BUS 505TERM PAPER

Financial Statements Analysis

Total 34 companies of Cement, Ceramic and Engineering Industries

SUBMITTED
TO
Syed Abdullah Al Mamun . Ph.D., ACMA Assistant Professor School of Business

BY
Shubhagata Chakraborty (ID: 123-0193-060) M.Saniul Haque (ID: 123-0195-060) Jamil M. Ameen (ID: 123-0194-060) Section: 01

North South University

Syed Abdullah Al Mamun, Ph.D., ACMA Assistant Professor School Of Business North South University (NSU) Dear Sir, We have the pleasure in submitting our report on Financial Statements Analysis total 34 companies of Cement, Ceramic and Engineering Industries, which has been assigned to us earlier as a group term paper.

The main purpose of the term paper is to begin to integrate the many concepts we have studied and to give an opportunity to apply our learning in a real-world setting. We have tried our level best to conclusive while preparing the report and our intention was never directed to undermine any concerned.

We would like to express our special gratitude to you, as you have helped us with your continuous support and guidance.

With Sincerest Thanks. Shubhagata Chakraborty (ID: 123-0193-060) Jamil M. Ameen (ID: 123-0194-060) M.Saniul Haque (ID: 123-0195-060)

Executive Summary
Financial statement analysis is a process of reviewing and evaluating a company's financial performance, where ratio analysis is one of the tools to analyze financial statements. Here, objective of the report is to analyze the performance of 34 companies (2 years) belonging to three different industries; Cement, Ceramic and Engineering. Data analysis was performed on three broad phases; (1) Ratio analysis (2) Industry wise ranking under major heads (based on every ratio and average) (3) Correlation among major heads. Considering one (1) being the best, companies have been ranked based on every ratio for two years separately. Afterward average ranking score was calculated and taken to evaluate their performance. Overall performance of Cement industry is quite stable. Among all 6 companies of the industry, Heidelberg Cement BD performed consistently well in both the years. This is even one of the best performing companies among all 34 companies. On the other hand, being a very large company in Bangladesh Lafarge Surma Cement did really bad, it took last and second last position in two consecutive years. In case of ceramic industry, RAK Ceramics always had a consistent praise worthy performance and so considering the overall ratios, the average ranking was 1.48 in 2010. No other company of this industry or among all there industries were even close to this figure in the stated year. Apart from RAK, performance of other companies in the industry is quite identical; almost all of them scored around 3 in both the years. Considering all the 23 companies of the engineering industry, Navana CNG was first with the best performance ranking value of 6.43 and 6.07 in the years 2010 and 2011 respectively. Moreover, Singer Bangladesh and Atlas Bangladesh also performed well in both the years and scored close to Navana CNG. However, some companies like GPH Ispat Ltd , Kay & Que, Renwick Jajneswar& Co , and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels LTD consistently performed bad in both the years. During correlation calculation among four ratio heads (Like correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio), both the years we identified positive correlation at 1% significance level. Considering this, it can be said that all 34 companies had identical performance in all the departments according to financial ratios calculation.

Table of Contents
Page No.
1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Methodology 4. Data Analysis 4.1 Industry Wise Ranking 4.1.1 Liquidity Ratio 4.1.2 Solvency Ratio 4.1.3 Profitability Ratio 4.1.4 Capital Market Performance Ratio 4.1.5 Overall Ranking Score 4.2 Correlation 4.2.1 Correlation_2010 4.2.1 Correlation_2011 5. Conclusion 6. Reference 7. Appendix 05 07 09 13 13 14 17 20 23 26 29 30 34 38 39 40

1. Introduction
Financial Statements are useful because they provide information that allows investors and creditors to make better decisions. However, because of selective reporting of economic events as well as non-comparable accounting methods and estimates, financial statements are only an approximation of reality. In addition, because of the tendency to delay accounting recognition, financial statements also tend to lag reality. A primary objective of financial analysis is to determine comparable risk and return of companies and their securities. Financial statements include the Income Statement Owners Equity Statement Balance Sheet Cash Flow Statement Notes The financial statements are interrelated and should be used and analyzed together. According to Drake (2010), financial statement analysis is the selection, evaluation, and interpretation of financial data, along with other pertinent information, to assist in investment and financial decision-making. Moreover, it is also the process of identifying financial strengths and weaknesses of the firm by properly establishing relationship between the items of the balance sheet and the profit and loss account. One of the tools in financial statement analysis is financial ratio analysis. As financial statements are usually lengthy, it will be more efficient and strategic to just pick up the figures that matter and plug them in pre-defined formulas developed through time by finance and accounting scholars. Methods of financial statement analysis may be divided into two general categories, internal analysis and comparative or external analysis.

Internal analysis uses figures from the financial statements of any one date or period to gain an understanding of the customer. Comparative analysis may be used to determine trends when two or more successive sets of figures are reviewed, or may be used to evaluate a given company's financial statement against industry standards. This report has been prepared to analyze the financial performance from 2010-2011 of all the companies of the three industries, such as: Cement, Ceramics and Engineering. It is required to do the ratio analysis of the companies. This analysis will help to find the trend of performance of the assigned companies. This ratio analysis will reveal whether the company is safe for investment or not. It will also reveal enable the existing and potential investors to take their investment decision more efficiently.

Objective

The objective of this report is to analyze the performance of the 34 companies belonging to three different industries. After doing the ratio analysis, trend analysis and comparison will be done among other companies in both the years. We will be analyzing whether the performance of the companies is improving or deteriorating and will be revealing the necessary reasons for each scenario. We will also be analyzing the overall performance in terms of the existing and potential investors viewpoint.

2. Literature Review
Financial ratios are widely used to develop insights into the financial performance of the companies for both the external and internal users. The firm involves many interested parties like, the owners, management, personnel, customers, suppliers, competitors, regulatory agencies, and academics, each having their views in applying financial statement analysis in their evaluations. Investors use financial ratios to forecast the future success of companies as well as their current position in the market. Financial ratios can also give mixed signals about a companys financial health, and can vary significantly among companies, industries, and over time. Other factors should also be considered such as a companys products, management, competitors, and vision for the future. (Fieldsend, Longford and McLeay, 1987) In trend analysis, ratios are compared over time, typically years. Year-to-year comparisons can highlight trends and point up the need for action. Trend analysis works best with three to five years of ratios. The second type of ratio analysis, cross-sectional analysis, compares the ratios of two or more companies in similar lines of business. One of the most popular forms of cross-section analysis compares companies ratios to industry averages. These averages are developed by statistical services and trade associations and are updated annually. (Ezzamel, Mar-Molinero and Beecher, 1987) Time-series analysis is applied when a financial analysts evaluates performance over time. Comparison of current to past performance, using ratio analysis, allows the firm to determine whether it is progressing as planned. Using multiyear comparisons can see developing trends, and knowledge of these trends should assist the firm in planning future operations. As in cross-sectional analysis, any significant year-to-year changes can be evaluated to access whether they are symptomatic of a major problem. Cross-sectional analysis involves the comparison of different firms financial ratios at the same point in time. The typical business is interested in how well it has performed in relation to other firms in the industry. Frequently, a firm will compare its ratio values to those of a key competitor or group of competitors that it wishes to follow. (Judy Ward, 1995) 7

Once the important ratios have been selected and calculated, it will still need some way of judging whether they are high /low or good/bad. A good starting point is to compare them with the equivalent figures for the same company in earlier years which is known as benchmarking. In Cross-sectional analysis, firms ratio values are compared to those of a key competitor or a group of competitors, primarily to isolate areas of opportunity for improvement. Financial statement analysis applies analytical tools and techniques to general-purpose financial statements and relates data to derive estimates and inference useful in business decisions. It is a screening tool in selecting investment or merger candidates, and is a forecasting tool of future financial conditions and consequences. It is a diagnostic tool in assessing financing, investing, and operating activities, and is an evaluation tool for managerial and other business decisions. Financial statement analysis reduces our reliance on hunches, guesses, and intuition, and in turn it diminishes our uncertainty in decision-making. It does not lessen the need for expert judgment but rather establishes an effective and systematic basis for making business decisions. (Bernstein and Wild, 1990) In this regard, researches have been undertaken on the significance of financial statement for investors to make decision and the importance of utilizing it in the stock market. Van (2002) indicated that investors in a companys common stock are concerned with present and expected future earnings and the stability of these earnings about a trend with the earnings of other companies. In the stock market, the operating status is the pivotal factor for the stock value. It could be reflected by the financial statement. Therefore, analyzing and researching the account elements from the financial statement are very crucial. If the advanced analyses could be done for these items, there will be more awareness of the financial and operating status of those stock companies. Certainly it will be helpful for stockholders making decisions to buy the target stocks. Besides, compared with the technical indices, these indices are much more reliable, nonvolatile and valid (Han and Chen, 2007).

3. Methodology
In order to prepare this report, we have fully depended on the secondary data. Annual reports of the companies were collected from DSE library and companys websites. Among selected 35 sample companies, one companys (Premier Cement Mills LTD) financial reports was not available in the market (new company, no audited financial reports published yet). Afterward we analyzed data on three broad phases; (1) Ratio Analysis (2) Industry Wise Ranking under major heads (Based on every ratio and average) (3) Correlation among major heads. Sample Size: 34 Companies Period: 2 years (2010, 2011) Industry: 3 Industries Cement Industry ( 6 Companies) Ceramic Industry (5 Companies) Engineering Industry (23 Companies) Data Source: Financial Statements Data Collection: DSE Library, Company website Analysis: Three Broad Phases Ratio Analysis (23 Ratios) Industry Wise Average Ranking Under Major Heads and Overall (Based on every ratio and average) Correlation among major heads. Software used in analysis: M.S Excel SPSS

Performance indicators: 1. Ratio Analysis:

Performance indicators of ratio analysis depend on characteristics of each ratio. In some ratios, higher value is considered as Good Performance wherein other ratios lower value indicates good performance (Example: Debt Ratio). The formulas for calculating the ratios are given below: Liquidity Ratios 1. Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities 2. Quick (acid test) Ratio = (Cash + Short Term Investment + Accounts Receivable)/ Current Liabilities 3. Cash Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities)/Current Liabilities 4. Operating Cash flow Ratio = Cash flow from operations/ Current Liabilities 5. Inventory Turnover Ratio = COGS/Inventory 6. Average selling period = 360 days/ITR 7. Receivable Turnover Ratio = Credit Sales/ Accounts Receivable 8. Average Collection Period = 360 days/ RTR 9. Accounts Payable Turnover = Purchase/ Accounts Payable 10. Average Payment Period = 360/APT Solvency Ratios: 11. Debt Ratio = Total Liabilities/ Total Assets 12. Debt Equity Ratio = Debt/ Shareholders Equity 13. Interest Coverage Ratio (Earnings basis) = EBIT/Interest Expense 14. Interest Coverage Ratio (Cash basis) = (Cash Flow from operation + Interest expense + Tax paid)/ Interest expense 15. Fixed-Payment Coverage Ratio = (EBIT + Lease Payment)/Interest + Lease Payment

10

Profitability Ratios: 16. Gross Profit Margin = (Sales-COGS)/Sales 17. ROE = Net Income after tax/Total Equity Capital 18. ROA = Net Income after tax/ Total Assets 19. Asset Turnover = Sales/Total Assets 20. Earnings per share = Net Income After Tax/No. of Ordinary Shares Capital Market Performance Ratios 21. P/E Ratio = Market price per share/EPS 22. TQ = (Debt + Market Capitalization)/Total Assets 23. Market to Book value = Total Market capitalization/(Total Assets Intangible Assets Detail of the ratios is attached in appendix i

2. Ranking
During ranking calculation, we considered performance indicator factor of each ration. Considering one (1) as the best performer, in some ratios company with highest value was ranked No.1, where in case of other ratios if lower value indicates good performance we ranked company with lowest value as No. 1.

Ranking Scale: Lower the ranking score higher is the performance; one being the best.

1 Best Performer

11

Industry Wise Ranking Ranges: Cement Industry: Ranked between 1- 6 Ceramic Industry: Ranked between 1-5 Engineering Industry: Ranked between 1-23 Steps: 1. Ranked the companies based on every ratio for two years separately 2. Calculated industry wise average raking score for all the companies for the two year separately. 3. Finally performance of the companies were analyzed based on their average ranking score under following four heads; Liquidity Ratio Solvency Ratio Profitability Ratio Capital Market Performance Ratio

3. Correlation:
Finally in order to show relation between major ratio heads, we calculated correlation between the score of following heads Liquidity ratio and profitability ratio, Liquidity ratio and market performance ratio, Solvency ratio and profitability ratio, Solvency ratio and market performance ratio.

Finally, on basis of the analysis we come out some conclusion.

12

4. Data Analysis and Findings

In order to present vast data in a systematic manner this section has been divided into two main parts; 1) Industry wise average ranking score analysis (2) Correlation between major heads.

Industry wise average ranking score analysis Data Analysis & Findindgs

"Correlation" between major heads

4.1 Industry Wise Average Ranking:

This section is going to present industry wise average ranking score of each company. Selected 34 companies are mainly categorized under 3 industries; Cement (6), Ceramic (5), Engineering (23).Companies of each industry has been ranked based on their performance against every ratio. For example; 6 Cement companies have been ranked between 1- 6 against each ratio; similarly other two industries. Here, we are going to evaluate performance of each company based on their average ranking score under following four heads; Liquidity Ratio Solvency Ratio Profitability Ratio Capital Market Performance Ratio

13

4.1.1 Liquidity ratio

Cement Industry
Worst

Best

6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Aramit Cement Confidence Cement

Y-2010 Y-2011

Heidelberg Lafarge Surma Cement BD Cement

Meghna Cement

M.I Cement Factory Ltd.

Considering the liquidity position of Cement Industry, Heidelberg cement is in the best position among six companies in both the years. Average ranking score of the company was 2 in 2010 and 2.6 in 2011. On the other hand, Aramit Cement and Meghna Cement respectively took last positions in 2010 and 2011.

Performance of Confidence Cement seemed bit stable, both the year it scored 3.4. At the same time, Aramit Cement and M.I Cement Factory LTD. performed well in 2011 compared to 2010. Aramit Cement especially performed well in Inventory Turnover ratio and Payable turnover ratio.

From the above graph we can interpret that except Aramit Cement and M.I. Cement, all the companies liquidity ratio performance improved in 2011 in comparison to 2010. Out of all, Heidelberg Cement maintained a sound financial position from the others. So it means this company has the greater ability to use its near cash or quick assets to extinguish or retire its current liabilities immediately.

14

Ceramic Industry

Worst

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50

Y-2010 Y-2011

Best

1.00 Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics Shinepukur Ceramics LTD Standard Ceramic

From the above graph, we can see that the performance of RAK Ceramics with liquidity ratio average ranking score of 1.6 and is the best among all the other ceramic companies in 2010. Shinepukur Ceramics and Fu-Wang Ceramic together achieved the least score of 3.9 in the same year.

In 2011, Fu-Wang Ceramic had the best liquidity ratio average ranking of 2.00 and Standard Ceramics had the least score.

Looking at the overall graph, majority of the companies had a negative rise from 2010 to 2011. Monno Ceramic and RAK Ceramic were the only two companies with high positive rise.

15

Engineering

Worst

23.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 15.00 13.00 11.00 9.00 7.00 5.00 3.00

Y-2010 Y-2011

Best

1.00

From the above graph, in 2010, Navana CNG Ltd. held the best position with Liquidity ratio score of 6.90. However, Atlas Bangladesh and Olympic Industries had scores of 7.6 and 7.5 respectively.

In 2011, Navana CNG Ltd. was still in the top position with the best and improved liquidity ratio of 6.10. Majority of the companies had the ratio above the score 10 and GHP Ispat Ltd. had the maximum score of 17.30.

By analyzing the overall graph, we can see that GPH Ispat Ltd. had the highest value of 17.30 in 2011 among all the 23 companies in this industry. Interestingly, a mixture of increase and decrease in the values were seen among the companies between the two years. But in between all the business hurdles, Navana CNG did manage to maintain their liquidity ratio performance very satisfactory indeed.

16

4.1.2 Solvency Ratio

Cement Industry

Worst

Best

6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Aramit Cement Confidence Cement

Y-2010 Y-2011

Heidelberg Cement BD

Lafarge Surma Cement

Meghna Cement

M.I Cement Factory Ltd.

In 2010, Heidelberg Cement BD had the least solvency ratio ranking of 1.60, which proves that this company is in the best position to fulfill its long term obligations. Interestingly, Aramit and Meghna Cement both had the same score of solvency ratio of 4.8.

In 2011, Heidelberg Cement BD continued with the best and improved score of 1.4. This clearly portrays the size of the companys net income after tax is very handsome. However, Meghna Cement could not improve compared to its last year and had the score of 5.40. Considering overall performance of all 6 companies of two years together, its quite clear that performance in terms of solvency Heidelberg, Confidence, and M.I Cement has identical behavior. Similarly, other three companies also have identical behavior but in them of performance they are not near to 1st group.

17

Ceramic Industry

Worst

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 Y-2010 Y-2011

Best

1.00 0.50 Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics Shinepukur Ceramics LTD Standard Ceramic

Monno Ceramic had the worst solvency ratio of 4.8 in 2010, which shows the company was not stable enough to meet the long term obligations of its debtors. In this case, RAK Ceramics again had the best score of 1.00. So we can conclude that the financial condition of RAK ceramics was the best amongst all the other companies in the industry.

In 2011, RAK again had the best score of 1.60 and Monno ceramic (although improved a little) but still was in the last position with a score of 4.60.

Considering two years together, Rak Ceramic has strongest position among five companies. On the other hand, Monno Ceramic is holding the last position in two consecutive years. Fu-wang Ceramic improved most among 5 companies in 2011; it came down to 2.2 from previous 3.

18

Engineering

Worst

Best

23.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 15.00 13.00 11.00 9.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00

Y-2010 Y-2011

In 2010, Singer Bangladesh had the best performance score of 4.40 out of 23 engineering companies. It is to be mentioned that GHP Ispat Ltd. and Kay & Que both had the worst performance score of 21 at a time.

In 2011, Golden Son LTD. showed the best performance with a score of 4.20. Atlas Bangladesh is in second position among all the other companies with performance score of 4.60.

A few companies consistently performed well in both the years; like Aftab Auto, Atlas Bangladesh, Singer Bangladesh. On the other hand, Anwar Galvanizing improved significantly in 2011; came down to 5.2 from 14.4.

19

4.1.3 Profitability Ratio

Cement Industry
Worst

Best

6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Aramit Cement Confidence Cement

Y-2010 Y-2011

Heidelberg Cement BD

Lafarge Surma Cement

Meghna Cement

M.I Cement Factory Ltd.

Heidelberg Cement BD had the best profitability ratio performance with an average ranking of 2.4 out of the 6 total cement companies in 2010. M.I. Cement Ltd. was also very close with ranking of 2.80. That means these two companies had the ability to generate earnings as compared to its expenses and other relevant costs incurred during 2010.

In 2011, Heidelberg Cement BD again had the best performance with an average ranking of 2.20. Interestingly Aramit cement came in second with ranking of 3.00 instead of M.I. Cement Ltd.

In terms of profitability performance, industry is quite stable, no major position change within the industry. Three out of 6 companies hold exactly same position in both the years.

20

Ceramic Industry

Worst

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50

Y-2010 Y-2011

Best

1.00 Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics Shinepukur Ceramics LTD Standard Ceramic

Out of the 5 companies, RAK ceramics had the best profitability ratio performance with an average ranking of 2.00 in 2010. Others companies like Fu-Wang Ceramic, Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. and Standard Ceramic were also very neck to neck with the ranking of 3.00, 3.20 and 3.20 respectively.

In 2011, the scenario was almost the same with RAK Ceramic still on the top with the 2.00 ranking point. The financial performance of Monno Ceramic was also good with the ranking of 2.40. Unfortunately Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. fell at the bottom compared to the last year.

Despite several big position changes in terms of profitability performance, Rak Ceramics hold its position strongly in both the years. Monno Ceramic also improved lot in 2011 came down to 2.40 from 3.60.

21

Engineering

Worst

Best

23.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 15.00 13.00 11.00 9.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00

Y-2010 Y-2011

Olympic Industries and Singer Bangladesh combinely ranked first with equal score of 3.60 in 2010. Among the 23 engineering companies, Anwar Galvanizing and Aziz Pipes became last in position with ranking score of 19.80.

In 2011, Olympic Industries solely had the best ranking score of 3.00. Because of this consistency, it proves that this company had the ability to generate earnings as compared to its expenses and other relevant costs incurred during in both 2010 and 2011. However, National Tube which had the ranking score of 9.20 in 2010 had the worst ranking score of 21.40 in 2011.

Considering two years together, Olympic Industries just out of competition, no other companies is near to their position. Moreover, Navana CNG and Singer Bangladesh were also so stable in both the years.

22

4.1.4 Capital Market Performance Ratio

Cement Industry
Worst

Best

6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Aramit Cement Confidence Cement Heidelberg Cement BD

Y-2010 Y-2011

Lafarge Surma Cement

Meghna Cement

M.I Cement Factory Ltd.

In 2010, Heidelberg Cement and Meghna Cement combinely had the ranking score of 2.00 and M.I. Cement factory had the far end ranking score of 5.67

In 2011, Heidelberg Cement again ranked first with 2.00 and Aramit cement climbed to the second position with ranking value of 2.67. It is noticed that all the companies ranking value were close to each other and much variation was not seen in 2011.

In term of capital market performance, fluctuation was usually high. Confidence Cement and Meghna Cement lost their strong position in 2011 whereas M.I Cement and Lafarge improved significantly in 2011.

23

Ceramic Industry

Worst

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Y-2010 Y-2011

Best

0.00 Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics Shinepukur Ceramics LTD Standard Ceramic

In 2010, RAK Ceramics again topped the chart crossing all the other companies of the industry with ranking value of 1.00. So the capital market performance ratio is very good in this company. Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. also had a good ranking value of 2.00.

In 2011, although RAK Ceramics held the first position among the 5 companies but its average ranking value rose up to 1.67. Shinepukur Ceramics Ltd. maintained a good ranking value of 2.00. Monno Ceramic capital market performance in this case is unsatisfactory with average ranking value of 4.67.

Considering performance of both the year, we can industry is quite stable in term of capital market performance, no major position change in two years. Almost all of the companies hold their own position; especially Shinepukur Ceramics scored same (2) in both the years.

24

Engineering

Worst

Best

23.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 15.00 13.00 11.00 9.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00

Y-2010 Y-2011

In 2010, Rongpur Foundry had the best value of 3.33 and Deshbandhu Polymar Ltd. had the worst value of 23.00. A lot of variations were observed among the 23 companies in 2010.

In 2011, Monno Jute Stafflers, surprised the market with the best average value of 1.67. This company was far behind with average value of 12.33 in 2010. So a huge improvement was seen. On the other hand, National polymer and National tube combinely scored the least with value of 20.67.

In terms of Capital market performance, company wise score fluctuated at significant level. Some companies lost their strong position 2011, whereas some companies drastically improved; like Monno Jute Stafflers came down to 1.67 from 12.33.

25

4.1.5 Overall Ranking Score

Cement Industry

Worst

Best

6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Aramit Cement Confidence Cement

Y-2010 Y-2011

Heidelberg Cement BD

Lafarge Surma Cement

Meghna Cement

M.I Cement Factory Ltd.

After analyzing all the ratios (liquidity ratio, solvency ratio, Profitability ratio and capital market performance ratio), the overall ranking score of Heidelberg Cement BD has the best value of 2.00 among all the 6 cement companies in 2010.This is even one of the best
performing companies among all 34 companies. Lafarge Surma Cement, although a very

big company in Bangladesh, had the worst value of 4.45. However, in 2011, Meghna Cement had the worst value of 4.39 and Heidelberg Cement BD again topped all the companies in 2011 with a value of 2.16.

26

Ceramic Industry

Worst

5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 Y-2010 Y-2011

Best

1.00 Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics Shinepukur Ceramics LTD Standard Ceramic

In case of ceramic industry, RAK Ceramics always had a consistent praise worthy performance and so considering the overall ratios, the average ranking was 1.48 in 2010. No other company of this industry was not even close to this figure in the stated year. In 2011, Fu-Wang Ceramic dethroned RAK Ceramics and took the lead with a value of 2.31. It should be mentioned that, Shinepukur Ceramics LTD and Monno Ceramics both had almost similar increase of value in both the years. Apart from RAK, performance of other companies in the industry is quite identical; almost all of them scored around 3 in both the years.

27

Engineering

Worst

Best

23.00 21.00 19.00 17.00 15.00 13.00 11.00 9.00 7.00 5.00 3.00 1.00

Y-2010 Y-2011

Considering all the 23 companies of the engineering industry, Navana CNG was first with the best performance ranking value of 6.43 and 6.07 in the years 2010 and 2011 respectively. Moreover, Singer Bangladesh and Atlas Bangladesh also performed well in
both the years and scored close to Navana CNG. Other companies had a rise and fall in its

value like Anwar Galvanizing had 15.65 in 2010 and 10.80 in 2011. Another key information is- Deshbandhu Polymer LTD., Golden Son LTD., Kay & Que, Monno Jute Stafflers and National Polymer; these 5 companies out of 23 companies in the industry had achieved improved value in 2011 compared to 2010. However, some companies like
GPH Ispat Ltd, Kay &Que, Renwick Jajneswar & Co, and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels LTD consistently performed bad in both the years.

28

4.2Correlation
In order to show relation between major ratio heads, we calculated correlation between the score of following heads for two years separately. Liquidity ratio and profitability ratio, Liquidity ratio and market performance ratio, Solvency ratio and profitability ratio, Solvency ratio and market performance ratio.

We calculated correlation between major ratio heads in both industries wise and overall.

Correlation

2010

2011

Cement Industy

Ceramic Industry

Cement Industry

Ceramic Industry

Engineering Industry

Overall

Engineering Industry

Overall

29

4.2.1 Correlation_ 2010

Cement Industry:
Capital Market Performance Ratio .297 .568 6 .474 .342 6 .474 .342 6 .300 .563 6 6 .225 .668 6 6 6 1 .105 .843 6 .300 .563 6 .225 .668 6 1

Liquidity Ratio

Solvency Ratio .772 .072

Profitability Ratio

Pearson Correlation Liquidity Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Solvency Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Profitability Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Capital Market Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N

6 .772 .072 6 .297 .568 6 .105 .843 6

6 1

The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.297 The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio =0.105 The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.474 The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.300 From the above table, we can see that all the ratios (Liquidity ratio, Solvency ratio, Profitability ratio and Capital Market Performance ratio) positively correlated with each others. Among them, we can also see that there is a moderate correlation between Liquidity ratio & Solvency ratio. Moreover, there is insignificant correlation among the variables.

30

Ceramic Industry:

Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Liquidity Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Solvency Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Profitability Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Capital Market Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 5 .291 .635 5 .498 .393 5 .369 .541 5 1

Solvency Ratio .291 .635 5 1

Profitability Ratio .498 .393 5 .964

**

Capital Market Performance Ratio .369 .541 5 .672 .214 5 .701 .187 5 5 1

.008 5 .964
**

5 1

.008 5 .672 .214 5

.701 .187 5

1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.498 2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.369 3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.964** 4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.672

From the above table, we can see that all the ratios calculated for Ceramics industry positively correlated with each other and among them Liquidity ratio & Solvency ratio have the lower correlation between them. Here, we find that there is a strong correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio which is also highly significant at 1% significance level. Moreover, companies performed better in both Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio sides simultaneously. At the same time, we can also see that Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio are moderately correlated with Capital Market Performance ratio but they are not statistically significant.

31

Engineering Industry:
Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Liquidity Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Solvency Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Profitability Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Capital Market Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 23 .467
*

Solvency Ratio 1 .467

*

Profitability Ratio .715

**

Capital Market Performance Ratio .170 .437 23 .326 .129 23 .129 .558

.025 23 1

.000 23 .261 .230

.025 23 .715
**

23 .261 .230 23 .326 .129 23

23 1

.000 23 .170 .437 23

23 .129 .558 23

23 1

23

1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.715** 2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.170 3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.261 4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.326

Here, we can see that all the ratios are positively correlated with each other and among those Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio are less positively correlated with Capital Market Performance ratio. Moreover, Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio both are strongly positive correlated with Liquidity ratio which is also highly significant both at 1% and 5% significance level. Engineering sector companies robustly performed side by side in these three segments.

32

Overall Correlation of 3 Industries:

Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Liquidity Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Solvency Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Profitability Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Capital Market Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 34 .774
**

Solvency Ratio 1 .774

**

Profitability Ratio .880

**

Capital Market Performance Ratio .619

**

.000 34 1

.000 34 .650
**

.000 34 .621
**

.000 34 .880
**

.000 34 .650
**

.000 34 .540
**

34 1

.000 34 .619
**

.000 34 .621
**

.001 34 .540
**

34 1

.000 34

.000 34

.001 34 34

1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio= 0.880** 2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.619** 3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.650** 4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.621** During correlation calculation among the ratios, we identified positive correlation among companies and all are highly significant at 1% significance level. So, we can say that in 2010, all 34 companies had similar performance in all the departments according to financial ratios calculation. We figure out two points from the above tables. Firstly, 34 companies identically performed within their respective industrys performance which is somewhat significant and somewhat not. However, when we compute overall correlation among these companies, they were not only identically performed but also their positive correlations were also highly statistically significant. Secondly, Cement industry is the only industry among the three, whose identical performance is statistically insignificant. 33

4.2.2 Correlation_ 2011

Cement Industry:
Liquidity Ratio Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Solvency Ratio Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Profitability Ratio Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Capital Market Pearson Correlation 6 .892
*

Solvency Ratio 1 .892

*

Profitability Ratio .244 .641 6 .362 .481 6 6 1

Capital Market Performance Ratio .397 .436 6 .263 .615 6 .481 .334 6 6 1

.017 6 1

.017 6 .244 .641 6 .397 .436 6

.362 .481 6 .263 .615 6

.481 .334 6

Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.244 2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.397 3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.362 4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.263

From the above table, we can see that all the ratios (Liquidity ratio, Solvency ratio, Profitability ratio and Capital Market Performance ratio) positively correlated with each others. Here, we find that there is a strong correlation between Liquidity ratio and Solvency ratio which is also strongly significant at 5% significance level. Moreover, Ceramic companies hold strong position in both Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio simultaneously. Among them, there are moderate correlation between Liquidity ratio & Profitability ratio and between Solvency ratio & Capital Market Performance ratio.

34

Ceramic Industry:
Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Liquidity Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Solvency Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Profitability Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Capital Market Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N 5 .317 .603 5 .197 .751 5 -.278 .651 5 5 .333 .584 5 .609 .276 5 5 -.045 .943 5 5 1 Solvency Ratio .317 .603 5 1 Profitability Ratio .197 .751 5 .333 .584 5 1 Capital Market Performance Ratio -.278 .651 5 .609 .276 5 -.045 .943 5 1

1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.197 2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = -0.278 3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.333 4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.609

From the above table, we can see that all the variables positively correlated with each others, except Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio. Both of these ratios are negative correlated with Capital Market Performance ratio. Here, we can say that they inversely performed within the industry. Moreover, we can see that there is a moderate correlation among the other ratios. Therefore, Ceramics companies performed somewhat in a different way in 2011 which is unconventional.

35

Engineering Industry:
Liquidity Ratio Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Solvency Ratio Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Profitability Ratio Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Capital Market Pearson Correlation 23 .583
**

Solvency Ratio 1 .583

**

Profitability Ratio .380

Capital Market Performance Ratio .366 .086

.004 23 1 23 .264 .224 23 .264 .224 23 .219 .314 23 23 .153 .485 23 23 1

23 .219 .314 23 .153 .485 23 1

.004 23 .380 .073 23 .366 .086 23

Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N

23

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

1. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.380 2. The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.366 3. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.264 4. The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.219

Here, we can see that all the ratios are positively correlated with each other and among those Profitability ratio and Capital Market Performance ratio has relatively weak positive correlated. Moreover, we can also see that Liquidity ratio and Solvency ratio both are strongly positive correlated and is also highly significant at 1% significance level. Companies of engineering sector robustly performed side by side in these two segments.

36

Overall 3 Industries:
Liquidity Ratio Pearson Correlation Liquidity Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Solvency Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Profitability Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Capital Market Performance Ratio Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 34 .813
**

Solvency Ratio 1 .813

**

Profitability Ratio .760

**

Capital Market Performance Ratio .688

**

.000 34 1

.000 34 .639
**

.000 34 .566
**

.000 34 .760
**

.000 34 .639
**

.000 34 .545
**

34 1

.000 34 .688
**

.000 34 .566
**

.001 34 .545
**

34 1

.000 34

.000 34

.001 34 34

1. 2. 3. 4.

The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.760** The correlation between Liquidity ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.688** The correlation between Solvency ratio and Profitability ratio = 0.639** The correlation between Solvency ratio and Market performance ratio = 0.566**

During correlation calculation among the ratios, we identified positive correlation among all the companies and all are highly significant at 1% significance level. So, we can say that in 2011, all 34 companies had similar performance in all the departments according to financial ratios calculation. We also figure out two points from the above tables. Firstly, 34 companies identically performed within their respective industrys performance which is somewhat significant and somewhat not. However, when we compute overall correlation among these companies, they were not only identically performed but also their positive correlations were also highly statistically significant. Secondly, Ceramic industry is the only industry among the three whose identical performance is not only statistically insignificant; but also their Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio were negative correlated with Capital Market Performance ratio. So, their performance was not normal compared to others. 37

5. Conclusion
From the above analysis we can say that Cement industry is more stable than the other two. Within the Cement industry, Heidelberg Cement BD performed consistently well in both the years. This is even one of the best performing companies among all 34 companies.

Now, if we look industry wise analysis, we can get a clear picture about the listed companies. In the Cement industry, we found that apart from Heidelberg Cement, M.I. Cement maintained an average position in both the years which is significant from the others. In case of Ceramic industry, we also found that R.A.K Ceramics had admirable performance in the observation years. Moreover, within the observed years, Fu-Wang ceramic improved their financial performance among the others.

Engineering industry consists of 23 companies and is the vast one among the three industries. If we look to that industry, we can see that Navana CNG was first with the best performance ranking value of 6.43 and 6.07 in the respective years. In addition to, there are other companies performed well but not as significant as Navana CNG and they are- Singer Bangladesh, Atlas Bangladesh, Deshbandhu Polymer LTD., Golden Son LTD., Kay & Que, Monno Jute Stafflers and National Polymer. Beside, ratios calculation we tried to figure out whats the correlation among the ratios that help to perform these companies better. During correlation calculation among four ratio heads (Like correlation between Liquidity ratio and Profitability ratio), we identified some of the positive correlation highly significant at both 1% and 5% significance level. Considering this, it can be said that all 34 companies had identical performance in all the departments according to financial ratios calculation.

38

REFERENCE
Bernstein and Wild, (1990) Financial Statement Analysis. Pg.3-4. Chang, L.S., Most, K.S.,(1997) An international comparison of investor uses of financial statements in International Journal of Accounting, 17(1), pg. 43-60. Ezzamel, Mar-Molinero, and Beecher, (1987)The distributional properties of financial ratios.Journal of Business Finance and Accounting.Pg 14/4, 463-481. Fieldsend, Longford and McLeay, (1987) Sector and size effects in ratio analysis: indirect tests of ratio proportionality.Accounting and Business Research. Pg. 17/66, 133-140. Judy Ward, November, (1995) Measuring performance-Too Big. The Wall Street Journal. Norman, A. S.,(2011) Financial analysis as a consideration for stock exchange investment decisions in Tanzania in Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 3(4), pg. 60-69. Van, H., (2002) Financial Management Policy. (12th ed.). Pearson Ed. Inc.: New Delhi, India.

39

Appendices Appendix-1: Financial Ratios and its interpretation

Liquidity Ratios 1. Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities The ratio is mainly used to give an idea of the company's ability to pay back its short-term liabilities (debt and payables) with its short-term assets (cash, inventory, receivables). The higher the current ratio, the more capable the company is of paying its obligations. (Cash + Short Term Investment + Accounts Receivable)/ Current Liabilities

2. Quick (acid test) Ratio =

The Acid-test or quick ratio or liquid ratio measures the ability of a company to use its near cash or quick assets to extinguish or retire its current liabilities immediately. The quick ratio is more conservative than the current ratio, because it excludes inventory from current assets. Inventory is excluded because some companies have difficulty turning their inventory into cash. 3. Cash Ratio = (Cash + Marketable Securities)/Current Liabilities Cash ratio is the ratio of cash and cash equivalents of a company to its currentliabilities. It is an extreme liquidity ratio since only cash and cash equivalents are compared with the current liabilities. It measures the ability of a business to repay its current liabilities by only using its cash and cash equivalents and nothing else. 4. Operating Cash flow Ratio = Cash flow from operations/ Current Liabilities A measure of how well current liabilities are covered by the cash flow generated from a company's operations. The operating cash flow ratio can gauge a company's liquidity in the short term. Using cash flow as opposed to income is sometimes a better indication of liquidity simply because, as we know, cash is how bills are normally paid off.

40

5. Inventory Turnover Ratio = COGS/Inventory A ratio showing how many times a company's inventory is sold and replaced over a period. The days in the period can then be divided by the inventory turnover formula to calculate the days it takes to sell the inventory on hand or "inventory turnover days."

6. Average selling period = 360 days/ITR The approximate amount of time that it takes for a business to receive payments owed (in terms of receivables), from its customers and clients.

7. Receivable Turnover Ratio = Credit Sales/ Accounts Receivable Receivable Turnover Ratio is one of the accounting activity ratios, a financial ratio. This ratio measures the number of times, on average; receivables (e.g. Accounts Receivable) are collected during the period. A popular variant of the receivables turnover ratio is to convert it into an Average Collection Period in terms of days. Remember that the Receivable turnover ratio is figured as "turnover times" and the Average collection period is in "days".

8. Average Collection Period = 360 days/ RTR Average Collection Period represents the average number of days it takes the company to convert receivables into cash. Average collection period measures the average number of days that accounts receivable are outstanding. This activity ratio should be the same or lower than the company's credit terms. As a rule, outstanding receivables should not exceed credit terms by more than 10-15 days.

9. Accounts Payable Turnover = Purchase/ Accounts Payable Accounts payable turnover ratio is an accounting liquidity metric that evaluates how fast a company pays off its creditors (suppliers). The ratio shows how many times in a given period (typically 1 year) a company pays its average accounts payable. An accounts payable turnover ratio measures the number of times a company pays its suppliers during a specific accounting period. 41

10. Average Payment Period = 360/APT Average payment period (APP) is one of the activity ratios which measure the relationship between accounts payable and average purchases per day. Activity ratios help businesses to measure how efficiently various accounts are converted into sales or cash. Other activity ratios include average collection period, total asset turnover and inventory turnover analysis.

Solvency Ratios:

11. Debt Ratio = Total Liabilities/ Total Assets Debt Ratio is a financial ratio that indicates the percentage of a company's assets that are provided via debt. This ratio also indicates what proportion of debt a company has relative to its assets. The measure gives an idea to the leverage of the company along with the potential risks the company faces in terms of its debtload. 12. Debt Equity Ratio = Debt/ Shareholders Equity A measure of a company's financial leverage that calculated by dividing its total liabilities by stockholders' equity. It indicates what proportion of equity and debt the company is using to finance its assets.

13. Interest Coverage Ratio (Earnings basis) = EBIT/Interest Expense The interest coverage ratio (ICR) is a measure of a company's ability to meet its interest payments. Interest coverage ratio is equal to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) for a time period, often one year, divided by interest expenses for the same time period. The interest coverage ratio is a measure of the number of times a company could make the interest payments on its debt with its EBIT. It determines how easily a company can pay interest expenses on outstanding debt.

42

14. Interest Coverage Ratio (Cash basis) =

(Cash Flow from operation + Interest expense + Tax paid)/ Interest expense

This ratio indicates the companys ability to use its cash flow to satisfy its fixed financing obligations. Finally, there is the fixed-charge coverage ratio, which compares EBIT with fixed charges: 15. Fixed-Payment Coverage Ratio = (EBIT + Lease Payment)/Interest + Lease Payment

Fixed charge coverage ratio is the ratio that indicates a firms ability to satisfy fixed financing expenses such as interest and leases. This means that the fixed charges that a firm is obligated to meet are met by the firm. This ratio is calculated by summing up Earnings before interest and Taxes or EBIT and Fixed charge which is divided by fixed charge before tax and interest.

Profitability Ratios: 16. Gross Profit Margin = (Sales-COGS)/Sales A financial metric used to assess a firm's financial health by revealing the proportion of money left over from revenues after accounting for the cost of goods sold. Gross profit margin serves as the source for paying additional expenses and future savings. 17. ROE = Net Income after tax/Total Equity Capital Return on equity or return on capital is the ratio of net income of a business during a year to its stockholders' equity during that year. It is a measure of profitability of stockholders' investments. It shows net income as percentage of shareholder equity.

18. ROA = Net Income after tax/ Total Assets This ratio indicates how profitable a company is relative to its total assets. The return on assets (ROA) ratio illustrates how well management is employing the 43

company's total assets to make a profit. The higher the return, the more efficient management is in utilizing its asset base. The ROA ratio is calculated by comparing net income to average total assets, and is expressed as a percentage. 19. Asset Turnover = Sales/Total Assets The amount of sales generated for every dollar's worth of assets. Asset turnover measures a firm's efficiency at using its assets in generating sales or revenue - the higher the number the better. It also indicates pricing strategy: companies with low profit margins tend to have high asset turnover, while those with high profit margins have low asset turnover.

20. Earnings per share = Net Income After Tax/No. of Ordinary Shares Earnings per share (EPS) are the portion of the companys distributable profit which is allocated to each outstanding equity share (common share). Earnings per share are a very good indicator of the profitability of any organization, and it is one of the most widely used measures of profitability. The earnings per share is a useful measure of profitability, and when compared with EPS of other similar companies, it gives a view of the comparative earning power of the companies. EPS when calculated over a number of years indicates whether the earning power of the company has improved or deteriorated. Investors usually look for companies with steadily increasing earnings per share. Capital Market Performance Ratios 21. P/E Ratio = Market price per share/EPS A valuation ratio of a company's current share price compared to its per-share earnings. In general, a high P/E suggests that investors are expecting higher earnings growth in the future compared to companies with a lower P/E. However, the P/E ratio doesn't tell us the whole story by itself. It's usually more useful to compare the P/E ratios of one company to other companies in the same industry.

44

22. TQ = (Debt + Market Capitalization)/Total Assets This ratio is of a company's market value to its total asset value. When Tobin's Q ratio is less than one, it means that the market value of the company is less than the total asset value, indicating that it is undervalued. Likewise, when it is more than one, it indicates that the market value is higher than the total asset value and that the company might be overvalued. Tobin's Q ratio is also called simply a Q ratio. Total Market capitalization / (Total Assets 23. Market to Book value = Intangible Assets)

This ratio is the ratio of the current share price to the book value per share. It measures how much a company worth at present, in comparison with the amount of capital invested by current and past shareholders into it.

45

Appendix-2: Ratio
Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity Ratios
Industry Companies
Year Current Qui ck (a ci d Ra ti o Tes t) Ra ti o 0.728 0.690 1.415 1.236 2.379 2.143 0.228 0.426 1.200 1.193 1.288 3.471 0.756 2.686 0.961 0.949 2.061 2.149 1.117 0.981 0.890 0.904 3.294 2.845 1.070 1.267 2.078 2.253 0.582 0.577 0.557 0.598 1.787 1.584 1.890 1.821 0.885 0.937 2.859 1.707 2.592 1.912 6.788 4.574 1.225 0.566 1.816 1.866 1.836 1.648 3.375 3.793 1.330 1.257 2.291 1.926 1.225 1.248 1.026 1.121 1.486 1.537 1.390 1.220 1.302 1.082 6.023 3.746 0.211 0.260 0.285 0.318 1.637 1.540 0.030 0.099 0.259 0.367 0.428 2.345 0.118 1.181 0.197 0.180 0.976 0.963 0.350 0.372 0.149 0.215 1.445 1.346 0.129 0.134 0.676 0.526 0.258 0.218 0.077 0.085 1.213 0.933 0.865 0.612 0.109 0.215 1.653 0.723 0.790 0.731 5.503 3.158 0.291 0.209 0.472 0.408 0.947 0.754 1.242 1.814 0.277 0.330 0.465 0.182 0.556 0.639 0.093 0.111 0.155 0.099 0.110 0.061 0.252 0.230 3.991 1.803 Ca s h Ra ti o 0.030 0.012 0.068 0.065 1.325 1.162 0.017 0.033 0.033 0.039 0.068 2.094 0.013 0.975 0.061 0.058 0.774 0.656 0.024 0.015 0.007 0.058 0.788 0.509 0.086 0.058 0.561 0.502 0.011 0.009 0.036 0.036 0.485 0.255 0.400 0.055 0.018 0.031 1.362 0.696 0.452 0.012 4.478 2.023 0.031 0.025 0.030 0.018 0.062 0.083 1.163 1.722 0.097 0.088 0.148 0.020 0.535 0.611 0.025 0.042 0.135 0.087 0.052 0.022 0.221 0.121 3.046 0.885 Opera ti ng Ca s h Fl ow Ra ti o -0.109 0.129 0.346 0.092 0.615 0.542 1.000 1.000 0.153 -0.187 0.668 -0.064 0.103 0.394 -0.024 0.134 0.398 0.170 0.088 0.265 0.168 0.191 0.167 0.080 0.110 0.764 0.280 0.180 0.100 0.028 0.205 0.273 0.231 -0.109 0.317 0.200 0.100 -0.310 0.370 0.228 0.350 -0.549 -0.762 0.153 0.112 -0.212 -0.268 0.435 -0.587 0.182 2.039 1.503 0.164 0.162 0.018 0.215 0.484 0.395 0.156 0.137 0.178 0.122 -0.063 -0.046 0.039 0.191 0.054 0.070 Inventory Turnover Ra ti o (ITR) 4.151 6.450 12.558 17.108 5.249 6.398 0.880 0.945 1.974 2.413 6.879 5.537 1.656 2.132 1.960 1.893 1.684 1.625 1.500 1.400 1.506 2.226 2.127 1.961 0.366 2.195 8.568 8.259 2.832 2.497 5.097 5.451 3.704 2.697 0.518 0.626 4.569 4.012 2.010 1.393 2.431 4.047 1.073 1.467 3.272 1.913 1.599 1.283 5.878 6.440 2.250 2.254 2.197 2.267 1.584 0.893 7.179 8.331 3.429 3.644 2.289 2.220 0.691 0.374 0.338 0.620 3.565 2.916 Avera ge Sel l i ng Peri od 86.724 55.812 28.667 21.043 68.585 56.272 409.027 380.782 182.376 149.185 52.335 65.013 217.368 168.843 183.658 190.129 213.799 221.606 240.027 257.209 239.058 161.735 169.233 183.609 983.914 164.039 42.019 43.590 127.127 144.151 70.629 66.046 97.199 133.504 694.502 575.408 78.786 89.736 179.134 258.355 148.115 88.952 335.562 245.329 110.034 188.144 225.165 280.539 61.242 55.904 159.992 159.694 163.838 158.774 227.236 403.233 50.149 43.213 104.983 98.781 157.252 162.174 521.227 962.264 1066.064 580.717 100.992 123.438 Recei va bl e Turnover Ra ti o (RTR) 6.444 3.799 11.414 8.317 14.121 10.629 42.467 11.431 13.196 7.676 9.895 11.725 10.010 14.813 10.831 10.516 10.324 6.807 4.035 3.234 8.725 10.631 3.746 2.346 8.523 27.616 58.075 320.682 3.523 3.848 21.937 19.462 2.638 2.343 1.127 0.985 23.442 9.070 8.424 23.086 4.535 2.549 1.682 2.206 10.800 7.973 4.429 4.116 4.766 4.453 89.511 64.325 11.732 7.465 4.463 4.552 181.474 160.759 37.203 40.666 160.730 284.098 6.543 7.984 15.514 5.727 8.901 7.375 Avera ge Col l ecti on Peri od 55.868 94.753 31.539 43.284 25.494 33.871 8.477 31.492 27.281 46.900 36.384 30.703 35.966 24.303 33.237 34.235 34.869 52.885 89.213 111.313 41.262 33.865 96.109 153.421 42.240 13.036 6.199 1.123 102.194 93.556 16.411 18.498 136.466 153.655 319.570 365.622 15.357 39.692 42.735 15.594 79.387 141.236 213.998 163.175 33.332 45.154 81.290 87.465 75.540 80.847 4.022 5.597 30.685 48.224 80.665 79.085 1.984 2.239 9.677 8.853 2.240 1.267 55.024 45.088 23.205 62.857 40.444 48.812 Accounts Pa ya bel Turnover (APT) 5.634 2.445 60.980 25.804 4.114 3.644 0.618 1.070 7.978 8.078 6.428 31.564 12.032 15.536 7.426 3.783 5.338 5.251 7.536 4.436 4.181 4.547 3.519 3.384 5.802 3.456 19.910 30.447 5.615 4.511 7.702 5.274 70.787 74.123 2.954 2.649 207.747 176.197 9.722 1.697 1131.399 4254.553 4.119 3.792 73.291 85.506 1.069 1.331 7.013 9.150 6.520 3.930 1.635 1.587 0.978 0.831 7.708 9.642 2.699 3.263 190.083 105.319 4.451 2.181 3.159 6.912 7.295 5.970 Avera ge Pa yment Peri od 63.897 147.253 5.904 13.951 87.505 98.792 582.567 336.489 45.124 44.563 56.007 11.405 29.921 23.171 48.476 95.168 67.446 68.556 47.768 81.156 86.106 79.179 102.300 106.375 62.053 104.173 18.081 11.824 64.114 79.810 46.743 68.255 5.086 4.857 121.864 135.908 1.733 2.043 37.028 212.181 0.318 0.085 87.395 94.946 4.912 4.210 336.655 270.375 51.330 39.344 55.216 91.597 220.141 226.828 368.242 433.349 46.706 37.337 133.390 110.315 1.894 3.418 80.878 165.078 113.976 52.087 49.347 60.299

Ara mi t Cement Confi dence Cement Hei del berg Cement BD Cement Indus try La fa rge Surma Cement Meghna Cement M.I Cement Fa ctory Ltd. Fu-wa ng Cera mi c Menno Cera mi c Cera mi c Indus try Ra k Cera mi cs Shi nepukur Cera mi cs LTD Sta nda rd Cera mi c Engi neeri ng Afta b Auto Anwa r Ga l va ni zi ng Atl a s Ba ngl a des h Azi z Pi pes BD. Autoca rs Ba ngl a des h La mps BD. Tha i Al muni um BSRM Steel s Li mi ted Des hba ndhu Pol ymer LTD Es tern Ca bl es Gol den Son LTD GPH Is pa t Ltd Ka y a nd Que Monno Jute Sta ffl ers Na va na CNG Li mi ted Na ti ona l Pol ymer Na ti ona l Tube Ol ympi c Indus tri es Qua s em Drycel l s Ra ngpur Foundry Renwi ck Ja jnes wa r & Co

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

2010 S. Al a m Col d Rol l ed Steel s LTD 2011 Si nger Ba ngl a des h 2010 2011

46

Solvency Ratios
Solvency Ratios
Industry Companies
Year Interes t Debt Interes t Covera ge Debt Ra ti o Equi ty Covera ge Ra ti o Ra ti o (Ca s h Ra ti o (Ea rni ngs Ba s i s ) Ba s i s ) 0.865 0.858 0.195 0.327 0.338 0.343 0.845 0.652 0.815 0.836 0.415 0.282 0.471 0.180 0.705 0.692 0.275 0.289 0.467 0.371 0.587 0.547 0.233 0.280 0.511 0.369 0.513 0.474 1.409 1.438 0.819 0.794 0.265 0.402 0.314 0.345 0.847 0.864 0.337 0.432 0.455 0.574 0.101 0.144 0.744 0.847 0.809 0.811 0.490 0.563 0.257 0.215 0.550 0.606 0.487 0.560 0.555 0.543 0.426 0.190 0.527 0.526 0.686 0.733 0.777 0.762 0.238 0.403 0.478 0.300 0.012 0.121 0.114 0.119 1.792 0.620 1.539 1.500 0.050 0.121 2.891 2.219 0.340 0.182 0.002 0.006 0.340 0.223 0.030 0.002 0.008 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.070 -0.851 -0.758 0.784 0.710 0.072 0.151 0.054 0.061 1.008 0.648 0.127 0.045 0.180 0.185 0.002 0.005 1.074 1.406 2.487 2.430 0.047 0.046 0.136 0.075 0.220 0.151 0.157 0.155 0.198 0.193 0.019 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.514 0.527 0.738 0.218 0.129 0.307 2.737 1.973 13.232 23.420 826.766 762.633 -3.416 -2.714 0.462 0.448 11.960 8.365 2.564 11.349 1.053 1.501 9.241 16.631 2.221 1.701 2.096 2.895 15.932 16.291 1.046 11.164 561.063 243.709 38.662 22.600 1.409 1.411 3.881 2.623 4.040 1.222 2.528 2.358 3.229 6.042 8.595 5.137 21.905 25.090 0.510 0.721 1.323 1.461 3.164 2.814 14.158 18.367 1.578 1.754 26.515 -2.064 7.912 7.779 2.689 2.671 1.621 1.649 8.718 11.799 1.972 2.342 363.574 52.940 0.141 3.113 11.842 13.344 910.486 1036.394 14.714 7.149 3.295 -1.149 17.223 2.694 3.392 12.558 0.861 2.324 11.860 12.262 1.725 2.577 6.343 7.872 5.556 4.946 2.855 48.713 448.434 146.936 339.876 86.021 3.242 3.782 4.340 0.277 9.290 2.511 2.477 -5.926 5.208 10.153 47.999 -15.464 -22.695 8.287 1.592 -0.644 -1.110 6.051 -6.288 6.004 17.668 20.641 2.299 2.790 10.420 12.609 11.158 9.395 3.222 2.897 1.874 1.616 -8.056 -4.558 2.009 4.559 52.888 19.113 Fi xedPa yment Covera ge Ra ti o 2.737 1.973 13.232 23.420 826.766 762.633 -3.416 -2.714 0.462 0.448 11.960 8.365 2.564 11.349 1.053 1.501 9.241 16.631 2.221 1.701 2.096 2.895 15.932 16.291 1.046 11.164 561.063 243.709 38.662 22.600 1.409 1.411 3.881 2.623 4.040 1.222 2.528 2.358 3.229 6.042 8.595 5.137 21.905 25.090 0.558 0.763 1.279 1.264 3.164 2.814 4.637 5.767 1.578 1.754 26.515 -2.064 4.300 6.584 2.689 2.671 1.621 1.649 8.718 11.799 1.972 2.342 363.574 52.940

Ara mi t Cement Confi dence Cement Hei del berg Cement BD Cement Indus try La fa rge Surma Cement Meghna Cement M.I Cement Fa ctory Ltd. Fu-wa ng Cera mi c Menno Cera mi c Cera mi c Indus try Ra k Cera mi cs Shi nepukur Cera mi cs LTD Sta nda rd Cera mi c Engi neeri ng Afta b Auto Anwa r Ga l va ni zi ng Atl a s Ba ngl a des h Azi z Pi pes BD. Autoca rs Ba ngl a des h La mps BD. Tha i Al muni um BSRM Steel s Li mi ted Des hba ndhu Pol ymer LTD Es tern Ca bl es Gol den Son LTD GPH Is pa t Ltd Ka y a nd Que Monno Jute Sta ffl ers Na va na CNG Li mi ted Na ti ona l Pol ymer Na ti ona l Tube Ol ympi c Indus tri es Qua s em Drycel l s Ra ngpur Foundry Renwi ck Ja jnes wa r & Co

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

2010 S. Al a m Col d Rol l ed Steel s LTD 2011 Si nger Ba ngl a des h 2010 2011

47

Profitability and Capital market Performance Ratios

Profitability Ratios
Industry Companies
Year Gros s Profi t Ma rgi n 0.228 0.192 -2.028 -1.480 0.237 0.157 0.822 0.756 0.741 0.684 0.224 0.191 0.251 0.290 0.209 0.215 0.375 0.412 0.342 0.344 0.195 0.200 0.227 0.289 0.230 0.110 0.088 0.080 0.111 0.077 0.218 0.212 0.235 0.223 0.414 0.361 0.101 0.081 0.130 0.148 0.142 0.143 0.355 0.335 0.126 0.175 0.225 0.236 0.170 0.164 0.440 0.434 0.191 0.179 0.233 0.113 0.284 0.250 0.188 0.190 0.197 0.197 0.413 0.568 0.284 0.226 0.255 0.257 Return on Return on Equi ty As s ets As s ets (ROE) (ROA) Turnover 0.600 0.280 0.092 0.079 0.158 0.190 -0.585 -0.339 0.069 0.098 0.249 0.087 0.053 0.074 0.014 0.097 0.119 0.138 0.093 0.038 0.031 0.039 0.216 0.225 0.002 0.065 0.373 0.319 -0.019 0.024 0.093 0.083 0.055 0.057 0.040 0.010 0.467 0.298 0.084 0.102 0.030 0.102 0.061 0.127 0.175 0.299 0.042 0.048 0.099 0.066 0.317 0.254 0.056 0.058 0.114 -0.025 0.363 0.345 0.079 0.027 0.128 0.145 0.090 0.091 0.100 0.158 0.677 0.182 0.081 0.040 0.074 0.053 0.104 0.125 -0.090 -0.118 0.013 0.016 0.146 0.062 0.028 0.061 0.004 0.030 0.086 0.098 0.049 0.024 0.013 0.017 0.166 0.162 0.001 0.041 0.181 0.168 0.008 -0.011 0.017 0.017 0.040 0.034 0.027 0.007 0.072 0.041 0.055 0.058 0.016 0.043 0.055 0.109 0.045 0.046 0.008 0.009 0.051 0.029 0.235 0.200 0.025 0.023 0.057 -0.012 0.140 0.138 0.045 0.022 0.061 0.069 0.028 0.024 0.022 0.038 0.516 0.109 0.935 0.766 0.532 0.600 1.159 1.063 0.316 0.329 1.585 1.484 1.370 0.574 0.493 0.548 0.883 0.816 0.569 0.593 0.376 0.266 0.712 0.914 0.558 0.541 0.187 0.778 3.167 3.267 0.924 0.889 0.610 0.624 0.408 0.495 0.145 0.167 1.473 1.295 0.621 0.251 0.546 0.908 0.171 0.351 1.314 0.923 0.652 0.562 1.967 1.624 1.107 0.924 0.951 0.988 0.577 0.360 1.805 2.100 1.054 0.530 1.672 1.817 0.198 0.182 0.292 0.443 1.172 1.484 Ea rni ngs Per Sha re (EPS) 5.670 3.300 7.390 5.290 13.267 17.675 -1.872 -2.459 2.030 2.960 4.080 5.360 3.860 10.740 2.840 18.640 2.540 2.990 2.280 1.520 4.880 6.210 12.175 16.151 0.133 5.222 21.580 16.770 0.720 -0.990 5.643 0.521 8.567 6.540 24.539 0.440 3.299 3.003 2.100 1.520 6.818 24.710 1.648 3.863 2.205 3.658 4.530 0.510 39.094 2.683 6.676 6.907 24.268 25.559 35.700 -7.150 54.891 73.567 2.095 2.046 2.226 2.598 54.120 54.960 20.747 27.462 54.167 10.176

Capital Market Performance Ratios

P/E Ra ti o TQ Ma rket to book va l ue 1.939 1.323 2.110 1.103 2.916 1.852 1.663 1.490 2.352 0.904 0.029 1.175 1.871 2.066 0.237 0.150 4.156 2.020 1.975 0.675 0.139 0.101 4.155 1.145 0.295 0.213 2.414 2.402 0.975 0.632 0.297 1.798 0.992 0.885 0.141 0.907 3.685 1.580 0.084 1.336 0.268 0.177 3.036 1.683 0.275 0.215 0.553 1.181 0.459 2.692 5.478 2.069 0.170 0.108 0.186 0.161 0.392 0.233 2.509 0.592 3.649 1.923 0.216 0.184 0.244 0.136 2.997 2.369 1.875 1.280 2.103 1.021 2.842 1.773 1.487 1.370 2.068 0.658 0.000 1.088 0.342 0.246 0.133 0.094 4.217 2.046 1.794 0.535 0.127 0.100 4.149 1.140 0.295 0.213 2.376 2.365 0.626 0.300 0.155 1.652 0.939 0.796 0.105 0.867 3.530 1.492 0.000 1.310 0.169 0.098 3.034 1.679 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.721 0.435 2.672 5.377 2.011 0.071 0.049 0.107 0.088 0.315 0.155 2.498 0.590 3.649 1.923 0.054 0.043 0.079 0.084 2.899 2.185

Ara mi t Cement Confi dence Cement Hei del berg Cement BD Cement Indus try La fa rge Surma Cement Meghna Cement M.I Cement Fa ctory Ltd. Fu-wa ng Cera mi c Menno Cera mi c Cera mi c Indus try Ra k Cera mi cs Shi nepukur Cera mi cs LTD Sta nda rd Cera mi c Engi neeri ng Afta b Auto Anwa r Ga l va ni zi ng Atl a s Ba ngl a des h Azi z Pi pes BD. Autoca rs Ba ngl a des h La mps BD. Tha i Al muni um BSRM Steel s Li mi ted Des hba ndhu Pol ymer LTD Es tern Ca bl es Gol den Son LTD GPH Is pa t Ltd Ka y a nd Que Monno Jute Sta ffl ers Na va na CNG Li mi ted Na ti ona l Pol ymer Na ti ona l Tube Ol ympi c Indus tri es Qua s em Drycel l s Ra ngpur Foundry Renwi ck Ja jnes wa r & Co

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

23.192 32.182 28.214 19.244 20.424 18.945 -15.342 -10.813 163.350 40.608 0.000 17.487 12.241 4.036 32.063 3.146 48.228 20.575 36.316 22.658 9.775 5.746 25.021 7.028 350.385 5.211 13.091 14.103 81.708 -28.384 9.216 100.780 23.197 23.211 3.815 128.250 49.604 37.114 0.000 22.605 10.396 2.270 55.091 15.415 0.000 0.000 9.492 80.000 8.583 92.425 22.829 10.061 2.783 2.116 1.892 -7.565 2.246 1.123 55.215 27.161 60.090 27.923 1.924 1.769 3.545 2.220 6.051 20.118

2010 S. Al a m Col d Rol l ed Steel s LTD 2011 Si nger Ba ngl a des h 2010 2011

48

Appendix-3: Average Ranking Score

Average Ranking
Industry Companies Aramit Cement Confidence Cement Heidelberg Cement BD Lafarge Surma Cement Meghna Cement M.I Cement Factory Ltd. Premier Cement Mills LTD Fu-wang Ceramic Menno Ceramic Rak Ceramics Shinepukur Ceramics LTD Standard Ceramic Aftab Auto Anwar Galvanizing Atlas Bangladesh Aziz Pipes BD. Autocars Bangladesh Lamps BD. Thai Almunium BSRM Steels Limited Deshbandhu Polymer LTD Estern Cables Golden Son LTD GPH Ispat Ltd Kay and Que Monno Jute Stafflers Navana CNG Limited National Polymer National Tube Olympic Industries Quasem Drycells Rangpur Foundry Renwick Jajneswar & Co S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels LTD Singer Bangladesh Liquidity Ratio Y-2010 4.70 3.40 2.00 3.50 4.30 3.10 3.90 2.30 1.60 3.90 3.30 10.50 15.70 7.60 15.70 12.40 12.50 13.00 14.50 10.60 12.80 12.40 14.20 13.80 11.70 6.90 10.70 12.30 7.50 10.90 12.30 15.70 13.60 8.70 Y-2011 3.90 3.40 2.60 3.60 4.50 3.00 2.00 3.10 3.40 3.70 2.80 11.60 10.60 7.60 15.80 11.40 14.30 14.10 14.90 8.60 15.30 11.40 17.30 12.00 10.90 6.10 10.20 12.30 7.60 10.50 13.20 15.40 15.30 9.60 Solvency Ratio Y-2010 4.80 2.00 1.60 5.20 4.80 2.60 3.00 4.80 1.00 3.00 3.20 5.60 14.40 5.20 6.40 18.60 9.80 8.80 18.00 10.80 9.00 7.60 21.00 21.00 13.40 7.60 17.20 7.80 11.60 11.40 14.00 14.40 17.80 4.40 Y-2011 4.40 2.20 1.40 4.80 5.40 2.80 2.20 4.60 1.60 3.80 2.80 6.60 5.20 4.60 6.80 18.60 13.40 14.60 18.80 8.40 15.00 4.20 21.40 18.40 11.40 6.60 15.60 15.80 10.60 9.40 13.40 14.00 16.00 7.00 Profitability Capital Market Overall Ranking Score Ratio Performance Ratio Y-2010 Y-2011 Y-2010 Y-2011 Y-2010 Y-2011 3.00 3.00 3.67 2.67 4.21 3.67 4.20 4.20 2.33 4.33 3.14 3.42 2.40 2.20 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.16 5.00 5.00 5.33 3.33 4.45 4.17 3.60 3.20 2.00 4.33 3.90 4.39 2.80 3.40 5.67 4.33 3.21 3.20 3.00 3.60 2.00 3.20 3.20 9.40 19.80 7.60 19.80 14.40 13.80 13.40 10.20 14.80 17.60 14.60 12.80 15.80 9.00 5.80 13.20 9.20 3.60 14.40 10.00 10.80 12.40 3.60 2.80 2.40 2.00 4.20 3.60 7.20 14.00 6.60 19.80 15.20 13.80 18.00 11.40 15.00 11.00 10.20 9.80 16.20 13.00 5.00 11.80 21.40 3.00 16.80 9.40 10.80 10.20 6.40 3.33 3.67 1.00 2.00 5.00 3.67 9.67 8.67 7.33 14.00 8.67 18.33 4.33 23.00 14.00 5.00 16.00 14.00 12.33 3.67 19.67 19.00 14.67 6.00 3.33 20.00 17.67 9.00 2.67 4.67 1.67 2.00 4.00 11.67 16.33 5.33 17.33 5.00 11.00 8.00 7.00 9.00 18.00 8.00 17.00 9.00 1.67 7.00 20.67 20.67 17.67 12.00 5.33 20.00 19.67 5.33 3.42 3.33 1.48 3.31 3.45 8.33 15.65 7.17 13.53 14.48 11.73 12.74 13.14 12.22 13.17 10.95 15.63 15.95 11.54 6.43 13.81 11.32 8.37 11.26 11.13 14.77 14.76 6.57 2.31 3.47 2.46 3.64 3.12 9.44 10.80 6.42 14.82 13.20 13.60 14.41 14.08 10.08 14.55 9.07 16.44 14.10 10.43 6.07 13.02 16.17 8.39 11.87 11.46 14.55 14.79 7.77

Cement Industry

Ceramic Industry

Engineering

49