
Laboratory Recognition.
 The recognition scheme is applicable to laboratories, which are
functioning independently irrespective of being an in-house laboratory or
linked directly or indirectly to any of the manufacturing / processing unit
/organization/ Institution to the satisfaction of MACRONIC provided the
laboratory demonstrates that there is no conflict of interest.
 Recognition shall be accorded to a laboratory for single premises only
where actual testing is carried out. If the laboratory carries out testing
activities in more than one premise, separate recognition for each premise
will have to be obtained with a clear demarcation of scope of recognition.
However, if the laboratory establishes field satellite laboratories for
preliminary screening tests near at the place of the primary production of
the food, the facilities can be considered as part of the central main
laboratory of the establishment, with additional scope, where conformity
tests can be carried out for the presence of the particular substance
provided such arrangements are addressed in the Quality Manual of the

These criteria shall be applicable to Level 1- Food Laboratory, Level 2-
Food Laboratory and Referral Food Laboratory which are defined

Level 1 Laboratory:

 The laboratory which is competent to carry out the complete analysis as

per “The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food
Additives-Part-I & II) Regulations, 2011”.

Level 2 Laboratory:

 The laboratory which is competent to carry out the complete analysis as

per “The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food
Additives) Regulations, 2011” and “Food Safety and Standards
(Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011”.

Referral Food Laboratory:

 The Laboratory having competence to carry out the analysis as per “The
Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food
Additives) Regulations, 2011” and “Food Safety and Standards
(Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations,2011”.

In addition the Referral laboratory must have the competence to meet

the following requirements:

1) R & D Capabilities:
 For investigation for the purpose of fixation of standard of any article
of food and standardizing methods of analysis. The preference will be
given to the Laboratories having documentary evidence for carrying
out R&D in food sector.

2) Training Facilities:
 The laboratory should have training center for Capacity building by
way of organizing professional training, workshops and seminars for
the Food. The preference will be given to the Laboratories having
documentary evidence for conducting trainings / workshops / seminars
in food sector.
3) Other Facilities:
 The laboratory should have all the other required facilities for
performing the functions of Referral Food Laboratory as defined in the
Act and reproduced below:
 Analysis of samples of food sent by any officer or authority authorized
by the Food Authority for the purpose and submission of the certificate
of analysis to the authorities concerned;
 Investigation for the purpose of fixation of standard of any article of
 Investigation in collaboration with the laboratories of Food analysts in
the various States and such other laboratories and institutions which
the Food Authority may approve on its behalf, for the purpose of
standardizing methods of analysis.
 Ensuring that the laboratory follows the scientific protocols laid down
for handling/testing the articles of food.
 Maintaining high standards of accuracy, reliability and credibility in
the operation of the laboratory and achieving and maintaining the
required levels of accreditation and reliability.
 Laying down mechanism for ensuring that personnel of the laboratory
adhere to high professional standards and discipline.
 Such other conditions, as the Authority may lay down for Referral


 MACRONIC shall process the application for on-site Assessment only

after adjudging the suitability of management system by adequacy audit. A
team of assessors as per scope applied by the laboratory shall be deputed
by MACRONIC to ascertain compliance to the documented Quality
Management System, equipment facilities/ infrastructure and technical
competence. The laboratory shall make arrangements for travel and stay of
the assessors and provide the facilities required for on-site assessment as
per the auditing principles.

The on-site assessment shall have the following steps:

 Opening Meeting - This meeting will be conducted by the assessment team

leader (Lead Assessor) in which the Chief/Head of the laboratory, the
Quality Manager (QM) and the technical heads of all the divisions being
audited are expected to be present. During this meeting, the team leader
will explain the scope and extent of the assessment as well as the proposed
plan for assessment. The scope for recognition shall not be changed during
the opening meeting. Permission to take photocopy or photograph of
documents relevant to substantiate the audit findings shall be complied
with by the laboratory. The laboratory shall ensure that necessary
infrastructure facilities and documentary evidences are provided promptly
to complete the assessment in scheduled time. The laboratory shall
primarily be responsible for completing the assessment in scheduled time.

Conducting Assessment:

 The assessment shall be conducted as per the assessment plan agreed to

during the opening meeting, and shall cover areas of the relevance to the
scope of recognition of the laboratory. Evaluation shall include
verification of test facilities, accommodation and environment,

examination of documents and records, assessment of competence of
laboratory personnel in conducting laboratory analysis/ testing,
performance in witness tests, documentary evidence of participation in
International Proficiency testing programs for relevant analyses and
matrices and compliance to its Annual Plan for participation in such
programs etc. A laboratory official, conversant with the activities of the
division(s) being audited, should accompany each assessor. The non-
conformances (NCs) identified by the assessment team shall be briefed and
submitted to the audited for necessary corrective action(s).

Closing meeting:

 The assessment shall conclude with a closing meeting during which the
assessment team shall present its findings to the laboratory. All the
members present in the opening meeting should preferably be present in
the closing meeting. The non-conformance reports shall be acknowledged
by QM or authorized signatory, as a token of acceptance and time frame
for the corrective action(s) will be agreed to. No NC shall be closed either
during the assessment or at the time of closing meeting.


 The applicant laboratory shall bear assessment fee, as estimated by

MACRONIC , for the number of assessors and man days deputed for
assessment, based on the scope applied for and arrangement for


 The laboratory is expected to provide the following assistance to the

assessment team during the visit:
 Arrangements for stay, local guidance, travel etc.

 A representative of laboratory to accompany the team during the
 A suitable room where members of the team can meet and discuss
during the day and at the end of the day to exchange their notes and
 Secretarial and other office assistance like photocopying, etc.
 Free accessibility to the records, test facilities as is deemed relevant by
the assessors


 The laboratory shall take necessary corrective actions within the stipulated
time period of not more than two months for the closure of the NC’s,
brought on record by the assessment team, which will have to be verified
by the corresponding assessor before considering it for grant of
recognition. On-site verification assessment by the corresponding assessor
may be required for closure of major NCs. This follows up visit, for full or
partial assessment, may be carried out as above. The applicant Laboratory
shall make all the arrangements as per Clause and bear the assessment fee.


 Based on the recommendation of the assessment team, MACRONIC LAB

shall consider for grant of recognition to the laboratory. The laboratory will
be issued a Certificate of recognition annexed with the scope of
recognition. The decision of the MACRONIC LAB for granting the
recognition or otherwise shall be final.
 The recognition granted shall be valid for a period of three years from the
date of Recognition. The renewal of recognition shall also be for three
years at a time. It shall be binding for the recognized laboratory to comply
with the directions/any modification in the scheme, issued by MACRONIC

LAB from time to time. The MACRONIC LAB recognized laboratory
shall bound with the terms and conditions given under Clause.


 The recognized laboratory shall be subjected to surveillance audit at the

end of the 1st year of recognition to verify the continued compliance and
maintenance of competency and the implementation of quality system
established by the laboratory.
 The laboratory shall be subjected to verification audit in case of any
complaints in sampling, testing and test reports or any other reasons.
 During the validity of recognition, if the laboratory is found violating the
terms and conditions of recognition, its recognition is liable to be
suspended and may call for verification visits, for Which the laboratory is
liable to pay visit charges.


 The laboratory shall keep the remnants of the sample after testing for a
minimum 19 period of one month except for perishable items, under
stipulated storage conditions as given in Test Request by the customer or
as deemed fit by the laboratory before they are disposed off or returned to
the customer. The test report shall be treated as strictly confidential
between the testing laboratory and MACRONIC LAB. No information
regarding the sample or its results shall be divulged to any person including
the FBO who may deliver the sample for testing on behalf of MACRONIC
 However, in case sample is submitted by the FBO/Consumer for testing
within the scope of recognition for the purpose of self monitoring or for
monitoring / certification by MACRONIC LAB, the details of testing shall
be made available to MACRONIC LAB. The FBO shall not be allowed to

witness the test or to come in contact with the testing personnel without
prior recognition of MACRONIC LAB. Any assistance or intervention
required from the FBO for testing the sample shall be duly indicated by
MACRONIC LAB in the test request and shall be reported in the test



 Food sampling is a process used to check that a food is safe and that it
does not contain harmful contaminants, or that it contains only
permitted additives at acceptable levels, or that it contains the right levels
of key ingredients and its label declarations are correct, or to know the
levels of nutrients present. A food sample is carried out by subjecting the
product to physical analysis. Analysis may be undertaken by or on behalf
of a manufacturer regarding their own product, or for official food law
enforcement or control purposes, or for research or public information.

 To undertake any analysis, unless the whole amount of food to be

considered is very small so that the food can be used for testing in its
entirety, it is usually necessary for a portion of it to be taken (e.g. a small
quantity from a full production batch, or a portion of what is on sale in a
shop) – this process is known as food sampling. In most cases with food
to be analyzed there are two levels of sampling – the first being selection
of a portion from the whole, which is then submitted to a laboratory for
testing, and the second being the laboratory’s taking of the individual
amounts necessary for individual tests that may be applied. It is the former
that is ‘food

 Where it is intended that the results of any analysis to relate to the food as
a whole it is crucially important that the sample is representative of that
whole – and the results of any analysis can only be meaningful if the
sampling is undertaken effectively. This is true whether the ‘whole’ is a
manufacturer’s entire production batch, or where it is a single item but too
large to all be used for the test.

 Factors relevant in considering the representativeness of a sample include

the homogeneity of the food, the relative sizes of the sample to be taken
and the whole, the potential degree of variation of the parameter(s) in
question through the whole, and the significance and intended use of the
analytical result.


 Food manufacturers and producers would need to satisfy themselves that

any sample taken for analysis is sufficiently representative of the food for
the analytical result to be meaningful. This is true whether the data are to
be used as the basis of labeling declarations, assurance of compliance with
legislative or other standards, monitoring of production as part of HACCP
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, or for routine quality control.
 In the India although various guidance is available, either from
manufacturers’ associations or from sources of standards such as British
Standards Institution (such as British Standard BS6001), some of which
may be relevant to certain food types. It is largely down to manufacturers
to make their own evaluations of need and suitability. This must be
translated into an assessment both of sample portion size and number, and
the frequency of taking samples.

Food law enforcement:

 In the India, enforcement is under the Food Safety Act 1990. Food
sampling is undertaken primarily by local authorities and port health
authorities for submission to public analysts for analysis. Much of the
legislation relates to food as supplied to a consumer, meaning that every
portion of a size of perishable food and foods at risk as may be supplied to
a consumer has to comply, so that in such cases the sample submitted for
analysis could simply be an entire consumer-sized portion. There are
exceptions, however, such as the sampling of nut products for the presence
of aflatoxins, which stipulate a primary sample size related to the size of
the consignment – with associated requirements for initial homogenization
to produce a smaller sample to be sent for analysis.

 The Food Safety Act 1990 affords a right for defense analysis, and for
referee analysis in case of disputed analytical results, by stipulating that
except where to do so would prevent effective analysis the sample must be
divided into three parts. The INDIA Food Standards Agency provides
supplementary guidance to the enforcement authorities to assist with the
sampling process and associated decisions by sampling officers.

 There is no set frequency or rate for the sampling of food for law
enforcement in the INDIA. Between the 1930s and 1990s there had been a
guideline minimum rate for sampling for chemical analysis (not including
samples for microbiological examination) of 2.5 samples per annum per
1000 head of population, however that was an arbitrary figure and more
recent thinking suggested that the selection of a frequency for sampling
should be based on risk. In this context risk includes all 'consumer
protection' issues such as pecuniary disadvantage from substandard or

counterfeit products, as well as risk to health. The Association of Public
Analysts was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency to look into
this, culminating in a scheme for Risk Based Sampling, though it has not
yet been adopted by the enforcement authorities.


 Involves the inspection, assessment and sorting of various foods regarding

quality, freshness, legal conformity and market value. Food grading often
occurs by hand, in which foods are assessed and sorted. Machinery is also
used to grade foods, and may involve sorting products by size, shape and
quality. For example, machinery can be used to remove spoiled food from
fresh product.


 In the early 13th century, the king of England proclaimed the first food
regulatory law, the Assize of Bread, which prohibited bakers from mixing
ground peas and beans into bread dough. Ever since, it has been a cat and
mouse game between the food industry and the public (fast forward to
China 2008 – cheap poisonous melamine in milk powder). In the US, food
regulation dates back to early colonial times. Here is a brief overview of
the last 150 years of government and industry food regulation.

 1862 President Lincoln launches the Department of Agriculture and the

Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor of the Food and Drug
Administration.1906 The original Food and Drugs Act is passed. It
prohibits interstate commerce in miss-branded and adulterated foods,
drinks and drugs.1906 In the aftermath of “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair,
which detailed the horrendous sanitary and working conditions in the
meatpacking industry, the Meat Inspection Act is passed.

 1924 The Supreme Court rules that the Food and Drugs Act condemns
every statement, design, or device on a product’s label that may mislead or
deceive, even if technically true. 1938 A revised and expanded Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938 is passed. Highlights
include: safe tolerances to be set for unavoidable poisonous substances,
standards of identity, quality, and fill-of-container to be set for foods, and
authorization of factory inspections.
 1939 First Food Standards issued (for canned tomatoes, tomato purée, and
tomato paste). 1949 FDA publishes guidance to industry for the first time,
called “Procedures for the Appraisal of the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food,”
(aka the “black book”) 1950 Oleomargarine Act requires prominent
labeling of colored oleomargarine, to distinguish it from butter. (Yes,
swindlers tried to sell folks cheap margarine in the guise of butter.)
 1958 Food Additives Amendment enacted, requiring manufacturers of new
food additives to establish safety. Going forward, manufacturers were
required to declare all additives in a product. 1958 FDA publishes the first
list of food substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS). 1962
President Kennedy proclaims the Consumer Bill of Rights. Included are
the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose, and the
right to be heard.
 1965 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires all consumer products in
interstate commerce to be honestly and informatively labeled, including
food. 1971 Artificial sweetener saccharin, included in FDA’s original
GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list, is removed from the list pending
new scientific study. 1973 California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)
is formed. Begins with 54 farmers mutually certifying each other’s
adherence to its own published, publicly available standards for defining
organic produce.

 1977 Bowing to industry pressure, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act
is passed by Congress to stop the FDA from banning the chemical
sweetener. The act does require a label warning that saccharin has been
found to cause cancer in laboratory animals.1980 Infant Formula Act
establishes special FDA controls to ensure necessary nutritional content
and safety. 1980 The USDA Food and Nutrition Information Center
(FNIC) publishes the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The
guidelines are to be updated every 5 years. In 1980 there were 7 relatively
simple guidelines. In the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, there
were 41 recommendations in a 71 page booklet!!!
 1982 FDA publishes first “red book” (successor to 1949 “black book”),
officially known as “Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of
Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food”.1990 Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) is passed. It requires all packaged
foods to bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be
consistent with terms defined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. As a concession to food manufacturers, the FDA authorizes some
health claims for foods. The food ingredient panel, serving sizes, and terms
such as “low fat” and “light” are standardized. This is pretty much the
nutrition label as we know it today.
 1991 Nutrition facts, basic per-serving nutritional information, are required
on foods under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Food
labels are to list the most important nutrients in an easy-to-follow
format.1995 Saccharin Notice Repeal Act repeals the saccharin notice
requirements of 1977. People can get their saccharin without having to read
about its risks.

 1995 American Heart Association initiates a food certification program
including AHA’s Heart Check Symbol to appear on certain foods. Criteria
are simple – low in saturated fat and cholesterol for healthy people over
age 2. Oh and also, a certification payment to AHA by the food
manufacturer. Now you know why sugary cereal is Heart Checked.1998
Transfer, the US Fair Trade organization is established, with a mission “to
build a more equitable and sustainable model of international trade that
benefits producers, consumers, industry and the earth”.
 2002 The 2002 Farm Bill requires retailers provide country-of-origin
(COOL) labeling for fresh beef, pork, and lamb. After repeated debilitation
and stakeholder pressures, the law would finally go into effect only 6 years
later, on Oct 1, 2008, and even then with many loopholes.


 2002 The National Organic Program (NOP), enacted. It restricts the use of
the term “organic” to certified organic producers. Certification is handled
by state, non-profit and private agencies that have been approved by the
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2003 Announcement made that
FDA will require food labels to include trans fat content. Labeling went
into effect in 2006.
 2003 The FDA announced plans to permit the manufacturers of food
products sold in the United States to make health claims on food labels
which are supported by less than conclusive evidence. From “significant
scientific consensus” before a claim can be made, industry can now rely on
“Some scientific evidence” or “Very limited and preliminary scientific
research” to make a health claim. Opponents criticize it as opening the door
to ill-founded claims. Advocates believe it will make more information
available to the public.

 2004 Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act.
Requires labeling of any food that contains one or more of: peanuts,
soybeans, cow’s milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat.
2004 PepsiCo launches Smart spot – designating the “more nutritious” of
its products with an easy to spot symbol on the front of package. Baked
Doritos in. Fried Doritos out.
 2005 Kraft launches Sensible Solutions, a similar initiative for its gamut of
products including sugar-free Jello, vitamin water, and Nabisco toasted
chips.2005 President’s Choice launches Blue Menu to designate its
healthier products. 2006 Hannaford Brothers Supermarket Chain launches
Guiding Stars intended to help customers choose healthy foods. Foods are
ranked 0 to 3 stars, with three stars awarded to most nutritious foods. Only
20% of the supermarket stocked items are starred, but sales of these items
increase by several percentage points.
 Sept 2008 NuVal announced – The nutritional value (NuVal) System
scores food on a scale of 1 to 100. The higher the NuVal Score, the higher
the nutrition of a food product. The score is based on a complex and *top
secret* Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI) that takes into account
30 different nutrients in food. [Update: read review]. Oct 2007 Kellogg’s
Launches Nutrition at a Glance based on the European Guideline Daily
Amounts (GDA) system. Front of Package information includes daily
percentage values for 6 nutrients: calories, total fat, sodium, sugars,
vitamin A, and vitamin C.
 Oct 2008 Mars International launches GDA labeling of its foods and snacks
in the US. Oct 2008 Smart Choices launched – a pan industry effort to
promote a standardized benchmark for front of package consumer
information. Initial supporters include General Mills, Con-Agra, Coca-
Cola, PepsiCo, and Unilever. [update: read review]

 January 2009 Healthy Ideas launched at Giant Foods and Stop & Shop
supermarkets. Around 10% of the items qualify for this benchmark,
developed by the grocers’ nutrition experts and based on FDA and USDA
guidelines. January 2009 Sara Lee introduces Nutritional Spotlight front of
package labels for bread, bun, and bagel products. This move is in contrast
to an industry wide attempt by manufacturers to create a unified Smart
Choice label. This label is similar to Mars’ and Kelloggs’ recent efforts.

Food testing strips:

 Food testing strip are products that help determine whether or not food
contains bacteria that can cause food borne illness. These products can
typically be used on food, water, and hard surfaces, and are often designed
for quick and easy home and commercial use.

Categories of Food Strips:

 Currently, there are two categories of food testing strips on the market.

 One type of food testing strip is an assay enzyme reactant test. This test
requires the food testing strip to be dipped into a blended mixture of food
or test samples, distilled water and a reagent. These strips are designed
specifically to detect those strains of E.coli and Salmonella that are
harmful to humans.

 A second type of food testing strip is a gram-negative swab, which is

usually administered directly to the food itself. Gram-negative swabs
generally work faster than enzyme reactant strips, but they differ in that the
gram-negative swabs are designed to detect a broad group of organisms,
not just those that can cause food borne illness in humans.

Usage of Food Strips:

 The enzyme reactant test strips react when the buffer solution breaks the
bacterial wall. This breach releases enzymes, which react upon contact to
the enzyme test strips.
 The gram-negative reactant activates when components of the gram-
negative cell wall or specific enzymes are present, causing the swab itself
to change color. This is not directly indicative of the presence or absence
of human pathogen in the test sample.
 People are now working on new ways to enhance these pathogen strips
with silk pills and new nano-fiber technology



Company Information:

Macronic Lab was founded in 2001 by Late Sh.C.R.Goel ,The

Company CEO Name :Mohamed Asharaf, Managing Director: S. Siva
Subiramaniyan with a vision of providing high quality and extremely cost
effective analytical services to the Industries, Processor, Traders, Research
Institute and various Consumer Organizations. As an Independent contract
agency we offer access to a highly qualified Scientific staffs of high caliber
and equipped with some of the latest instrumentation techniques. Our
dedication to a rapid turn around with high quality and reliability coupled with
close interaction with the clients, industries and users leads to customer

Macronic Lab has been on the growth path from the beginning. Started by the
founder with a humble beginning today DTH is a multi-location, multi-
product, multi-operation agency rendering services to many Government
bodies, Industries, statutory bodies, NGO’s since 1975 with an objective to
provide true results to its customers as Third Party Independent Organization.

About As:

 This has been a dream Entrepreneurial Venture to serve people. Living

beings survive on food. It’s been people dream to retrieve virgin clean
environment ever since Industrial Revolution.
 Clean Food, Safe Food, Quality Food, Nutritious Food, Clean Air, Clean
Water, Controlled Emission, Controlled Discharge, Safe Waste Disposal
has been the endeavor of all Regulatory & Government agencies at
International & National Level among other Public, Private Agencies,
Organizations etc. This had gained immense attention through the later
decades of 20th Century, and has lost no momentum in the 21st Century.

 This dream entrepreneurial venture shall follow stringent National,
International Standards in BENCH MARKING TESTING SERVICES of
Food, Food Products, Agricultural Products & Environment, thereby,
contribute in part semblance towards achieving National, Global objective
of Safe Quality Food & Environment through testing services such as soil
and environmental testing services, food products testing, agricultural
products testing.

Contact information:

Address : SP 101, Second Main Road,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,


Chennai - 600 058

Website :


 Clean food and environment is the requirement of all the living beings and
we are working with a vision of providing this in accordance with all
regulatory measures.
 Consumer’s well-being and health are at the core of our concerns. For this
reason, we strive to provide the best services to our clients to prevent health
“Because you care about consumers health


 To contribute to global health and safety by providing our customers

with high quality laboratory and advisory services whilst creating

opportunities for our employees and generating sustainable shareholder
 To be the World Leader in the Bioanalytical Testing Market.
 Providing safety and quality services and solutions for food,
environment, agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and consumer
goods on a global basis.


Customer focus

 Delivering customer satisfaction by listening to and exceeding customer

 Adding value for our customers through our services
 Seeking innovative solutions to help our customers achieve their goals.


 Delivering quality in all our work; providing accurate results on time

 Using the best appropriate technology and methods
 Seeking to improve or change our processes for the better

Competence & Team Spirit

 Employing a team of talented and competent staff

 Investing in training and creating good career opportunities
 Recognizing and encouraging outstanding performance


 Behaving ethically in all our business and financial activities

 Demonstrating respect towards our customers and our staff
 Operating responsible environmental policies


 Ambient Air Quality Testing

 Indoor Air Quality Testing
 Stack Emission Testing
 Water Analysis
 Hazardous and Solid Waste Testing
 Soil Testing
 Waste and Used Oil / Lubricants Testing
 Waste Water Testing
 Waste Analysis


 Fruits and Vegetable Testing

 Cereals Testing
 Dry Fruit Quality Testing
 Edible Oil Testing
 Rice and Wheat Testing
 Spice and Condiment Testing
 Beverages Testing
 Bakery and Confectionery Testing
 Meat and Poultry Product Testing
 Sea Food Testing
 Animal Feed Testing
 Milk & Dairy Products Testing
 Baby Food Products Testing
 Salt Testing
 Nutritional Labelling
 Food Grade Sea Weed Testing

Management Approach

 MACRONIC LAB is proud to be a family owned business with 2

generations of family overseeing the operations. That same sense of family
is extended to our employees and clients alike. MACRONIC has an
efficient management structure which allows us to respond quickly to
changes in the market and our clients’ needs. We maintain a strategic focus
on diversification and improving our services rather than a short term focus
on the bottom line.

Financial Strength

 At a time when many labs are consolidating, MACRONIC continues to

grow. Our goal is to grow both organically and through diversification. We
do this by bringing new tests on-line, developing patented procedures,
improving quality and efficiency on routine tests, and using our existing
resources wisely. We maintain exceptional insurance coverage.




 Ratio analysis is one of the powerful techniques which are widely used
for interpreting financial statements. This technique serves as a tool for
assessing the financial soundness of the business. it can be used to
compare the risk and return relationship of firms of different sizes. The
term ratio refers to the numerical or quantitative relationship between
two items/ variables.
 The idea of ratio analysis was introduced by Alexander Wall for the first
time in 1919. Ratios are quantitative relationship between two or more
variables taken from financial statements.
 Ratio analysis is defined as, “the systemic use of ratio to interpret the
financial statement so that the strength and weakness of the firm a well
as its historical performance and current financial condition can be
 In the financial statement we can find many items are co-related with
each other for example current assets and current liabilities, capital and
long term debt, gross profit and net profit purchase and sales etc


Ratio analysis is a technique of analyzing the financial statement of

industrial concerns. Now a day this technique is sophisticated and is commonly
used in business concerns. Ratio analysis is not an end but it is only means of better
understanding of financial strength and and weakness of a firm.

Ratio analysis is one of the most powerful tools of financial analysis which
helps in analyzing and interpreting the health of the firm. Ratio’s are proved as the
basic instrument in the control process and act as back bone in schemes of the
business forecast.

With the help of ratio we can determine

 The ability of the firm to meet its current obligation.

 The limit or extent to which the firm has used its borrowed funds.
 The efficiency with which the firm is utilizing in generating sales revenue.
 The operating efficiency and performance of the company .

Classification of Ratios

Ratios can be classified into different categories depending upon the

basis of classification.


Traditional Classification has been on the basis of financial statements,

on which ratio may be classified as follows.

1. Profit & Loss account ratios.

E.g. Gross Profit Ratio, Net Profit Ratio, Operating Ratio etc

2. Balance sheet ratio.

E.g. Current Ratio, Debt Equity Ratio, Working Capital Ratio etc

3. Composite/Mixed ratio.

E.g. Stock Turnover Ratio, Debtors Turnover Ratios, Fixed Assets

Turnover Ratio etc


Functional ratios

1. Liquidity ratios
a) Current Ratio
b) Quick Ratio

2. Leverage Ratios

a) Debt-equity Ratio
b) Current Asset to Proprietor’s fund Ratio


a. Gross profit Ratio

b. Operating profit Ratio

c. Return on investment


i. Inventory Turnover Ratio

ii. Asset Turnover Ratio:

a. Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio

b. Current Asset Turnover Ratio
iii. Working Capital Turnover Ratio.


I. Liquidity Ratio

Liquidity ratio measures the ability of the firm to meet its current
obligation (liabilities). In fact analysis of liquidity needs the preparation of
cash budget and cash and fund flow statement but liquidity ratio, by
establishing a relationship between cash and other current asset to current
obligation, to provide a quick measure of liquidity. A firm should ensure that
it doesn’t suffer lack of liquidity and also that it dose not have excess liquidity.

The common liquidity ratios are:-

1. Current Ratio

Current ratio may be defined as the relationship between current asset

and current liabilities. This is a measure of general liquidity & is most widely
used to make analysis of short-turn financial position or liquidity of firm. It is
calculated by dividing the total current assets by total current liabilities.

Current Ratio = Current Assets

Current Liabilities


Current Ratio

Current Assets Current Liabilities Ratio


2011-12 2990.09 5454.51 0.54

2012-13 3510.37 6642.17 0.52

2013-14 3926.88 6810.76 0.57

2014-15 4168.54 8542.43 0.48

2015-16 6076.18 11159.41 0.54


Current Ratio

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Current Current Ratio


The above table shows that MACRONIC LAB’s current ratio has
decreased from 3.04 to 0.54 in the year 2011 and 2012 and in the year 2013 it
was drastically fluctuated to 0.48 and then the year 2015 it raise to 0.48 but
again decreased to 0.45 in the 2016.

The company had the fluctuation of 6076.18% increase in current assets

and 0.54% in current the year 2015 the current assets has
decreased by 11159.41% and 0.54% in current liabilities.

An ideal current ratio is 2:1 for every one rupee of current liabilities,
current assets of doable rupee are available. The current ratio determines
margin of safety for creditors, there has been decrease in the ratio during 2016
compared with 2015.

2. Quick Ratio/Acid Test Ratio

Quick ratio establishes relationship between quick or liquid assets &

current liabilities. It is also known as acid test ratio. An asset is said to be
liquid if it can be converted into case within short period of time without loss
of value. The prepaid expenses and stock were excluded.

Quick ratio = Quick asset

Current Liabilities


Quick Ratio

Year Quick Assets Current Liabilities Ratio

2011-12 8795.69 12286.08 0.60

2012-13 6985.05 9845.44 0.59

2013-14 6448.87 7783.72 1.16

2014-15 5672.42 7711.37 0.88

2015-16 5623.62 6275.25 1.04


Quick Ratio






2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Quick Assets Current Liabilities Ratio


The above table shows that the quick assets of MACRONIC LAB has
decreased from 0.60 to 0.59 in the year 2012 and 2013 and had drastically
fluctuation to 1.16 and 0.88 in the year 2013 and 2015 and had slight raise to
1.04 in the year 2016.

The company had fluctuation 7.59% decrease in quick asset and and 8.18%
increase in current liabilities and in the year 2015 there was increase in quick
asset 33.56% and 10.82% decrease in current liabilities.

This ratio measures firm’s ability to serve short term liabilities. The ideal
quick ratio is “1”. A low quick ratio represents that firm’s liquidity poison is
not good.

II. Leverage Ratios

Leverage ratios are also known as capital structure ratio. These ratios
indicate mix of funds provided by owners & lenders. As a general rule these
should be appropriate mix debt & owners equity in financing the firm’s assets.

Leverage ratios are calculated to judge the long long-term financial

position of the company. Some of the popular leverage ratios are:

a. Debt-Equity Ratio

Debt-Equity ratio shows the relative contribution of creditors and

owners. Debt-Equity also known as External-Internal equity ratio. It is
calculated to measure the relative claims of outsiders against firm assets.

Debt-Equity Ratio = Total Debt

Net Worth


Debt Equity Ratio

Year Total Debt Net Worth Ratio

2011-12 3808.13 12859.82 0.30

2012-13 4462.68 15234.82 0.29

2013-14 4872.78 17097.51 0.28

2014-15 6511.83 18857.68 0.34

2015-16 4829.91 20736.09 0.23


Debt Equity Ratio







2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Total Debt Net Worth Ratio


The table shows that the total debt ratio of MACRONIC LAB had
increase in the year 2012 and 2013 from 0.30 to 0.29 and had fluctuation to
0.28 in the year 2013 and further increased to 0.34 in the 2014 and 0.23 in the
year 2016. The company had increase in the total debt by 3.27% and 0.23%
in net worth and in the year 2016 the debt was increased by 11.02% and
0.188% in net worth.

Debt equity ratio measures ultimate solvency of the company. It provides a

margin of safety to creditors, thus when the ratio is smaller the creditors are
more secured. An appropriate debt equity ratio is 0.33.A ratio higher than this
is an indication of risky financial policies.

b. Current Assets to Proprietor’s funds ratio

This ratio is calculated by dividing total current assets by shareholders

funds. It indicates the extent to which proprietor funds are invested in current
assets. There is no rule of thumb for this ratio & depending upon the nature of
the business there may be different ratios for different firms.

CA to PF ratio = Current Assets

Proprietors Fund


Current Assets to Proprietors Fund

Year Current Assets Proprietors Fund Ratio

2011-12 2990.09 2173.3 1.97

2012-13 3510.37 2174.0 1.58

2013-14 3926.88 2175.3 1.55

2014-15 4168.54 2180.15 1.92

2015-16 6076.18 2239.8 1.56


Current Assets to Proprietors Fund

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Current Assets Proprietors Fund Proprietors Fund Ratio


The table of current assets to proprietory ratio shows that the ratio has been
decreased by 1.97 to 1.58 in the year 2011 and 2012 and 1.55 in the year 2013 and
then raise to 1.92 in the year 2015 and then decreased to 1.56 in the year 2016.

There was raise in current asset by 24.20% in the year 2015 and proprietary fund
by 0.22% and further in 2016 there was decrease by 16.38% in current asset and
there was increase by 2.73% in proprietary fund

This ratio indicates the extent to which proprietors fund are invested in current asset

II. Profitability Ratios

The primary objective of a business undertaking is to earn profits.

Profit is the difference between revenue & expenses over a period of time.
Profit is output of a company & company will have no further if it fails to
make sufficient profit Profits are thus a useful measure of overall efficiency
of a firm.

These ratios are calculated to measure the operating efficiency of the

company. Beside management, creditors, owners are also interested in the
profitability of the company. Generally profitability ratios are calculated either
in relation to sales or in relation to investment. The various profitable ratios

I In Relation to Sales

Gross Profit Ratio

G.P.Ratio measures the relationship between gross profits & sales; it is

usually represented in percentage. Thus Gross profit margin highlights the
production efficiency at a concern

G.P.Ratio = Gross Profit X 100


G.P.Ratio indicate the extent to which selling price of goods per unit
may decline without resulting in losses on operations of firm. It reflect
efficiency with which firm produces the product.


Gross Profit Ratio

Year Gross Profit Sales Ratio

2011-12 32048846 6182.3 0.11

2012-13 119992232 6435.9 0.19

2013-14 81751169 5747.3 13.8

2014-15 98156497 5620.9 21.65

2014-16 79531898 6038.2 10.8


Gross Profit Ratio







2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2014-16

Gross Profit Sales Ratio


The above table shows the gross profit ratio of MACRONIC LAB the table
indicates that the ratio in the year 2011 was 0.11 and in the year 2012 it raised
to 0.19.further it had drastical change in gross profit to 13.8 in the year 2013
and 21.65 in the year 2015 ,but decreased to 10.8 in the year 2016.

The company had fluctuated by increase of 20.06% in gross profit and

decrease by 23.47 % in the year 2014 and in the year 2016 there is decrease
in gross profit by 18.97% and increase in sales by 62.36%.

The gross profit indicates the degree to which the selling price of goods per
unit may decline without resulting in losses on operation of the firm .It reflects
the efficiency with which firm produces its products.

b) Operating Ratio

It is the relation between cost of goods sold & operating expenses on

one hand & the sales on the other hand. It measures the cost of operations per
rupee of sales.

Operating Ratio = Operating Cost X 100



Operating Ratio

Year Operating Cost Sales Ratio

2011-12 266.33 6182.33 4.30

2012-13 279.69 6435.91 4.35

2013-14 201.92 5747.27 3.51

2014-15 157.00 5620.88 2.79

2015-16 146.75 6038.21 2.43


Operating Ratio

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Operating Cost Sales Ratio


The above table shows the firm’s operating ratio increasing drastically from
4.30 in the year 2012 to 4.35 and 3.51 in the years 2014 and 2015 but further
fluctuating to 2.79 in the year 2015 and 2.43 in the year 2016.

There is a decrease in operating cost by 24.58% and 92.34% in sales but in the
year 2016 there was increase by 21.93% in operating cost and 62.36% in sales.

An increase in the ratio over a previous period is an indication of improvement

in a operational efficiency of a concern the higher the ratio is more successful
the business is, but a lower ratio indicates large amount of manufacturing

2. Profitability in relation to Investment

a. Return on shareholders’ Investment:

Return on shareholders investments, popularly known as ROI. It is the relationship

between net profit after tax & shareholders funds. Thus this ratio is considered as affective
indicator of the company’s profitability because it reflects the success of management in the
efficient utilization of the owner’s investment.

ROI=. Net Profit after Tax X 100

Shareholders fund


Return on shareholder investment

Year Sales Current Assets Ratio

2011-12 6182.33 2990.09 2.06

2012-13 6435.91 3510.37 1.83

2013-14 5747.27 3926.88 1.46

2014-15 5620.88 4168.54 1.34

2015-16 6038.21 6076.18 0.99


Return on shareholder investment

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Sales Current Assets Ratio


The above table reveals that there is increase in the return on investment from 2.06% in the year
2011 to 1.83 in the year 2013 but fell down to 1.46% in the year 2014.Further in the year 2015
there was a drastical raise to1.34 but fluctuated to 0.99 in the year 2016.

Through the analysis we found that in the year 2016 the net profit was decreased by 99.82% and
increased shareholders fund by 0.73. This ratio is used to measure the overall efficiency of a
concern ,the higher the ratio the better the results will be as this ratio reveals how well the
resources of a concern are being used.

IV. Activity Ratios:

Funds are invested in various assets in business to make sales & earn profit. The
efficiency with which assets are managed directly affects the volume of sales. The better the
management of assets, the larger is the amount of sales & the profit. Activity ratio measures the
efficiency or effectiveness with which a firm manages its resources or assets. These ratios are
also called turnover ratio because they indicate the speed with which assets are converted or
turned over into sales.

The various activity ratios are:

a. Inventory Turnover Ratio:

Inventory turnover ratio indicates the number of times stock has been turned over during
the period & evaluates efficiency with which a firm is able manage inventory.

The ratio is calculated by dividing the net sales divided by average inventory at cost.

ITR= Net Sales .

Average Inventory at Cost

Average inventory should be taken for calculating stock turnover ratio. Adding the stock
in the beginning & at the end of period & dividing it by 2 to calculate average inventory.


Inventory turnover ratio

Year Net Sales Average Inventory Ratio

2011-12 6182.33 2426.09 9.94

2012-13 6435.91 2751.41 8.34

2013-14 5747.27 2368.36 8.56

2014-15 5620.88 2350.47 8.59

2015-16 6038.21 2035.94 8.99


Inventory turnover ratio






2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Net Sales Average Inventory Ratio


The table shows the increase in the inventory turnover ratio from 9.94 to 8.34 in the year
2012 and 2013. In the year 2013 there was a fluctuation to 8.59 and further to 854 in the year
2015, but in the year 2016 there was a drastical increase to 1.94.

The company had 23.47% decrease in net sales and increase by 55.00% in average inventory but
in the year 2016 there was increase in net sales by 62.36% and decrease by 21.73% in average

Inventory turnover ratio signifies the liquidity of the inventory. A high ratio implies good
inventory management ,a low ratio results in blocking of funds in inventory. The reference value
of this ratio 9 and the maximum conversion period is 388.

b. Assets Turnover Ratio:

Assets are used to generate sales. Therefore a firm should manage its assets efficiency to
maximum sales. Assets turnover ratio shows relationship between sales & assets. The various
assets turnover ratio are:

i. Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio:

This ratio establishes the relationship between the costs of goods sold and fixed assets. It can be
calculated by,

Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio = Sales

Fixed Assets

TABLE: 1.9

Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio

Year Sales Net Fixed Assets Ratio

2011-12 6182.33 -3490.39 1.77

2012-13 6435.91 -2860.39 2.25

2013-14 5747.27 -1334.85 4.30

2014-15 5620.88 -2038.95 2.75

2015-16 6038.21 -651.63 9.26


Fixed Assets Turnover Ratio






2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Sales Net Fixed Assets Ratio


The table reveals that there is increase in fixed asset turnover ratio from 1.77 in the year
2012 to 2.25 in the year 2013 but decreased to 4.30 in the year 2014 and drastical fluctuation to
2.75 in the year 2015 and raise in the year to 9.26 in the year 2016.

The company had 23.47% decrease in net sales and increase in fixed assets by 0.23% in the year
2015 and further in the year 2016 it had increase net sales by 62.36% and increase by 0.18% in
fixed assets.

One of the cautions to be kept in mind that when fixed assets are old and substantially depreciated
the ratio tenders to be high, because, the denominator of the ratio will be low.

ii. Current Assets Turnover Ratio:

This ratio is indicates how many net sales are made for every rupee of investment in current assets.

Current Assets Turnover Ratio = Sales

Current Assets

TABLE: 1.10

Current Assets Turnover Ratio

Year Net Profit Shareholder Fund Ratio

2011-12 1493.24 8795.69 0.16

2012-13 1399.99 6985.05 0.20

2013-14 1306.47 6448.87 0.21

2014-15 1929.23 5672.42 0.34

2015-16 1578.87 5623.62 0.28


Current Assets Turnover Ratio







2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Net Profit Shareholder Fund Ratio


The table reveals that the current ratio has drastical increase from 0.16 the year 2011 to 0.20
in the year 2013 but again there was a decrease to 0.21 in the year 2014 and 0.34 in the year 2015.
But there was a drastical increase of ratio to0.25 in the year 2016.

The company had decrease of 23.47% in net sales and increase in current assets by 24.20%.
In the year 2015 there was increase in net sales by 62.36% and 16.38% decrease in currents asssets.

d. Working Capital turnover Ratio:

A firm may also related net current assets to sales. Working capital turnover ratio
indicates the velocity of the utilization of net working capital.

Working Capital Turnover Ratio= Sales

Net Current Assets

TABLE: 1.11

Working Capital Turnover Ratio

Year Sales Net Current AssetsRatio

2011-12 6182.33 -3490.39 1.77

2012-13 6435.91 -2860.39 2.25

2013-14 5747.27 -1334.85 4.30

2014-15 5620.88 -2038.95 2.75

2015-16 6038.21 -651.63 9.26


Working Capital Turnover Ratio






2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Sales Net Current Assets Ratio


The table reveals that the working capital turnover ratio of MACRONIC LAB in the year
2012 was 1.77 and increased to 2.30 in the year 2013.but in the year 2014 there was a drastical
fluctuation 4.30 to in the year 2014 further there was a high increase in working capital turnover
ratio to 2.75 in the year 2015 and 9.26 in 2016.

There is decrease in net sales by 23.47% and 94.80% in net current assets in the year 2015 and in
the year 2016 the net sales increased by 62.36% and decreased by 38.86% in net current assets.

The assets turnover ratio measures the efficiency of a firm in managing and utilizing the assets.
Higher turnover ratio, more efficient is the management utilization of the assets while low
turnover are indicative of under utilization of available resources and presence of idle capacity.
In operational terms, it implies that firm can expand its activity level without requiring additional
capital investments.




1. From the current ratio it is found that the ratio is not satisfactory because the % increase
in current assets is less than the % increase in current liabilities during the year 2011-2016.The
highest ratio recorded is 3.04 in 2011 and the lowest ratio recorded is 0.42 in the year 2013.And
less than the standard ratio.

2. From the quick ratio it is found that the ratio is not satisfactory because the ratios recorded
during the year were less than the standard ratio. In the year 2015 the ratio recorded is 0.15 and
the ratio recorded highest was 2.01 in the year 2011.


1. From the debt equity ratio it is found that the ratio recorded during the year 2011,2012,&
2013 is satisfactory as the ratios are near to the standard ratio but during the year 2014,2015 &
2016 it is not satisfactory as the ratios are very high compared to the standard ratio.

2. From the current assets to proprietors fund ratio is not satisfactory as the proprietory funds
invested in the current assets is less in the year 2016 is less compared to previous years .The
highest ratio recorded is 1.97 in the year 2011 and the lowest ratio recorded is 1.55 in the year


1. From the gross profit ratio it is found that the ratio is satisfactory during the last three years
from 2013 to 2016. The highest ratio recorded in the year 2015 is 21.65 and the lowest ratio
recorded is 0.11 in the year 2011.

2. From the operating profit ratio it is found that the ratio is highly satisfactory during the
considered financial years. The highest ratio recorded is 100.08 in the year 2013 and the lowest
is 66.56 in the year 2015.

3. From the return on investment it is found that the ratio calculated for the considered
financial years is good. The ratio is satisfactory as the return on investment is effective and good,
comparing the previous years.


1. From the inventory turnover ratio it is found that the ratio is not satisfactory as the inventory
holding period is very high, compared during the financial years.

2. From the fixed assets turnover ratio it s found that the ratio is satisfactory as the ratios are
raising yearly during the comparative years.


A ratio is a way of comparing two or more quantities. Analysing any company’s current
ration, quick ratio, Debt-Equity ratio, Gross Margin percentage, Net Profit Margin, Operating
Profit Margin, Depreciation Expense to Operating expense ration, Inventory Turnover, Times
Interest Earned is Ration analysis.

Ratio analysis is used to judge the financial success of an economic entity. One popular
ratio is the current ratio which is current assets divided by current liabilities. This provides an
idea of whether the entity can pay forthcoming bills. A ratio of less than one is a dangerous signal
in that current bills are greater than current assets such as cash. This report is based on the rules
of Business Mathematics. It carries a minimum marks. This report will help us to upgrade our
grades we get in our exams. It also enrich our knowledge about ratio analysing of companies.

1. The company may improve its current ratio by decreasing the current liabilities because
in the year 2015-16 current assets are decreased and it may also improve its quick ratio.

2. The company may decrease its total debt as there is increase in total debt the year 2015-16.
The company may increase its investment in current assets.

3. Long terms solvency of the company has to be improved by limiting amount invested by
outsiders to the amount invested by the owner of the company. This can be achieved by
purchasing the shares gradually.

4. The proper management of the inventory can improve liquidity position and efficiency of
the company.

Ratios are just one number divided by another and as such really don’t mean much. The
trick is in the way ratios are analyzed and used by the decision maker. A good strategy is to
compare the ratios to some sort of benchmark, such as industry averages or to what a company
has done in the past, or both. Once ratios are calculated, an analyst needs some benchmarks to
find out where the company stands at that particular point. Useful benchmarks are industry
comparisons and company trends.
It may be useful to compare a company to certain industry averages to get a feel for how
the company is performing. In that case it is necessary to obtain industry performance measures.
One of the ways in which financial statements can be put to work is through ratio analysis. Ratios
are simply one number divided by another; as such they may or not be meaningful. In finance,
ratios are usually two financial statement items that may be related to one another and may
provide the prudent user a good deal of information. Of the myriad of ratios that could be
generated, some will be more meaningful than others. Generally ratios are divided into four areas
of classification that provide different kinds of information: liquidity, turnover, profitability and


• MACRONIC LAB doesn’t have any direct market and outlets so it can be a disadvantage
so they should facilitate their customers through pricing strategies and if they start direct market
or open the outlets so the prices will fall automatically and customers need not to pay any extra
money to the suppliers.

• MACRONIC LAB Pakistan mostly depends on the local raw material and sometimes the
quality of the raw material is not as good as in the other countries so they should not rely on the
local raw material if they want to provide the quality products.

• ENERGY foods should introduce other product lines and expand the business.

• ENERGY foods should distribute their products to more geographical areas.

• As MACRONIC LAB is a well-known product and ENERGY food is not as known

internationally as MACRONIC LAB is, so they need to spend more money on the marketing

• ENERGY food is better than MACRONIC LAB in the financial analysis so if they expand
their product line and cover the same geographical area as MACRONIC LAB has covered so
ENERGY can appear as a strong competitor of MACRONIC LAB.


Reveals the performance of the company in terms of financial aspects. It is found that there
is increase in sales gross profit during 2012 to 2016. The cash balance is also increased for the
above Saied years this is due to company’s revised policy in debt collection. It is also observed
that the current ratio is not so satisfactory which creates chunks in the current assets in the form
of sundry debtors and inventory.

Ratios are a powerful tool in the interpretation of the accounts and can discover issues and
problems not immediately evident from the accounts and financial information provided in the
annual report. The can provide the basis for inter-firm comparisons allowing managers to
benchmark the performance and efficiency of the firm against its competitors. Trends can then
be examined and analysed. Stakeholders may use ratios to support their decision making.
Employees, for example may use profit ratios to support pay claims and creditors can use liquidity
ratios to evaluate whether debts will be repaid.

Since a ratio is simply a mathematically comparison based on proportions, big and small
companies can be use ratios to compare their financial information. In a sense, financial ratios
don't take into consideration the size of a company or the industry. Ratios are just a raw
computation of financial position and performance.

After all the findings, it is concluded that financial ratios are the basic and most important
part of any business. It describes the firm’s financial position. As the data indicates that
MACRONIC LAB is an international brand and has expanded its business on the large
geographical area and also offers the large range of products, but on the other side ENERGY food
offers the limited range of the products and most of them are dairy products.

From the financial statements it is clear that the financial position of the MACRONIC LAB
is far better than ENERGY as it is more preferred by the customers and also an internationally
distributed. It also has less risk. It gives more return because it gains more profit than ENERGY.
On the other hand ENERGY deals with the limited products in a limited geographical area but on
the basis of financial ratios ENERGY has a better financial position and also has an opportunity
to expand its business. Both the companies have some opportunities and threads and they need to
work on it.


1). Annual reports of Nirani sugars ltd. For 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

2). J Madegouda “Accounting for managers”

3). Khan M and P.K. Jain “Financial management”

Balance Sheet of
------------------- in Rs. Cr. -------------------
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Sources Of Funds
Total Share Capital 274.43 274.40 274.24 274.18 274.07
Equity Share Capital 274.43 274.40 274.24 274.18 274.07
Reserves 20,461.66 18,583.28 16,823.27 14,960.64 12,585.75
Networth 20,736.09 18,857.68 17,097.51 15,234.82 12,859.82
Secured Loans 1,942.73 2,956.53 2,389.35 2,147.34 2,012.09
Unsecured Loans 2,887.18 3,555.30 2,483.43 2,315.34 1,796.04
Total Debt 4,829.91 6,511.83 4,872.78 4,462.68 3,808.13
Total Liabilities 25,566.00 25,369.51 21,970.29 19,697.50 16,667.95
2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Application Of Funds
Gross Block 34,451.59 31,782.44 25,004.31 21,320.16 18,962.75
Less: Accum.
11,918.88 10,834.98 9,132.47 8,197.80 7,328.57
Net Block 22,532.71 20,947.46 15,871.84 13,122.36 11,634.18
Capital Work in
1,415.56 2,073.69 2,041.63 3,505.37 1,896.63
Investments 5,108.12 5,208.75 5,391.67 5,108.72 3,788.77
Inventories 2,426.09 2,751.41 2,368.36 2,350.47 2,035.94
Sundry Debtors 1,414.89 1,203.19 1,281.02 1,017.24 765.96
Cash and Bank Balance 2,235.20 213.94 277.50 142.66 188.19
Total Current Assets 6,076.18 4,168.54 3,926.88 3,510.37 2,990.09
Loans and Advances 2,719.51 2,816.51 2,521.99 2,162.05 2,633.53
Total CA, Loans &
8,795.69 6,985.05 6,448.87 5,672.42 5,623.62
Current Liabilities 11,159.41 8,542.43 6,810.76 6,642.17 5,454.51
Provisions 1,126.67 1,303.01 972.96 1,069.20 820.74
Total CL & Provisions 12,286.08 9,845.44 7,783.72 7,711.37 6,275.25
Net Current Assets -3,490.39 -2,860.39 -1,334.85 -2,038.95 -651.63