MN 0458:

INVESTMENT AND PERFORMANCE

ANALYSIS

Programme Title: Masters of International Business Administration (MAIBA)

Module Tutor: JOHN ROBINSON
MIKE RIDLEY

Hand in Date: 13th May 2010

Word Count: 3705 (excluding figures, tables, references & appendices)

PREPARED BY:

Aditya Jain
09026748

Page | 1
 Table of Contents

PART-1 (B).....................................................................................................................................3

Part-1 (c): CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE USEFULLNESS OF RETURN ON CAPITAL

EMPLOYED (ROCE), ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED (EVA) AND SHARHOLDER VALUE
ADDED (SVA)................................................................................................................................6

PART-2(A): TOP-DOWN ANALYSIS.........................................................................................10

PART-2 (B): CALCULATION OF CURRENT INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE COMPANY......14

PART-2 (c): Valuation Methods – Future Cash Flow (FCF) method and Price to Book
value ratio (P/B)..........................................................................................................................17

CONSIDERATION OF VODAFONE INTO PORTFOLIO.........................................................19

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................20

APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................24

Page | 2
 PART-1 (B)

The performance word in itself is wide and may include a lot of variables into
consideration when evaluating various parameters of a thing.

For convenience, the performance in the below scenario is divided into industry wise
and country wise company performance and then evaluated separately.

1. Performance evaluation on the basis of Industries

ROCE (%) EVA (£ million) SVA (£ million)

Industry Company
2007 Avg'07 2008 Avg'08 2009 Avg'09 2007 Avg'07 2008 Avg'08 2009 Avg'09 2008/09
Airline Lufthansa 13 13 7 7 - na 1577.68 1577.68 1283.45 1283.45 - na 2516.5996
Beverage Coco Cola 27.72 28.61 - 1721.5 2981.12 - 5123.8102
28.475 27.815 na 2031.5 2652.68 na
Beverage Pepsi 29.23 27.02 - 2341.5 2771.68 - 51737.76
Consume Durables P&G 14.5 14.5 15.1 15.1 16.1 16.1 - na 2533.68 2533.68 4256 4256 15611.4698
Entertainmnet HMV - na 151.38 151.38 55.44 55.44 - na 101.8 101.8 42.1 42.1 346
Mining Industry Anglo American 28.9 28.9 26.3 26.3 - - 1361.5 1361.5 1007.08 1007.08 - 59939.74
Retail Carrefour 16.4 11.9 - 288.6 342.285 - 14162.6145
Retail Gome 11.24 12.63 - 2835.7 14786.3 - 228285.36
Retail John Lewis 7.99 10.6 -15 -4 -37 968.25
Retail M&S 15.572 25 15.87286 19 23 430.5217 608.2 2100.491 254.7 81.92867 1478.5
Retail Sainsbury 8.52 8.19 - -98.57 -169.49 - 1307
Retail Sear 9.7 2.7 - -445.5 -885.36 - 1467.54
Retail WH Smith 32 42.7 39.4 17.9 25.5 28.086 -79

On an industry basis, Airline, Consumer durables, Entertainment and Mining industry

have one company each in the above table which leaves us with no data to compare
within the same industry. However, ROCE of Lufthansa fell significantly with P&G
and Anglo American just marginally over par. HMV however has a fall in ROCE but
still remains positive enough compared to others showing efficiency of operations at
HMV. However, Hmv along with Lufthansa and Anglo-American fell in EVA signifying
non-efficiency of the usage of shareholder capital by the companies. P&G on other
hand show a massive increase in its EVA over two years. SVA for all the companies
has been however positive.

Page | 3
 In Beverage industry, comparing Coca cola with Pepsi the ROCE and EVA growth
remain superior with Coca cola however SVA of Pepsi signifies future benefit to an
investor for investing in Pepsi compared to its counterpart.

With retail industry having a fair balance of 7 companies WH smith turns out to be
the company with maximum ROCE growth, and John Lewis and M&S closely
following. Gome records massive Eva growth which also leads to the increase in the
average industry performance. Sva of each company is positive with an exception of
WH smith.

Finally, the industries in the above scenario cannot be compared because of the lack
of information and difference in no. of companies in specific industries which brings
changes in the average industry performance. However, HMV manages its capital
most efficiently whereas Gome provides the shareholders with maximum returns and
indicating good use of shareholder capital.

2. Performance evaluation on the basis of countries

ROCE EVA
Country Company SVA
2007 avg'07 2008 avg'08 2009 avg'09 2007 avg'07 2008 avg'08 2009 avg'09
CHINA Gome 11.24 11.24 12.63 12.63 2835.7 2835.7 14786.3 14786.3 228285.36
FRANCE Carrefour 16.4 16.4 11.9 11.9 288.6 288.6 342.285 342.285 14162.6145
GERMANY Lufthansa 13 13 7 7 1577.68 1577.68 1283.45 1283.45 2516.5996
UK HMV 151.38 55.44 101.8 42.1 346
UK John Lewis 7.99 10.6 -15 -4 -37 968.25
UK M&S 20.26 25 47.052 19 31.11 -31.89 608.2 112.402 254.7 71.9715 1478.5
UK Sainsbury 8.52 8.19 -98.57 -169.49 1307
UK WH Smith 32 42.7 39.4 17.9 25.5 28.086 -79
US Anglo American 28.9 26.3 1361.5 1007.08 59939.74
US Coco Cola 27.72 28.61 - 1721.5 2981.12 5123.8102
US P&G 14.5 22.01 15.1 19.946 16.1 16.1 1244.75 2533.68 1681.64 4256 4256 15611.4698
US Pepsi 29.23 27.02 2341.5 2771.68 51737.76
US Sear 9.7 2.7 -445.5 -885.36 1467.54

Again in the above table the comparison between companies of China, Germany
and France will not be appropriate as there are one company each. However,
China’s Gome as pointed earlier is the best performing company on the basis of its
strong and positive EVA and SVA values.

Page | 4
Comparing the companies of UK with US, on an average UK companies manage
their assets better and have better productivity on the capital employed showcasing
a positive and better average ROCE’s of companies as compared to the companies
of US. However, US companies are in a better position than UK companies as they
have a positive and consistent EVA and SVA on an average which shall create value
for the shareholders and investors.

Finally, it shall be again pointed that the above performance indicators are not
always the correct measure of measuring the performance of a company. However
they provide with a starting point and as a benchmark to compare. Moreover, as
seen above we need other companies to compare with its performance.The critical
evaluation of these performance indicators are further broadened in the next section.

Page | 5
 Part-1 (c): CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE USEFULLNESS OF
RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED (ROCE), ECONOMIC VALUE
ADDED (EVA) AND SHARHOLDER VALUE ADDED (SVA)

INTRODUCTION

The financial reporting of a firm helps provide benchmark to assess internal and
external performance of a firm to potential investors, creditors and others to make
important business decisions (Ezeagba, 2001). However, the performance indication
can only be meaningful to the user if it bears a true reflection of the relationship that
it intends to measure (Enyi, 2006).

RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED (ROCE)

Measuring the efficiency of the management in the application or use of the

organization’s funds or resources in a given financial period it analysis the past or
present performance of the firm. Expressed as a percentage on nominal capital it
helps present the investors or analyst weather a company is making reasonable
return on profits which can be compared with other companies in same industry and
used as parameter to see what the rate of return earned is on the capital
(Silberstone and Solomons, 1958). Further as Bishop (1969) points that it acts as a
significant planning tool and as a keystone in a toolset of ratios, a ROCE system can
be a powerful instrument to help control managerial performance.

Though the use of ROCE as a performance indicator is desirable but also is spurious
and capable of providing misleading information. Firstly, the use of capital employed
is as defined by a company’s balance sheet which would be invariably influenced by
the static nature of the value as per that specific date and not for the entire period.
Moreover, it tends to produce an average rather than the total resources employed
leading to larger than life results (Enyi, 2006).
Secondly, the non-inclusion of interest element in the earnings part for determination
of financial performance is inaccurate and therefore unacceptable as the interest
element is the cost of using the borrowing fund which is part and parcel of the firm’s
operating costs.

Page | 6
Thirdly, as pointed by Bishop (1969), it is inadequate if it used as a sole yardstick for
appraising managerial performance but it takes a strong position if placed in a set of
managerial toolkit which provides an essential aid. Finally, a valuable use of the
ROCE system lies in inter-firm comparisons.

ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED (EVA)

As a measure of economic (not accounting) profit and showing the difference

between the cost of capital and return on that capital is most directly linked to the
creation of shareholder wealth overtime. (Young, 2000; Ferguson, Rentzler and Yu,
2005). Supportively, Tully (1993) point that it provides a measure of wealth creation
that aligns the goal of divisional or plant managers with the goals of the entire
company.

Accoring to Makelainen (1998) and Tully (1993), EVA can encourage management
and employees to understand the cost of equity capital and give an organization
marked competitive advantage along with doing what other performance tools do.
Moreover a lot of companies rely heavily on EVA to evaluate and reward managers
from all functional departments. Further, In comparison to traditional performance
measures, which suffer from inherent defects that may cause dysfunctional decision-
making on the part of managers. EVA is highly accurate because it includes the cost
of debt and equity financing (Young, 2000 and Otley, 1999). Further, acting as a
reliable guide, on basis of its past performance it can be used to enhance future
earnings predictions being highly associated with stock returns and firm values.
(Biddle, Boweii and Wallace 1997; Garvey and Milbourn, 2000; Machuga, Preiffer,
and Verma, 2002 and Abate, Grant and Stewart III, 2004)

Despite Eva’s advantage over traditional measures it has limitations as it does not
control over size differences across divisions, a larger division will tend to have
higher Eva relative to its smaller counterpart (Hansen and Mowen, 1997 and
Horngren, Foster and Datar, 1997). Moreover due to its Short-term orientation it
overemphasizes the need to generate immediate results which may create
disincentive for managers to invest in innovative product or process technologies as
it is might show a current negative EVA even though the true rate of return would be

Page | 7
positive in long-term for the same (Malelainen, 1998 and Brewer, Chandra and Hock,
1999).

Further, it involves complex adjustments to Net Operating Profit after Tax (NOPAT),
capital employed and cost of capital (Wacc) which requires transparent and credible
calculations because of the different ways of assigning the same (Barbera and
Coyte, 1998 and Young, 2000).

SHAREHOLDER VALUE ADDED (SVA)

Presenting the net present value of expected cash flows discounted by cost of
capital, SVA from a no. of uses helps in setting or reviewing business strategies by
providing forecasts by making a note of past performances and then benchmarking
the future on the basis of assumptions. This also helps in investment and divestment
decisions where it presents present value to be compared with other company’s
performances to the investors (Barbera and Coyte, 1998). According to Rappaport
(1986, p.52) ‘it is a superior method of analysing and understanding how much value
the corporation and each of its business units are creating for shareholders and what
the options are for improving performance’. Further as pointed by Barbera and Coyte
(1998), it is a basis for restructuring and managing corporation so that it creates
value. According to Lazonick and O’Sullivan (2000), apart from proving assistance in
corporate governance it also benefits economy as a whole. It is also helpful in
operational decisions and incentive-compensation schemes and is a powerful tool
which helps in business improvements by setting priorities and through focus on the
key value drivers, determining how to act on them Barbera and Coyte, 1998).

However, the method of SVA is based on the future assumptions, which turn out to
be one negative point for the same. (Neale and McElroy, 2004)

Page | 8
Own Experience in Using ROCE, EVA and SVA

The usage of ROCE in practice though easy to understand but was time consuming
only to the part of collecting the financial data from the balance sheets. Further, the
ROCE is not only easy to understand but also easy to apply and calculate as it
involves general techniques that we have been studying from so long.

The use of EVA in comparison was the most complex as it involved a lot of
calculations along with the justification to those adjustments. However, knowing
about the use of economic model rather than just that of the accounting methods
was helpful. The use of SVA, though a little lengthy, but was comparatively easier
than the EVA method. However the use of assumptions in estimating the SVA
looked vague personally to me because it had to be backed up by superior
justifications. Moreover, the assumptions need not be too optimistic so that the SVA
value could be as true as possible.

CONCLUSION

Finally as Enyi (2006) points, any performance measure which fails to take all costs
(expended or expendable) and all earned revenue into consideration cannot be
suitably employed as a performance indicator. However, it must be noted that no
performance measure is perfect and none of them can predict the exact performance
of an organization.

Page | 9
 PART-2(A): TOP-DOWN ANALYSIS

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

With the world economy facing heat from global meltdown, the UK economy
registered a record low and contracted to 5.0% in 2009. However, with the efforts
being made from the UK government, GDP grew 0.3% q/q basis in the fourth quarter
of 2009 indicating sustainable growth despite serious economic and financial
obstacles. GDP is forecasted to be 0.8% in 2010 and further 1.7% in 2011. (Archer,
2010; Datamonitor, 2009; Economic Intelligence Unit, 2009)

Source: Archer (2010), IHS Global Insight Source: Archer (2010), IHS Global Insight

Table: Impact of Economic Indicators

MEASURE IMPACT MEASURE IMPACT
GDP Projected growth 1.6%- Positive NET FOREIGN TRADE Exports 4.5% and imports
impact 4.1%- Positive impact
INFLATION Predicted to decrease from 3% - CONSUMER SPENDING Up by 1%- Positive impact
Positive impact
INTEREST Predicted to be low at 0.5% - INDUSTRIAL Predicted to increase to
RATE Firm’s cost decrease- Positive PRODUCTION 2%- Positive Impact
Source: Archer (2010), IHS Global Insight

Inflation as projected should fall back from around May’10 below the Bank of
England’s medium-term target rate of 2.0% by the end of 2010 and remain around
there in most of 2011 and subsequently increase the consumer spending power
currently up by 1% making it favourable for companies in the UK economy which will
on a bigger picture lead to an increase in industrial production from -11.7% to 2.0%
by the end of 2010. The interest rate which is at current record-low level of 0.50% is
expected to stay same until early 2011. However, government’s quantitative easing
program would help to encourage banks to lend money into economy. (Archer, 2010)

Page | 10
The Net foreign trade is projected to be positive and help economy grow
subsequently. British pound has sunk to a 10-month low of US$1.478(March) from
US$1.635(January). However, as suspected sterling at relatively weak levels would
help support trade and rebalance the economy. Finally, Inventory developments
through strong government spending will be relatively strong in 2010 as part of the
fiscal stimulus to boost eco-government spending. (Datamonitor, 2009; Economic
Intelligence Unit, 2009)

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

Chart: Communications has been relatively Chart: Growth in telecoms and IT activities are
expected to return this year resilient to the global economic downturn

Source: ONS, OEF, LTSB Corporate Markets Source: ONS, OEF, LTSB Corporate Markets
Economic Research Economic Research

The UK’s service sector has been consistently growing in importance over the past
decade and it dominates over the other sectors by far (Datamonitor, 2009). Though
the consumer spending on telecoms fell only 1.1% in the recession, compared with a
near 4% fall in consumer spending as a whole, the UK telecom sector has
weathered the recession well, as consumer spending on this area remained
relatively resilient. Moreover, the fall was cushioned by the trend towards greater
outsourcing of activities (Lloyds TSB, 2010)

Finally the UK telecom sector which has one of the lowest revenue leakage rates
globally (KPMG, 2010) though contracted by 1% in 2009 but is forecasted to recover
this year and reach to 3% by 2011, helped by new products and growth in mobile
access and content provision (Lloyds TSB, 2010). Revenues are expected to
increase from growth in mobile access and content provision and availability of 3G
technology. Moreover, the convergence of telecoms and media via content and

Page | 11
strong underlying demand is also expected to drive investment spending considering
the new opportunities such as UK prepares to host 2012 Olympics (Lloyds TSB,
2010).

COMPANY ANALYSIS

Vodafone group has been the leading mobile telecom service provider over years
and has a diversified revenue base with penetration into worldwide markets having
equity interests in 27 countries and partner networks in over 40 countries which
enhances operating performance and reduces business risk of the group.

Vodafone British Telecom

Revenue-08-09 (£ mln.) 41017 21390
Revenue-07-08 (£mln.) 35478 20704
Income 08-09 (£mln.) 3078 -83
Income 07-08 (£mln.) 6660 1738
P/E (%) 8.30 7.85
Dividend- 2008 7.51 15.8
2009 7.77 6.5
Beta Value 0.810 0.826

Compared to 3.3% growth in revenue of British-Telecom (its close competitor in UK-

market), Vodafone grew at 15.6% to £41bln. Moreover as compared British-
Telecom’s loss of 105% loss in net-income to -83 million £, Vodafone fell by 53.7%
but though remained in positive figures. Moreover, Vodafone has maintained stable
dividend growth policy and maintains beta value 0.810 as compared to BT’s volatile
dividend payout which fell by 59% and paying out dividend’s from losses it suffered
leading to beta value at 0.826. Further Vodafone has a solid marketing and operating

Page | 12
strategies along with a resilient structure based on a diverse portfolio of assets in
both emerging and mature markets the inclusion of Vodafone into the portfolio would
be appropriate and shall bring positive and stable returns to the overall portfolio.

Page | 13
 PART-2 (B): CALCULATION OF CURRENT INTRINSIC VALUE OF
THE COMPANY

Cash being the lifeblood of any business, acts as a key skill as it directly impacts the
ability to predict operating decisions which affect revenue, expenses, capital
expenditures and above all, the resulting unlevered free cash flows to the firm. To
determine how much excess cash, a company generates from its operations after
capital expenditures and other expenses, it makes sense to look at the free cash
flow (FCF). Investors these days follow path where occurs little risk of additional
compression of P/E multiples and where the general level of cash flow and free cash
flow are both healthy and stable.
As pointed by Lehman Brothers analyst Tumothy Gerdeman quoted in Chang
(2001), “Looking at free cash flow instead of reported earnings per share is a better
indication of the kind of real value being created by the entity instead of clouding the
underlying cash flow by accounting rules” (Chang, 2001).The intrinsic value of
Vodafone has thus been established using FCF (DCF technique) and Price to Book
Value method-P/BV (Relative valuation technique).

FREE CASH FLOW METHOD

0 0 1 2 3 4
(In £ millions)
Discounted Cash Flow 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E
Turnover 29350 31104 35478 41017 45891 49883 52471 53521 54591
Growth % 6% 14% 16% 12% 9% 5% 2% 2%
EBITA 7072 18353 19089 20771 21517 2791 2938 2997 3057
Margin % 24.1% 59.0% 53.8% 50.6% 46.9% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%
Depreciation 3079 3011 3427 4061 4558 4880 5154 5278 5379
% Sales 10.5% 9.7% 9.7% 9.9% 9.9% 9.8% 9.8% 9.9% 9.9%
Chg Working Capital 5280 6435 7913 3671 8023 8649 8670 8070 9068
% Sales 18.00% 20.70% 22.30% 8.90% 17.50% 17.40% 16.50% 15.10% 16.60%
Capex (4481) (3633) (3852) (5204) (5925) (11712) (11339) (5806) (5917)
Multiple Depreciation 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 2.4 2.2 1.1 1.1
Cash Tax (2380) (2423) (2245) (1109) (3751) (754) (793) (809) (825)
Rate % PY EBITA -34.26% -12.23% -5.81% -17.43% -27% -27% -27% -27%
Free Cashflow 21743 24332 22190 24421 3854 4630 9730 10762
Growth % 10% -84% 20% 110% 11%
Discount Factor 1.00 0.90 0.82 0.74 0.67 Term Value
Discounted Free Cashflow 24421 3488 3792 7212 7218 86619

Enterprise Value 132751

Net Funds / (Debt) (37420)
Minority Intrestes 2
Equity Value 95333
WACC 10.50% CAGR Sales 7.41%
Terminal Growth 2% CAGR EBITA -38.06%
No. Shares 52641.19
Value Per Share 181.099327

Page | 14
As shown in the figure above, free cash flow available (£ 22190 mln. for FY’09)
represents strong intrinsic value of common equity plus the market value of debt.
However, avoiding too much optimism it is assumed that the growth rate will fall
down because the value of the various mergers and acquisitions deals that have
occurred in recent times from the part of Vodafone group still needs to be realized
which takes time. Nevertheless, the value of the share after deducting net debts
gives price (181) which is still more than the current stock price (145.7) of Vodafone
which points out that the share value is being undervalued and providing appropriate
weightage in the portfolio will yield further positive results.

Price to Book Value Ratio

Total Assets 152699
Total Liabilities 67922
No. Of Outstanding shares 333

Book value per share 254.59

Market price of Share 145.27

Price Book Value Ratio 0.57

Fig.1 Fig. 2 Source: www.ft.com

RATE OF RETURN
Risk free rate of return (RF) 3.83
Expected Market return (Km) 16.196
Beta value 0.809
Rate of return (ks) 13.834

Fig.3

Moreover, calculation of price to book value (P/BV) ratio above in fig.1 (i.e. 0.57)
supports the undervalued nature of the Vodafone stock as it already has high return
on equity at 9.57 for the current financial period. Further the recent acquisitions
would have increased the book value, result of which P/B would have gone down. It
also shows the true earnings though it has been calculated on book value.

Page | 15
Furthermore, as per the FT data shown in fig.2, it is again supported by the
calculation of FCFE and P/BV, showing the undervalued stock price by the red line
currently near 145 and green line showing the future expected value that can be
reached at 200. Finally, the growth in free cash flow rate which comes out to be 10% is
less than the rate of return (ks) which is calculated at 13.83 again shows the difference
because of the book values of the assets yet to be realised.

Page | 16
 PART-2 (c): Valuation Methods – Future Cash Flow (FCF) method
and Price to Book value ratio (P/B)

FUTURE CASH FLOW EQUITY (FCFE)

Out of all the DCF techniques available, FCFE being the most simple and
transparent is a true metric for actual cash generation. The lead advantage of using
FCFE over others is that it has the entire company cash and valuation chain
(revenues, margins, working capital and capital expenditures) in one comprehensive
formula and most importantly it accounts for capital as uses of cash and adds back
non-cash expenses (D&A) to net income to get a clear picture of how much actual
cash the business generated. It also is independent of financing and therefore not
affected by capital structure (Copeland, Koller & Murrin, 2000). Moreover, he points
that, our management reports might be weaker, misleading and less powerful if we
keep cash flows and unit volumes out of the calculation criterion of the intrinsic value
of a company. According to Christy (2006), various academic researches on
company valuation have concluded that a company’s stock price is determined by
the stock market’s assessment of the company’s expected cash flows and not by the
company’s historical or expected GAAP earnings. Further, Penman and Sougiannis
(1997), advocates that maximizing FCF maximizes company’s options and
opportunities whereas maximizing GAAP earnings can maximize trouble.

With specific regards to the Vodafone apart from other advantages that FCFE has
over others, the rationale for using includes factors such as: it also had moderate
debt levels and While Vodafone has had a history of extraordinary growth, its growth
is moderating because it is becoming a much larger company with lots of mergers
and acquisitions, value of which is still to be realized.

Page | 17
PRICE TO BOOK VALUE (P/BV)

Comparing company’s current market share price to book value per share, a price to
book ratio is a useful measure to get a quick impression of what the market thinks
about the key value drivers of a firm: growth, profitability, and risk and attempts to
represent the investment that common shareholders have made in the company, on
a per-share basis (Schreiner, 2007).

In comparison to PE, even firms with negative earnings, which cannot be valued
using PE ratios, can be evaluated using price-book value ratios. Moreover, P/B
multiple might be more useful than P/E when analyzing companies with erratic
earnings pattern because book value per share is more stable than EPS. Further,
O’Shaughnessy (2005) found a significant correlation between price-to-book value
ratios and stock price performance with positive future growth in earnings.
Supportively, since book value per share is more stable than EPS, P/B multiple
maybe more useful than P/E when analyzing companies with erratic earnings
pattern.

It is also one of the efficient models for determining the appropriate cost of capital of
a firm in the hedge funds and private equity industry (Gitman and Joehnk, 2008).
Further Bodie et al (2009) state that P/BV is not affected by inflation as it is valued at
the book value whereas P/E is volatile to the same.

According to Reilly and Brown (2003), the P/BV ratios are quite approachable if the
companies accounting measures are consistent every year. Further they point that
though calculated on book value but when discounted at present value it shows the
true earnings of the company. Suozzo, Cooper, Sutherland & Deng (2001) suggest
to view the P/B multiple together with return on common equity as it might not be
sufficient enough reflect a firm’s earnings power at times.

CONSIDERATION OF VODAFONE INTO PORTFOLIO

Page | 18
The financial analyst’s task is to analyze and forecast the forthcoming changes due
to the future changes. The current value of the Vodafone stock which is currently
undervalued at 145, when introduced into the portfolio increases the average beta of the
portfolio 0.886 from 0.511 (Appendix-III). Further, the inclusion of Vodafone group into
the portfolio leads to an overall Holding Period Return (HPR) of 53.59% (Appendix-I).
Due to market fluctuations resulting from the global economic depression and the
loss in selling of Cadbury and low performance of Boots there exists realised loss of
£10000million and unrealized gain is £3886237 million. However, The Jenson’s
Alpha is 38.81 (Appendix- IV) is positive and thus implies that it is gaining positive
and excess returns. Moreover it’s acquisitions and merger deals in the past is
currently realising value and would be on a strong positive foothold in the future the
inclusion of Vodafone is suggested.

Finally, the inclusion of Vodafone into the portfolio brings a diversification in the portfolio and
one shall always recall portfolio theory asserting that diversification in various
industries is important (Levy, 2002).

Page | 19
 REFERENCES

1. Abate, J. A., Grant. J. L., and Stewart III, B. G. (2004), ‘The EVA Style of
Investing’, The Journal of Porlfolio Managemenl. 30 (4), pp. 61-73.
2. Archer, H. (2010) ‘United Kingdom’, IHS Global Insight, pp.129-138. EBSCO
[Online]. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 2 May 2010).
3. Barbera, M. and Coyte, R. (1998) Shareholder demystified: An explanation of
methodologies and use, Australian Centre for management Accounting
Development: Sydney.
4. Biddle, G. C., Boweii, R. M. and Wallace, J. S. (1997), ‘Does EVA Beat
Earnings? Evidence on Associations with Stock Returns and Firm Values’,
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24 (3), pp. 301 337.
5. Bishop, E. B. (1969) ‘R.O.C.E as a tool for planning and control’, Long Range
Planning, 2(2), pp. 80-87. Science Direct [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com (Accessed: 4 May 2010).
6. Bodie, Z., Kane, A. and Marcus, A. J. (2009) Investments. 8th edn. Mc
GrawHill.
7. Brewer, P. C., Chandra, G. and Hock, C. A. (1999) ‘Economic Value Added
(EVA): Its Uses and Limitations’, Sam Advanced Management Journal. P.4-
11. EBSCO [Online]. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 6
May 2010).
8. Chang, J. (2001) ‘Focus shifts to free cash flow in return to value Investing’,
Chemical Market Reporter, 259(12), pp. 12-28.
9. Christy, G. C. (2006) Free Cash Flow: A Two hour primer for management
and the board, Booklocker: USA.
10. Copeland, T., Koller, T. and Murrin, J. (2000) Valuation: Measuring and
Managing the Value of Companies, 3rd edn. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.
11. Datamonitor (2009) Global telecommunication services: Industry Profile. Pp.
1-35. EBSCO [Online] Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 2
May 2010).
12. Datamonitor (2009) United Kingdom: Country Analysis Report – In-depth
PESTLE Insights, Datamonitor, pp.1-78. EBSCO [Online]. Available at:
http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 4 May 2010).

Page | 20
13. Datamonitor (2009) Vodafone Group PLC. pp. 1-31. EBSCO [Online].
Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 2 May 2010).
14. Economic Intelligence Unit (2009) Country Report: United Kingdom, pp. 1-18.
EBSCO [Online]. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 6 May
2010).
15. Enyi, E.P. (2006) How useful is the return on capital employed (roce) as a
performance indicator. Pp.1-14. Available at: http://www.financialcertified.com
(Accessed: 4 May 2010).
16. Ezeagba, C. E. (2001), Modern advanced financial accounting: Theory
and practice, J’Goshen Publishers: Awka.
17. Ferguson, R., Rentzler, J. and Susana Yu (2005) ‘Does Economic Value
Added (EVA) Improve Stock Performance Profitability?’, Journal of Applied
Finance. pp-101-113.
18. Garvey, G. T. and Milbourn, T. D. (2000), ‘EVA versus Earnings: Does It
Matter Which Is More Highly Correlated With Stock Returns?’ Journal of
Accounting Research, 38. pp. 209-246.
19. Gitman, L. J. and Joehnk, M. D. (2008) Fundamentals of Investing. 10th edn.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
20. Hansen, D. and Mowen, M. (1997) Cost Management; Accounting and
control. Cinincinnati, OH: Southwestern Publishing.
21. Horngren, C. Foster, G. and Datar, S. (1997) Cost Accounting: A managerial
emphasis. NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. http://www.bloomberg.com
23. http://www.Btplc.com
24. http://www.vodafone.com
25. KPMG (2010) ‘Revenue Assurance in Telecommunications Progressing or
Preserving: Global Revenue Assurance Survey 2009 Results’, KPMG
International. Pp.1-50. EBSCO [Online].Available at:
http://search.ebscohost.com (Accessed: 2 May 2010).
26. Lazonick, W. and O’Sullivan, M. (2000) ‘Maximizing shareholder value: a new
ideology for corporate governance’, Economy and Society, 29 (1), pp.13-35.
27. Levy, H. (2002) Fundamentals of Investments. Harlow: Financial Times
Prentice Hall.

Page | 21
28. Lloyds TSB corporate markets (2010) ‘Financial Markets Economic Research:
Media’, Telecoms and IT Review. Available at:
http://www.lloydstsb.com/corporatemarkets.
29. Machuga, S. M., Preiffer. R. J. Jr. and Verma, K. (2002). ‘Economic Value
Added. Future Accounting Earnings, and Financial Analysts' Earnings per
Share Forecasts’, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 18 (I), pp.
59-73.
30. Makelainen, E. (1998) ‘Economic Value Added as a management tool’,
Helsinki School of Economics, p.1-34. Available at:
http://www.evanomics.com (Accessed: 29 April 2010).

31. Neale, B. & McElroy, T. (2004) in Business finance: a value-based approach.

Pearson Education, p. 484.
32. O’Shaughnessy, J. P. (2005) What works on wall street: a guide to the best-
performing investment strategies of all time. USA: Mcgraw Hill.
33. Otley, D. (1999) ‘Performance management: a framework for management
control systems research’, Management Accounting research, 10, pp. 363-
382.
34. Penman, S. H. and Sougiannis, T., A. (1997) Comparison of Dividend, Cash
Flow, and Earnings Approaches to Equity Valuation. SSRN [Online]. Available
at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=15043.
35. Penman, S.H., (1996) ‘The Articulation of Price-Earnings Ratios and Market-
to-Book Ratios and the Evaluation of Growth’, Journal of Accounting
Research, 34, pp. 235-259.
36. Rappaport, A. (1986) Creating Shareholder Value, the new standard of
business performance, The Free Press: New York.
37. Reilly, F.K. & Brown, K.C. (2003), Investment Analysis & Portfolio
Management. 7th Edn, THOMPSON.
38. Schreiner, A. (2007) ‘Equity Valuation Multiples: An Empirical Investigation’,
Academic Network, University of St. Gallen, pp. 22-26.
39. Silberstone, A. and Solomons, D. (1958) ‘Monopoly Investigation and the
Rate of Return on Capital Employed’, The Economic Journal, 62 (248), pp.
781-801. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2226526 (Accessed: 29 April
2010).

Page | 22
40. Suozzo, P., Cooper, S., Sutherland, G., Deng, Z. (2001) Valuation Multiples:
A Primer Research report, UBS Investment Bank.
41. Tully, S. (1993) ‘The real key to creating wealth’, Fortune, pp. 38-50.
42. Young, S. D. (2000) EVA and Value-Based Management: A practical guide to
implementation. McGraw hill.

Page | 23
 APPENDICES

Appendix-I: Holding Period Return

HPR of 5 years
HPR = ( Dividends + Realised Gain + Unrealised Gain )
Initial investment + ( Weighted New Funds - Weighted Withdrawn Funds)

( £295.58 + -£10,000.00 + £ 3,886,237.00 )

( £7,234,053.00 + £0.00 )

£3,876,532.58
£7,234,053.00

HPR = 53.59%

Page | 24
 Appendix-II: Realised and Unrealised Gain (Loss)

C
u Annual
Start of Year r Unrealised
EPIC NAME Date of update Current Volume Valuation r Value (£) Realised Gain Gain / (Loss)
SSE Scottish & Southern Energy PLC 30-Apr-10 400 £371,800.00 £449,200.00 £77,400.00

NG.L National Grid Co PLC 30-Apr-10 700 £401,828.00 £458,150.00 £56,322.00

UU. United Utilities Group PLC 30-Apr-10 500 £321,750.00 £286,250.00 (£35,500.00)
BATS British American Tobacco PLC 30-Apr-10 1,300 £1,235,650.00 £2,841,150.00 £1,605,500.00
VOD.L Vodafone Group PLC 30-Apr-10 2,000 £541,500.00 £290,540.00 -£10,000.00 (£250,960.00)
RB Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC 30-Apr-10 300 £506,400.00 £1,020,900.00 £514,500.00
TRG TR European Growth Trust 30-Apr-10 5,000 £1,295,000.00 £1,695,000.00 £400,000.00
BP. BP PLC 30-Apr-10 1,000 £530,000.00 £575,500.00 £45,500.00
TLW Tullow Oil 30-Apr-10 2,000 £352,000.00 £2,294,000.00 £1,942,000.00
BHY Boot (Henry) PLC 30-Apr-10 2,000 £972,000.00 £193,200.00 (£778,800.00)
MRW Morrison(Wm) Supermarkets PLC 30-Apr-10 3,500 £706,125.00 £1,016,400.00 £310,275.00
£7,234,053.00 £11,120,290.00 -£10,000.00 £ 3,886,237.00

Page | 25
 Appendix-III: Beta Value

EPIC NAME Date of update Current price Beta WaccCurrent volume Value weight weighted Beta
SSE Scottish & Southern Energy PLC 30-Apr-10 1123 0.78 400 £ 449,200.00 0.040395357 0.031508378
NG.L National Grid Co PLC 30-Apr-10 654.5 0.84 700 £ 458,150.00 0.041200206 0.034608173
UU. United Utilities Group PLC 30-Apr-10 572.5 0.79 500 £ 286,250.00 0.025741698 0.020335942
BATS British American Tobacco PLC 30-Apr-10 2185.5 0.84 1300 £ 2,841,150.00 0.255497033 0.214617508
VOD.L Vodafone Group Plc 30-Apr-10 145.27 0.809 2000 £ 290,540.00 0.026127486 0.021137136
RB Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC 30-Apr-10 3403 0.61 300 £ 1,020,900.00 0.091806811 0.056002155
TRG TR European Growth Trust 30-Apr-10 339 0.87 - 5000 £ 1,695,000.00 0.152426824 0.132611337
BP. BP PLC 30-Apr-10 575.5 0.99 1000 £ 575,500.00 0.051753178 0.051235646
TLW Tullow Oil 30-Apr-10 1147 1.2 2000 £ 2,294,000.00 0.206293294 0.247551953
BHY Boot (Henry) PLC 30-Apr-10 96.5 0.54 2000 £ 193,000.00 0.017355975 0.009372226
MRW Morrison(Wm) Supermarkets PLC 30-Apr-10 290.4 0.74 3500 £ 1,016,400.00 0.091402138 0.067637582
£ 11,120,090.00 1 0.886618036

EPIC NAME Date of Update Last Price Beta volume Value weight Weighted Beta
SSE Scottish & Southern Energy PLC 15-Apr-05 929.5 0.57 400 371800 0.051395808 0.029295611
NG.L National Grid Co PLC 15-Apr-05 574.04 0.6 700 401828 0.055546732 0.033328039
UU. United Utilities Group PLC 15-Apr-05 643.5 0.5 500 321750 0.044477142 0.022238571
BATS British American Tobacco PLC 15-Apr-05 950.5 0.38 1300 1235650 0.170810195 0.064907874
CBRY Cadbury PLC 15-Apr-05 541.5 0.62 1000 541500 0.074854304 0.046409668
RB Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC 15-Apr-05 1688 0.45 300 506400 0.070002252 0.031501013
TRG TR European Growth Trust 15-Apr-05 259 0.7 5000 1295000 0.179014447 0.125310113
BP. BP PLC 15-Apr-05 530 1.06 1000 530000 0.0732646 0.077660476
TLW Tullow Oil 15-Apr-05 176 0.45 2000 352000 0.048658753 0.021896439
BHY Boot (Henry) PLC 15-Apr-05 486 0.01 2000 972000 0.134364512 0.001343645
MRW Morrison(Wm) Supermarkets PLC 15-Apr-05 201.75 0.59 3500 706125 0.097611256 0.057590641
7234053 1 0.51148209

Page | 26
 Appendix-IV: Jensen’s Alpha

Jensen's Alpha = ( Total Portfolio Return - Risk Free Rate ) - [Portfolio Beta x ( Market Return - Risk Free Rate)]

53.59% - 3.8% - 0.9 x 16.20% - 3.8%

49.76% - 0.9 x 12.40%

Jensen's Alpha = 38.81%

Page | 27