Comparative Analysis of Petroleum Industry in

Pakistan
Analysis of Financial statements CID:9301
GROUP MEMBERS : Reg#

HOSH MOHAMMAD (MBA) 4581

PSO
SHELL

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ (BBA) 3610

BYCO

HAFEEZ-U-RAHMAN (MBA) 4469

ATTOCK

Submitted to: SIR IMTIAZ ASKARI

HOSH MOHAMMAD (MBA)

0342-3802305
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all we would like to thank almighty ALLAH who has give us this
courage and strength that we have make this report.

After that we would like to thank our teacher SIR IMTIAZ ASKARI that
he has guided us throughout the semester. Our teacher took pain to
teach us on every stage of this project what to do and how to do .We
had faced many difficulties in completing this report but our teacher
directed us on a right track at right times and that is why we have
completed this project of Comparative Analysis of Petroleum Industry in
Pakistan.

The last but not the least is that in this project we come to that how we
have collect, analyze and present the report on a given date.
SELECTED COMPANIES

The companies that have been selected for further analysis are:

 PSO

 BYCO

 SHELL
  ATTOCK

Market Share of these Four Companies

Sales To Assets Ratio

PSO
SHELL
BYCO
ATTOCK
Solvency Ratios

2009 2008
PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL
O K O K

Curren 1.07:1 0.72: 1.5:1 1.03:1 Curren 1.2:1 0.92: 1.41:1 1.13:1
t Ratio 1 t Ratio 1

QUICK 0.75:1 0.12: 1.49:1 0.87:1 QUICK 0.6:1 0.92: 1.38:1 0.51:1
RATIO 1 RATIO 1

WORKIN 866414 (638 54695 (218855 WORKIN 10650247 (215 40392 691254
G 5) 34 1) G 2 2) 84
CAPITAL CAPITAL

2007 2006
PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOC SHELL
O K K

Curren 1.2:1 1.01: 1.48:1 1.06:1 Curren 1.2:1 1.07:1 1.29:1 0.88:1
t Ratio 1 t Ratio
QUICK 0.6:1 0.24: 1.42:1 0.48:1 QUICK 0.6:1 0.32:1 1.28:1 0.47
RATIO 1 RATIO

WORKIN 111275 54 25925 1015000 WORKIN 109780 (506) 13011 241440

G 46 46 G 97 24 00
CAPITAL CAPITAL

2005
PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL
O K

Curren 1.2:1 1.01: 1.51:1 0.88:1

t Ratio 1

QUICK 0.6:1 0.09: 1.43:1 0.48

RATIO 1

WORKIN 866640 34 68517 774000

G 4 8
 CAPITAL

CURRENT RATIO GRAPH

1.6
1.4
1.2
PSO
1
Byco
0.8
Attock
0.6
Shell
0.4
0.2
0
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

QUICK RATIO GRAPH

1.6
1.4
1.2
PSO
1
Byco
0.8
Attock
0.6
Shell
0.4
0.2
0
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

ANALYSIS (CURRENT, QUICK RATIO AND WORKING CAPITAL)

PSO

The liquidity of company detracted during the FY2009 due to increase of 38% in Current
liabilities in year 2009. This is due to 35% increase in trade and other payables and 69% increase
in short term borrowing

Current assets also increased 19% during FY2009 due to 37% increase in trade debts. However
stock in trade has been decreased by 35%.
Otherwise in previous years other than FY2009 seems to be very stable position which shows
the good short term debt paying ability of company. The company can improve its short term
debt paying ability by reducing short term borrowing and trade payables.

BYCO

As it is cleared from the figure that we have computed that in 2009 current ratio is low so,
company will hesitate to pay back its short term liabilities but in 2008 current ratio was higher
then 2009, so we can say that year 2008 was more suitable for Byco Company then 2009 and
2005 was the mile stone for the company in five years. b/c in 2005 company was more efficient
to pay their short term liabilities.
According to quick ratio analysis company was in the good in 2008 then the other years, b/c
their ratio is higher in 2009, so it means firm was able to meet its short term obligations more
early in 2008.

ATTOCK

The liquidity of company detracted during the FY2009 due to increase of 10% in Current
liabilities in year 2009. This is due to increase in trade and other payables in short term
borrowing

Current assets also increased 15% during FY2009 due to increase in trade debts. However stock
in trade has been decreased by 52% .The Company can improve its short term debt paying
ability by reducing short term borrowing and trade payables

SHELL

In 2005 Shell was less efficient to pays its short term liabilities in same as in 2006 but latter on
with passage of time shell has increased its efficiency to pay the short term liability. So we can
say that shell has shown a bit good performance.

Comparative analysis
According to current and quick ratio PSO seems to be in a very stable position, it means that
PSO manages its assets in a way that it equilibrates its assets according to Liabilities. Current
ratio of Attock is high that’s only because of high amount of inventory, when we see the quick
ratio of ATTOCK it is down. FY2009 is not so good for all over the industry, A leading company
(PSO) has has loss in 2007, and other companies are not in a good position also. PSO has
increase its borrowings in great extent that makes company more liquidity in 2009. It seems
that BYCO Manages its liabilities at a stable level, but its only because of excessive amount of
inventory it has in FY2009, when we see the Quick ratio of BYCO we will be clear about the
short term debt paying ability of the BYCO petroleum limited. Attock also have a big amount of
inventory in FY2009, that’s why quick rato is hs been down in FY2009. Although Shell has
increased its efficiency of Debt paying, it increases its assets in 2009 and reduces the liabilities
that makes SHELL the more stable in market.

ACTIVITY RATIOS
2009 2008
PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL
O K O K

ACOUNT 11 168 9.1 53 ACOUNT 58.78 135 12.7 9.35

RECIEVAB times time times RECIEVAB times time times
LE s LE s
TURNOVE TURNOVE
R R

INVENTO 13. 11 265.87 12 INVENTO 10.1 3 157.60 11

RY times time times times RY times time times times
TURNOVE s TURNOVE s
R R

2007 2006
PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOC SHELL
O K K

ACOUNT 105.79 73 17.6 11.77 ACOUNT 81.44 68 29.3 13.0

RECIEVAB times time times RECIEVAB times times times
LE s LE
TURNOVE TURNOVE
R R

INVENTO 11.7 4 202.37 9 times INVENTO 11.5 4 423.53 9.5

RY times time times RY times times times times
s
 TURNOVE TURNOVE
R R

2005
PSO BYC ATTOC SHELL
O K

ACOUNT 73.78 37.7 38.8 16.5

RECIEVAB times 8 times
LE time
s
TURNOVE
R

INVENTO 11.2 5 144.13 7.3

RY times time times times
TURNOVE s
R

ACCOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER GRAPH

180
160
140
120 PSO
100 Byco
80 Attock
60 Shell
40
20
0
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO A/R TURNOVER

Account Receivables Turnover seems to be not good in FY2009, it can be due to company could not
collect the receivables of 2008 year, That’s why the receivables turnover is so high, but the company can
improve this ratio in future, because the past data shows that company has a good turnover in last 4
years. The year 2007 is seems to be best because there is not any huge receivables to collect, compare
to FY2009 and FY2008, FY2006 and FY2005 seems to be stable in position, so it does not affect the
position of company.

BYCO A/R TURNOVER

A/R turnover ratio for BYCO seems to be very good for company, but its only because of less receivables
in current assets that makes company more recoverable,

ATTOCK A/R TURNOVER

And working capital increases because current assets are more than current liabilities it means the
company have more funds to repay their obligation in FY 2009

Account Receivables Turnover seems to be not good in FY2009, it can be due to company could not
collect the receivables of 2008year. That’s why the receivables turnover is so high. The year 2005 is
seems to be best because there is not any huge receivables to collect, compare to FY2009 and FY2008
SHELL A/R TURNOVER
In Account Receivables turnover there is fluctuations. In 2005 Account Receivable turnover was
16.5times and in the next year it has decreased, it means that company has low performance, but latter
on again company has increased its performance.

INVENTORY TURNOVER GRAPH

14
12
10
PSO
8
Attock
6
Shell
4
2
0
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO INVENTORY TURNOVER

Inventory turnover is slightly higher in FY2009 which is a favorable trend. Otherwise remaining
years have a stable position of inventory turnover. These figures shows that the company
managed its inventory in a good way that’s why inventory turnover becomes stable.

BYCO INVENTORY TURNOVER

As for as inventory turn over is concerned BYCO has improve the turn over of inventory, so we
can say that company is showing extra efficiency to the inventory turn over with the passage of
time.

ATTOCK INVENTORY TURNOVER

Inventory turnover is higher in FY2009 and 2006 which is a favorable trend. Otherwise
remaining years have a less of inventory turnover. These figures show that the company
managed its inventory not in a good way that’s why inventory turnover are not stable.
SHELL INVENTORY TURNOVER

Inventory turnover is for SHELL Pakistan has recorded very much positive performance. In given
five years inventory turnover has been increased at stable rate.

Comparative analysis

Account receivable turnover is highest of BYCO but it’s because of little amount in receivables
that makes company fast recoverable. PSO is looking in negative trend because last year
receivables couldn’t be collectable and that are due in 2009, it makes PSO less recoverable in
Account receivables. SHELL is in very good position because it maintain its receivables in a good
manner and its in increasing trend, also it maintain A/R turnover ratio in past years. Attock is
also in negative trend.

Inventory Turnover Ratio is in increasing trend for all the companies, why? That’s because of
purchasing of inventory in a great extent, All companies are focusing to purchases and they are
not thinking about their paying ability, it will obviously hit them on profitability of company.

Debt Ratio =Total Liabilities/Total Assets

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO 86.4% 75.6% 79.1% 70.3% 67.2%
BYCO 35% 48% 76.2% 75.1% 72.3%
ATOCK
SHELL 80% 73.1% 72.66% 68.72% 55.46%

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00% PSO
60.00%
Byco
50.00%
Attock
40.00%
30.00% Shell
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
 Debt Equity Ratio =Total Liabilities/Shareholder’s Equity
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO 635% 300% 256.9 % 237.1% 230%
BYCO 200.9% 17.56% 39.35% 37.56% 32.87%
ATOCK 157% 180.2% 160% 222.7% 141.6%
SHELL 420.3% 270% 230.5% 220% 179%

700.00%
600.00%
500.00%
PSO
400.00% Byco
300.00% Attock
Shell
200.00%
100.00%
0.00%
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO
The debt management ratios of PSO show the negative trend in FY2009, because in 2009 short term
liabilities have been increased. It includes Trade and other payables and short term borrowings. Trade
and other payables have 35% increment in 2009 and short term borrowing have 69% increment. Also
52% of reserves of the company have been decreased. That’s why debt ratio of the company has rose in
FY2009. The reason for the increase of Debt /Equity ratio is same that reserves have been decreased by
52% in Year 2009. Long term deposit have no effect to the company, and Retirement and other benefit
have negligible impact over the company’s debts, Short term liabilities have been so much increase that
result in bad management of debts and also loss in FY2009. The PSO manages its debts very smoothly
from FY2005 to FY2007, but it shows the increase trend in debt ratio from FY2008 to FY2009.

BYCO
With the passage of time company has improved his equity by reducing leverages in 2005 it was 72.3%
but in 2009 it shirked and become 35% so it is quite good sign.
According to debt equity ratio Company has declared more debt with the passage of time.
According to this ratio company has good condition in 2005 but letter on it because worst in 2009.
ATTOCK

The debt management ratios of ATTOCK show the decreasing trend in FY2009, because in 2009 short
term liabilities have been increased and in 2009 and in 2005 the debt ratio is higher because current
assets are low. It includes Trade and other payables and short term borrowings The debt equity holder
decreases in 2009 because equity has been increased more as compared to the liabilities. The have
maximum amount of equity and the debt cost is negligible.

SHELL

In debt ratio company has been inefficient. Specially in 2009 the debt ratio was on its peek. By
doing analysis we came to know that In 2005 debt ratio was 55.4% as a time goes on debt ratio
has increased at stable rate.
In debt equity ratio company again has been failed to achieve good performance, in
debt/equity ratio company has negative trend and with the passage of time this negative
performance has increased.

Profitability Ratios

Gross Profit Margin =Gross profit/Net sales

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO 0.42 % 5.1 % 3.0% 4.9% 5.4%
BYCO (8.76)% 5.98 % (0.37)% 3.48% 3.92%
ATOCK 5.32% 5.16% 4.63% 4.44% 4.35%
SHELL 7.8% 8.1% 6.3% 3.4% 7.84%

Gross
9.00%
8.00%
Profit
7.00% Margin
6.00% PSO
Graph
5.00%
Byco
4.00%
Attock
3.00%
2.00% Shell
1.00%
0.00%
2009
-1.00% 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO
PSO facing declining in profit an FY2009, it is due to increase in cost of good sold, the cost of goods sold
increase by 31.04% as compare to FY2008, it is the main reason that company incurs loss in FY2009,
however net sales also increased by 23.7%, but it is not enough to grow profit margin, company should
try to decrease the CGS as well as increase in sales. In 2008 CGS increased by 37.9%, but sales increased
by 42%, that results in increment of 45% in Gross profit. FY2008 seems to be in good position in which
Gross profit margin is 5.1%. However FY2007 is less profitable due to increase in CGS.

BYCO
In 2009 company has shown loss in gross profit margin, so one can say that financial health of the
company is not so good and in the future company will be unable to pay its operating and other
expenses.

ATTOCK

T he gross profit margin increase every year. Because the company increase their sale and this
increment is due to high prices of petroleum products.

SHELL

As for as Gross profit is concerned company has increased its performance, although in 2006
Gross profit ratio has decreased but latter on company recover the loss and increased its ratio
so we can say that this is the quite good sign for the company.

Net Profit Margin = Net Income before minority share of Earnings and Non Recurring Items /Net Sales
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO (.93)% 2.4 % 1.1% 2.1% 2.2%
BYCO (23.15) 0.5% (1.13)% 1.3% 1.3%
%
ATOCK 4.98% 4.96% 3.92% 3.41% 4.65%
SHELL 1.5% 3.6% 6.1% (0.56)% 2.34%

Return on Assets =Net Income before minority shares of earning and nonrecurring items /Average total Assets
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO (4.37)% 11.1% 6.3% 10.7% 10.8%
BYCO (4.17)% 2.2% (0.07)% 0.6% 0.4%
ATOCK 18.25 21.57 22.18 30.84 24.35
SHELL 5% 9.1% 7.2% (1.32)% 11.03%
PSO
The profitability of the PSO fell by 48% in FY2009. Although the sales of the company increased, but due
to increased in CGS, company face loss, that result in negative ROA in FY2009, overall ROA of the PSO is
very stable, except FY2007 which is due to less profit in 2007.

BYCO
In 2009 company has shown loss, and in 2007 company also incurred loss, than in remaining years
company has earned profit, but not as much as other companies.
In 2009 company has incurred heavy loss and 2008 was quite good. We can say that company has
earned on their assets, but in 2007 again company got the loss, so we can say that company is in
inefficient to get the return on assets.

ATTOCK

The net profit rate of FY2009 is 4.98% and FY2008 4.96%. The net profit margin ratio approximately
same in FY2009,2008,2005 but in 2007 and 2006 net profit margin go down because their expenses have
been increased in 2007 and 2006.

ROA in FY 2006 is higher and continuously decreasing till 2009. It mean the company don’t have ability
to used the assets efficiently and don’t earn a handsome return on from the sources available to the
company

SHELL

As for as Net Profit margin is concerned company has not been good in performance, it has
decreased the net profit margin continuously, and 2009 net profit margin has been shrieked to
1.5% so we can say its not a favorable for company.

In 2005 Return on Asset were 11.03% it means company has earned quit well on their Assets, but in the
second year 2006 company incurred loss. Then again in the next year company recovered itself and
showed a good sign till 2009.

Return on Equity
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO (32.10)% 44.5% 22.4% 36.2% 32.2%
BYCO (24.7) % 7.14% 4.33% 4.2% 3.8%
ATOCK 43.52 % 47.72% 50.04% 68.08% 45.45%
SHELL 22.9% 19.7% 3% 30.9% 25.2%
 Degree of financial Leverage=EBIT/Earnings before tax
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO (49.1) 1.06 1.11 0.98 0.9
BYCO (0.436) 10.5 (0.42) 1.66 1.61
ATOCK 0.80 0.92 0.89 0.97 0.47
SHELL 1.33 1.2 1.1 (0.6) 1.8

Price/Earning ratio=Market price per share/earning per share

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO (5.47) times 5.1 times 14.3 times 7.0 times 11.6 times
BYCO (0.31) times 250 times (4.46) 11.25 times 14.58 times
ATOCK 5.94 times 9.43 times 13.92times 9.28 times 13.73 times
SHELL 9.1 times 8.5 times 31.8 times 8.4 times 9.9 times

PSO
Return on Equity is most valuable profitability ratio, Return on equity reveals how much profit a
company earned in comparison to the total amount of shareholder equity found on the balance sheet,
PSO has loss in 2009 so ROE is in negative trend, the best year for PSO in regard of ROE is FY2008, in this
year Net is higher than previous years, and in FY2007 due to less income it is less ROE, in 2006-5 is in a
stable position.

A leverage ratio summarizing the affect a particular amount of financial leverage has on a company's
earnings per share (EPS). The higher the degree of financial leverage, the more volatile EPS will be.

This ratio can be used to help determine the most appropriate level of financial leverage to use to
achieve that goal. The company’s P/E ratio is in increasing trend from 2005 to 2008, but due to loss in
2009 it becomes in negative. Although EPS in FY2008 is about 81.9 and Market share price at year end is
Rs 417.2 which is highest rate as compare to previous years, it reduces the P/E Ratio of the company,
P/E ratio of the company is fluctuating during 2005 to 2009. In 2007 due to less profit and high
Earning/Share.

BYCO
In 2005 the company has 1.66 leverage o earning ratio, but with the passage of time it showed negative
trend because leverage on earning ratio has increased. In 2009 it got the highest position of worth
10.5%.
If we will take a sigh of P/E ratio that we can analyze that company has earned more profit, but it is also
fact that company has shown loss in FY2009 and FY2007 as well and rest of the years company has
shown stable profit.

ATTOCK

ROE in FY 2006 is higher and continuously decreasing till 2009. It mean the company don’t have ability
to used the assets efficiently and don’t earn a handsome return on from the sources available to the
company

The financial leverage in FY 2006 is higher it mean in 2006 the company is more risky. In FY2009 and FY
2005 the degree of financial leverage is low and the risk factor is also low in these years.

Theoretically, a stock's P/E tells us how much investor are willing to pay per dollar of earning. P/E ratios
are generally lower during times of high inflation

Price earing ratio is higher in FY 2005 and FY 2007 but in FY 2009 it is decrease due to low market price
of shares of the company. And high value of EPS.

Price earning ratio fluctuate every year because there is a high change in market price therefore P ratio
fluctuate in FY 2007 and 2005 the company is more stable because P ratio is higher in these years

SHELL

In 2005 company had 1.8% leverage on Earning/Share it directly affected the earning but latter
on leverage on per share has decreased so we can say company showed a good performance.
In 2005 P/E ratio was so good but latter on company has shown decreasing trend till 2008, then again
company has earned good profit.

Total Asset Turnover

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO 5.13 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.37
BYCO 1.4 1.1 1.2 6.4 3.90
ATOCK 3.66 4.35 5.66 9.04 5.24
SHELL 4.01 4.35 4.2 4.9 5
DuPont Analysis

DuPont= Net Profit Margin*Asset Turnover*Financial leverage

DuPont Analysis
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
PSO (234)% 14.75% 7% 12% 10.6
BYCO (14)% 5.07% (0.6552) 13.8% 8%
ATOCK 44% 48% 49% 68% 45%
SHELL 0.0798% 1.87 % 2.81% (0.16) 0.21%

PSO

In FY2009 loss incurred to the company , the investors had got nothing from company. In FY2008 the
ROE is highest which shows the better sign for company and it also shows maximization of profit
compare to other years, this is because of Highest sale in 2005 to 2008 which result in good Asset
turnover, it means company utilized its assets in a efficient way.

BYCO

In 2009 BYCO didn’t utilized its assets in efficient way, because sales decreased in that year. But in 2008
it seems to be profitable but still company has many problems to become profitable. Because company
failed to earn profit in two year, company’s ability to run in long term seems to be not possible.

ATTOCK

If a company's ROE goes up due to an increase in the net profit margin or asset turnover, this is a very
positive sign for the company. InFY2006 the value is high and in FY 2009 it decreased it means that the
company don’t use its assets effectively.

SHELL

ROE of shell shows the decreasing trend, however these rates are fluctuating year by year. Company’s
net income margin (which is due to increase in operating expenses) is very low in each year that’s why it
makes the company in downward trend.
Comparative analysis of Profitability and Debt ratio

Debt Ratio of all the firms are in increasing trend, its main reason is that they borrow short term
loans without interest and they want to take benefit of it that’s why companies have increasing
debt ratio.

When we see the gross profit of the firms; PSO has very low gross profit margin and BYCO has
loss, that is result of High amount of CGS, but ATTOCK and SHELL has a good position in Gross
Profit, ATTOCK is seems to be a very good in Gross profit ratio and ROA as compare to other
companies, that is because the ATTOCK is a small company as compare to PSO and SHELL so
that it seems to be very effective in Gross profit and ROA; for example if ATTOCK gross profit is
1000 on sale of Rs. 10000 it will show the margin of 10% that is a good margin for ATTOCK but it
will be no more good for other companies, so we can not compare ATTOCK’s GP ratio on other
companies.

Net Profit margin shows that PSO and BYCO companies are in Loss and reason is described at
many positions, But ATTOCK and SHELL are in Profit. However Shell has low Net income margin
which is because of increase in Operating expenses, Shell need to control its operating
expenses, but still its in a good position because overall industry is going in loss and Shell runs in
profit.

Return on Equity of Petroleum Firms seems to be 2:2 ratio, it means that 2 companies earned
profit in FY2009 and 2 got Losses. But it can not be decided on the basis of ROE that the
companies who had losses can not run in Long term. PSO is a very stable and profitable in
previous years but due to high Raw material cost it run in Loss, that doesn’t mean that PSO will
be liquidify, PSO is in a very strong position, its debt paying ability is very good, and it can run in
Long Term relationship with its investors, The BYCO is really in trouble, because it had incur
losses two times within 5 years. And its debt paying ability is also not in a good position, its
amount of Profit is also very low.

ATTOCK has maintained its ROE in a good manner, however it is also in downtrend in FY2009
but it is quit possible for Firm to keep it high in next year.

Shell has increasing trend in ROE, that is sign of good move in market, Shell Pakistan is running
in profit and it maintained its sales and Assets very efficiently, although FY2009 is not good for
most of the Oil companies but Shell Pakistan proved itself as a stable company, Return on
Assets of Shell is in increasing trend which means the company is utilizing its assets very
effectively.

We can not say that a Single firm has a best performance in this industry, because PSO is a
largest petroleum company in the Pakistan and it has 72% market share. However it incurred
loss in 2009 but it does not mean that It will not cover it in next year, the Firm has a best debt
paying ability, and a it has good control over Receivables and inventory as compare to others.

Although this time Shell is seems to be good profitable in Financial statements.

Changes in Cost, Sale and Gross Profit

PSO =====Change in Sale, CGS, and Gross Profit
Sales Volume: Per Year (given)
2009: 92.4 million barrel 2008: 91 million barrel 2007: 82.6 million barrel
2006: 68.6 million barrel 2005: 67.9 million barrel

Change in CGS (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel cost Change within
Cost/barrel (A) (B) A/B year
2009 609685478 92. 4 m 6598 1468
2008 465254907 91 m 5112 1027
2007 337446896 82.6 m 4085 (-12)
2006 281042813 68.6 m 4097 1170
2005 212503650 67.9 m 3129 -
Change in Sales (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel Sale Change within
Sale/barrel (A) (B) price year
A/B (Rs.)
2009 612695589 92. 4 m 6631 1189
2008 495278533 91 m 5442 1208
2007 349706326 82.6 m 4233 (114)
2006 298250039 68.6 m 4348 1219
2005 198757319 67.9 m 2927 -
Change in Gross Profit / Change
Gross Profit Year within year
2009 3010111 (27014)
2008 30023626 17765
2007 12259430 (4948)
2006 17207226 3461
2005 - -
PSO =====Cost Per Unit
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Opening
Cost 621.8 277 300 262 180
Charges 10.9 9.86 15 11.5 19
thereon
Purchase
cost 5431 4787 3648.7 3692 2670
Charges 623 37 123 132 56
thereon
PSO
In FY2009 company faced loss of Rs. (9966) millions. Why Company faced this Loss?

However the sale volume increased in a great extent but CGS also increased, company could not control
its cost, In 2009 Cost/barrel of Oil was Rs. 6598 with increase of Rs. 1468, it’s a very big amount and in
sale price there is of only deference of Rs.33, its not sufficient to earn profit, the increase in CGS was the
result of increase the Cost in Purchases in FY2009, the deference between 2009-2008 purchases is about
644, that result in loss to the company. In 2008 Cost/barrel also increased but the Sale price/barrel was
also increased by Rs.330. it is a good amount to increase profitability, the purchases amount also
increased at a great extent in FY2008 but Prices were so high that makes company profitable. In FY2007
company reduces Rs.12 in cost of goods sold, that was actually because of low prices of Oil in
International Market.

BYCO ====Change in Sale, CGS and Gross Profit

Production Volume: million barrel/ Year
2009: 7.03 million barrel 2008: 6.188 million barrel 2007: 5.06million barrel
2006: 4.808 million barrel 2005: 3.789 million barrel

Change in CGS (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel cost Change within
Cost/barrel (A) (B) A/B year
2009 48530050 7036809 6896.5 1397.4
2008 33664208 6121878 5499 1627.5
2007 19401391 5011337 3871.5 236.9
2006 17475318 4807983 3634.6 1005.6
2005 9607392 3654390 2629 ---
Change in Sales (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel Sale Change within
Sale/barrel (A) (B) price year
A/B (Rs.)
2009 44621016 7036809 6341 492.2
2008 35806116 6121878 5848.8 1991.8
2007 19328906 5011337 3857 128
2006 17929007 4807983 3729 993
2005 9998865 3654390 2736 ----

Change in Gross Profit / Change

Gross Profit Year within year
2009 (3,909,034) (1767126)
2008 2,141,908 2099423
2007 42485 (552144)
2006 624629 233156
2005 391473 --
BYCO== =Cost Per Unit

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

 Raw 6732.7 5371 3740 3468 2448
Material
Salaries 27 24.5 21 16 15
Fuel and 44 35 34 46 49
Power
Others 92.3 67 75 104 117

BYCO
In FY2009 however Production volume increased but company could control its cost of production, the
coast was about 500 higher than sale price/barrel that’s why companies faced loss. The reason of
increasing cost is that Raw material (Crude oil) price was so much high in 2009 that result in increase in
overall cost and sale price was about 400 low than the cost.

ATTOCK =====Change in Sale, CGS and Gross Profit

Sales Volume: million barrel/ Year
2009: 9.14 million barrel 2008: 9.6 million barrel 2007: 11.6 million barrel
2006: 11.36 million barrel 2005: 3.79 million barrel

Change in CGS (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel cost Change within
Cost/barrel (A) (B) A/B year
2009 58570802 9144543 6405 1190
2008 50,493,929 9682184 5215 1592
2007 42085565 11616219 3623 188
2006 39027444 11361701 3435 935
2005 94786368 3791455 2500 ---

Change in Sales (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel Sale Change within
Sale/barrel (A) (B) price year
A/B (Rs.)
2009 61863152 9144543 6765.03 1266.03
2008 53242330 9682184 5499 1700
2007 44,130,536 11616219 3799 204.6
2006 40,839,299 11361701 3594.4 980.7
2005 9909682 3791455 2613.7 ----

Change in Gross Profit / Change

Gross Profit Year (Billion) within year
2009 3,292,350 543949
 2008 2,748,401 703430
2007 2,044,971 233116
2006 1,811,855 1380812
2005 431,043, --

ATTOK====Cost Per Unit

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Purchase 5898.4 5168.7 3296 2919 2225

Petroleum 497.4 20.9 289.8 234 175
development levy
Others 9.2 25 72 171.5 100

ATTOCK
The company sale increases in rupees in 2009 due to increase the price of the petroleum products. But
the company sale in barrel is decrease in FY 2009 at 9.14 million barrel to 9.6 million barrel in 2008. But
in FY 2007 and 2006 the sale in barrel is higher. But the gross profit increase due to increase in prices.
And gross profit ratio also increases.

Shell ====Change in CGS, Sale and Gross Profit

Sales Volume: million barrel/ Year
2009: 18.09 million barrel 2008: 20.35 million barrel 2007: 19.04 million barrel
2006: 14.3 million barrel 2005: 15.4 million barrel

Change in CGS (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel cost Change within
Cost/barrel (A) (B) A/B year
2009 104486910 18.09 5776 -351
2008 124,694,471 20.35 m 6127 420
2007 108,664,932 19.04 5707 560
2006 890954358 17.3 5147 -985
2005 96074000 15.4 6132 ---

Change in Sales (Rs.000) Barrels sold Per Barrel Sale Change within
Sale/barrel (A) (B) price year
A/B (Rs.)
2009 129354243 18.09 7150 224
2008 140944995 20.35 6926 60
2007 130736885 19.04 6866 648
 2006 90347400 14.3 6318 118

2005 95480000 15.4 6200 --

SHELL===Cost Per Unit

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Purchase 5898.4 5168.7 3296 2919 2225

Petroleum 497.4 20.9 289.8 234 175
development levy
Others 9.2 25 72 171.5 100

Break Even Point and DOL

PSO

Break Even Point 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Rs in (000) 1770502655 62952188 104486524 52007889 45296321
             
Operating
-5577 22,451 7,950 11264 9340
Income
DOL contribution Margin / Operating Income
DOL  -248.3464228 1288.969 1460.553 1442.309 1389.849
Break Even Point and DOL

Attock

years 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Break
Even Point 500327281 296958968 353253531 286341731 221614131
Rs   9 2 9 1 8
contribution Margin/Op: Income
DOL          
DOL   0.84 0.84 0.88 0.089 0.68
 Common Size Anaylsis

PSO
HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

ASSETS  
Non- Current Assets
Property, plant and equipment 100.00
86.14% 91.98% 98.78% 92.70%
%
Intangibles 100.00
2.97% 4.55% 5.45% 6.68%
%
Long term investments 100.00
92.91% 116.54% 129.03% 141.47%
%
Long term loans, advances and receivables 100.00
52.72% 62.07% 81.59% 90.71%
%
Long term deposits and prepayments 100.00
79.55% 75.21% 62.68% 71.00%
%
Deferred tax 4035.01 100.00
326.55% 321.50% 327.32%
% %
Total Non Current Assets 100.00
127.29% 97.04% 105.62% 104.84%
%
Current Assets

Stores, spare parts and loose tools 100.00

85.89% 88.71% 97.96% 95.77%
%
Stock-in-trade 100.00
197.72% 302.96% 143.62% 136.85%
%
Trade debts 1185.52 100.00
499.25% 200.26% 172.52%
% %
Loans and advances 100.00
196.02% 185.80% 171.62% 129.30%
%
Deposits and short term prepayments 100.00
75.99% 55.28% 218.12% 177.36%
%
Other receivables 100.00
123.64% 151.40% 152.07% 140.59%
%
taxation/short term investments 7039.25 100.00
     
% %
Cash and bank balances 100.00
150.01% 157.06% 79.21% 98.80%
%
Total Current Assets 100.00
340.47% 284.47% 153.47% 142.47%
%
TOTAL ASSETS 100.00
293.31% 243.00% 142.88% 134.15%
%
  EQUITY AND LIABILITIES

100.00
Share Capital 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
%
 121.01
Reserves 184.78% 121.44% 0.12% 100.00%
%

Total Equity 118.96

176.49% 119.35% 118.63% 100.00%
%

Non-Current Liabilities

126.59
Long term deposits 123.61% 113.79% 110.19% 100.00%
%

126.39
Retirement and other service benefits 118.92% 124.20% 117.47% 100.00%
%

Total Non-Current Liabilities 126.46

120.51% 120.69% 115.01% 100.00%
%

Current Liabilities

427.00
Trade and other payables 314.33% 160.65% 142.75% 100.00%
%

Provisions 91.29% 96.27% 91.29% 103.06% 100.00%

870.38
Accrued interest / mark-up 340.92% 206.43% 188.87% 100.00%
%

387.70
Short term borrowings 228.57% 188.39% 158.97% 100.00%
%

Taxes payable 0.00% 54.06% 5.16% 126.11% 100.00%

Total Current Liabilities 396.85

286.09% 156.83% 143.62% 100.00%
%

Total Equity and liabilities 293.31

243.00% 142.88% 134.15% 100.00%
%

PSO
VERTICAL ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
ASSETS  ASSETS
Non- Current Assets Non- Current Assets
Property, plant and equipment 4.55% 5.87% 10.72% 10.72% 15.51%

Intangibles 0.04% 0.08% 0.17% 0.22% 4.43%

Long term investments 1.40% 2.13% 4.00% 4.67% 4.43%

Long term loans, advances and receivables 0.26% 0.38% 0.84% 0.99% 1.47%

Long term deposits and prepayments 0.05% 0.06% 0.09% 0.11% 0.20%

Deferred tax 3.28% 0.32% 0.54% 0.58% 0.24%

Total Non Current Assets 9.60% 8.84% 16.36% 17.29% 22.13%

Current Assets

Stores, spare parts and loose tools 0.07% 0.09% 0.17% 0.18% 0.25%

Stock-in-trade 26.53% 49.06% 39.55% 40.14% 39.35%

Trade debts 52.48% 26.67% 18.20% 16.70% 12.98%

Loans and advances 0.27% 0.31% 0.49% 0.39% 0.41%

Deposits and short term prepayments 0.36% 0.32% 2.12% 1.84% 1.39%

Other receivables 8.35% 12.34% 21.08% 20.75% 19.80%

taxation/short term investments 0.46%   0.02%

Cash and bank balances 1.88% 2.37% 2.04% 2.71% 3.67%

Total Current Assets 90.40% 91.16% 83.64% 82.71% 77.87%

TOTAL ASSETS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

EQUITY AND LIABILITIES

Share Capital 1.12% 1.35% 2.29% 2.44% 3.28%

Reserves 12.49% 23.01% 25.72% 0.03% 30.26%

Total Equity 13.60% 24.36% 28.02% 29.66% 33.54%

Non-Current Liabilities
Long term deposits 0.56% 0.66% 1.03% 1.06% 1.29%

Retirement and other service benefits 1.09% 1.24% 2.20% 2.22% 2.53%

Total Non-Current Liabilities 1.65% 1.90% 3.23% 3.28% 3.82%

Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 71.78% 63.78% 55.44% 52.47% 49.30%

Provisions 0.45% 0.57% 0.92% 1.11% 1.44%

Accrued interest / mark-up 0.36% 0.17% 0.18% 0.17% 0.12%

Short term borrowings 12.16% 8.65% 12.13% 10.90% 9.20%

Taxes payable 0.00% 0.57% 0.09% 2.42% 2.57%

Total Current Liabilities 84.75% 73.74% 68.76% 67.06% 62.64%

Total Equity and liabilities 100.00

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
%

PSO------INCOME STATEMENT

HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS

Income statement 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Net sales 288.32% 233.07% 164.56% 140.35% 100%
Cost of products sold 306.75% 234.08% 169.78% 141.40% 100%
Gross profit 21.90% 218.41% 89.18% 125.18% 100%
Operating costs

Transportation costs 163.97% 107.86% 117.89% 116.77% 100%

Distribution and marketing
expenses 167.97% 138.44% 116.42% 105.70% 100%

Administrative expenses 133.81% 134.85% 116.49% 108.69% 100%

Depreciation 116.02% 113.73% 111.60% 110.00% 100%
Amortisation 0.94% 0.85% 0.75% 126.99% 100%
Other operating expenses 371.27% 311.65% 70.21% 206.82% 100%
EBITDA 96.70% 83.00% 53.76% 126.99% 100%
Other income 65.49% 26.46% 35.77% 117.50% 100%
Profit from operations -59.71% 240.37% 85.11% 123.11% 100%
Finance costs 1681.16% 369.01% 312.41% 238.51% 100%
Share of profit of associates 203.71% 132.69% 148.92% 468.40% 100%
Profit before taxation -121.59% 228.87% 76.25% 123.11% 100%
Taxation -131.76% 207.14% 68.79% 116.80% 100%
Profit for the year -118.44% 248.48% 82.92% 133.04% 100%
Earnings per share - basic
and diluted -118.41% 248.45% 82.90% 133.02% 100%

PSO----VERTICAL ANALYSIS
Income statement 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Net sales 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Cost of products sold -99.51% -93.94% -96.49% -94.23% -93.53%
Gross profit 0.49% 6.06% 3.51% 5.77% 6.47%
Other operating income 0.24% 0.28% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00%
Operating costs
Transportation costs -0.084% -0.07% -0.11% -0.12% -0.15%
Distribution and marketing expenses -0.6465% -0.66% -0.79% -0.84% -1.11%
Administrative expenses -0.1880% -0.23% -0.29% -0.31% -0.41%
Depreciation -0.1863% -0.23% -0.31% -0.36% -0.46%
Amortisation -0.0086% -0.01% -0.01% -2.38% -2.63%
Other operating expenses -0.6519% -0.68% -0.22% -0.75% -0.51%
Other income 0.1268% 0.06% 0.12% 0.47% 0.56%
Profit from operations -0.9102% 4.53% 2.27% 3.86% 4.40%
Finance costs -1.0172% -0.28% -0.33% -0.30% -0.17%
Share of profit of associates 0.0737% 0.06% 0.09% 0.35% 0.10%
Profit before taxation -1.8536% 4.32% 2.04% 3.86% 4.40%
Taxation 0.7603% -1.48% -0.70% -1.38% -1.66%
Profit for the year -1.0933% 2.84% 1.34% 2.52% 2.66%
Common Size Anaylsis
Attock

Vertical analysis
Balance sheet
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Assets % % % % %
Property, Plant and 5.1 3.4 5.5 7.4 12.4
Equipment
Capital Work in Progress 1.0 2.5 1.2 0.5 1.3

Other Non-Current 4.0 4.6 4.3 5.3 3.7

Assets
Current Assets 89.8 89.5 89 86 82.6
Total Assets 100 100 100 100 100

Liabilities& equity 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

% % % % %
Shareholders' Equity 38.8 35.7 38.5 31 41.4

Long Term Deposit 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.5 3.4

Deferred Liability 0.5 0.1 4.3 0.4 0.6

Current Liabilities 59.9 63.4 89 67.1 54.6

Total Shareholders' 100 100 100 100 100
Equity & Liabilities
Profit & Loss Items
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
% % % % %
Net Sales 100 100 100 100 100

Cost of Products Sold 94.7 94.8 95.4 95.6 95.7

Operating Expenses 0.33 0.20 0.72 1.03 0.29
Gross Profit 5.3 5.2 4.6 4.4 4.3
Horizontal Analysis
Balance Sheet
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Increase(Decrease) Increase(Decrease) Increase(Decrease) Increase/Decrease) Increase(Decrease)
% % % % %
Property, Plant 76.4 8.4 0.18 61.8 100
and Equipment
Capital Work in (51) 253.9 258.75 (4.6) 100
Progress
Other Non- 3.43 83.10 9.62 289.04 100
Current Assets
Current Assets 18.18 73.62 39.56 182.40 100
Total Assets 17.8 72.68 36.05 168.97 100
Shareholders' 27.93 60.26 68.86 101.93 100
Equity
Long Term 31.70 6.43 13.09 19.67 100
Deposits
Deferred 557.14 7.69 (55.17) 107.14 100
Liability
Current 11.12 82.18 22.02 229.83 100
Liabilities
Total Equity & 17.8 72.68 36.05 168.97 100
Liabilities

Profit & Loss Items

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Increase(Decrease) Increase(Decrease) Increase(Decrease) Increase/Decrease) Increase(Decrease)
% % % % %
16.2 20.6 8.1 312.1 100
Net Sales
Cost of Products 16.0 20.0 7.8 311.7 100
Sold
Gross Profit 19.8 34.4 12.9 320.3 100

Other Operating (5.8) 120.7 25.6 22.4 100

Income
Operating 35.8 31.6 17.4 78.2 100
Expenses
Net Profit 16.7 52.8 24.1 202.5 100
Common Size Analysis

Shell Pakistan

Income statement
Horizontal Analysis
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Total Revenue 115221.51% 142.09% 116.89% 119.14% 100%
Cost of Revenue, Total 116504.85% 139.04% 121.16% 119.64% 100%
Gross Profit 105688.02% 175.52% 70.32% 113.16% 100%
Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total 5547.17% 139.40% 120.27% 118.31% 100%
Depreciation/Amortization 100.19% 98.81% 85.42% 96.88% 100%
Operating Income 86841.21% 213.43% 29.35% 125.69% 100%
Interest Expense, Net Non-Operating -345233.61% 265.10% 274.98% 120.28% 100%
Interest/Invest Income - Non-Operating
Interest Income(Exp), Net Non-
Operating
Net Income Before Taxes 70970.22% 212.00% 10.40% 127.37% 100%
Provision for Income Taxes 73972.98% 216.98% -27.51% 125.27% 100%
Net Income After Taxes 695100.61% 209.58% 28.83% 128.40% 100%
Diluted Normalized EPS 69.52% 208.98% 28.83% 128.40% 100%

Vertical Analysis
Total Revenue 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Cost of Revenue, Total 92.14% 89.17% 94.45% 91.50% 91.12%
Gross Profit 7.86% 10.59% 5.16% 8.14% 8.57%
Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total 4.82% 98.23% 103.02% 99.42% 100.12%
Depreciation/Amortization 0.00% 0.47% 0.50% 0.56% 0.68%
Operating Income 3.04% 6.06% 1.01% 4.26% 4.04%
Interest Expense, Net Non-Operating 1.01% -0.63% -0.79% -0.34% -0.34%
Interest/Invest Income - Non-Operating 0.00% 0.15% 0.11% 0.04%
Interest Income(Exp), Net Non-
Operating
0.00% -0.07%
Net Income Before Taxes 2.28% 5.52% 0.33% 3.96% 3.70%
Provision for Income Taxes 0.78% 1.85% -0.29% 1.27% 1.21%
Net Income After Taxes 15.02% 3.67% 0.61% 2.68% 2.49%
Shell ===Common Size Analysis

Balance Sheet

Horizontal Analysis

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Cash 14539.95% 116.00% 108.30% 130.46% 100%
Cash & Equivalents
Short Term Investments 76009.69% 71.15% 55.01% 106.89% 100%
Cash and Short Term
31695.89% 111.06% 102.43% 127.85% 100%
Investments
Accounts Receivable -
441014.79% 131.21% 113.52% 139.96% 100%
Trade, Net
Notes Receivable - Short
Term
Receivables - Other 408563.90% 355.36% 349.28% 232.23% 100%
Total Receivables, Net 0.00% 201.96% 187.93% 169.08% 100%
Total Inventory 20160.45% 274.12% 125.30% 151.02% 100%
Prepaid Expenses 0.00% 275.15% 173.20% 132.04% 100%
1303.66
68756.10% -35.98% 176.22% 100%
Other Current Assets, Total %
Total Current Assets 195022.25% 232.76% 151.84% 157.07% 100%
Property/Plant/Equipment, 73393.01% 128.27% 121.06% 64.79% 100%
Total - Gross
Accumulated Depreciation,
0.00% 135.70% 125.08% 15.85% 100%
Total
Property/Plant/Equipment, 0.00% 122.57% 117.97% 102.32% 100%
Total – Net
Deferred taxation
Intangibles, Net 0.00% 39.77% 72.73% 143.56% 100%
Long Term Investments 112453.82% 113.95% 110.46% 105.56% 100%
Note Receivable - Long
231267.37% 172.44% 215.08% 164.43% 100%
Term
Other Long Term Assets,
Total
Long term debtors
Total Assets 182821.35% 192.72% 141.94% 137.47% 100%
Accounts Payable 1444692.09% 47.09% 307.96% 252.06% 100%
Payable/Accrued 4901.87% 330.14% 160.12% 135.39% 100%
2516.88
0.00% 3210.04% 164.53% 100%
Accrued Expenses %
Notes Payable/Short Term
20456.03% 159.24% 205.54% 137.19% 100%
Debt
Current Port. of LT
Debt/Capital Leases
Other Current liabilities, 89082.42% 97.63% 0.00% 118.48% 100%
 Total
Total Current Liabilities 225312.92% 190.91% 160.64% 147.25% 100%
Long Term Debt
Capital Lease Obligations 1254907.98% 13.50% 3.07% 42.94% 100%
Total Long Term Debt 12269.94% 15350.92% 3.07% 42.94% 100%
Total Debt 0.00% 228.03% 205.52% 136.78% 100%
Deferred Income Tax 0.00% 249.28% 0.00% 252.66% 100%
Other Liabilities, Total 0.00% 600.63% 434.17% 308.15% 100%
Total Liabilities 246092.44% 212.19% 160.87% 147.71% 100%
Common Stock, Total 195289.42% 156.23% 156.23% 124.98% 100%
Additional Paid-In
103457.55% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100%
Capital/reserves
Retained Earnings 78133.18% 186.25% 116.21% 129.80% 100%
(Accumulated Deficit)
Total Equity 0.00% 163.93% 113.94% 122.32% 100%
Total Liabilities & 182821.35% 192.72% 141.94% 137.47% 100%
Shareholders' Equity

Veritcal Analysis

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Cash 0.29% 2.20% 2.79% 3.47% 3.65%
Cash & Equivalents
Short Term Investments 0.19% 0.17% 0.17% 0.35% 0.45%
Cash and Short Term Investments 0.71% 2.37% 2.96% 3.82% 4.11%
Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net 43.81% 12.37% 14.53% 18.49% 18.16%
Notes Receivable - Short Term
Receivables – Other 18.72% 15.44% 20.61% 14.15% 8.38%
Total Receivables, Net 0.00% 27.81% 35.14% 32.64% 26.54%
Total Inventory 3.54% 45.67% 28.35% 35.27% 32.11%
Prepaid Expenses 0.00% 0.36% 0.31% 0.24% 0.25%
Other Current Assets, Total 0.03% -0.01% 0.73% 0.10% 0.08%
Total Current Assets 67.29% 76.19% 67.48% 72.08% 63.08%

19.17% 31.78% 40.72% 22.50% 47.75%

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Gross
Accumulated Depreciation, Total 0.00% -14.59% -18.26% -2.39% -20.72%

0.00% 17.18% 22.46% 20.11% 27.02%

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Net
Deferred taxation 6.79%
Intangibles, Net 0.00% 0.03% 0.07% 0.13% 0.13%
Long Term Investments 5.75% 5.53% 7.28% 7.18% 9.35%
Note Receivable - Long Term 0.52% 0.37% 0.63% 0.49% 0.41%
Other Long Term Assets, Total 0.29% 0.70% 2.09%
Long term debtors 0.18%
 100.00
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Total Assets %
Accounts Payable 62.97% 1.95% 17.29% 14.61% 7.97%
Payable/Accrued 0.47% 30.23% 19.91% 17.38% 17.65%
Accrued Expenses 0.00% 3.79% 4.03% 0.27% 0.23%
Notes Payable/Short Term Debt 1.99% 14.72% 25.80% 17.78% 17.81%

0.04% 0.14% 0.11%

Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases
Other Current liabilities, Total 7.63% 7.94% 0.00% 13.50% 15.66%
Total Current Liabilities 73.11% 58.76% 67.14% 63.54% 59.32%
Long Term Debt 6.64% 6.30% 0.00%
Capital Lease Obligations 0.54% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08%
Total Long Term Debt 0.01% 6.31% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08%
Total Debt 0.00% 21.17% 25.91% 17.80% 17.89%
Deferred Income Tax 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.18% 0.10%
Other Liabilities, Total 0.00% 0.48% 0.47% 0.35% 0.15%
Total Liabilities 80.30% 65.68% 67.61% 64.10% 59.66%
Common Stock, Total 1.82% 1.38% 1.88% 1.55% 1.70%
Additional Paid-In Capital/reserves 5.57% 5.11% 6.94% 7.16% 9.84%

12.31% 27.83% 23.58% 27.19% 28.80%

Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit)
Total Equity 0.00% 34.32% 32.39% 35.90% 40.34%
Total Liabilities & Shareholders' 100.00
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Equity %
Cash Flow statements

PSO

Cash Flow Activities 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Cash inflow from operating activities (4828554) 4050125 3691454 1633774 5307821
Net cash (outflow) from investing activities (2889) (172926) (707953) (173687) (1219568)
Net cash (outflow) from financing activities 511790 (9649840) (1565507) (4104443) (3087422)
Cash & Cash equivalents at end of the year (1510325) (7190672) (1418031) (2836025) (191669)

In FY2009 cash inflow from operation is in bad condition, its because of low recievabels turnover in 2009, the
company was unable to recover its recievables in FY2009. However remaining years have positive value and seems
to be good.

Net cash flow from investing activities is in negative in FY2009, but its amount is so minimal that does not affect on
equity, however in FY2009 inventory has been purchased in a big extent.

PSO has no longterm debts, it has only short term borrowings and deposits in its account, so PSO has positve value
in FY2009 that’s not in good condition. Remaining years have very good outflow activities from financing.