Financial Analysis Report for Rice Plc

/ 19

100%

Document text

Financial Analysis (FINA)

Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................3

Cost for each source of financing...................................................................................................3

Dividend Discount Model (DDM)...................................................................................................3

Capital Asset Pricing Model.........................................................................................................4

Cost of capital using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital.......................................................5

NPV and IRR.................................................................................................................................6

Sensitivity of the projected NPV..................................................................................................6

Artificial Intelligence help manage financial resources..............................................................7

Financial Analysis for Internal Management................................................................................8

Break Even.................................................................................................................................8

Margin of Safety.........................................................................................................................11

Reducing the membership............................................................................................................12

CVP Limitations.........................................................................................................................13

Budget Planning.........................................................................................................................14

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................15

Introduction

This report is a financial analysis focused on influencing strategic decisions through its findings within the Rice Plc conglomerate based in the UK. The report focuses on comprehensive investment strategy and internal management and examines several areas of critical need such as financing, performance evaluation, and capital investment. Specifically, the analysis covers the proposed restructuring decision, which is based on the investment manager, Ms. Kathryn’s recommendations on investing in the eMi Meta brand due to market environmental changes resultant of climate target measures and other economic issues. The commission also explores the available finance options as recommended by the Board of Directors and an exploration of managing financial resources. Besides, the report covers internal management issues concerning Rice Plc areas of limiting factors, breakeven analysis, and available resources and budgeting concerns in the subsidiary companies. This report aims to offer actionable insights for informed decision-making at both strategic and operational levels.

Cost for each source of financing

Dividend Discount Model (DDM)

To calculate the cost for each source of financing using the Dividend Discount Model (DDM), it need to consider the expected dividends, growth rate, and current market price of the equity (Lestari et al., 2023). Here’s how to approach it for Rice Plc:

Ke = DPS / Po + g

where ( DPS ) is the dividend per share, ( P0 ) is the current market price per share, and ( g ) is the growth rate of dividends.

Since the company has declared the per-share dividend of 55p per share, taking a total market price of 348p, it has been assume the growth rate. Using a consistent growth rate and the historical EPS growth, thus the use of the average growth. In this case, since the company’s performance is 3% and the economy 2%, it will assume the future growth rate to be 2%.

So, the cost of equity would be:

Ke = 3.480.55 + 0.02 = 0.1779 + 0.02 = 0.1979 ∨ 19.79%

Cost of Debt (Kd): For the bonds, the cost of debt before tax can be calculated using the yield to maturity approach. However, since it has the coupon rate and the bonds are selling at a discount, the coupon rate as a proxy for the cost of debt can be used (Agosto et al., 2019). After tax, it would be:

Kd = Coupon Rate × (1 - Tax Rate)

Kd = 0.11 × (1 - 0.25) = 0.0825

Cost of Preferred Equity (Kp): The cost of preferred equity can be calculated as the ratio of the preferred dividends to the market price of the preferred shares (Dolnya et al., 2020):

Kp = Preferred Dividend / Market Price

Kp = 8 / 102 = 0.0784 ∨ 7.84 %

Capital Asset Pricing Model

To calculate the cost of common equity using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), we’ll use the formula:

Ke = Rf + β × (Rm - Rf)

Where:

- (Ke) is the cost of equity

- (R_f) is the risk-free rate

- (β) is the beta of the stock

• ( R_m ) is the expected market return

Based on the information provided:

• The risk-free rate (( R_f )) is the 3-month UK Gilt yield, which is 6.0%.

• Rice Plc’s beta ((\beta )) is 1.6.

• The expected market return (( R_m )) can be taken as the FTSE 100 index average yearly return, which is 12%.

Ke = 0.06 + 1.6 × (0.12 - 0.06) Ke = 0.06 + 1.6 × 0.06 Ke = 0.06 + 0.096 Ke = 0.156 ∨ 15.6 %

Cost of capital using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital

WACC = ( E / V × R ) + ( D / V × Rd × (1-Tc) ) + ( P / V × Rp )

Given that Ms Madison prefers to use CAPM over DDM for the cost of common equity, it already have calculated the cost of common equity (Re) using CAPM as 15.6%.

The cost of debt (Rd) before tax is the coupon rate of the bond, which is 11%.

After tax, it would be

Kd = Coupon rate*(1-0.25) = 8.25

Kd = 0.11 × (1-0.25) = 8.25 %

The cost of preferred equity (Rp) is 7.84%, as previously calculated.

Now, it need to apply the target capital structure to calculate WACC. The target capital structure is 40% debt, 10% preferred equity, and 50% common equity.

Assuming the market values of debt, preferred equity, and common equity are proportional to these percentages,

WACC = (50/100 × 15.6%) + (40/100 × 8.25%) + (10/100 × 7.84%)

The cost of preferred equity (Rp) is 7.84%, as previously calculated.

Now, it need to apply the target capital structure to calculate WACC. The target capital structure is 40% debt, 10% preferred equity, and 50% common equity.

Assuming the market values of debt, preferred equity, and common equity are proportional to these percentages,

WACC = (50/100 × 15.6%) + (40/100 × 8.25%) + (10/100 × 7.84%)

WACC=(0.5 × 0.156)+(0.4 × 0.0825)+(0.1 × 0.0784)

WACC=0.078 + 0.033 + 0.00784

WACC=0.11884 ∨ 11.884 %

The Weighted Average Cost of Capital represents the average rate at which Rice Plc is anticipated to pay to finance its assets and solely captures costs of individual capital elements proportional.

For Rice Plc, the WACC is 11.884%, usable as a standard to evaluate investment opportunities and assess the costs of feasible sources of finance.

The WACC entails the cost of common equity, debt and preferred equity, and emphasized by the targeted capital composition (Dolbyna et al., 2020). The cost of common equity for Rice Plc is the Capital asset pricing model that involves the risk-free rate, the company’s beta, and the market’s anticipated return.

The WACC serves as a hurdle rate that helps Rice Plc evaluate if the prospective project is likely to generate returns above the cost of capital . In this context, projects with projected returns above 11.884% could add value to the operations since it would mean that they generate returns above what the company pays to finance it. The WACC is also important in making strategic decisions since it helps Rice Plc pick the projects that enhance the value to shareholders and maintain financial discipline. It is mostly used to ensure that the conglomerate allocates capital effectively in its different investment fields.

NPV and IRR

Year Sales Units Selling Price Revenue (£M) Production Cost (£M) Fixed Overhead (£M) Promotion & R&D (£M) Total Costs (£M) Pre-Tax Profit (£M) Tax (25%) (£M) Net Cash Flow (£M)

2024 9,000 45,000 405 198 25 10 233 172 43 -129

2025 10,500 45,000 472.5 217.8 25 10 252.8 219.7 54.9 164

2026 11,500 47,000 540.5 239.6 20 10 269.6 270.9 67.7 203

2027 13,000 49,000 637 263.6 15 10 288.6 348.4 87.1 261

2028 14,500 51,000 739.5 290 15 10 315 424.5 106.1 318

NPV £ 208.59

IRR 143%

Sensitivity of the projected NPV

The sensitivity analysis of NPV involves changes in unit sales and cost of capital, specifically for uncertainties that can affect demand and financial costs, including COVID-19 and other crises. These factors can directly impact consumers' buying behaviour and economic conditions, effectively impacting the company's financial cost.

Sensitivity to Unit Sales: Unit sales are extremely affected by the NPV as they directly impact revenue and cash flows inside the company. The market has been impacted by an economic crisis like COVID-19 or a shortage of energy resources due to decreased units in sales. On the other hand, NPV can positively impact companies if the demand increases more than expected due to the successful resolution of the energy crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic (Magni and Marchioni, 2020). The model must understand various scenarios and the potential range of outcomes of unit sales for the NPV.

Sensitivity to Cost of Capital: The cost of capital, represented by WACC, is a significant factor in NPV calculation. Market violations can cause the cost of capital to increase. During the energy crisis, people were offered credit tightening, which can increase the discount rate and decrease the NPV. It directly impacts the project or makes it less effective and attractive. On the other hand, to make the project attractive and effective, a lower cost of capital can help increase the NPV and make the project financially free.

Scenario Analysis: A high IRR of 143% indicates that the project has enough potential to work against increasing the cost of capital or reducing unit sales. Executing an analysis of the scenario is crucial to identify whether the NPV is sensitive or if there are other changes (Bogataj and Bogataj, 2018).

Strategic Implications: Organisations must think about plans for downturns in sales and inflation in financial costs, which is not good for company profit. This consideration also involves securing fixed-rate financing to be a safeguard against increasing interest rates to mitigate the risks of downturns in demand for a single product (Zore et al., 2018).

During the project, there appears to be a high expected profit under the projections; also, sensitivity analysis is crucial to ensure that a company is prepared for the challenges and uncertainties that it can’t mitigate in the future. Understanding the potential impact or changes in unit sales or cost of capital, Rice Plc can also develop more strategies or decide to adjust its investment strategy.

Artificial Intelligence helps manage financial resources.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a crucial or effective role in managing financial resources; mainly, it helps make capital investments. By strengthening AI, financial analyses and stakeholders can access a vast amount of data in just seconds, help identify trends or patterns, and make predictions with accuracy and efficiency.

Data Analysis and Pattern Recognition: AI algorithms, specifically those based on machine learning, can analyze and identify historical investment data to analyze the patterns and trends that might not be able to come up with by human specialists. AI allows us to be more informed or specific in predicting future plans and movements of markets and analyzing the opportunities to invest.

Risk Assessment and Management: AI can enhance risk assessment and management capacity by offering real-time analysis of the marketplace or the current scenario. This helps stakeholders or investors understand the risks associated with various investment strategies. AI analyzes market trends, sentiments, economic indicators, and organizational performance.

Portfolio Optimization: AI algorithms help optimize investment portfolios by identifying different scenarios and potential outcomes. When analyzing risks or minimizing risks, they can suggest combinations of assessments and returns, considering which investors' goals and risks are tolerated (Brewer et al., 2022).

Automated Trading: AI also enables one more option for traders to offer them the automated system so that it can automatically execute a trade at a speed and frequency that is impossible for human traders. These systems can help monitor and react to any market changes or come up with new opportunities.

Financial Analysis for Internal Management

Break Even

Meta Toy Ltd.'s limiting factor and maximum profit calculation: Limiting factor is equal to number of labor hours available which is 450,000 hours The maximum profit can be calculated by finding the contribution per labor hour for each product and order the production operations that bring the highest contribution per hour.

Contribution per unit = Selling price - Direct materials + Direct labor + Variable overhead +

Direct labor Hours per Unit

Contribution per labor hour = Contribution per unit / Labor hours per unit

Product S1:

Contribution per labor hour for S1= 75 -

12+20+8+5

= £7.5 per hour

Product S2:

Contribution per labor hour for S2 = 50 -

10+15+10+5

= £3.33 per hour

Product S3:

Contribution per labor hour for S3 = 45 -

12+10+8+5

= £5 per hour

Product S4:

Contribution per labor hour for S4= 90 -

30+15+10+5

= £10 per hour

Product S4 has the highest contribution per labor hour, followed by S1, S3, and S2. The company should prioritize production in that order until the labor hours are exhausted.

Alternatives to Overcome the Limiting Factor:

Overcoming the limiting factor of labor hours is crucial for Meta Toy Ltd to enhance productivity and meet demand. Here are two strategies explained:

Outsourcing, this is where the internal manufacturer is contracted to an external manufacturer to produce the full product or part of it. Outsourcing can be used when the company is limited to a number of labor hours it can access. Meta Toy Ltd can get another product manufacturing to produce toy robots; in that case, Meta will focus the labor hour in other core competencies like design and marketing. However, it is pertinent that Meta ensure that the quality of the product by the outsourced manufacturer is maintained and the cost incurred in terms of outsourcing does not exceed the benefits (Warren et al., 2018).

Process improvement: Efforts also serve to optimize the production processes to reduce the labor hours per unit. Besides employing lean manufacturing principles, which help to reduce the waste of time and resources, automation also helps to decrease the manpower required to complete the work. For instance, the use of robotic assembly lines or automated quality control

checkpoints can increase the production speed and quality while reducing labor hours. Even though the upfront costs of implementing automation are high, the long-term benefits include stable production rates, reduced labor costs, and easy scalability due to reduced reliance on manpower.

2. Break-Even Analysis for Nexus Sports Club: To calculate the break-even number of members,

Break - Even Point(units) = Fixed Costs / Price per unit - Variable Cost per unit

Given that fixed costs are £20,000 and they represent 25% of total overheads at break-even, the total overheads would be £80,000. Since each member uses £200 in resources over a year, this is the variable cost per member. The annual membership fee of £360 is the price per unit.

The break-even number of members is:

Break - Even Members = £20,000 / £360 - £200

Break - Even Members = 125

Nexus Sports Club's break-even point of 125 members is the minimum number of members that would help it cover all operating costs without making a profit or loss. This is a unit figure calculated based on fixed costs, the total variable cost per member, and the membership fee. In that sense, with the help of the break-even analysis, Nexus can identify its minimum sales level. It can be explained as the Club's responsibility to reach the threshold of members, which covers rent, equipment, and the same cost for one member. Further, it will generate profit from each member.

Margin of Safety

The margin of safety percentage is calculated by the formula

Margin of safety = (Current sales - Break even sales level) / Current sales * 100

Given that the breakeven point is 125 members, as previously calculated, and each member contributes £360 annually, can calculate the margin of safety for 200 and 300 members.

For 200 Members:

Total Revenue = Number of Members × Annual Membership Fee per Member

Total Revenue = 200 × £360 = £72,000

Breakeven Sales Level = Number of Members × Annual Membership Fee per Member

Total Revenue = 125 × £360 = £45,000

Margin of safety percentage = 108000 - 45000 / 108000 *100

Margin of safety percentage = 63000 / 108000 *100 = 58.33%

Margin of safety is an essential financial metric measuring the difference between actual or projected sales and the breakeven point as a percentage of sales (Klamran, 2022). In other words, margin of safety reflects the number by which sales can reduce until the firm starts making losses. In the case of Nexus Sports Club, a 37.5% margin of safety on 200 members suggests that the firm could reduce the membership by this percentage from the current to the breakpoint at 125 members . In other words, the club could lose 75 members from the current 200 without reporting a loss.

As the number of members of the club increases to 300, the margin of safety also grows to 58.33%. It implies that the club can afford more people to stop coming—175 members . The margin of safety with 300 members shows a stronger financial health position. This means that Nexus Sports Club is more stable. In short, the margin of safety defends against a range of uncertainties and permits administrators to more effectively use marketing, pricing, and operational approaches. In general, it reflects that Nexus Sports Club is financially robust and has a great degree of stability.

Reducing the membership

If Nexus Sports Club reduces the membership fee from £360 to £300, we’ll need to recalculate the contribution per member, the breakeven point, and the margin of safety percentages. Let’s go through each calculation:

1. Contribution per Member: The contribution per member is the difference between the price per member and the variable cost per member.

• New Price per Member: £300

• Variable Cost per Member: £200 (as previously stated)

• New Contribution per Member: £300 - £200 = £100

2. Breakeven Point: The breakeven point is the number of members required to cover all fixed costs.

• Fixed Costs: £20,000 (as previously stated)

• New Breakeven Point: ( \frac{£20,000}{£100} ) = 200 members

3. Margin of Safety Percentages: The margin of safety percentage is calculated using the new breakeven point and the current sales level (number of members).

Margin of safety = ( Current sales – Break even points / Current sales level ) *100

For 200 Members:

• Current Sales Level: 200 members

• Breakeven Sales Level: 200 members (after the fee reduction to £300)

Margin of safety = ( 200 − 200 / 200 ) = 0%

For 300 Members:

• Current Sales Level: 300 members

• Breakeven Sales Level: 200 members (after the fee reduction to £300)

Margin of safety = ( 300 − 200 / 300 ) = 33.33%

Advice to Management: Having lowered the membership fee to £300, the contribution per member was also lowered. This effectively implies that the club will need more members to reach the break-even point – not 125, but 200. Even though this allows the club to become more appealing to more potential members, it ultimately makes it more exposed to risk – with

200 members, the margin of safety is completely gone, as drop in membership results directly in diminished profitability. For 300 members, the margin of safety stands at approximately 33.33%, which is lower than 58.33% for £360 fees. Therefore, the club now essentially has less room for error in terms of membership drop for the costs to start exceeding revenues.

The same can be said about the feasibility of a price reduction. If management is confident that making the access to the club cheaper will allow the establishment to gain more than 200 members and keep them, it is possible. Nonetheless, the utilization of club’s resources is likely to increase along with the number of new members. Furthermore, it may be difficult for the club to maintain the quality of services provided.

CVP Limitations

Analysing CVP to evaluate the relationships between costs, sales volume, and profit, it has a number of constraints and limitations that reduce its accuracy and applicability in some high quality decision-making situations.

CVP analysis is based on the assumption that can easily divide a company’s costs into their fixed and variable components. Although it is reasonable from a theoretical perspective, in practice, most costs are co-sponsored in nature (Nworie et al., 2023). There is a specific set of fixed and variable expenses that refer to as semi-variable or mixed costs. Mixed that make it difficult to analyze the cost-volume-profit level.

Another limitation is that CVP analysis also assumes the selling price per unit remains constant, which may not be the case in a dynamic market environment. Pricing decisions are influenced by competitive pressures, consumer taste and preference changes, and fluctuations in other input costs, thereby causing the selling price of an item to change over the considered periods. This means it is unrealistic to maintain the selling price constant and the model may produce misleading results (Teixeira et al., 2020).

The assumption of a linear relationship among costs, revenue, and volume is not realistic, as the business environment is not linear. Costs may not increase linearly or reduce with quantity production because of economies of scale, diseconomies of scale, and various nonlinear relationships (Hilton and Platt, 2020). Similarly, revenue may not always increase with sales volume, especially in market-based pricing strategies.

CVP analysis only works for situations in which a company sells one type of product or its sales mix does not fluctuate. However, most businesses cannot ensure the same level of demand, and various products generate different margins. Additionally, changes in consumer preferences frequently lead to the redistribution of the sales mix that directly impacts the general profitability of a particular action. Therefore, by making an initial assumption on the constant nature of the sales mix, one can argue that the given limitation makes CVP analysis irrelevant when a company introduces a significant level of diversification.

Budget planning is an essential organizational activity that helps in financial control, resource utilization, and strategic planning. However, the process also has many issues and negative implications. Budgeting is a very important part of organizational success (Brewer et al., 2022).

It is still critical to recognize the downsides of budget planning. In this context, the company should develop a budget that is adaptable, promotes innovation, and complies with a long-term business strategy.

Time-consuming and expensive: Budget preparation is time-consuming for management and staff. The process includes the collection of detailed information, forecasting, and several reviews, creating a burden on resources (Warren et al., 2020). For example, to create a budget in order to cooperate, a company may need to retarget staff from various departments. The job can last for weeks, depending on the size and scope of the project.

Inflexibility. Setting budgets for a certain fixed period, usually a year, can make them inflexible in response to a changing market. If a company cannot quickly adjust its budget, it may be unable to seize unforeseen opportunities or respond to unexpected challenges swiftly (Wild and Shaw, 2019). For example, a business may stick to its budgeting limits on spending and ignore a great mid-year investment opportunity.

Gaming the System: Managers might avoid the risk of inadequate funds by involving budgetary slack like exaggerating expenses or diminishing estimates of revenues. This results in inefficient resource use. For instance, the head of a department may overstate the estimated costs to be able to spend casually without considering money-saving activities.

Demotivation: Employees may be demotivated when there exists strict control over budgets. This may happen when employees realize that their targets are unattainable or when their work is diminished. For example, if the travel budget for a sales team is downsized, this team may lack morale because it will not be able to meet clients and sell products.

Discourages Creativity and Innovation: Managers who need to toe the line because the budget is already tight are likely to play by the rules rather than try to step outside the box. A team in

a marketing department might be too afraid to try out a new advertising channel because of the risk of spending more than is budgeted.

Political Manoeuvring: Building on the above point, the budgeting process can also become largely politically-charged. Different departments that are seeking the same resources will find themselves in a situation of power struggle and conflict .

Conclusion

It can be concluded from the above that the report focuses on conducting comprehensive analysis of Rice Plc’s financial situation as well as addressing the internal audit and management concerns at Meta Toy Ltd and Nexus Sports Club. After evaluating financing options, the DDM, CAPM, and WACC models, the Rice Plc will be able to effectively analyze investment choices and the optimal capital structure. The sensitivity assessment of the planned NPV and strategic implications underscores the growing value of scenario analysis and risk management in highly uncertain market conditions. Artificial Intelligence in financial resources management implies some forms of decision-making based on available data and the results them, including portfolio investment. Moreover, results of the Break Even analysis and brief discussion of budget planning have put an emphasis on the operational aspect and have revealed the issues related to the optimal distribution of resources. Thus, the following results emphasize the importance of a comprehensive financial management approach, considering strategic and operational aspects, aiming at sustainable growth and maximizing shareholder value.

References

Agosto, A., Mainini, A. and Moretto, E., 2019. Stochastic dividend discount model: covariance of random stock prices. Journal of Economics and Finance, 43, pp.552-568.

Bogataj, D. and Bogataj, M., 2019. NPV approach to material requirements planning theory—a 50-year review of these research achievements. International journal of production research, 57(15-16), pp.5137-5153.

Brewer, P.C., Garrison, R.H. and Noreen, E.W., 2022. Introduction to managerial accounting. McGraw-Hill.

Dolnya, E.A., Vasilyeva, M.K. and Lyukina, A.Y., 2020, March. Analysis of Methods for Calculating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital of a Company on the Example of an Industrial Enterprise. In International Scientific Conference" Far East Con" (ISCFEC 2020) (pp. 2803-2807). Atlantis Press.

Garrison, R.H., Noreen, E.W. and Brewer, P.C., 2021. Managerial accounting. McGraw-Hill.

Hilton, R.W. and Platt, D.E., 2020. Managerial accounting: creating value in a dynamic business environment. McGraw-Hill.

Klarman, S., 2022. MARGIN OF SAFETY. LULU COM.

Lestari, N.A., Antony, A. and [word-unreadable], A., 2023. Evaluation of Stock Through Fundamental Analysis With The Dividend Discount Model (DDM) Approach. International Journal of Indonesian Business Review, 2(1), pp.85-95.

Magni, C.A. and Marchioni, A., 2020. Average rates of return, working capital, and NPV-consistency in project appraisal: A sensitivity analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 229, p.107769.

Nworie, G.O., Okafor, T.G., Igwebuike, C.C. and Onyali, C.I., 2023. Utilizing Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis for Informed Decision Making in Small Business Management. Central Asian Journal of Innovations on Tourism Management and Finance, 4(2), pp.102-115.

Teixeira, A.B.D.S.D., Galvão, R.M.M. and Nunes, S.C.D., 2020. Operating Risk (Cost-Volume-Profit) and Economic Value Added (EVA®). International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management, 8(2), pp.12-25.

Warren, C.S., Jones, J.P. and Tayler, W.B., 2020. Financial and managerial accounting. Cengage Learning, Inc..

Warren, C.S., Reeve, J.M. and Duchac, J.E., 2018. Accounting. Cengage Learning.

Wild, J.J. and Shaw, K.W., 2019. Fundamental accounting principles. McGraw-Hill.

Zore, Ž., Čuček, L., Širovnik, D., Pintarič, Z.N. and Kravanja, Z., 2018. Maximizing the sustainability net present value of renewable energy supply networks. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 131, pp.245-265.