Student's

name Student's class Student's ID Student's task

- Giving comments on current ratio, quick ratio,
account receivable of SCD
Khúc - Finding the data and calculating the Tangible FIxed
CLC_21DKT04 2121012250
Minh Châu assets divided, total assets, Levarage ratio , investment
of fixed assets/ total asset of SCD
- Finding the data of current ratio of CLC
- Giving comments on Profit margin, asset turnover of
SCD
- Finding the data and calculating current ratio, quick
Ngô Thị
CLC_21DKT04 2121013474 ratio. account receivable, profit margin, asset turnover
Mỹ Duyên
of SCD
- Calculating current ratio,quick ratio, accounts
receivable turnover of CLC
- Giving comments on return on assets, return on
common stockholders equity of SCD
Thái Thị - Finding the data and calculating EPS, P-E, pay out of
CLC_21DKT04 2121013027
Hợp SCD
- Designing and formatting Word documents and
Excel sheets
- Giving comments on EPS, P-E ratio, payout ratio of
SCD
- Findting the data to calculate cash dividend by total
Lê Nguyễn
CLC_21DKT04 2121013781 assets, business cycle
Hà Thanh
- Finding the data for Debt to assets ratio, times
interest earned
- Finding the data for Quick ratio of CLC
- Giving comments on the differences between the two
company SCD and CLC, Debt to assets ratio , times
Huỳnh interest earned of SCD
CLC_21DKT04 2121012814
Yến Thư - Calculating Debt to assets ratio, times interest earned
- Finding the data for Account receivable turnover of
CLC
A. Question 1:

1. Current ratio

Comments:
● Trends:
- The current ratio of the company showed an increasing trend in 2019.
- In 2020, the current ratio experienced a slight decrease.
- In both 2021 and 2022, the current ratio exhibited a significant decline.
● Conclusion:
- The initially high current ratio (4,21; 4,89; 4,58; 2,65 > 1: A high current ratio means that
the current assets the company currently has are enough to pay off its current liabilities.)
indicates that the company had a good ability to pay off short-term debts and sufficient
current assets to meet payment obligations.
- However, the subsequent decrease in the current ratio (0,51 < 1: The current ratio of the
business is low, which means that currently, the business does not have enough ability to
pay off all due debts.) suggests that the company faced difficulties in paying off short-
term debts and may be exposed to financial risks.
 2. Acid - Test (quick) ratio

Comments:
● Trends:
- The increase to 4.48 in 2019 indicates a further strengthening of the company's liquidity
position.
- The decrease to 3.81 in 2020 suggests a slight reduction in the company's liquidity
compared to the previous year. This could be due to various factors such as increased
short-term liabilities, a decrease in cash reserves, or a change in the composition of
current assets.
- The ratio dropped to 2.07 in 2021 and continued to plummet to 0.32 in 2022 which is
alarming and suggests a severe liquidity crisis.
● Conclusion:
- In conclusion, the Acid-Test (Quick) ratio figures from 2018 to 2022 reveal significant
fluctuations and a concerning downward trend. While the initial years showed relatively
healthy liquidity positions, with ratios above 3, indicating a strong ability to cover short-
term obligations, the ratio experienced a sharp decline in 2021 and reached a critically
low level in 2022. This drastic decrease in the Quick ratio over the last two years signals
severe liquidity challenges for the company, potentially indicating financial distress.
 3. Accounts receivable turnover

Comment:
● Trends:
- There was a notable increase in efficiency from 2018 to 2019, with the turnover ratio
doubling.
- However, this improvement was not sustained, as the ratio dropped back to the 2018 level
in 2020.
- Subsequently, in 2021 and 2022, the turnover ratio remained consistently low, indicating
ongoing challenges in collecting receivables efficiently.
● Conclusion:
- The consistent low turnover ratio observed in 2021 and 2022 suggests potential issues in
the company's accounts receivable management. This could have implications for cash
flow, liquidity, and overall financial health.
 4. Inventory turnover

Comments:
● Trends:
- The significant increase from 2018 to 2019 (from 276 to 396) indicates a substantial
improvement in inventory turnover within that year.
- The subsequent years show continued growth in inventory turnover, with more moderate
increases from 2019 to 2022.
- An inventory turnover ratio of 837 in 2022 indicates that the company's inventory is
turning over more than eight hundred times in that year, which is quite high.
● Conclusion:
- Overall, the increasing trend in inventory turnover over the five-year period reflects
positively on the company's operational efficiency and management of its inventory
resources.
 5. Profit margin

Comments
● Trends:
- The profit margin of the company showed an increasing trend in 2019.
- In 2020, the profit margin experienced a slight decrease.
- In both 2021 and 2022, the profit margin exhibited a significant decline.
● Conclusions
- In conclusion, the sharp decrease in profit margin after 2020 shows that the company will
have reduced the investor confidence and diminished growth opportunities. It may lead to
the problem that there will be a high risk and low profitability.
6. Asset turnover

● Trends:
- In 2018, the asset turnover was 1.16, indicating efficient utilization of assets to generate
revenue.
- In 2019, the asset turnover decreased to 1.1, suggesting a slightly less effective use of
assets to generate revenue.
- In 2020, the asset turnover significantly dropped to 0.49, indicating a low level of
efficiency in utilizing assets to generate revenue.
- In 2021, the asset turnover further declined to 0.34, indicating continued inefficiency in
using assets to generate revenue.
- In 2022, the asset turnover slightly increased to 0.35, but remained at a relatively low
level.
● Conclusion
- The initially high asset turnover in 2018 suggests that the company effectively utilized its
assets to generate revenue. This indicates the company's ability to maximize the use of its
existing assets to generate profits.
- However, the subsequent decrease in asset turnover indicates a decline in the company's
efficiency in utilizing assets to generate revenue. This suggests that the company faced
challenges in optimizing asset utilization and may be exposed to financial risks.
7. Return on assets

● Trends:
- 2018-2019: ROA increased from 2.45% in 2018 to 6.84% in 2019. This represents a
significant improvement in profitability and asset utilization over the two-year period.
- 2019-2020: ROA decreased from 6.84% in 2019 to 1.04% in 2020. This indicates a
notable decline in profitability and asset efficiency over the two-year span.
- 2020-2021: ROA deteriorated further from 1.04% in 2020 to -9.12% in 2021. This
represents a significant negative turn, with the company experiencing substantial losses
relative to its asset base.
- 2021-2022: ROA continued to decline from -9.12% in 2021 to -10.05% in 2022. The
negative trend persisted, indicating ongoing financial struggles or worsening operational
performance.
● Conclusion:
- The consistent decrease in ROA over the years, especially the negative returns in 2021
and 2022, suggests serious concerns about the company's financial health and operational
performance.
8. Return on common stockholders 'equity

● Trends:
- In 2018, the Return on Common Stockholders' Equity was 3.18%, indicating a modest
return on the equity invested by common stockholders.
- In 2019, the Return on Common Stockholders' Equity significantly increased to 8.76%,
indicating improved profitability and a higher return on the equity invested by common
stockholders.
- In 2020, the Return on Common Stockholders' Equity dropped to 1.76%, indicating a
decline in profitability and a lower return on the equity invested by common
stockholders.
- In 2021, the Return on Common Stockholders' Equity turned negative at -20.36%,
indicating a net loss and a negative return on the equity invested by common
stockholders.
- In 2022, the Return on Common Stockholders' Equity further declined to -36.92%,
indicating continued negative performance and a significant decrease in the return on the
equity invested by common stockholders.

● Conclusion:
 - The initially positive Return on Common Stockholders' Equity in 2018 and the
subsequent increase in 2019 suggest that the company generated satisfactory returns on
the equity invested by common stockholders, indicating good profitability.
- However, the subsequent negative returns in 2021 and 2022 indicate that the company
incurred losses and experienced a negative return on the equity invested by common
stockholders. This suggests financial challenges and a decreased ability to generate
profits for common stockholders.
- The negative returns highlight the need for the company to identify and address the
underlying issues affecting profitability and implement strategies to improve financial
performance.

9. Earnings per share (EPS)

Comments:
● Trends:
- With the EPS starting from 491 VNĐ in 2018 soaring to 1,761 VNĐ in 2019, there was a
significant surge in profitability.
- The EPS declining to 208 VNĐ in 2020 reflects a notable decrease in profitability
compared to the preceding year.
- The negative EPS figures of -4,199 VNĐ in 2021 and -5,743 VNĐ in 2022 are
concerning. A negative EPS signifies that the company's net income is insufficient to
cover its outstanding shares, indicating losses incurred during these years.
● Conclusion:
- The consecutive years of negative EPS highlight financial challenges for the company.
These challenges may impact investor confidence, potentially leading to credit rating
downgrades and difficulties in accessing capital or obtaining financing for future
operations.While the EPS figures demonstrate fluctuations in profitability over the five-
year period, the negative trends in 2021 and 2022 underscore the importance of proactive
measures to address financial challenges and restore the company's profitability and
stability.
10. Price- earnings (P-E) ratio

● Trends:
- In 2018, the P/E ratio was 45, indicating that investors were willing to pay 45 times the
earnings per share (EPS) for the company's stock.
- In 2019, the P/E ratio decreased to 16, suggesting a lower valuation as investors were
willing to pay 16 times the earnings per share for the company's stock.
- In 2020, the P/E ratio significantly increased to 114, indicating a higher valuation with
investors willing to pay a much higher multiple (114 times) of the earnings per share for
the company's stock.
- In 2021, the P/E ratio turned negative at -5, suggesting negative earnings and an unusual
situation where investors were not willing to pay a positive multiple of the earnings per
share.
- In 2022, the P/E ratio further declined to -4, indicating continued negative earnings and a
further decrease in investor sentiment.
● Conclusion:
- The initially high P/E ratio in 2018 indicated high investor expectations and a premium
valuation for the company's stock.
- The subsequent decrease in the P/E ratio in 2019 suggested a decline in investor
sentiment and a lower valuation for the company's stock.
- The significant increase in the P/E ratio in 2020 indicated heightened investor optimism
and a higher valuation, potentially indicating inflated expectations
- The negative P/E ratios in 2021 and 2022 suggested negative earnings and financial
difficulties for the company, leading to a lack of investor confidence.
- The negative P/E ratios highlight the company's challenges in generating positive
earnings and the potential risks it may face.
11. Payout ratio

● Trends:
- In 2018, the Payout Ratio was 4.14, indicating that the company distributed 4.14 times
the earnings as dividends to its shareholders.
- In 2019 and 2020, the Payout Ratio was 0, suggesting that the company did not distribute
any dividends to its shareholders.
- In 2021, the Payout Ratio turned negative at -0.68, indicating negative earnings and the
absence of dividend payments.
- In 2022, the Payout Ratio further declined to -0.5, indicating continued negative earnings
and no dividend distributions.
● Conclusion:
- The initially high Payout Ratio in 2018 suggests that the company paid out a significant
portion of its earnings as dividends to shareholders
- The subsequent Payout Ratios of 0 in 2019 and 2020 indicate that the company did not
distribute any dividends during those years, possibly due to various factors such as
strategic decisions or financial constraints.
- The negative Payout Ratios in 2021 and 2022 suggest that the company had negative
earnings and did not make any dividend payments to shareholders.
- The negative Payout Ratios reflect the company's financial challenges and the absence of
profits available for dividend distribution.
12. Debt to assets ratio

● Trends:
- In 2018, the debt to assets ratio was 23.48%, indicating that about 23.48% of the
company's assets were financed by debt.
- There was a slight decrease in the ratio in 2019 to 20.51%, suggesting a reduction in
reliance on debt financing or potential asset growth outpacing debt.
- However, the ratio increased significantly in 2020 to 52.76%, and further in 2021 to
57.91%, indicating a substantial increase in debt relative to assets.
- The trend worsened in 2022, with the ratio reaching 82%, indicating a significant portion
of assets being financed by debt.
● Conclusion
 - The increasing trend in the debt to assets ratio raises concerns about the company's
financial health and solvency. A higher ratio implies greater financial risk, as it indicates
a larger portion of assets being funded by debt
13. Times interest earned

Trends:
- The times interest earned (TIE) ratio for the company fluctuated over the years.
- In 2020, the TIE ratio was 2.58, indicating a relatively healthy ability to cover interest
expenses.
- However, there was a decline in the TIE ratio in both 2021 (-1.43) and 2022 (-2.09).
Conclusion:
- The positive TIE ratio in 2020 (2.58) suggests that the company was able to cover its interest
expenses comfortably with its operating income.
- However, the negative TIE ratios in 2021 (-1.43) and 2022 (-2.09) indicate that the company's
operating income was insufficient to meet its interest obligations.
- These declining TIE ratios raise concerns about the company's financial health and its ability to
service its debt. It indicates a potential risk of defaulting on interest payments and highlights the
need for the company to improve its profitability and cash flow to meet its financial obligations.
B. Question 3:

Current ratio Quick ratio Accounts receivable turnover

Year
SCD CLC SCD CLC SCD CLC
2018 4,21 2,49 3,75 1,02 7,37 7,42
2019 4,89 2,75 4,48 0,82 15,86 5,88
2020 4,58 4,65 3,81 0,63 7,12 8,57
2021 2,65 3,63 2,07 0,74 4,61 11,34
2022 0,51 2,47 0,32 0,74 5,25 9,91

1. Current ratio:

Overall, the current ratio of CLC is greater than SCD during the period. SCD has a fluctuating
current ratio, while CLC’s current assets are more able to pay off current liabilities.
Except for 2018 and 2019, the liquidity of short-term assets of SCD is better than CLC.
 2. 2.Quick ratio:

During the period 2018 - 2021, the quick ratio of SCD looks better. This shows that SCD has
greater ability to pay short-term debts with cash and cash equipment than CLC.
However, in the year 2022, the ratio of CLC is higher than the ratio in SCD.
 3. Accounts receivable turnover

CLC’s Accounts Receivable Turnover is higher which shows that the company's collection
methods are effective with quality customers. On the contrary, SCD’s ratio is low, it may be the
result of ineffective debt collection processes, inadequate credit policies, or customers with
insufficient financial capacity or credit to pay.
However, in the year 2019, the ratio of CLC is 3 times higher than the ratio in SCD.

Tangible Fixed Investment of fixed assets/Total

Year assets/Total assets Leverage ratio assets
SCD CLC SCD CLC SCD CLC
2018 0,0330 0,0350 0,3068 0,5890 0,0015 0,0228
2019 0,0197 0,0880 0,2579 0,4782 0,0015 0,0874
2020 0,0112 0,0593 1,1169 0,2477 0,0427 0,0003
2021 0,0223 0,0251 1,3760 0,3559 0,1261 0,0050
2022 0,0888 0,0242 4,5557 0,6457 0,2645 0,0289
 4. Tangible Fixed assets/Total assets

Overall, the Tangible Fixed Assets/Total Assets ratio of SCD is lower than that of CLC
throughout the period. SCD's ratio exhibits an increasing trend, indicating an upturn proportion
of tangible fixed assets relative to total assets. On the other hand, CLC has a higher beginning
and more fluctuant ratio, suggesting a larger proportion of tangible fixed assets in its total asset
composition.

In the first four years, the Tangible Fixed Assets/Total Assets ratio of SCD is lower than CLC,
indicating that SCD had a smaller proportion of tangible fixed assets compared to CLC during
those years. However, from 2020 to 2022, the ratio of SCD shows an increasing trend,
particularly in 2022, where SCD's ratio surpasses CLC's ratio. This suggests that SCD's
proportion of tangible fixed assets has increased in the later years, potentially indicating a shift in
asset composition.
 5. Leverage ratio

Overall, the leverage ratio of SCD is significantly higher than that of CLC throughout the period.
SCD's leverage ratio shows significant fluctuations, indicating a higher level of debt relative to
equity. On the other hand, CLC maintains a consistently lower leverage ratio, suggesting a
relatively lower reliance on debt financing.
However, it's worth noting that in 2018 and 2019, the leverage ratio of SCD is lower than CLC.
 6. Investment of fixed assets/Total assets

SCD maintains a higher Investment of fixed assets/Total assets ratio compared to CLC
throughout the period. SCD's ratio exhibits a substantial increase over the years, indicating a
rising proportion of investment in fixed assets relative to total assets. On the other hand, CLC
maintains a relatively lower and more stable ratio, suggesting a smaller proportion of investment
in fixed assets in its total asset composition.
Except for 2018 and 2019, Tangible Fixed Assets/Total Assets ratio of SCD is lower than CLC.