Marks & Spencer PLC
Marks & Spencer PLC
The companys profitability depicted from the ROA and ROE, shows minor changes from the
previous years results. As ROA seems to fluctuate over the years so does ROE, however the ROE
has plummeted aggressively from the year 2014 to 2015. Net profit margin seemed to correlate
with the Return on Assets. As both increased and decreased with same magnitude. Since
profitability is the key factor for determining the performance of any company, they must not be
analyzed in isolation. As the evident from above, the companys profitability correlated with its
performance. Earnings per share correlates with Net margin as the increased profits bring in more
funds available for the shareholders. However, MKS seemed to have retained these profits and
gave out a consistent dividend that increased in 2015 regardless of deteriorated profitability. The
companys interest expenses were eating up its revenues, since it seems to have had taken up more
debt than capital. However, the company is shedding these expenses by deleveraging its capital
structure. Thus introducing free of cost funds for the generation of revenues.
Kingfisher PLC
The companys profitability as represented by the ROA and ROE, shows variations in the
utilization of the assets and equity for earning profits. As ROA seems to vary over the years so
does ROE, nevertheless their change is relatively equal to each other over the course of 4 years
pointing to the change in net income as the causal factor. Net profit margin apparently correlates
with the ROA and ROE though changes in these indicators are more significant than Net margin.
In this case too, companys profitability correlated with its performance. Earnings per share show
a similar pattern with the Net margin as observed previously albeit the association is apparently
weak. Kingfisher retained a significant portion of these profits and maintained a steady dividend
per share that is increasing since 2012 regardless of dips in profitability. The company is operating
with a very deleveraged capital structure of which only 2.87% is financed by debt.
The above given chart evidently demonstrates the vast differences in the profitability and
performance of the both companies, while both belong to the same industry and are competitors.
As discussed before over the given period of time both of their performance reflects their
profitability, thus reflecting upon the association amid the two classes of indicators.
APPENDIX
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Borrowings 327.7 558.7 448.7 279.4
Other Current Liabilities 1677.7 1679.6 1900.6 1832.2
2005.4 -2238.3 2349.3 2111.6
Non-Current Liabilities
Borrowings 1948.1 1727.3 1655.1 1745.9
Provisions 219.7 256.6 274 347.4
Other Non-Current Liabilities 321.3 869 917.9 792.4
2489.1 2852.9 2847 2885.7
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Borrowings 367 99 94 105
Other Current Liabilities 2683 2771 2696 2628
3050 2870 2790 2733
Non-Current Liabilities
Borrowings 375 332 230 232
Provisions 312 341 297 363
Other Non-Current Liabilities 169 198 186 146
856 871 713 741
Total Liabilities 3906 3741 3503 3474