Assessment 1: Team project (in group collaboration)

Team member:
1. Bui Thu An (31221021644)
2. Nguyen Hoang Anh (31221020959)
3. Duong Minh Phuc (31221020792)
4. Luong Phuong Uyen (31221020792)
Group formation should be done so that there must be no more than 04 students in a group. Each
group selects one publicly traded corporation in Vietnam for your analysis, calculating firm’s
financial ratios, and discussing the results using industry and comparable firm data.
Our group choose Masan as a publicly traded corporation in Vietnam.

1
Index
Assessment 1: Team project (in group collaboration)...................................................................................1
I. Masan Corporation’s financial ratios:........................................................................................................3
II. Comparison with Vinamilk and Vissan:...................................................................................................7
1. Vissan financial ratio.........................................................................................................................7
2. Vinamilk financial ratios....................................................................................................................8
3. Ratio trend analysis..........................................................................................................................10
a. Liquidity ratios.............................................................................................................................10
b. Financial leverage ratios..............................................................................................................11
c. Asset Utilization, or Turnover Ratios..........................................................................................14
d. Profitability Ratios.......................................................................................................................18
e. Market Value Ratios....................................................................................................................21
III. Comparing with industry.......................................................................................................................23

2
 I. Masan Corporation’s financial ratios:

Overview Description Advantages and Disadvantages

Current ratio Masan Consumer's current ratio increases Advantages:

gradually each year. In 2018, this index
only reached 0.61, showing that the current
ratio of businesses was very low. But in
2021, this index increased dramatically and
reached an impressive figure in 2022 with
2.59 times.
The current ratio of Masan Consumers is
always over 1 (during the given time).
The current ratio was high, which means
Masan's short-term assets were enough to
pay off all its short-term debt.
(Normally level is 1.5).

Quick ratio Similarly, Masan's Quick ratio index has

also improved each year. The meaning of
the Quick ratio is similar to the Current
ratio (except the inventory). The acceptable
level of Quick ratio is 0.8 times, very high
compared to 2018 with 0.4 times, and has
improved year by year with impressive
figures of 1.71 and 2.34 in 2021 and 2022
respectively.

3
Total debt ratio
Debt-equity ratio
Times interest earned ratio
Inventory turnover
4
Masan's total debt ratio in the 5 years of the
survey has always been less than 50% with
the highest percentage being 44.06% in
2020 and the lowest being 33.03% in 2022.
There has been a fluctuation in this number
since the debt-equity ratio of Masan started
with 56.72% in 2018 which then increased
to 78.76% in 2020. However, in 2022, this
figure was recorded to have a fall to
49.32%.
Masan's times interest earned ratio index is
always over 1 with the highest and lowest
indexes being 4.81 times in 2019 and 1.62
times in 2020, respectively.
Masan's inventory turnover index gradually
decreases over time from 15.45 times in
2018 to 6.66 times in 2023.
Advantage:
This low total debt ratio shows that Masan
Consumer had a small debt or that the
total assets of this company are large
enough. This is a good signal that the
business has good financial autonomy.
Disadvantage:
However, this also shows that businesses
have not exploited and made good use of
loan capital to promote production, and
business activities, and increase revenue
and profits.
(Normally accepted value is 50%).
Advantage:
The meaning is that the debt ratio is lower
than the equity ratio, and the business is
managing the risk from debt quite well.
If the D/E is low, it shows that the capital
source for the business's operations comes
from abundant equity, low debt, not much
financial pressure, and effective business.
Advantage:
Times interest earned ratio is over 1 This
shows that profits before taxes and interest
are higher than interest expenses. The
company is profitable and has a positive
financial situation.
Advantage:
The inventory index in Masan's financial
statements has gradually decreased over
the years, meaning that risks have been

Day’s sales in inventory However, Masan's Day's sales in the
inventory index tend to increase from 23.63 This shows that Masan has not yet found a
days in 2018 to 54.78 days in 2022.
Receivable turnover Masan's receivable turnover index is
average but decreases year by year,
reaching the bottom at 42.66% in 2022.
Total asset turnover Masan's total asset turnover ratio is at an
average level, not too high but not low
enough either because the indicators show
that for one dong of Masan invested in total
assets, Masan will generate a maximum of
1.99 dong in revenue in 2018 and 0.99,
1.01, and 1 VND in revenue in 2019, 2022
and 2023.
ROE Masan's ROE index is always impressively
high with the percentage around 30%-34%.
5
increasingly reduced over the years.
Disadvantage:
good solution to liquidate the inventory of
goods in the company's warehouse.
Disadvantage:
Shows that cash receipts are very low,
customer debt collection speed is slow,
and cash flow is not optimally utilized.
In this case, businesses need to carefully
consider the bad debt situation, consider
amending sales policies, and the ability to
control cash flow.
Advantage:
In theory, the higher the ROE, the more
efficient the ability to use capital. One of
the criteria to evaluate a company's
financial capacity according to
international standards is that the ROE

ROA Masan's ROA index ranges from 19%-21%
within 5 years (from 2018-2022).
Profit margin High compared to its industry figure.
(more detailed in III)
Price-earnings ratio Price-earnings ratio of Masan Consumer is
extremely high which can reach its peak in
2018 with 16.57 times and this figure had a
slight fall to 9.83 times in 2022.
6
index must reach a minimum of 15% and
Vietnamese investors often expect the
ROE level to reach 20-22% because a
business with an ROE greater than 20%
will almost certainly have a huge
competitive advantage.
Advantage:
According to assessments, a business is
considered to operate well if it maintains a
ROA index of 10% within 3 years.
Enterprises with a ROA index of 20%-
22% are excellent.
Therefore, Masan is an enterprise with
good business operations and long-term
investment potential.
Proving that Masan's business operations
are stable and profitable. Besides, a high-
profit margin means a low fee ratio,
showing that Masan Consumer is
managing costs well and optimizing the
budget for operations.
Disadvantage:
High P/E can be a disadvantage because
Masan's shares may be limited however
they still accept risks.
Advantages:
If a stock's P/E ratio is significantly higher
than the P/E ratios of other industry peers,
or even higher than the company's own
historical P/E ratio, it may be due to its
growth prospects, but it's also possible
that the stock is overvalued. When overall
 market sentiment is positive, the P/E ratio
can be very high, as investors value future
growth prospects. However, P/E ratios can
also be very high when total earnings
decline significantly.

II. Comparison with Vinamilk and Vissan:

1. Vissan financial ratio
As a member of Saigon Trading Group, VISSAN Joint Stock Company was founded in 1970 and
transformed into a joint-stock company in July 2016. Its primary business line is to manufacture and trade
fresh and frozen meat and foodstuff made from meat. Currently, Vissan accounts for 65% of the market
share of sausage sold domestically with 3 main brands namely Vissan, Ba Bong Mai, and Dzui Dzui. 25%
and 40% of the market share on the domestic foodstuff market and traditional frozen food market
respectively. Vissan's distributing system covers the whole country, including 132 distributors, 130.000
traditional sales points, and more than 1.000 supermarkets and nearly 50 convenience stores.

I. Liquidity ratio Unit 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Current ratio = CA/CL times 1.79 1.61 1.7 1.76 2.16

Quick ratio times 1.01 0.92 1 1.15 1.44

Cash ratio times 0.57 0.5 0.63 0.84 0.69

II. Financial Leverage ratio

Total debt ratio % 42.28 45.06 47.46 46.9 38.18

Debt-equity ratio % 73.23 82.04 90.32 88.31 61.77

Equity Multiplier = TA/TE times 1.73 1.82 1.9 1.88 1.62

Times interest earned ratio = EBIT/Interest % 11,8 23,1 15,6 15,5 22,9

Cash coverage ratio = (EBIT +

Depreciation + Amortization) / Interest) % 12.91 23.79 16.11 17.41 27.04

III. Asset Utilization, or Turnover,

Ratios

Inventory turnover times 54 55 58 72 73

7
Day's sales in inventory days 6.75 6.63 6.29 5.06 5

Receivable turnover times 22 21 20 18 17

Total asset turnover times 5.16 2.71 2.52 1.94 1.75

Capital Intensity times 0.19 0.37 0.39 0.51 0.57

IV. Profitability Ratios

Profit margin % 3.11 3.58 3.21 3.45 3.59

Return on assets (ROA) % 7.9 9.71 8.08 6.68 6.29

Return on equity (ROE) % 14.15 17.27 15.05 12.65 10.99

V. Market Value Ratios

Price-earnings ratio times 24.04 14.08 12.93 20.6 13.54

Market-to-book ratio times 3.34 2.35 1.9 2.51 1.45

EV multiple times 16.6 8.3 9 11.5 9.7

2. Vinamilk financial ratios

Vietnam Dairy Products Joint Stock Company (Vinamilk), recognized as one of the top 200 revenue-
listed companies in the Asia Pacific in 2019 by Forbes Asia, has been a key player in this thriving
industry for over 40 years. The corporation, under the leadership of Chairwoman Le Thi Bang Tam, has
garnered accolades from the government, expanded its global footprint, and invested in cutting-edge
technologies, showcasing a commitment to excellence. The company's ownership structure includes key
shareholders such as State Capital Investment Corporation (SCIC) and F&N Dairy Investments Pte Ltd.
Chairwoman Tam and insider Mai Kieu Lien hold significant shares, underscoring their commitment and
influence within the corporation.

I. Liquidity ratio Unit 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Current ratio times 1.93 1.71 2.09 2.12 2.06

Quick ratio times 1.41 1.37 1.74 1.72 1.7

Cash ratio times 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.15

II. Financial Leverage ratio

Total debt ratio % 29.69 33.49 30.52 32.8 32.31

8
Debt-equity ratio % 42.23 50.35 43.94 48.76 47.74

Equity Multiplier % 1.42 1.5 1.44 1.49 1.48

Times interest earned ratio % 235.62 118.58 95.00 146.52 64.21

Cash coverage ratio % 73.37 76.33 68.85 53.95 56.35

III. Asset Utilization, or

Turnover, Ratios

Inventory turnover times 10.12 5.66 6.47 5.93 5.86

Day's sales in inventory days 36.06 64.48 56.41 61.55 62.28

Receivable turnover times 31.1 16.43 15.6 14.26 13.32

Total asset turnover times 2.81 1.37 1.28 1.2 1.18

Capital Intensity times 0.35 0.73 0.78 0.83 0.84

IV. Profitability Ratios

Profit margin % 19.42 18.74 18.84 17.45 14.31

Return on assets (ROA) % 28.4 25.79 23.83 20.7 16.73

Return on equity (ROE) % 40.79 37.79 35.02 30.31 24.8

V. Market Value Ratios

Price-earnings ratio times 18.06 19.17 17.8 17.14 18.68

Market-to-book ratio times 7.95 6.82 6.76 5.04 4.85

EV multiple times 15.24 14 14.26 12.38 12.91

3. Ratio trend analysis
a. Liquidity ratios
 Current ratio:

9
In the 4 years from 2018 to 2021, Masan exhibited the lowest current ratio compared to the two
companies, Vissan and Vinamilk. This implies the weakest liquidity position, suggesting a higher
financial risk as the company may face challenges in meeting its short-term liabilities. However, in 2022,
Masan's current ratio experienced a significant surge, leading the pack at 2.59x. This is a positive
development as it could result from increased revenue, reduction in short-term liabilities, or effective
management of working capital.
 Quick ratio

While Vissan and Vinamilk maintained a relatively stable Quick Ratio over 5 years, Masan experienced a
remarkable surge, rising from 0.41x to 2.34x. This underscores the effectiveness of Masan's financial
policies, showcasing the company's ability to meet short-term obligations immediately without relying
heavily on converting inventory into cash. Such a significant increase in Quick Ratio suggests that Masan
has a more efficient financial strategy than the other two companies. This capability enhances Masan's
financial resilience, relieving pressure and increasing flexibility in capital management.

 Cash ratio

10
Between 2018 and 2020, Masan exhibited a consistent increase in its Cash Ratio, securing the second
position after Vissan. However, in 2021, Masan surpassed Vissan, taking the lead with a ratio of 1.1x.
This indicates Masan's ability to swiftly settle short-term liabilities in cash, reducing dependence on other
sources of capital such as inventories. Nevertheless, in the period from 2021 to 2022, Masan experienced
a sharp decline in its Cash Ratio to 0.56x. This suggests that Masan, while being the fastest in cash-based
settlement of short-term liabilities, encountered changes or decisions in its financial strategy leading to a
notable reduction in the Cash Ratio. Despite the decline, Masan's position as the second-highest in Cash
Ratio underscores its ongoing ability to manage short-term financial liabilities effectively.

Through these liquidity ratios, Masan may be effectively managing its liquidity position with flexibility in
dealing with fluctuations and changes in business strategy among 3 companies.
b. Financial leverage ratios
 Total debt ratio:

The total debt ratio of Masan, along with Vissan and Vinamilk, all experienced a slight increase during
the period from 2018 to 2021. However, Masan's total debt ratio saw a significant decrease in 2022. This
signifies a reduction in debt repayment pressure, mitigating risks associated with debt, and enhancing

11
financial flexibility. As a result, Masan has gained more investor attention compared to both Vissan and
Vinamilk. Notably, Vinamilk is currently on an upward trend. This shift in Masan's financial position
may position it as a more attractive investment option in contrast to its counterparts.

 Debt-equity ratio:

Except for 2020, Masan's debt-equity ratio always holds the lowest position, this shows that Masan is not
taking advantage of debt financing to expand, so it has the lowest financial risk among the three
companies. Investors may find Masan's conservative financial stance appealing for its potential to weather
market fluctuations with lower financial strain.
 Equity multiplier:

Masan's second-highest equity multiplier indicates a substantial use of financial leverage to augment
equity capital. This suggests Masan is actively investing more debt to expand its business. While
leveraging can enhance returns on investment, it also introduces higher financial risk due to increased
debt obligations. Compared to Vissan and Vinamilk, Masan may face a higher level of financial risk but

12
also stands the chance of achieving greater profits from its investment projects. The elevated equity
multiplier suggests a strategy for swift business expansion and effective competition in the market.
 Times interest earned ratio:

In the period from 2018 to 2022, Masan has consistently maintained a stable times interest earned ratio,
despite not reaching high levels, especially when compared to Vinamilk. In contrast to Masan, Vinamilk
experienced a significant decrease in the times interest earned ratio, dropping from 235.62% to 64.21%.
Masan's stability in this chart can be interpreted as the ability to sustain financial equilibrium despite a
relatively lower capacity for servicing interest payments. Therefore, Masan may be considered a safer
financial choice than Vinamilk, given its ability to maintain stability in financial matters.
 Cash coverage ratio:

Based on the chart, it can be concluded that over the past 5 years, Masan has undergone significant
fluctuations in the cash coverage ratio, and the trend of substantial decrease may persist in the future.
Although Masan currently holds the second position after Vinamilk in terms of cash coverage ratio, the
pronounced downward trend and considerable volatility raise concerns about the company's ability to
meet short-term obligations with cash. This could potentially pose financial pressures, emphasizing the
need for careful financial management and attention to ensure stability in resource management.

13
Based on financial leverage ratios, Masan presents a nuanced financial situation. The significant reduction
in the total debt ratio in 2022 is a positive sign, indicating a decrease in debt repayment pressure and
enhanced financial flexibility. However, the consistently lowest debt-equity ratio suggests Masan's
minimal use of debt for business expansion, thereby minimizing financial risk compared to Vissan and
Vinamilk. Nevertheless, the second-highest equity multiplier implies Masan actively leverages debt for
investments, offering the potential for higher profits but introducing financial risk.

The stability in the times interest earned ratio over the period from 2018 to 2022, though not reaching
high levels, positions Masan as a financially sound option, especially when compared to Vinamilk's
significant decrease in the same ratio. However, concerns arise from the pronounced downward trend in
the cash coverage ratio over the past 5 years, indicating potential challenges for Masan in meeting short-
term obligations with cash. This underscores the importance of prudent financial management. Overall,
Masan may attract investors seeking a balanced mix of stability and growth potential, while Vissan and
Vinamilk require careful consideration based on their financial positions and trends.
c. Asset Utilization, or Turnover Ratios.
 Inventory Turnover.

Masan (VSA): Beginning our journey with Masan, we observe a fluctuating trend in inventory turnover
from 15.45 in 2018 to 6.66 in 2022. While a decline is evident, the consistent ebb and flow suggest a
certain stability in Masan's inventory management approach. This prompts questions about the strategies
employed by Masan and the potential implications of the observed trends. Despite the decrease, the
stability in turnover might provide Masan with an advantage in maintaining a predictable approach to
inventory management.

Vissan (VSN): In contrast, Vissan presents a compelling picture of efficiency, with an impressive upward
trajectory in inventory turnover from 54 in 2018 to 73 in 2022. This consistent growth reflects Vissan's
adeptness in swiftly converting inventory into sales. As student analysts, we speculate on the potential

14
cost-saving measures and operational strategies that contribute to Vissan's success. The high turnover
indicates a potential advantage, suggesting optimal utilization of working capital and minimized holding
costs.

Vinamilk (VNM): Vinamilk introduces a different dimension to our analysis, maintaining a lower but
relatively stable inventory turnover. Ranging from 10.12 in 2018 to 5.86 in 2022, Vinamilk's approach
raises questions about the advantages of stability over higher turnover. As students navigating the
financial intricacies, we ponder how Vinamilk's balanced approach might contribute to its overall
operational efficiency. Stability could be advantageous, offering predictability in inventory management
and potentially reducing the risk of surplus or shortage.

In comparing Masan, Vissan, and Vinamilk, the diversity in inventory turnover strategies becomes
apparent. Masan's declining trend prompts considerations about adaptability, Vissan's consistent growth
impresses with its operational efficiency, and Vinamilk's stability prompts thoughts about finding the
right balance.

Vissan's consistently high turnover signals operational excellence, while Masan's stability and Vinamilk's
balanced approach may align with specific goals.

 Day's sales in inventory.

Masan's DSI demonstrates a rising trend over the years, from 23.63 in 2018 to 54.78 in 2022. This
suggests a potential slowdown in inventory turnover. As a result, Masan may face challenges in
efficiently converting its stock into sales. The upward trajectory prompts questions about the company's
inventory management strategies and the implications of a prolonged turnover.

Vinamilk, on the other hand, maintains a relatively stable DSI ranging from 36.06 in 2018 to 62.28 in
2022. While Vinamilk's turnover is higher compared to Masan, the consistency in the trend indicates a
reliable and balanced approach. This stability prompts considerations about the advantages of
predictability in inventory management and its potential impact on overall performance.

Vissan stands out with consistently low DSIs, starting at 6.75 in 2018 and reaching 5.00 in 2022. This
remarkable efficiency suggests that Vissan is adept at swiftly converting inventory into sales. The
consistent decline in DSI reflects operational prowess, potentially minimizing holding costs and
optimizing working capital.

15
In this comparison, Vissan appears to hold the advantage with its consistently low DSI, indicating optimal
efficiency in inventory turnover. Vinamilk's stability showcases a reliable approach, while Masan's rising
trend raises considerations about potential challenges in inventory management efficiency.

 Receivable turnover.

Masan's Receivable Turnover experiences a fluctuating trend, starting at 116.69 in 2018 and declining to
42.66 in 2022. This suggests a significant shift in the efficiency of converting receivables into cash. The
decreasing trend prompts questions about Masan's strategies and the potential implications for cash flow
and financial health.

Vissan maintains a stable Receivable Turnover, ranging from 22 in 2018 to 17 in 2022. This consistent
trend indicates reliability in managing receivables. The lower turnover compared to Masan suggests a
more conservative approach, potentially minimizing the risk associated with outstanding receivables.

Vinamilk presents a similar pattern of stability, with Receivable Turnover decreasing from 31.1 in 2018
to 13.32 in 2022. While Vinamilk's turnover is higher than Vissan's, the consistent decline prompts
considerations about the balance between efficiency and a more reliable, steady approach to receivables
management.

In this comparison, Vissan and Vinamilk's stability in Receivable Turnover may suggest a more
dependable approach, potentially minimizing the risk associated with outstanding receivables. Masan's
declining trend raises questions about the potential impact on cash flow and financial stability.

16
  Total asset turnover.

Total asset turnover

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

Masan's Total Asset Turnover exhibits a fluctuating pattern, starting at 1.99 in 2018 and declining to 0.85
in 2022. This indicates a substantial shift in how efficiently Masan utilizes its assets. The declining trend
prompts questions about Masan's strategies and the potential implications for overall business efficiency
and profitability.

Vissan maintains a relatively stable Total Asset Turnover, starting at 5.16 in 2018 and settling at 1.75 in
2022. While there is a decline, the consistent trend suggests a dependable approach to asset utilization.
The relatively high turnover compared to Masan implies that Vissan efficiently converts its assets into
revenue.
Vinamilk's Total Asset Turnover follows a decreasing trajectory from 2.81 in 2018 to 1.18 in 2022.
Similar to Masan, the declining trend raises considerations about the balance between asset efficiency and
sustaining revenue. The relatively stable yet decreasing trend prompts questions about Vinamilk's
strategies and potential impacts on its financial performance.
In this comparison, Vissan stands out with a relatively high and stable Total Asset Turnover, suggesting
efficient asset utilization. Masan and Vinamilk's declining trends prompt considerations about the
potential impact on overall business efficiency. A higher Total Asset Turnover generally indicates more
effective utilization of assets to generate revenue.

 Capital Intensity.

17
 Capital Intensity
3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Vissan Vinamilk Masan

Masan's Capital Intensity displays a dynamic pattern, starting at 0.5 in 2018 and peaking at 1.17 in 2022.
This indicates a significant shift in the proportion of capital investments relative to revenue. The
increasing trend prompts questions about Masan's capital allocation strategies and the potential
implications for sustainability and profitability.
Vissan follows a more gradual increase in Capital Intensity, starting at 0.19 in 2018 and reaching 0.57 in
2022. While there is an upward trend, the gradual increase suggests a measured approach to capital
investments. The relatively lower Capital Intensity compared to Masan implies that Vissan maintains a
more conservative balance.
Vinamilk's Capital Intensity grows steadily from 0.35 in 2018 to 0.84 in 2022. The increasing trend
indicates a consistent rise in capital investments relative to revenue. The stability in growth prompts
considerations about Vinamilk's strategies and potential impacts on overall business sustainability.
In this comparison, Vissan stands out with a relatively lower and more stable Capital Intensity, suggesting
a conservative and measured approach to capital investments. Masan's dynamic approach raises
considerations about potential risks and rewards, while Vinamilk's steady growth prompts questions about
the long-term sustainability of its capital usage.

d. Profitability Ratios.
 Profit Margin.

Profit Margin
25

20

15

10

0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

18
Masan demonstrates a consistent growth in Profit Margin, starting at 19.98% in 2018 and reaching
20.51% in 2022. This steady trajectory indicates Masan's ability to maintain healthy profitability over the
years. The slight increase prompts questions about Masan's strategies and the factors contributing to its
sustained growth.
Vissan follows a moderate increment in Profit Margin, starting at 3.11% in 2018 and reaching 3.59% in
2022. While the growth is more modest compared to Masan, Vissan showcases stability in its ability to
generate profits. The moderate increment suggests a balanced approach to profitability, potentially
minimizing risks associated with aggressive growth.
Vinamilk exhibits a fluctuating trend in Profit Margin, starting at 19.42% in 2018 and declining to
14.31% in 2022. The declining trend prompts considerations about Vinamilk's challenges in sustaining
high profitability. Questions arise about the impact of external factors and the company's strategies to
address these fluctuations.
In this comparison, Masan emerges as a frontrunner with consistently high and growing Profit Margins,
suggesting a strong ability to generate earnings over the years. Vissan's stability and Vinamilk's
fluctuations offer contrasting perspectives, with Vissan showcasing a more measured growth in
profitability.

 Return on assets (ROA).

Return on assets (ROA)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

Masan exhibits a steady performance in ROA, starting at 19.41% in 2018 and gradually declining to
17.11% in 2022. This suggests a consistent ability to generate returns from its assets. While there is a
slight decrease, Masan's performance prompts questions about its strategies to maintain profitability
amidst potential challenges.
Vissan demonstrates resilience in ROA, starting at 7.9% in 2018 and maintaining relatively stable
performance at 6.29% in 2022. The ability to sustain returns indicates Vissan's efficiency in utilizing
assets to generate profits. The stable performance prompts considerations about Vissan's strategies for
maintaining profitability over the years.
Vinamilk follows a gradual decline in ROA, starting at 28.4% in 2018 and decreasing to 16.73% in 2022.
While Vinamilk initially showcased high returns, the declining trend prompts considerations about factors
impacting the company's efficiency in generating returns from its assets. Questions arise about Vinamilk's
strategies to address this gradual decline.

19
In this comparison, Masan, despite a slight decline, showcases steady performance in ROA. Vissan's
resilience and Vinamilk's initial high returns offer distinct perspectives. Further analysis is essential to
understand the strategies behind each company's performance and potential adjustments for sustained
profitability.

c) Return on equity (ROE).

Return on equity (ROE)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

Masan maintains a consistent performance in ROE, starting at 30.32% in 2018 and gradually decreasing
to 27.63% in 2022. This suggests a reliable ability to generate returns for shareholders over the years. The
slight decline prompts questions about Masan's strategies for sustaining shareholder value amidst
potential challenges.
Vissan demonstrates steady returns in ROE, starting at 14.15% in 2018 and maintaining relatively stable
performance at 10.99% in 2022. The ability to sustain returns indicates Vissan's efficiency in delivering
value to its shareholders. The stable performance prompts considerations about Vissan's strategies for
maintaining shareholder value over the years.
Vinamilk follows a gradual decline in ROE, starting at 40.79% in 2018 and decreasing to 24.8% in 2022.
While Vinamilk initially showcased high returns for shareholders, the declining trend prompts
considerations about factors impacting the company's ability to deliver sustained value. Questions arise
about Vinamilk's strategies to address this gradual decline.
In this comparison, Masan's consistent ROE, Vissan's steady returns, and Vinamilk's initial high
performance offer distinct perspectives. Further analysis is essential to understand the strategies behind
each company's ROE and potential adjustments for sustained shareholder value.

20
 e. Market Value Ratios.
 a) Price-earnings ratio.

Price-earnings ratio
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

Masan's P/E Ratio shows a fluctuating trend, starting at 16.57 in 2018 and decreasing to 9.83 in 2022.
This suggests a significant shift in market sentiment towards Masan's earnings. The declining trend
prompts questions about factors influencing Masan's valuation and the potential implications for
investors.
Vissan's P/E Ratio exhibits varied performance, starting at 24.04 in 2018, dipping to 12.93 in 2020, and
then rising to 13.54 in 2022. This fluctuation indicates changes in market perceptions of Vissan's earnings
potential. The varying trend prompts considerations about the factors impacting Vissan's market
valuation.
Vinamilk showcases moderate stability in its P/E Ratio, starting at 18.06 in 2018 and ranging between
17.14 and 19.17 over the years. This indicates a more measured response from the market regarding
Vinamilk's earnings. The stable trend prompts considerations about Vinamilk's consistent standing in the
eyes of investors.

21
In this comparison, Masan's declining P/E Ratio, Vissan's varied performance, and Vinamilk's moderate
stability offer distinct perspectives on market valuation. Further analysis is essential to understand the
factors driving each company's P/E Ratio and potential adjustments for sustained market advantage.

 Market-to-book ratio.

Market-to-book ratio
25

20

15

10

0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

Masan's Market-to-Book Ratio follows a downward trajectory, starting at 5.72 in 2018 and declining to
2.39 in 2022. This suggests a significant shift in market sentiment towards Masan's book value. The
decreasing trend raises questions about factors influencing Masan's market valuation and considerations
for potential investors.
Vissan's Market-to-Book Ratio exhibits fluctuations, starting at 3.34 in 2018, reaching its lowest at 1.9 in
2020, and then rising to 1.45 in 2022. These variations indicate changes in market perceptions of Vissan's
book value. The fluctuating trend prompts considerations about the factors impacting Vissan's market
valuation and investor sentiments.
Vinamilk maintains a relatively stable Market-to-Book Ratio, starting at 18.06 in 2018 and ranging
between 17.14 and 19.17 over the years. This implies a more consistent response from the market
regarding Vinamilk's book value. The stable trend prompts considerations about Vinamilk's enduring
appeal to investors.
In this comparison, Masan's declining Market-to-Book Ratio, Vissan's fluctuating performance, and
Vinamilk's stable course offer distinct perspectives on market perception. Further analysis is essential to
understand the factors driving each company's Market-to-Book Ratio and potential adjustments for
sustained market advantage.
 EV multiple.

22
 EV multiple
18

16

14

12

10

0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Masan Vissan Vinamilk

Masan's Enterprise Value Multiple consistently declines, starting at 15.73 in 2018 and reaching 8.54 in
2022. This signifies a notable reduction in how the market values Masan's enterprise value. The
decreasing trend prompts questions about factors influencing Masan's valuation and potential
considerations for investors.
Vissan's Enterprise Value Multiple shows varied performance, starting at 16.6 in 2018, reaching its lowest
at 8.3 in 2019, and then rising to 9.7 in 2022. These fluctuations indicate changes in market perceptions of
Vissan's enterprise value. The varying trend prompts considerations about the factors impacting Vissan's
market valuation.
Vinamilk maintains a relatively stable Enterprise Value Multiple, starting at 15.24 in 2018 and ranging
between 12.38 and 14.26 over the years. This suggests a more consistent response from the market
regarding Vinamilk's enterprise value. The stable trend prompts considerations about Vinamilk's enduring
appeal to investors.
In this comparison, Masan's consistent decline, Vissan's varied performance, and Vinamilk's stable course
offer distinct perspectives on market perception. Further analysis is essential to understand the factors
driving each company's Enterprise Value Multiple and potential adjustments for sustained market
advantage.
III. Comparing with industry

23
 Net revenue growth

Food Production
Year MHC Difference
Industry average

2019 8,7% -2,6% 11,3%

2020 26,3% 17,9% 8,4%

2021 19% 8,3% 10,7%

2022 -2,9% 1,5% -4,4%

From the table & chart above, we can make the following conclusions:
● 2019: MHC had net revenue growth 11.3% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry,
showing that MHC operates effectively and has a competitive advantage in the industry.

● 2020: MHC still has higher net revenue growth than the Food Manufacturing industry by 8.4%,
but the difference decreases compared to the previous year. This may be due to the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic, causing the Food Production industry to grow stronger due to increased
consumer demand.

24
 ● 2021: MHC continues to have net revenue growth 10.7% higher than the Food Manufacturing
industry, showing that MHC has restored business operations after the pandemic and maintained
its competitive advantage in the industry

● 2022: MHC has negative net revenue growth of -2.9%, 4.4% lower than the Food Manufacturing
industry. This is the first year MHC has net revenue growth lower than the industry. This may be
because MHC has difficulty expanding its market, faces fierce competition from competitors, or
is affected by external factors such as climate change, trade policy, etc. or energy crisis.

Profit after taxes

Food Production
Year MHC Difference
Industry average

2019 19,6% -1,7% 21,3%

2020 12,3% -7,3% 19,6%

2021 20,4% 44,1% -23,7%

25
 2022 0,2% -25% 25,2%

From the table & chart above, we can make the following conclusions:

• 2019: MHC had 21.3% higher NPAT growth than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing that MHC
has high business efficiency and the ability to control costs well in the industry.

• 2020: MHC still has 19.6% higher NPAT growth than the Food Production industry, but the difference
decreases compared to the previous year. This may be due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,
causing the Food Manufacturing industry to suffer great losses due to reduced revenue and increased
costs.

• 2021: MHC has lower NPAT growth than the Food Manufacturing industry -23.7%, showing that MHC
was unable to maintain business performance after the pandemic and lost market share in the industry.
The Food Manufacturing industry had a record high NPAT growth of 44.1%, possibly because the
industry recovered quickly and took advantage of opportunities from new markets.

• 2022: MHC has 25.2% higher NPAT growth than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing that MHC
has improved business efficiency and reduced costs during the year. The Food Manufacturing industry
had negative NPAT growth of -25%, possibly because the industry was affected by adverse factors such
as climate change, trade policy, or the energy crisis.

ROAE

26
 Food Production
Year MHC Difference
Industry average

2019 36,2% 12,6% 23,6%

2020 33,4% 12% 21,4%

2021 36,5% 17,9% 18,6%

2022 28% 12,8% 15,2%

From the table & chart above, we can make the following conclusions:

● 2019: MHC had a ROAE 23.6% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing that
MHC has high efficiency in using equity and good profitability for shareholders in the industry.
● 2020: MHC still has a ROAE 21.4% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, but the
difference decreases compared to the previous year. This may be due to the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic, causing the Food Manufacturing industry to suffer major losses in profits
and equity.
● 2021: MHC has a ROAE 18.6% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing that
MHC has restored the efficiency of using equity after the pandemic and maintained its
competitive advantage in the industry. The Food Manufacturing industry saw a sharp increase in
ROAE of 17.9%, possibly because the industry recovered quickly and increased profits and
equity.
● 2022: MHC has a 15.2% higher ROAE than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing that
MHC still has high equity utilization efficiency during the year. The Food Manufacturing
industry had a sharp decrease in ROAE of -25%, possibly because the industry was affected by
adverse factors such as climate change, trade policy, or the energy crisis.

27
 Net profit margin

Food Production
Year MHC Difference
Industry average

2019 21,8% 7,8% 14%

2020 19,4% 6,6% 12,8%

2021 19,6% 8,6% 11%

2022 20,2% 6,4% 13,8%

From the table & chart above, we can make the following conclusions:

● 2019: MHC had a net profit margin 14% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing
that MHC has the ability to control costs and optimize profits better in the industry.
● 2020: MHC still has a net profit margin 12.8% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, but
the difference decreases compared to the previous year. This may be due to the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic, causing the food production industry to suffer major losses in revenue and
costs.
● 2021: MHC has a net profit margin 11% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing
that MHC has restored the ability to control costs and optimize profits after the pandemic and

28
 maintain its competitive advantage in the future. branch. The Food Manufacturing industry saw a
sharp increase in net profit margin of 8.6%, possibly because the industry recovered quickly and
increased revenue and reduced costs.
● 2022: MHC has a net profit margin 13.8% higher than the Food Manufacturing industry, showing
that MHC still has the ability to control costs and optimize profits highly during the year. The
Food Manufacturing industry saw a sharp drop in net profit margin of -25%, possibly because the
industry was affected by adverse factors such as climate change, trade policy, or the energy crisis.

29