Today people cannot grumble about lack of knowledge. On the contrary, with the quarterly outcomes becoming a standard, people are bombarded with a flood of details. But what should an individual focus on – the season on season outcomes or the one fourth on one fourth outcomes – What if they display inconsistent trends? One shows a income development and the other a income development, which is more important or signs of a trend?
Obviously the best would be to have both. That would represent true development at every level – both income as well as income. But what happens if we have one and not the other, whether for the whole season or for a one fourth. Then how should an individual translate the same? Is the outcome an indication of the unsustainability of income which will take into the returning areas or is it just a pattern that the market follows, or some accounting format adopted by the market or the organization as a whole? Examining just Q-on-Q outcomes is no too difficult and should be considered keeping the market styles and scenario in mind, otherwise it could lead to some deceptive results.
For example if one looks at the Q4 outcomes of the pharmaceutical organizations they display that the that income outpaced income. Pharma organizations had mixed performance during the fourth one fourth (Q4) ended Goal 31, 2001, with income failing to keep pace with income development. A research of 63 pharmaceutical companies’ efficiency during Q4 shows that when as opposed to the corresponding one fourth of the season before, while income matured by 13.4 %, net income increased a mere 1.6 %. This is as opposed to the whole year`s efficiency, when mixture net income matured by 10.46 % and net income by 15.64 %.
A closer analysis into the outcomes announced shows that normally Pharmaceutical income follow a cyclical way, with the income peaking in the July-September one fourth and hitting a trough in the January-March one fourth. The reasoning for the pattern is the greater occurrence of diseases during monsoons. In tune with the net income pattern, the net income also follows more or less a identical cyclical way. Comparing the Q4 of 2001 with Q4 of 2000 shows that net Sales and PAT Trend (in Rs crore) The mixture net income of 63 organizations for the January-March 2001 period increased to Rs 2,618.6 crore, from Rs 2,309.6 crore published in the January-March 2000 one fourth. The net income during January-March 2001 was, however, much cheaper at Rs 248.2 crore. Growth pattern of net income and PAT Y-o-Y (in %) indicates that in Q4 2001, profitability development took a beating. In the past 75 percent, income were greater than income when as opposed to their respective corresponding areas of the season before. The demure income development is mainly because other income during the season fell by 10.7 %, while total expenditures increased in range with income development, dampening development in managing income. A 40.6 % development in tax outgo also depressed the net income.
However the efficiency for the one fourth on the expenditures front is definitely a cause for worry. The managing edge at 18 % is smallest among all four areas of FY 2001. The Operating Margin Trend (in %) and the net expenditures display a identical pattern. At 9.5 %, the net income edge (NPM) is the smallest amongst the four areas of FY 2001. Margins have come under stress as expenditures costs have increased. So a careful reading of the Q4 outcomes shows that though the market is more or less following the a pre established pattern, there is cause for concern due damp expenditures due to a development of expenditures. Whether or not this pattern will discharge out into the returning one fourth will be revealed only by a research of what made the expenditures rise-was it research expenditures (in which situation the Q1 for 2001-02 will shows the expenditures moving back), or was it development of input expenditures for certain specific organizations (in which situation those organizations expenditures may not bounce back).
In comparison a research of 38 FMCG organizations, which have announced outcomes for the Goal one fourth, shows that though they have not shown excellent topline development, they have managed a healthy bottom range development. The mixture net income has grown by 6.4 % year-on-year (YoY), but the mixture net income has risen around 27 % YoY. However, it is to be noted that as the FMCG giant, HLL contributes around 57 % to the mixture income of our example, the efficiency of HLL has significantly influenced the market typical. However some results can be drawn on the foundation the outcomes announced. For instance-there is no doubt that decline in farming and industrial development, the stock exchange scam, political concern, and last but not the least natural mishaps like the earth quake in Gujarat, have taken its toll on the FMCG sector. Segment-wise efficiency shows that the deceleration of development has been clearer in messages focused on the non-urban economy, such as toilet cleansers and detergents. On the other hand, niche messages like facial cream, beverage, shampoo, insect repellents, scourers, chocolate and coffee have done well. Though the organizations are finding it challenging to sustain excellent development, cheaper raw materials cost has assisted them improve their expenditures. The managing edge has enhanced by 180 time frame details to 15.4 % YoY. The net edge has also enhanced by 160 time frame details to 9.5 % YoY. Another factor that has assisted organizations display a excellent bottom range is the decrease in the attention expenditures. The mixture attention expenditures for the organizations in the example has lowered by 13 % YoY.
The quarter-on-quarter comparison presents a frustrating picture. Net income have dipped by 0.8 %, while the dip in net income is greater at 22 %. The expenditures have also come under stress when as opposed to the October-December 2000 one fourth. In the past one fourth, the market had a typical managing edge of 17.9 %. What is provided is that with decreasing income development FMCG organizations may find the bottomlines a little challenging to duplicate in buy. The expenditures which surfaced due to a drop in the raw materials expenditures and lowered attention expenditures, may remain old or may even drop in buy.
So overall when interpretation of outcomes look for the causes of a development of the drop of the topline and bottom range. A drop in the topline development, unless it is periodic, is more challenging to correct and to that level is more likely to take into the next areas than a drop in the bottom range development. This is because it is impacted by macro financial aspects out of the control of the organization or market, whereas the drop in bottom range line development is somewhat as a outcome of micro and macro financial aspects which somewhat can be controlled by the organization or market.
For more details visit Share Market India and Stock Market India.