NORTH SOUTH UNIVERSITY

GROUP NAME: CATTERPILLAR

Sub: ACT330
Section: 3

INDUSTRY COMPANY
LOCAL COMPANY MJL Bangladesh limited
INDUSTRY BENCHMARK UNITED POWER GENERATION &
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD
U.S COMPANY BritBurn Energy Partner LP
IFRS COMPANY Abenture Resources corp
Submitted To,
Ms. Nabila Nisha(Nbn)
Lecturer, Department of Accounting & Finance School of
Business.
North South University

Submitted By,

NAME ID
Jubaiar Ahmed Bhuiyan 1411178630
Jahid Howlader 1411233030
Sagar Dash 1420305030
H.M Masrur Rahman 1420956030
MD. Linkon Hassan 1421082030
Letter of Transmittal:

Date:
Ms. Nabila Nisha (Nbn)
Lecturer, Department of Accounting & Finance School of Business
North South University.

Subject: Letter of Transmittal

Dear Mam,

It is indeed a great pleasure to have the opportunity to submit the

report. We are really grateful for having the opportunity to do so
under your instruction, and for having gained the knowledge that
helped vastly in the completion of this report. We have enjoyed
preparing the project. In preparing this project, we have tried our
level best to include all the relevant information of United Power
Generation & Distribution Company LTD, MJL Bangladesh limited,
BritBurn Energy Partner LP and Abenture Resources corp. As we are
beginner, we may make some mistakes. If you consider our mistakes
as pardonable, we will be very pleased and it will be very helpful for
our future career.

Furthermore, if you have any query about this project please feel
free to ask any of our group
members.
Sincerely Yours-

Jubaiar Ahmed Bhuiyan

Jahid Howlader
Sagar Dash
HM Masrur Rahman
MD. Linkon Hassan
 Abstract

The main objective of this project is to know about US GAAP, IFRS

and BFRS Financial statements and Analysis techniques. We have
got the chance to apply all the knowledge that we have gathered
from our class and tried to apply it to the best of our knowledge.
Firstly, we focused on finding the significant transaction for all four of
our selected companies. Then we analyzed on the financial policies
of the companies. Besides that, we have also interpreted and
compared the ratios between the companies. We have observed
that despite operating in the same industry, there are many
differences in between them, which is why we have realized the
need for international convergence.
The success of this project depended on the contribution of all the
group members & their thoughtful guidance and suggestions that
make it useful and reliable report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Brief overview of the Four Companies .................................. 1

Apendix A: Event Exhibit (illustration) .................................... 3
Appendix B: Estimates Exhibit (illustration) ............................ 4
Common Indicators of the Company Estimation ............. 5
Appendix C: Comparison Exhibit (illustration) ..................... 6
Comparison Between IFRS & U.S. GAAP ............................. 6
Comparison Between BFRS & U.S. GAAP ........................... 7
Comparison Between BFRS & IFRS ....................................... 8
Comparison Between Local Company & Industry
Benchmark ............................................................................... 9
Appendix D: Ratio analysis Table 1 (illustration) ................ 10
Appendix E: Ratio analysis Table 2 (illustration) ................. 14
Appendix F: Ratio analysis Table 3 (illustration) ................. 17

0|Page
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE FOUR COMPANIES

UNITED POWER GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD

In the post war era of late 1970s, when individual ownership economy
revived in our country, the setting up of Export Processing Zones (EPZ)s was a
pragmatic venture intended to attract capital investment, employment
generation and rapid industrialization. Bangladesh Export Processing Zones
Authority (BEPZA) was formed with the following objectives: Achieving
economic objectives on behalf of the Government of Bangladesh.
Integrating Bangladesh into the global supply chain Attracting export-
oriented investments in the zone. In 2007, Malancha Holdings Ltd (Later
renamed as United Power Generation & Distribution Co. Ltd) was born out of
the necessity for ensuring uninterrupted, quality power supply to the
industries housed within the Export Processing Zones (EPZ) of Bangladesh. The
company in its first phase built a Natural Gas fired 41 MW power plant in
Dhaka EPZ, Savar, Dhaka and another Natural Gas fired 44 MW power plant
in Chittagong EPZ at South Halishahar, Chittagong.

MJL Bangladesh limited

MJL Bangladesh Limited (formerly Mobil Jamuna Lubricants Limited) is the

joint venture company between state owned Jamuna Oil Company and EC
Securities Limited (subsidiary of the East Coast Group). The journey of
blending world-class lubricants in Bangladesh started in 1998 when Mobil
Corporation (after the merger known as Exxon Mobil Corporation) decided
to set up Mobil Jamuna Lubricants Limited in partnership with the state
owned Jamuna Oil Company Limited. MJL Bangladesh Limited envisioned
that Bangladesh would be one of the few countries in the region to blend
high quality lubricants. Accordingly, it commissioned a state-of-the-art Lube
Oil Blending Plant (LOBP) - the first of its kind in the country - in May 2003.
Since then the production of this plant and marketing activities of MJL
Bangladesh Limited have expanded greatly.

1|Page
BreitBurn Energy Partner LP

Breitburns founders, Hal Washburn and Randy Breitenbach, met as

roommates at Stanford University in the early 1980s. Despite the allure of
Silicon Valleys high-tech industry, Washburn and Breitenbach chose to
study petroleum engineering due to the boom in the U.S. oil and gas
industry at the time. Washburn and Breitenbach were confident that
domestic oil fields would benefit from technological advancements in
exploitation methods and decided to follow their entrepreneurial spirit. By
the late 1980s, the domestic oil boom had cooled as major industry
players began shifting their focus abroad for new opportunities. These
international projects generally required significant capital, and many of
the majors began divesting their mature U.S. assets to fund their efforts.
Washburn and Breitenbach recognized the value in these mature assets
high-quality, long-lived fields with significant remaining oil in place and
low-decline rates. So in 1988, they formed Breitburn Energy Corporation
(BEC) with a strategy of acquiring mature fields, increasing their
production with state-of-the-art technology and experienced operating
teams, and generating stable cash flow from those assets.

Abenture Resources corp

Abenteuer is a Canadian oil & gas company that is listed for trading on
the TSX Venture exchange under the symbol ABU. The Company is
engaged in the exploration for, and the acquisition, development and
production of, conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon projects.
Abenteuerss corporate strategies have been engineered to leverage its
experience, expertise and technology to focus on high impact
development opportunities in the international marketplace. Abenteuer
Resources Corp. acquires, explores for, develops, and produces
petroleum reserves in Western Canada. It has working interests in six wells
located in southeastern Saskatchewan. The company is headquartered in
Vancouver, Canada.
2|Page
APENDIX A: EVENT EXHIBIT (ILLUSTRATION)
Company
United Power Generation &
Distribution Company Ltd
(Industry Benchmark )
MJL Bangladesh limited
(BFRS)
BreitBurn Energy Partner LP
(US GAAP)
Abenture Resources corp
(IFRS)
Significant Transaction
The company made the gas pipeline and
considered as assets of the company and
2% depreciation charged against it.
Net sales increased by 3.75% during the
period
No disposal on equipment and plant assets
Disposal on fixed assets in 2013.
Gain on sale of non-current assets.
No change in accounting principal in 2013.
Changes in Accounting estimates and
errors in 2013.
Oklahoma Panhandle Acquisitions, On July
15, 2013. This asset is worth of approximately
$845million in cash.
2013 Permian Basin Acquisitions, On
December 30, 2013. This asset is worth of
$282 million in cash.
At December 31, 2013, our equity
investments consisted primarily of a 24.5%
limited partner interest and a 25.5% general
partner interest in Wilderness Energy
Services LP, with a combined carrying value
of $6.0 million.
Borrowed total $1.4 billion dollar in 2013.
Depletion, depreciation and amortization
(DD&A) expense totaled $216.5 million for
the year ended December 31, 2013.
Gain from foreign currency transactions in
2013
The Company has recognized an
impairment of $302,429 in respect of Wells 1
and 3.
New accounting Standards adopted
During the year ended December 31, 2011,
the Company executed a farm-out
agreement with Admiralty Oils Ltd.
(Admiralty), an arms length private
Saskatchewan oil company.
3|Page
APPENDIX B: ESTIMATES EXHIBIT (ILLUSTRATION)

UNITED POWER MJL Bangladesh BreitBurn Energy Abenture Resources

GENERATION & limited Partner LP corp
DISTRIBUTION (BFRS) (US GAAP) (IFRS)
COMPANY LTD
(Industry Benchmark)
Pay Income taxes Pay Income taxes Pay Income taxes Pay Income taxes

Uses depreciation Uses depreciation Useful lives for Estimated useful

and amortization and amortization depreciation and life of
for assets. for assets amortization depreciation

Provisions are Provision is Provision for Provisions are

recognized by recognized for doubtful recognized by
making the best doubtful debts. Debts making the best
estimate of the estimate of the
amounts in amounts in
accordance with accordance with
BAS 37 BAS 37
make judgments, Follow FASB Follow IASB to make
estimates and Accounting accounting judgments,
assumptions as Standards standards estimates and
per BAS 8 methods assumptions as
per BAS 8

Post-employment Post-employment
benefits and benefits
compensation

Trade receivable Estimation of

asset that can be trade and other
estimated reliably receivables

Net realizable Restoration cost Impairment by Allowance for

value is based on incurred at the comparing the doubtful
estimated selling end of the carrying values to debt account
price operating life. their recoverable
amounts.

4|Page
Common Indicators of the Company Estimation

Each company on same industry follows their own kind of rules and
regulations according to their country Accounting principles and
standards. In this case we see all the four companies follow same
estimates to find out income taxes and also estimate useful life of
determining depreciation for assets. Although, some various estimations
are there. Both BFRS and Industry benchmark follow BAS 8 to make
judgments, estimates and assumptions. On the other hand united power
generation & Distribution Company limited is consider net realizable value
is based on estimated selling price, Restoration cost incurred at the end of
the operating life of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P., Abenteuer Resources
Corp Consider impairment by comparing the carrying values to their
recoverable amounts and lastly Mjl Bangladesh limited record allowance
of doubtful debt accounts based on estimation.

5|Page
APPENDIX C: COMPARISON EXHIBIT (ILLUSTRATION)

Comparison Between IFRS & U.S. GAAP

Accounting Policy IFRS U.S GAAP comment

Inventory Average Cost FIFO Follow different

valuation method inventory valuation
method. Not
acceptable.
Property, plant Straight line Straight line Here both
and equipment method method companies follow
similar
depreciation
method. Hence
the method is
same so that is
acceptable.
Cash flow Direct method Direct method Similar method.
presentation And that is
acceptable
because this
method is used by
many companies
Revenue Cash basis Cash basis For revenue
recognition recognition both
companies follow
different standard.
IFRS recognizes
revenue on the
basis of sales basis
method but US
GAAP company
follow accrual
basis method. So
that is acceptable
Good Will Impairment Impairment For goodwill both
the company
follow same
method for
impairment.

6|Page
Comparison Between BFRS & U.S. GAAP

Accounting Policy BFRS U.S GAAP comment

Inventory Average cost FIFO Difference in

Evaluation method for
Inventory
valuation.
Acceptable
since the two
companies follow
Different
accounting
standards.
Property plant & Straight Line Straight line Similar method.
Equipment Method method And that is
acceptable
because this
method is used by
many companies

Revenue Sales Basis Method Cash basis BFRS company

Recognition recognize
revenue on the
basis of sales
basis method but
IFRS
company
recognize revenue
on
the basis of cash
basis method.
Goodwill N/A impairment We cant
compare
Cash flow Indirect Method Direct method Both companies
presentation consider indirect
method & same
accounting
standard for cash
flow presentation.
Therefore
Acceptable.

7|Page
Comparison Between BFRS & IFRS

Accounting Policy BFRS IFRS comment

Inventory Average cost Average Cost In that case both

Evaluation method the IFRS AND BFRS
company follows
same inventory
evaluation
method. So that is
acceptable.
Property plant & Straight Line Straight line They also consider
Equipment Method method same method for
recognize
Depreciation.
Revenue Sales Basis Method Cash basis Revenue
Recognition recognition of the
two company are
different
standard yet
being from the
Same industry.
Thus not
acceptable
Goodwill N/A Impairment We cant
compare.
Cash flow Indirect Method direct method Two companies
presentation are from the
same industry, but
follow
different
accounting
standards
For cash flow
presentation.
Therefore not
acceptable.

8|Page
Comparison Between Local Company & Industry
Benchmark
Accounting Policy Local Company Industry comment
Benchmark
Inventory Evaluation Average cost FIFO Although both
companies are in
the same industry,
but they follow
different inventory
evaluation method.
Not Acceptable
because of
following different
method.
Property plant & Straight Line Method Straight Line Method Here both
Equipment companies follow
similar depreciation
method. Hence the
method is same so
that is acceptable.
Revenue Sales Basis Method Accrual Basis For revenue
Recognition recognition both
companies follow
different standard.
Local company
recognizes revenue
on the basis of sales
basis method but
industry benchmark
company follow
accrual basis
method. So that is
not acceptable.
Goodwill N/A Impairment We cannot
compare because
not enough
information are
available.
Cash flow Indirect Method Indirect Method Both companies
presentation consider indirect
method & same
accounting
standard for cash
flow presentation.
Therefore
Acceptable.

9|Page
 APPENDIX D: RATIO ANALYSIS TABLE 1 (ILLUSTRATION)
Ratios MJL Bangladesh MJL Bangladesh BreitBurn BreitBurn
limited limited Energy Energy Partner
(2012) (2013) Partner LP LP (2013)
(2012)
Liquidity
Current ratio 1.82 1.20 0.99 0.64
Quick ratio 1.31 0.86 -1.70 -1.49

Current Cash 0.26 0.23 1.67 1.41

Debt Coverage
Ratio
Activity
Receivable 125.78 110.25 103.23 99.77
turnover
Inventory 3.27 3.82 2.79 2.85
turnover
Asset Turn over 0.62 0.59 0.15 0.15
Profitability
Profit margin on 0.09 0.10 -0.96 -0.69
sales
Rate of Return 0.06 0.06 -0.14 -0.10
on Assets
Rate of Return 0.27 0.30 -0.56 -4.30
on Common
Stock
Equity
Earnings per 2.73 3.03 -0.56 -0.43
Share
Price-earnings 29.19 24.79 -3.91 -4.72
Ratio
Payout Ratio 0.47 0.82 N/A N/A
Coverage
Debt to Total 0.36 0.39 0.46 0.53
Assets
Times Interest 2.78 3.76 4.51 4.23
earned ratio
Cash Debt 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.12
Coverage Ratio
Book Value per 10.00 10.00 2.19 1.98
Share
Free Cash Flow 555690853.00 389206451.00 -506510000.00 -1180000000.00

10 | P a g e
Interpretations of Appendix D

Liquidity Ratio: A firms liquidity ratio shows how quickly firm can convert its current
assets to meet the short term liabilities.

2012
In 2012, MJL Bangladesh ltds current ratio is 1.82 on the other hand Breitburn Energy
Partners LPs current ratio is 0.98 .Compared to this, MJL companys current ratio is in
good position which indicates the company has ability to repay its short term debt
better than MJL ltd. In terms of quick ratio we can see MJL (1.30) is in higher position
than Breitburn Energy (-1.70). Which means Breitburn energy have excess money to
repay short term liabilities and they have some idle money too. Cash Debt Coverage
ratio shows us how much debt can be recovered through cash flows from operation.
In that year Breitburn energy cash debt coverage ratio is 1.67 which is better than the
MJL LTD (0.26).

2013

In 2013, same condition remains as before in quick ratio. MJL ltd maintains its better
position in current ratio (1.20) than Breitburn energy LP (0.64). So MJL Bangladesh
maintain its good position and also liquidity solvency over Breitburn energy LP. In quick
ratio Breitburn(-1.49) is lower position than MJL Bangladesh ltd (0.86).

In cash dept coverage ratio Breitburn (1.42) still in good position than MJL Bangladesh
ltd (0.23).

Activity Ratio : Accounting ratios that measure a firm's ability to convert different
accounts Within its balance sheets into cash or sales. Activity ratios are used to
measure the relative efficiency of a firm based on its use of its assets, leverage or other
such balance sheet items. These ratios are important in determining whether a
company's management is doing a good enough job of generating revenues, cash,
etc. from its resources.

2012

Here, MJL Bangladesh ltd has a much higher receivables turnover (125.78) rate than
Breitburn energy has (103.23).also in inventory turnover MJL (3.27) is higher than the
Breitburn energy (2.79). Also Breitburn asset turnover ratio is lower than the MJL
Bangladesh ltd.

11 | P a g e
2013

Here, MJL Bangladesh ltd has a much higher receivables turnover(110.25) rate
then Breitburn energy(99.77).Inventory turnover is also higher of MJL Bangladesh ltd
(3.82) then Breitburn energy (2.85). MJL Bangladesh ltd (.59) asset turnover rate is also
higher then Breitburn energy (0.15). So MJL is better than Breitburn in activity ratio field.

Profitability ratio : Profitability is the net result of a number of policies and

decisions. Profitability ratios show the combined effects of liquidity, asset management
and debt on Operating results.

2012

In 2012 Breitburn energys profitability ratios condition are very bad for its net loss. All
ratios are showing negative sign. The profit margin and return on asset ratio of
Breitburn energy is (-0.96) and (-0.12) whereas, MJL Bangladesh ltds ratios are (0.09)
and (0.06).the earning per share ratio of MJL Bangladesh (2.73) is better than Breitburn
energy (-0.56).The price earnings ratio of MJL Bangladesh (29.19) is so much higher
than Breitburn energy (-3.19). Due to no preferred dividends in Breitburn energy, there
is no compare in payout ratio.

2013

Same senerio exists in 2013 too. MJL Bangladesh has high Profit Margin on Sales (0.10)
then Breitburn (-0.69).Price earnings ratio of MJL (24.79) is so much higher than
Breitburn (-4.72) as like before. MJL (3.03) gives away higher EPS then Breitburn
Bangladesh (-0.43). same scenario in payout ratio which is no compare for no
preferred dividends in Breitburn.

Overall we can see that MJL Bangladesh performs better than Breitburn energy in
terms of Profitability levels.

12 | P a g e
Coverage Ratio : coverage ratio that measures the proportionate amount of income
that can be used to cover interest expenses in the future.

2012

Debt to Total assets tells us how much debt has been undertaken by a company as
against their assets. Here, Breitburn ratio has high debt ratio of .46 then MJL
Bangladesh of .36. Breitburn (4.51) time interest earn ratio is higher than MJL
Bangladesh (2.78). But in free cash flow MJL is so much better than Breitburn.

2013

In 2013, we see the same scenarios. Debt to total asset of Breitburn (0.53) is higher than
the MJL Bangladesh ltd (0.39). Breitburn energys (0.12) cash debt coverage ratio is
lower than MJL Bangladesh ltd (0.20). In 2013, Free cash flow of Breitburn (-1,180,000,000)
company is negative but MJL (389,206,451) is better.

13 | P a g e
APPENDIX E: RATIO ANALYSIS TABLE 2 (ILLUSTRATION)

Ratios MJL Bangladesh MJL Bangladesh Abenture Abenture

limited limited Resources corp Resources
(2012) (2013) (2012) corp (2013)
Liquidity
Current ratio 1.82 1.20 18.58 9.54
Quick ratio 1.31 0.86 18.58 9.54
Current Cash 0.26 0.23 1.25 0.56
Debt Coverage
Ratio
Activity
Receivable 110.25 125.78 93.65 88.43
turnover
Inventory 3.27 3.82 N/A N/A
turnover
Asset Turn over 0.62 0.59 0.19 0.24
Profitability
Profit margin on
sales 0.09 0.10 -0.37 -1.89
Rate of Return on
Assets 0.06 0.06 -0.07 -0.45
Rate of Return on
Common Stock
Equity 0.27 0.30 -0.08 -0.53
Earnings per
Share 2.73 3.03 -0.01 -0.04
Price-earnings
Ratio 29.19 24.79 -14.00 -3.25
Payout Ratio
0.47 0.82 N/A N/A
Coverage
Debt to Total 0.36 0.39 0.10 0.15
Assets
Times Interest 2.78 3.76 -39.09 -96.30
earned ratio
Cash Debt 0.21 0.21 0.39 0.25
Coverage Ratio
Book Value per 10.00 10.00 0.40 0.39
Share
Free Cash Flow 555690853.00 389206451.00 -110270.00 -292590.00

14 | P a g e
Interpretations of Appendix E

Liquidity Ratio:

2012

In 2012, MJL Bangladesh Ltd.s current ratio (1.82), quick ratio (1.31) and current
cash debt coverage ratio (0.26) all three ratios are less than the Abenture
resources corp. The current ratio and quick ratio of Abenture Resources
Corporation is very good position compare to MJL Bangladesh ltd. Its almost
the 10 times higher than the MJL Bangladesh ltd. So MJL is in a very risky position
in their liquidity situation.

2013

In 2013, MJL Bangladesh goes down slightly in their liquidity situation. The
Abenture corp. goes almost 50% in their current (9.54) and quick ratio (9.54). But
still they are in a very good position in their liquidity sectors. In that year Abenture
corp.s liquidity situation is better than the MJL Bangladesh limited.

Activity Ratio :

2012

The MJL Bangladesh ltd has much higher receivables turnover (110.25) than
Abenture resources corp. (82.23). Unable to compare inventory turnover due to
no inventory of Abenture resource corp and asset turnover of MJL ltd. (0.62) is
higher than Abenture resources corp. (0.19).

2013

The same things remain in 2013 with higher receivables turnover of MJL
Bangladesh ltd. (125.78) than Abenture resources corp. (88.43). The same thing
in 2013, due to no inventory of Abenture resource corp., there is no compare in
inventory turnover. In asset turnover ratio, MJL (.59) is better than the Abenture
corp. (.24). On the purpose of receivables turnover, MJL Bangladesh is in better
position.

15 | P a g e
Profitability ratio :

2012

In profitability ratio Abenture resources corp. is in very serious condition for their
net loss. For that their earning per share, profit margin and price earnings ratios
are affected very badly. They show negative sign in their profile. In that case
MJL Bangladesh limited is in good position in profitability sector. All the ratio in
profitability is better than Abenture resources corp. Due to no dividends of
Abenture corp., there is no comparisons in payout ratio.

2013

The same things remain in 2013 for the Abenture resources corp. They cannot
recover them from the loss situation. But MJL company do well in profitability
sector than previous year accept for price earnings ratio. Due to no dividends
for Abenture corp. there are no comparisons in payout ratio.

Coverage Ratio :

2012

The higher the debt ratio, the greater the firms degree of indebtedness and the
more financial leverage it has MJL Bangladesh has higher debt ratio(0.36).
Time interest earned ratio is very poor in case of Abenture resource corp(-39) but
has fair amount in MJL Bangladesh ltd(2.78). MJL Bangladesh ltd.s free cash
flow (555,690,853) is very good whereas Abenture resources is very bad in free
cash flow which shows negative value(-$110,270).

2013

Here, on significant changes in coverage ratios in 2013. Overall MJL Bangladesh

Company has better coverage ratio, but both companies should focus on cash
debt coverage ratio. In 2013, free cash flow of Abenture is negative but MJL
group has a cash of 38, 920, 6451.

16 | P a g e
APPENDIX F: RATIO ANALYSIS TABLE 3
(ILLUSTRATION)
Ratios MJL MJL UNITED UNITED
POWER POWER
Bangladesh Bangladesh GENERATION GENERATION
limited limited & &
(2012) (2013) DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY COMPANY
LTD LTD
(2012) (2013)
Liquidity
Current ratio 1.82 1.20 6.47 2.41
Quick ratio 1.31 0.86 6.16 2.13
Current Cash 0.26 0.23 2.79 2.24
Debt Coverage
Ratio
Activity
Receivable 110.25 125.78 61.54 65.88
turnover
Inventory 3.27 3.82 10.52 7.07
turnover
Asset Turn over 0.62 0.59 0.26 0.15
Profitability
Profit margin on 0.09 0.10 1.00 1.00
sales
Rate of Return 0.06 0.06 0.26 0.15
on Assets
Rate of Return 0.27 0.30 10.21 5.98
on Common
Stock
Equity
Earnings per 2.73 3.03 2.33 3.00
Share
Price-earnings 29.19 24.79 7.15 12.04
Ratio
Payout Ratio 0.47 0.82 0.49 0.56
Coverage
Debt to Total 0.36 0.39 0.33 0.40
Assets
Times Interest 2.78 3.76 6.49 4.95
earned ratio
Cash Debt 0.21 0.21 0.66 0.44
Coverage Ratio
Book Value per 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Share
Free Cash Flow 555690853.00 389206451.00 695301265.00 1057067483.00

17 | P a g e
Interpretations of Appendix F

Liquidity Ratio:

2012

In 2012, MJL Bangladesh ltd company current ratio is (1.82). It seems company is
in a very vulnerable situation since their current ratio is lower than Compare to
UPGD Company (6.47). In that year UPGD company quick ratio is 1.3 which is
higher than the MJL Bangladesh (6.16).

Also in that year UPGD company current Cash Debt Coverage is 2.79 which is
higher than the MJL Bangladesh (0.26).

2013

In 2013 the local company and the benchmark company going down their
liquidity situation. But still the UPGD situation is better than local company. In that
year UPGD company quick ratio is 2.13 which is higher than the MJL Bangladesh
(0.86).Also in that year UPGD Company current Cash Debt Coverage is 2.24
which is higher than the MJL Bangladesh (0.23).

Activity Ratio :

2012

In 2012 the activity position is better than the benchmark company. Their
accounts receivable turnover is better than the MJL Company (110.25). But MJL
Bangladesh Ltd inventories turnover is 3.27 which is lower than the UPGD
Company (10.52).

2013

Here, MJL go down in their accounts receivable turnover (125.78) and asset
turnover position (.59) but better than the UPGD Company (65.88) and (0.15).
On the other hand the inventory turnover of MJL (7.07) is lower than the UPGD
(3.81).

18 | P a g e
Profitability ratio :

2012
In 2012 the profit margin ration of UPGD (1) is higher than the MJL (0.09)
Company. Also MJL had the lower return on asset than the UPDG. So UPDG is in
good position. But in price earning situation is MJL (29.19) is 4 times higher than
the UPDG (7.15).
EPS(Earnig per share ) in MJL(2.73) company is slightly better than UPGD(2.33).
2013
Same things happened in 2013 for both company accept for the return on
asset. In that year UPDGs return on asset ratio (5.98) is greater than the MJL
(0.38). This year the price earnings ratio of MJL (24.79) Company is more than 2
times higher than the UPDG (12.04). EPS (Earning per share) in MJL (3.03) and
UPGD (3.00) which is better than previous year and haven`t as much differences
between there.
Coverage Ratio :

2012
Debt to Total assets tells us how much debt has been undertaken by a
company as against their assets. The higher the debt ratio, the greater the firms
degree of indebtedness and the more financial leverage it has. The two
companys debt ratio almost same it is in between 32% to 36%.
It means the two companies have financed close to half of its assets with debt.
As well as the two companies Time interest earned ratio is not good but in this
case Local Company is in bad position than benchmark company .on the other
hand cash debt coverage ratio is better for Benchmark Company. They have
more cash provided by operating activities than local company.
2013
In 2013 the companies coverage ratios did significantly changed, which is same
for both of the company (39%). So as a whole benchmark companies coverage
ratio is better but both companies should focused in coverage capability.

19 | P a g e
Reference

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/abetf/financials#

http://www.breitburn.com/

http://www.abuoil.com/

http://www.united.com.bd/

http://www.mobilbd.com/

http://www.companyspotlight.com/