KMART CORPORATION

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Note: All dollar values used in this analysis in relation to the financial statements are in
millions unless otherwise noted.

Introduction
Attention Kmart shoppers, all 180 million of you! Kmart Corporation is the
second largest discount retailer in the nation and third largest general merchandise
retailer. Kmarts primary lines of business are name brand and private label general
merchandise with approximately 2,161 stores, including 100 Super Kmart Centers. Kmart
has a retail presence in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.
Kmart owns 110 stores and leases approximately 2,051 stores.

Kmarts primary

competitors from the discount retail sector include Wal-mart, Target, Shopko and Costco.
From the department store sector, J.C Penny and Sears are the main competitors. The
primary factors in maintaining a competitive advantage are price, quality, service, product
mix and convenience.
Kmart stores are generally one-floor, freestanding units ranging from 40,000 to
180,000 square feet. Kmarts diversification into specialty retailing brought it close to
bankruptcy in 1995. Restructuring efforts have resulted in the conversion of many older
stores into the Big Kmart format featuring grocery sections, brighter dcor and an
expanded selection of merchandise. These stores feature an expanded selection of

merchandise including private labels such as Martha Stewart, Sesame Street, Jaclyn
Smith and Kathy Ireland. In addition, new marketing concepts featuring the TV
celebrities Rosie ODonnell and Penny Marshall are seen in almost every Kmart
commercial.
The Super Kmart center is a new store prototype for the discount retailer that
features a full assortment of groceries as well as a broad selection of general merchandise
and apparel found at traditional Kmart stores. The offerings include fresh and frozen
food, bakery and meats. There are also one-stop conveniences such as video rental, hair
salons, florists, banking, and one-hour photo processing. The Super Kmart centers are
open 24 hours a day and seven days a week. There were 102 Super Kmart centers as of
1998.
Prior to 1996, Kmart had diversified into specialty retailing and international
operations in Mexico, Canada and Singapore, which nearly put them on the brink of
bankruptcy. During late 1995 and into 1996, they began a company wide restructuring
that included the divestiture of these international operations. Additionally, in 1997
Kmart discontinued operations of several subsidiaries including: Building Square, Border
Group, OfficeMax, Sports Authority, Thrifty Payless Holdings, Inc. Coles Myer, Ltd.
and Furrs/Bishops, Inc.
An additional part of the restructuring effort involved the availability of a private
label Kmart Credit Card to credit worthy customers. The credit card is offered though
Beneficial National Bank USA who now owns the accounts receivables and under the
terms of the purchase agreement, retains all of the credit risk associated with the credit
card.

Kmart over the last few years have been restructuring their organization and as a
result has become the second largest discount retailer in the nation. This restructuring has
not been without financial cost in their performance. Kmarts performance over the
1996-1998 period will be examined in detail in the remaining sections of the paper.
Financial ratios are calculated from income statements and balance sheets to
evaluate Kmarts management of assets to produce revenue. The ratios were compared to
industry averages cited from the Robert Morris Associates (RMA) for the year 1998.
Kmart, Wal-Mart, and Target have captured 80% of the discount retail market share.
Consequently, the upper quartile should be used to analyze Kmarts financial position.
However, RMA common size numbers generate the median ratios.

Therefore, this

analysis uses the median ratios to ensue proper comparison to the industry numbers.
Where RMA data was not available, median peer comparisons from Wal-Mart, Target,
Shopko, Ames and Costco were used provided by Bank of America Retail Peer Analysis
for 1998. The remainder of the paper will examine these financial ratios to provide a
benchmark and trend analysis for Kmart for the fiscal years 1996-1998. (Note: See
Appendix for Tables 1-7 for financial statements and ratio calculations).

Ratio Analysis
Liquidity Ratios
Liquidity ratios measure a firms ability to meet its financial obligations. The
overall health of a firm has traditionally been measured by these ratios. The usefulness of
liquidity ratios is now changing as more companies are holding fewer current assets to
generate revenue. These ratios are still a good measure for this industry because the

discount retail industry does rely on a large amount of current assets to generate revenue.
The meaning of high and low ratios is judged based on the relevant industry norms.

Current Ratio
Current Ratio = Total Current Assets
Total Current Liabilities
Items in this table represent percentages of total assets.
Account
Cash & Equivalents
Merchandise Inventories
Other Current Assets
Total Current Assets
Current Maturities of Long-term debt
Trade Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll & Other Liabilities
Taxes other than income taxes
Total Current Liabilities
Current Ratio

1996
2.88%
45.11
6.91
54.9%
1.09%
14.06
9.09
.97
25.21%
2.15

1997
3.67%
46.96
4.51
55.14%
.58%
14.18
7.85
1.54
24.15%
2.28

1998
5.01%
46.14
4.12
55.27%
.54%
14.45
9.59
1.47
26.06%
2.12

RMA
14.3%
36
.8
53.60%
2%
17.3
7.9
N/A
33.8%
1.6

The current ratio is a measure of total current assets to total current liabilities.
This indicates a firms ability to meet its current obligations with cash, inventories or
other liquid current assets. A high ratio usually indicates that a firm is better able to meet
liability obligations.
Benchmark:
Kmarts current ratio is 27% above the industry norm. It appears that Kmart is in a
better position to meet its obligations than the industry. The companys common sized
statements relative to the industry can explain this relation to the industry. Current assets

are 3% greater than the industry; while the current liabilities are 23% lower than the
industry. Thus, the current ratio is greater than the industry.
A closer look into the elements of the ratio indicates a heavy reliance on
inventory, which is 28% above the industry norm. The company also has in comparison
to the industry low cash balances (64% less). Kmarts current assets are 3% greater than
the industry. The most significant feature of current liabilities is trade accounts payable
at 16% less than the industry. In addition, current maturities of long term debt of accrued
payroll are less then the industry in relative common-size figures. Thus, the current
liabilities of Kmart are 23% lower than the industry.

Although Kmart is carrying

significantly less current liabilities it is also carry much less cash and much more
inventory than the industry.
However, Kmarts cash management appears to be adequate even with the stated
lower cash balances. In reviewing the cash flow statement, net cash after operations was
a positive $2,011M for fiscal year end 1998. Kmart had adequate cash flow coverage to
pay their current maturities of long term debt, interest expense and income tax expense.
Kmarts net capital expenditures of $1,113M were also covered by cash flow. Kmarts
remaining cash balance was $710M for the year 1998. However, it is important to note
that net cash flow operations had been on a 52% decline for the three year period 19961998. In addition, Kmart has a revolving credit agreement of $2.5 billion that provides
Kmart the continued flexibility in their cash management practices.
Taking into consideration both common size and cash flow statements it appears
that inventory management may be the primary problem. As seen later in the inventory
ratios, Kmart holds above the average norm of inventory resulting in their higher costs of

goods sold. In order to better evaluate Kmarts liquidity, the quick ratio will be reviewed
below.
Trend:
The current ratio over the last three years has remained stable due to the stability
of the current assets and current liabilities as a percentage of total assets.

Current assets

grew 1% while current liabilities grew 2% over the entire period and thus, the 1998 ratio
is somewhat less than the 1996 ratio.
Quick Ratio
Quick Ratio = Cash and Equivalents - Inventory
Total Current Liabilities
Account
Cash & Equivalents
Trade Accounts receivable
Other Current Assets
Total Current Assets less inventory
Current Maturities of Long-term debt
Trade Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll & Other Liabilities
Taxes other than income taxes
Total Current Liabilities
Quick Ratio

1996
2.88%
0
6.91
9.72%
1.09%
14.06
9.09
.97
25.21%
.38

1997
3.67%
0
4.51
8.18%
.58%
14.18
7.85
1.54
24.15%
.34

1998
5.01%
0
4.12
9.13%
.54%
14.45
9.59
1.47
26.06%
.35

RMA
14.03%
2.5
.8
17.6%
2.0%
17.3
7.9
N/A
33.8%
.4

The quick ratio is considered a more accurate measure of a firms ability to meet
its current liabilities.

In calculating this ratio, inventory is subtracted from the total

current assets because it is the most commonly inflated and least liquid current asset.
Benchmark:

Kmarts quick ratio of .35 relative to the industry ratio of .4 indicates that the
company is reliant on inventory to meet its obligations. Kmarts current assets minus
inventory is 9.13% of total assets in comparison to the industries 17.6%. This reliance
upon inventory to meet current obligation is usually a bad situation. Kmarts lower quick
ratio compared to the industry can be further explained by the fact that Kmarts inventory
represents 83% of its current assets, which is significantly higher than the industry
average of 67%.
The current liabilities are lower than the industry and have been discussed
previously in the current ratio. While, the current liabilities is only 23% less than the
industry, the current assets minus inventory is 48% is less than the industry.
Consequently, the quick ratio is less than the industry by 12.5%.
Trend:
The quick ratio over the last three years overall has remained stable due to the
stability of the current assets and current liabilities as a percentage of total assets.
However, with a 6% drop in current assets minus inventory and a 2% increase in current
liabilities, the ratio has slightly declined over the three year period. In addition to
liquidity ratios, asset management ratios will highlight the companys strengths and
weaknesses.
Management Ratios
Sales Receivable Ratio
Sales / Receivable = Net Sales
Trade Receivables

This ratio measures the number of times receivables turn over in a year relative to
sales. This determines the time between a sale and actual collection. The credit terms
and quality of receivables can be measured using this ratio relative to the industry.
Another way to view this ratio is in the number of days the receivable remains on the
companys books. This ratio will be discussed with the Days in Accounts Receivable
ratio below.

Days Receivable Ratio

Days Receivables =

365
Sales/ Receivables Ratio

Days Receivables ratio tells how many days on average it takes to collect on
sales. If this number is high, it indicates that there are some accounts that are aging and
may never be collected. It may also indicate loose credit policies and poor collection
processes. In some extreme cases, it can reveal poor internal controls and processes in
accounting such as cash collection and reconcilement of accounts. Kmart does not carry
any account receivable due to the sale of their credit card to Beneficial National Bank
USA. According to the terms of the sale, Beneficial retains all credit risk for credit card
receivables. Because of Kmarts zero trade receivables these ratios are not relevant to our
analysis other than to note that Kmart is atypical of their peers.
Inventory Growth
Account
Inventory percent to total assets
Inventory
Inventory Growth

1996
44.48%
$6,354M
N/A

1997
46.96%
$6,367M
.20%

1998
46.14%
$6,536M
2.65%

RMA
36.00%
N/A
N/A

Inventory has remained relatively stable for the past three years. However, in
comparison to the industry as seen in the above table, they are holding excessive
inventory.

Inventory days on hand (inventory turnover) is approximately 30 days

(4.06x) greater than (less than) the industry average of 61 days (5.0) as seen below.

Cost of Sale Inventory Ratio

Cost of sales / Inventory = Cost of sales
Inventory
Account
Cost of goods sold
Inventory
Cost of Sales/Inventory Ratio

1996
77.58%
44.48%
3.84

1997
78.15%
46.96%
3.95

1998
78.16%
46.14%
4.06

RMA
67.60%
36.00%
5.0

This ratio measures the number of times inventory is turned over during the year
in terms of dollars.

High and low turnover relative to the industry could mean either

poor inventory management (high turnover) or poor utilization of related resources (low
turnover).
Days Inventory Ratio (INVDOH)
Days Inventory =
Account
Turnover Ratio
(INVDOH)

365
Cost of Sales/Inventory
1996
1997
3.84
3.95
95.09
92.40

1998
4.03
90.64

RMA
6.0
73

Inventory days on hand measures how long the company holds inventory before it
is sold. Kmarts 90.64 days is (18 days longer than the industry) shows a very serious
problem that ripples through the entire company financial statements and operations.
9

This ratio supports previous evidence that the company is experiencing inventory control
and management problems.
Benchmark:
The cost of sales is 15% higher than the industry average; a significant difference
that could be attributed to a poor distribution system, poor sales management and
ineffective purchasing practices. Inventory is 28% above the industry average indicating
Kmart may be experiencing inventory management problems. Since inventory exceeds
the industry by a greater magnitude than cost of sales exceeds the industry, the cost of
sales/inventory ratio is less than the industry and as a result inventory days on hand is
greater than the industry average.
Trend:
Inventory days on hand has been declining due to a 7.9% growth in cost of sales
versus a 2.9% growth in inventory over the 1996-1998 period.
Cost of Sales Payables Ratio
Cost of Sales / Payables = Cost of sales
Trade Payables
Account
Cost of Sales
Accounts Payables Trade
Cost of Sales Payable Turnover Ratio

1996
77.58%
14.06%
12.14

1997
78.15%
14.18%
13.08

1998
78.16%
14.45%
12.86

RMA
67.60%
17.30%
10.9

This measurement of liquidity measures the number of times account payables

turnover in one year and can provide numerous insights into the operations of a company
including how well they are working with vendors in its supply chain.

10

A downward

trend or a low ratio compared to industry standard may be indicative of cash flow
problems or turmoil between the corporation and its suppliers.

Days Payable Ratio (APDOH)

APDOH =

365
Cost of Sales/Payables

Account
Cost of Sales
Payable Turnover Ratio
APDOH

1996
77.58%
12.14
30.06

1997
78.15%
13.08
27.91

1998
78.16%
12.86
28.39

RMA
67.60%
18.6
33.0

The cost of sales/payable ratio is utilized to derive the number of days payable
which provides a measurement of the length of time between the purchase on account and
the time the account is settled. It is not uncommon for companies to take liberties with
the payment of accounts, stretching the credit terms or riding their trade.
Benchmark:
Cost of sales is trending upwards to 78.16% in 1998 which is 16% above industry
average.

As seen in the accounts payable common size percentages, Kmart is holding

approximately 16.5% lower on average than the industry standard. Since the cost of sales
is greater than industry average and accounts payables are less than the industry average;
cost of sales/payable ratio for Kmart is greater than the industry and accounts payable
days on hand is less than the industry.
Trend:
Cost of sales has grown 7.9% over 1996-1998 while accounts payable increased
1.9% over the same period. As a result, the turnover got larger and the days got smaller

11

over the three year period.

Per notes to the 1998 financial statements, Kmart reported

higher promotional and occupancy cost as a contributing factor for the increase in cost of
sales.

Because Kmart is paying their trade payables 4.61 days quicker than the industry

Kmart is using approximately $319 more cash than they would if they were more in-line
with the industry average of 33 days.
Kmarts accounts payable days on hand are less than the industry average. They
are paying an average of 14% faster, with an average of 29 days relative to the industries
33 days.
Operating Cycle
Accounts Receivable Days on Hand (ARDOH) + Inventory Days on Hand (INVDOH)
Cash Conversion Cycle
Accounts Receivable Days on Hand (ARDOH) + Inventory Days on Hand (INVDOH)
Accounts Payable Days on Hand (APDOH)
Elements
ARDOH
INVDOH
APDOH
Operating Cycle
Cash Conversion
Cycle

1996
0
95.09
30.06
95.09
65.02

1997
0
92.40
27.91
92.40
64.49

1998
0
90.64
28.39
90.64
62.25

RMA
2
73
33
75
42

Operating Cycle
The operating cycle is the time to acquire or to manufacture inventory, sell the
product and collect the cash. The operating cycle is usually less than one year for most
industries. As seen in the Kmarts operating cycle of 90.64 days and the industry

12

standard of 75 days, the discount retail industry is an example of a shorter operating

cycle.
Benchmark:
Kmarts operating cycle is 20.85% longer than the RMA industry average. The
operating cycle for 1998 is 90.64 days in comparison to the industry of 75 days.
Trend:
Inventory days on hand has been declining due to a 7.9% growth in cost of sales
versus a 2.9% growth in inventory over the 1996-1998 period which has caused the
operating cycle days to improve the 4.68% as indicated above. As previously stated
Kmart does not retain credit risk on their credit card receivables therefore ARDOH is
zero.
Cash conversion cycle:
The amount of time expressed in number of days required to sell inventory and collect
accounts receivable less the number of days credit is extended by suppliers.
Benchmark:
The cash conversion cycle is 48.21% longer than the RMA industry average. The
cash conversion cycle for 1998 is 62.45 days in comparison to the industry of 42 days.

Trend:
With INVDOH declining at 5% and APDOH also declining at 6% for the period,
the cash conversion cycle has decreased. The operating cycle is, as stated above is also
longer than the industry having a 20.85% impact on the cash conversion cycle. Kmarts

13

accounts payable days on hand are less than the industry average. They paying an
average of 14% faster to pay, with an average of 29 days relative to the industries 33
days. Kmart's cash conversion cycle has improved by 4.45% over the three year period
1996-1998, however still remaining 20.45 days longer than the industry.

Sales / Net Working Capital Ratio

Sales / Working Capital =

Account
Net Sales
Total Current Assets
Total Current Liabilities
Net Working Capital
Sales/Net Working Capital Ratio

Net sales
Net working capital
1996
1997
$31,437M $32,193M
54.13%
55.14%
25.21%
24.15%
28.92%
30.99%
7.61
7.66

1998
$33,674M
55.27%
26.06%
29.21%
8.14

RMA
See note

53.60%
33.80%
19.80%
12.7

Note: RMA sales data was not input because it was not comparable to Kmart which is one of the
top three retailers making up 80% of the discount retail market share.

This ratio provides a measurement of how well working capital, the difference
between current assets and current liabilities, is being utilized within the organization. In
essence this ratio tells us for every dollar of new working capital invested in 1998 $8.12
of sales were generates revenues compared to the industry $12.40 in sales. The longterm survival of an organization is partially dependent on how well it manages current
operations. The firm must strategically plan for a targeted range of current assets and
plan for their financing.
Benchmark:
The sales/net working capital ratio has tracked below the industry average for the
past three years. The ratio has increased from 7.61x in 1996 to 8.14x in 1998 in

14

comparison to 12.7x to the industry. Sales/net working capital ratio is 35.91% lower than
the industry.
Current assets are slightly higher than the industry while current liabilities were
29% lower than the industry standard. As a result, Kmarts sales to net working capital
ratio is less than the industry.

This disparity in current assets and current liabilities

relative to the industry could indicate that financing of current assets may be taking place
with long- term liabilities. As a result of Kmarts net working capital is 48% greater than
the industry. This large net working capital is driving the ratio down relative to the RMA
industry average.
The working capital of the discount store industry can fluctuate due to seasonal
levels net of trade accounts payable, profitability, and the level of store openings and
closings. Kmart ended 1998 with an increase in its number of stores for the first time in
five years. Kmarts primary sources of working capital are cash flows from operations
and borrowings under its credit facilities.
Trend:
Sales increased by 7%, while net working capital only increased by.2% for the
1996-1998 period, resulting in an increase in the sales/net working capital ratio.

Sales / Net Fixed Assets

Account
Net Sales
Net Fixed Assets
Net Sales/Net Fixed

1996
$31,437M
34.4%/ $5,740M
5.48

1997
$32,183M
40.2%/ $5,472M
5.88

15

1998
$33,674M
40.4%/ $5,914M
5.69

RMA
See note

37.5%
8.5

Assets Ratio
Note: RMA sales data was not input because it was not comparable to Kmart which is one of the
top three retailers making up 80% of the discount retail market share.

This ratio shows the effectiveness of the use of fixed assets in a business to
produce sales. There is not a serious distortion in the yearly ratios from year to year,
which represents fixed assets not being largely depreciated or fixed assets are being
replaced/added at the same rate as depreciation. Surprisingly, the intense use of labor in
this form of business has not affected or distorted the ratios from year to year. When
compared to the industry the ratio is considerably low. This may be the result of an over
investment of its fixed assets or a large amount of leasehold improvements. Since
leasehold improvements can only be depreciated on a straight-line basis and not at an
accelerated basis. If Kmart held a large percentage of leasehold improvements versus the
percentage of buildings, the net fixed assets would be larger than their peers attributing to
the discrepancy in the ratio.
Care must be taken when using this ratio to compare other firms. Inflation may
have caused the values of some of the older assets to be seriously understated. Older
assets may have also been depreciated by a greater amount. The result of such a
comparison is that an older firm who acquired its assets years ago at lower prices may
have a higher turnover ratio of fixed assets. In addition, firms using an accelerated
depreciation versus a straight-line method would have a higher turnover ratio.
Benchmark:
Net fixed assets are 40.4% to total assets while the industry is only 37.5%.
Because of Kmarts reliance on net fixed assets relative to the industry, the net sales/net
fixed assets ratio is 33.06% lower than the industry.
16

Kmart leases 95% of all their facilities while the peers in the industry own the
majority of their facilities. It appears that due to this ownership difference, the peers in
the industry are able to depreciate their fixed assets on an accelerated depreciation
method versus the straight-line amortization on leasehold improvements used by Kmart.
As a result, Kmarts net fixed assets are higher than the industry as previously stated
above. Refer to above Net Fixed Assets/Tangible Net Worth ratio for further details
regarding Net fixed Assets.
Trend:
Sales increased by 7% while net fixed assets increased by 3.9% over the three
year period. As a result, sales/total net fixed assets has increased over the three year
period. Sales increased faster than Kmarts net fixed assets is again indicative of Kmarts
leasing rather than owning stores.

Net Sales / Total Assets

Account
Net Sales
Total Assets
Net Sales/Total Assets Ratio

1996
$31,437M
$14,286M
2.20

1997
$32,183M
$13,558M
2.37

1998
$33,674M
$14,166M
2.38

RMA
See note
See Note

2.6

Note: RMA sales and assets data was not input because it was not comparable to Kmart which is
one of the top three retailers making up 80% of the discount retail market share.

Again, this ratio is a measure of management's ability to utilize its assets, in this
case all of its assets.

It appears that Kmart is only able to generate $2.38 versus their

industry peers generating $2.60 in sales for every $1 of assets. Thus, it appears that
Kmart is somewhat less efficient. This ratio is slightly lower than the industry average
due to the higher inventory and low cash balances. As stated above an effort should be

17

made however to increase sales volume to improve the ratio. Another option for
improvement would be to improve its current asset turnover by improving inventory
management, which will improve its total asset turnover, thus improving the net salestotal asset ratio.
Benchmark:
The net sales/total assets ratio is 8.46% less than the industry average.
Trend:
Sales increased by 7% while net total assets decreased by 1% over the three year
period. As a result, sales/total net fixed assets has increased over the three year period by
8.18%. With the new Big-K format, sales have increased with the introduction of new
lines. In addition, total assets have decreased slightly due to the other assets listed on the
financial statements. The notes to the financial statements did not include an explanation
as to what is comprised in the other asset accounts, both short-term and long-term.

Coverage Ratios
Coverage ratios measure the ability to service debt from operations.
EBIT / Interest
EBIT/Interest =

EBIT____
Interest

Account/Item
Earnings Before Interest and Taxes
Interest
EBIT/Interest Ratio

1996
2.49%
1.44%
1.73

18

1997
2.43%
1.13%
2.15

1998
3.24%
.87%
3.72

RMA
5.5%
.5%
12.2

This ratio shows how well a firm is able to meet interest payments.

In 1998,

Kmarts operating income would cover their interest cost 3.72 times relative to the
industry norm of 12.2 times.
Benchmark:
The EBIT/Interest ratio is 3.72x in comparison to the industry average of 12.2x.
Earnings before interest and taxes has tracked below the RMA average for the three-year
period. In 1998, Kmarts EBIT was at 3.24% versus the industry average of 5.5%. In
addition, interest has decreased by 39.6% over the past three years. However, interest
expense of .87% for 1998 remains above the industry standard of .5%. With EBIT
significantly below the industry norm of interest near the norm, the coverage ratio is
significantly below the RMA average of 12.2.
Trend:
EBIT increased 30% while interest decreased 39.6% over the 1996-1998 period.
Therefore, TIE increased by 115%. This is further validated by total debt dropping from
57.5% to 50.5% of total assets.

Total Debt / EBIT

Account
Total Liabilities
EBIT
Total Debt/EBIT Ratio

1996

1997

1998

57.50%
2.49%
10.49

52.68%
2.43%
9.15

50.85%
3.24%
6.6

Median Peer
Comparison
N/A
N/A
4.3

Total debt to earning before interest and taxes indicates the amount of debt the
company has it relates to the EBIT (operating income). For example, in 1996, Kmart had
$10.49 of debt to every one dollar of EBIT, $9.15 and $6.60 for 1997 and 1998

19

respectively. In essence in 1998, it took $6.60 of debt to generate $1 of operating

income. This ratio remains high in comparison to the median peer comparison.
Kmarts improvement by continued reduction of total liabilities was due to the use
of cash from operations to pay down their term debt, mortgage notes and medium term
notes. This reduction of liabilities was offset by the issuance of Commercial Mortgage
Pass Through Certificates (CMBS) mortgage loans, which are subject to interest and
principal payments with a maturity date of February 2002. Total debt also includes a $2.5
billion revolving credit agreement; however, no outstandings were reported for 19961998. However, the revolving credit agreement allows Kmart to carry much lower cash
balances than their peers.
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
Account
Net Income
Depreciation
Amortization
Interest Expense
Total Cash Available for Debt Service
CMLTD
Interest Expense
TOTAL DEBT Service
Cash After Debt Service
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
Traditional Debt Service:

1996
$(189M)
654
0
453
$913M
$156
453
$609M
$304M
1.49

1997
$298M
660
0
363
$1,321M
$78
363
$441M
$880M
2.99

1998
$568M
671
0
293
$1,532M
$77
293
$370M
$1,902M
4.14

Operating Income + Deprec .+ Amort .+ Interest Expense

Current Maturity Long Term Debt + Interest

Expense
Traditional debt service coverage is the measurement of a companys ability to
service its current maturities of long-term debt and interest owed on that debt. Kmart
debt service coverage of 1.49,2.99 and 4.14 for fiscal years ending 96-98 respectively has

20

improved for the last three years. This increase in the ratio is attributed to the large
growth in net income of 213.08% and 108.03% coupled with the decrease in total debt
service of 16%.
Kmart leases 2,051 of their facilities. The terms of the leases are 25 years with
multiple five year renewal options the allows the company to extend the life of the lease
up to 50 years beyond the initial term. The following ratios illustrates the companies
ability to repay their debt taking rental expense or lease expense into consideration rather
than the traditional debt service coverage ratio above.
EBITDAR / Interest Expense + Rental Expense
Account

1996
$783M
654
0
442
$1,879M
453
442
$895M
2.10x

EBIT
Depreciation
Amortization
Rent/Lease Expense
EBITDAR
Interest Expense
Rental/Lease Expense
TOTAL
EBITDAR/(Interest +Rent Expense)

1997
$781M
660
0
478
$1,919M
363
478
$841M
2.28x

1998
$1,091M
671
0
524
$2,286M
293
524
$817M
2.80x

This ratio represents the amount of coverage the company has in order to pay their
interest expense and lease expense. This ratio is adding back non-cash expense of
depreciation and amortization besides the cash expense of rent to calculate total
EBITDAR. The continuing trend is a positive trend due to increased EBIT, EBITDAR
and the decreased in total interest expense. The lower interest expense is due to the
paydown of long term debt, is more than offsetting the increasing lease expense.

EBITR / Interest Expense + Rental Expense

21

Account
Net Income
Rent/Lease Expense
EBITR
Interest Expense
Rental/Lease Expense
TOTAL
EBITR/Interest +Rent Expense

1996

1997

1998

$783M
442
$1,225M
453
442
$895M
1.37

$781M
478
$1,259M
363
478
$841M
1.50

$1,091M
524
$1,615M
293
524
$817M
1.98

Median
for
Peers
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.4

This ratio represents the amount of coverage the company has in order to pay their
interest expense and lease expense. This ratio does not add back non-cash expenses as
seen above.

This ratio is also a standard industry ratio for discount retail stores.

Although, Kmarts ratio is trending towards a positive direction, in comparison to the

median for the peers in the industry that include; Wal-mart, Dayton Hudson, Costco,
Shopko and Ames, they are significantly lower. The median peer EBIT margin is
approximately 3.9% versus Kmarts 3.24% margin. The lower ratio in comparison to
their peers is attributed to the lower EBIT margin. The peer analysis of the expense side
of the ratio was not available for comparative purposes for this analysis.

Leverage Ratios
Leverage ratios measure the extent of the organizations financing with debt. It is
a measurement of the capacity and ability to meet long-term obligations. The leverage
ratios compare the funds supplied by business owners with financing supplied by
creditors. This debt financing involves risk associated with the payment of principal and
interest. However, the firm may earn more on these investments than it pays in interest

22

that results in the return of the owners capital being favorably leveraged. Debt financing
also has the advantage of not diluting stockholder ownership.

Fixed / Worth
Fixed / Worth =

Net fixed assets

Tangible net worth

Account
Net Fixed Assets
Net worth
Less Intangible Assets
Tangible Net Worth
Fixed Assets/ TNW

1996
40.18%
42.50%
0
42.50%
0.95

1997
40.36%
47.32%
0
47.32%
0.85

1998
41.75%
49.15%
0
49.15%
0.85

RMA
37.50%
48.0%
0
48%
0.80

This shows to what extent the company has invested its capital into the fixed
assets of plant and equipment. A smaller ratio shows a relatively small investment into
these fixed assets, providing more liquidity for creditors.

A higher number would

indicate a greater risk to these creditors.

Kmarts Fixed/Worth ratio is only slightly larger than the industry standard and
may be attributed to the number of stores in the chain compared to the industry. Per notes
to the financial statements Kmarts fixed assets are comprised of 40% capital leases and
leasehold improvements, and 48% is invested in furniture and fixtures.

The

concentration of fixed assets in furniture and fixtures is attributed to the investment in the
Big Kmart stores, which require additional refrigeration equipment for the grocery
section (The Pantry). As stated previously, Kmart leases 95% of their facilities also
attributed to the higher fixed assets compared to the industry because the amortization

23

method used for financial statement purposes is straight-line method over the estimated
useful life of the assets.
Benchmark:
Net fixed assets are 11.3% greater than the RMA and tangible net worth is 2.4%
greater than the RMA. Since net fixed assets exceed the industry average the fixed
assets/total net worth is greater (.85) than the industry average (.80).
Trend:
The tangible net worth has shown an upward trend for the past few years with an
increase of 15.65 % from 1996 to 1998. The net fixed assets during the same period has
only increased by 3.9%. Since the total net worth increased faster than net fixed assets
over the period, this ratio has declined.

Debt / Worth
Debt / Worth = Total Liabilities
Tangible Net Worth
Account
Total Liabilities
Tangible Net Worth
Total Debt/TNW Ratio

1996
57.5%
42.5%
1.35

1997
52.68%
47.32%
1.11

1998
50.85%
49.15%
1.03

RMA
52.00%
48.0%
1.08

This ratio shows the capital contribution relationship between creditors and
owners and is sometimes referred to as the degree of advantage. A highly leveraged firm
will not have as much flexibility to borrow in the future as one with a higher debt/worth
ratio. A higher ratio indicates that the corporation is utilizing a large amount of debt to

24

finance its business operations on a daily basis. It would appear that Kmart is marginally
below their peers in the usage of debt.
Benchmark:
Total liabilities are 2.2% lower than the RMA industry average and tangible net
worth is 2.4% higher than the RMA average. As a result, Kmarts debt/worth ratio of
1.03x similar to the 1.08x RMA average.
Trend:
As a result of total liabilities decreasing by 12% while net worth has increased by
16% over this period. Kmarts debt/worth ratio has improved by 23.7% during the three
year period 1996-1998.
The company has paid down their long-term notes with cash, but also issuing
convertible preferred securities. These securities are convertible to 3.33 shares of Kmart
stock.

Kmart also has a $2.5 billion dollar Revolving Credit Agreement that was

amended in 1997 with maturity extensions and reduced interest rate spreads. In 1998, the
company believed that its current financing arrangements would be sufficient to meet
their liquidity needs for operations and capital.

Profitability Ratios
Profitability ratios are a useful tool in the evaluation of management performance.
Net Income Growth Rate
Account
Net Income
Net Income Growth Rate

1996
$(220)M
61%

25

1997
$249M
213.18%

1998
$518M
108.03%

Net income growth rate as seen in the table above improved significantly for
years 96, 97 and 98. The loss in 1996 is attributed to a decrease of .9% in sales from the
previous year which can be attributed to the sale of the Mexican and Canadian
international operations. Kmart also closed 48 stores in 1996, which was offset partially
by the opening of 21 new stores. In addition, FYE 1996 had one less week during fiscal
year 1996 decreased sales. In addition Kmart at FYE 1996 reported a net loss of $451
from discontinued operations from the sales of the Builders Square subsidiary and also
the sale of a portion of an investment in Thrifty Payless Holdings.
Net income for 1997 increased at a rate of 213.18%; primarily due to the opening
of the Big Kmart stores, the introduction of the Martha Stewart lines, Sesame Street kids
line and increased promotional activities. The net income increase was due to not only
the sales increase but to expense control. However, most of the large percentage increase
in net income was due to an 83% decrease in voluntary early retirement programs and a
91% decrease in interest expense. Sales increased by 2.37% for the FYE97. In addition,
SG&A expenses decreased by .89% due to the sale of the international operations and
management control of expenses by focusing on the core business lines.
Net income for 1998 increased a second year in a row with the growth of
108.03% over 1997. This increase in attributed to a 4.63% growth in sales for FYE98
from the new Big Kmart store concept, the Martha Stewart lines, Sesame Street kids line
and private label Kathy Ireland line. In addition, SG&A expenses decreased by .52% for
the year, again for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph.

26

Although Kmart is reporting not only positive net income levels, but positive trends for
the past two years, their gross margins are significantly lower than industry as stated
above.

Margins
Gross Margin and Operating Margin
Account
Net Sales
Less COGS
Gross Margin
Less Operating Expenses
Operating Margin

1996
$31,437M
77.9
22.42%
23.3%
2.46%

1997
$32,183M
77.6
21.85%
20.0%
2.78%

1998
$33,67M
78.2
21.84%
19.4%
3.30%

RMA
See Note
67.6
32.40%
26.9%
5.50%

Note: RMA sales data was not input because it was not comparable to Kmart which is one of the
top three retailers making up 80% of the discount retail market share.

The Gross Margin and the Operating Margin both represent a company's ability
to translate sales dollars into profit. These margins are calculated at different stages of
measurement.
The gross margin is the relationship between sales and the cost of product sold.
It is an accurate measurement in terms of the company's ability to control costs of goods
sold. Consideration is given to the company's ability to pass unavoidable price increases
to the customers. In most recent years, Kmart has remained consistent in its gross
margin, but it is substantially lower than the industry standard as seen above. The lower
gross margin can be attributed to Kmart's costs of goods sold being significantly higher
than industry standards.
The operating profit margin measures overall operating efficiency. It incorporates
all expenses associated with the operations of the business. Kmart has been successful at

27

improving its operating margin due to controlling operating expenses.

Operating

expenses were 19.4% in comparison to 26.9% industry average. Although, the operating
expenses were lower than industry, Kmarts operating margin of 3.30x remains below
industry average of 5.50x. This again can be attributed to costs of goods sold exceeding
industry by 10.6%.

EBITDA / Revenue
Account
EBIT
Depreciation
EBITDA
Revenue
EBITDA / Revenue

1996

1997

1998

Median Peer
Comparison

$783M
654
$1,437M
$31,437
4.57

$781M
660
$1,441M
$32,183
4.48

$1,091M
671
$1,762M
$33,674
5.23

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.0

The EBITDA or Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization

to Revenue ratio has become a valuable barometer to a company's success. EBITDA is a
measure of cash flow from the companys operation. The assumption is that as EBITDA
steadily improves, debt will be repaid and a company's balance sheet is acceptable and
portrays a successfully run business. This ratio shows the raw earning power of the
business.
Kmart has continued to improve this ratio and is .77 from meeting the "median
peer comparison". This comparison is made up of the top six retailers in the industry.
Contributions to Kmart's success in this ratio include better merchandising and improved
inventory management. Consumers are attracted to this form of the retail industry,
because of their value of brand names at discount prices.

28

% Profit Before Taxes / Tangible Net Worth

Item
Earnings Before Taxes
Tangible Net Worth
% EBT/TNW Ratio

1996
1.05%
42.5%
5.43%

1997
1.30%
47.32%
6.52%

1998
2.37%
49.15%
11.46%

RMA
5.00%
48%
31.9%

EBIT divided by tangible net worth reflects the rate of return on tangible assets
within an organization. When combined with other ratios, it can be a useful management
tool but is more effective when compared to other ratios that provide a more detailed
analysis. A high number is usually indicative of successful management but may be a
false assumption if degree of capitalization and other factors are not considered.
Benchmark:
Kmarts EBT is approximately 52.6% below industry average due to the higher
COGS, which also resulted in lower gross and operating margins. The tangible net worth
is 2.4% higher than the industry average. Consequently, Kmarts %EBT/TNW is
considerably lower than the industry average.
Trend:
Kmarts EBT/TNW has improved by 111% for the three year period ending 19961998. This large growth has been due to EBT growing115% over the three year period
1996-1998 while TNW has only grown by 16%. However, as stated above Kmart is still
well below the industry norm. The upward trend of this ratio may be partially due to the
corporate goal to get themselves in the position of being able to direct large amounts of
capital into new opportunities without add debt.

29

Profit Before Taxes / Total Assets

Item
Earnings Before Taxes
Total Assets
% EBT/Total Assets Ratio

1996
1.05%
$330M
$14,286M
2.31%

1997
1.30%
$418M
$13,558M
3.08%

1998
2.37%
$798M
$14,166M
5.63%

RMA
5.00%
N/A
12.3%

Note: RMA asset data was not input because it was not comparable to Kmart which is one of the
top three retailers making up 80% of the discount retail market share.

This ratio is a representation of management's ability to utilize the resources

available. It expresses the ratio of pre-tax returns on total assets.
Benchmark:
Earning before taxes of 2.3% is considerable lower than the industry average.
The low EBT is the major factor behind the EBT/Total Assets ratio being less than the
industry. EBT is approximately 52.6% below industry average due to the higher COGS,
which also resulted in lower gross and operating margins.
Trend:
Kmarts EBT/Total Assets ratio is trending upward since 1996; earnings before
taxes have increased over the 1996-1998 period by 142% while total assets decreased of
1%. As a result, EBT/Total Assets has been above the industry during this period.

Supplemental Key Industry Ratios

Same Store Sales
K-Mart
Wal-Mart
Dayton-Hudson (Target)
Median Peer Comparison

30

1997
4.8x
6.0
5.0
4.8

1998
4.8x
9.0
6.1
6.5

Success with customers is measured by yearly sales gains. The Same Store Sales
quantitative indicator is one of the most closely watched indicators. It is defined as the
increase or decrease from the preceding year in sales at stores that have been open at least
one year. New stores are excluded since first year openings are often spikes in the
statistics for companys sales history. The same store sales is an excellent barometer of
basic demand. Trends in this factor give a better indication of the state of the business
rather than a single month's number would. Kmart has had the same increase in sales for
the last two years.

Kmarts same store sales has remained stagnant even though they

have been opening new stores. This stable ratio has been because Kmart, although
opening new stores, has also been closing stores at the same time in their effort to
restructure the company.
Due to the lack of an upward trend in the rate of sales growth, management may
need to reevaluate new store positions and locations, which can impact this data. The
below median peer comparison also reflects stagnation in the growth of the company as
well as slow profit when compared to the other major players in the retail industry.
Sales / Square Foot (millions)
1997
1998
K-Mart
$211M
$222(S)M
Wal-Mart
347
371(G)
Dayton-Hudson (Target)
230
244(S)
Median Peer Comparison
$216M
$221M
(S) Designates sq. footage vs. (G) gross
The Sales to Square Foot ratio is a measurement of how efficient the retailer is
using its assets. It gives credit to the designers/architects who design the buildings that
house the retailers as well as to the management and marketing staff who control its

31

product presentation. It indicates how effective space, in this case square footage for
selling, is utilized. If the sales per square foot is low relative to other retailers in the same
sector a problem may exist. Some of the factors contributing to this problem are the sales
associate's performance, the customer base or the physical location of the business.
Kmart's numbers in this ratio are impressive in that they have demonstrated
improvements and are presently slightly above the median peer comparison. It appears
they are utilizing their assets effectively; however, their lack of growth overall in the
market may be contributed to their lack of profitability from their product mix. Please
note: the s referred to in the table above denotes selling space per square foot while the
G represent gross square footage. For example: Kmart is reporting their selling per
square footage, (only the space used to sell) versus Wal-mart is reporting their
selling/square foot from their gross store square footage. The gross number is including
non-selling space, which inflates Wal-mart numbers in the peer comparison.

32

Conclusion
The following table identifies key strengths and weaknesses identified through the
historical analysis of Kmart.

Strengths

Weaknesses

Cash: Kmart is maintaining positive net cash after

operations to service their debt. However, net cash
after operations has declined 52% over the three year
period 1996-1998. The cash position could be views
as a strength or weakness.
Kmart has a $2.5 billion revolving credit agreement.
Accounts Payable: APDOH is 4.61 shorter than the
industry average resulting in Kmart paying 14%
faster than the industry resulting in the use of cash of
approximately $319.

Cash: Cash balances are 64% less than the

industry. In addition, net cash after operations
has declined 52% over the three year period
1996-1998.

EBIT/Interest: EBIT increased 30% while interest

decreased 39.6% over the 1996-1998 period resulting
TIE increasing by 115%.

Sales Growth: Sales growth has improved 7.12%

over the three year period 1996-1997.
%EBT/Total Assets: Earnings before taxes of 2.3%
is considerable lower than the industry average. The
%EBT/Total Assets ratio is less than the industry.
EBT is approximately 52.6% below industry average
due to the higher COGS which resulting in lower
gross margins and operating margins. Earnings
before taxes have increased over the 1996-1998
period by 142%.
EBITR/ Interest Expense+Rent Expense: The
median peer EBIT margin is approximately 3.9%
versus Kmarts 3.24% margin. The lower ratio in
comparison to their peers is attributed to the lower
EBIT margin.
Income growth: Income grew 201% over the three
year period. However, due to expenses associated
with divesting subsidiaries, Kmart reported losses for
fiscal year ended 1996. In addition, Kmart booked
expenses for early retirement programs.
Debt Service Coverage: Debt service coverage is
4.14x for 1998 versus 2.99x. This increase in the
ratio is attributed to the large growth in net income of
213.08% and 108.03% coupled with the decrease in
total debt service of 16%.

Inventory: Kmart is carrying 28% above the

inventory norm. INVDOH is 17.64 days longer
than the industry resulting in a longer operating
and cash conversion cycles resulting in the use of
cash of approximately $1,222.
Cost of Goods Sold: Cost of goods sold is 16%
above the industry average resulting in a lower
gross margin of 21.84% in comparison to 32.40%
industry average. In addition, the operating
margin is affected by cost of goods sold at 3.30%
versus the 5.50% industry average.
Sales/net working capital ratio: Sales/net
working capital ratio is 35.91% greater than the
industry. It appears that Kmart is financing
current assets with long-term debt.
Same store sales: Same store sales remained
constant for 1997 and 1998 and was lower (4.8x)
than the industry 6.5x for 1998.

Sales/net fixed assets: Sales increased by 7%

while net fixed assets increased by 3.9% over the
three year period. As a result, sales/total net
fixed assets has increased over the three year
period.
Leases vs. Own: Kmart leases 2,051 and owns
110 of their facilities.

Kmarts income grew 201% over the past three years due to improved
merchandise assortments and roll out of the Big-K format. Additionally, the absence of a
$114M expense for voluntary early retirement was a contributing factor to the income
growth. Although cash balances are significantly lower than the industry, Kmart appears
to manage their cash position with reported positive net cash after operations for the past
three years.
Kmarts performance is trending upward for the past three years in comparison to
1995 when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Sales have continued to increase an
average 7.12% for the past three years. In addition, Kmart has reduced interest expense
through debt restructuring and pay downs of long-term debt.

Although Kmart is

improving their debt structure, asset management practices could be improved.

Kmarts primary weakness is their inventory management practices. As seen in
the analysis and above table, inventory has slightly declined in the past year, however
they are still above the industry average by 28%. In addition, cost of good sold is 16%
higher than the industry. This has resulted in a higher INVDOH by 17.64 days greater
than the industry resulting in an effect of $1,222M. Kmarts management needs to focus
on examining the problem in inventory management control. Inventory management is a
critical aspect in the discount retail industry because it is their primary source of revenue
generation. In addition, Kmart is paying their trade payables faster than the industry by
4.61 days resulting in a $319 use of cash.
Kmart leases 95% of their facilities. The remaining competitors in the industry
own the majority of their facilities. Because of differences in depreciation methods of
straight-line amortization (leases) and accelerated (owning the building), Kmarts net

34

fixed assets are higher than the industry. Kmart has signed 25 year leases with 5 year
renewable options. It appears the new store opening are being bought, rather than leased,
and are included in the 110 stores owned.
Kmarts same store sales are also lower than the industry caused by recent store
closings and openings. Kmart has closed many stores, while opening others utilizing the
Super K centers. As a result, Kmarts ratio has been biased down since the new stores are
not included in the ratio. This discount retail industry ratio subtracts out the current year
sales of the new stores to determine same store sales. This ratio ensures that new store
opening do not inflate store sales figures each year. Therefore, this ratio is a critical part
of historical analysis for the discount retail industry.
This historical analysis provides a financial overview of the companies
performance over the past three years 1996-1998. The main strengths and weaknesses of
Kmart are identified in the above table, which were validated in the ratio analysis
throughout the paper. The fourth stage of this industry analysis project will provide
projections for the next three year period.
We expect Kmart to grow at approximately 6.5% increasing at a rate of 2% each
year. This increase is expected due to the opening of the Big K format stores during the
next three years. Cost of goods sold will continue to increase at the rate of sales also
contributed from the opening of new stores for the next three years. Overall net income
will increase due to the increase in sales, controlled SG&A expenses and the absence of
loss of discontinued operations. The sale of all Kmarts discontinued operations should
be completed by the end of 2000.

35

Due to the sales increase and cost of goods sold and new store openings;
inventory on the balance will increase at the rate of sales. The continued change of
Kmarts format into the Big-K layout will result in an increase in fixed assets contributed
to the refrigeration equipment and expansion of facilities. Kmart has also entered into a
new revolving credit agreement of $40.6MM for working capital will result in continued
decreasing cash balances. Overall, Kmart is expected to continue to report positive
results for the next three years. The main resources used in this paper were the 19961998 audited financial statements, RMA industry data and Bank of America Retail Peer
Analysis.

36

APPENDIX
Financial Statements and Ratios

37

Bibliography
Laney, Janice. Bank of America Retail Peer Analysis, 1998. Pgs. 62-70.
Kmart Corporation. Audited Financial Statements, 1996-1998.
Robert Morris and Associates Industry Data., 1998. Pgs. 654-655.

38