RELIANCE INDUSTRIES CASE STUDY

Abhishek Agarwal (13004) Adarsh Agarwal (13008) Ajit Abhisek (13012) Akshapreet Narula (13016) Amritpal Singh (13020) Ankur ehl (13028) Arpit Chitransh (13032)

RELIANCE ASSETS T! SALES ANALYSIS

There are generally two ratios which determine the efficiency of use of assets by an organization Asset Turn"#er ! "et #ales Total $ssets $i%ed asset turn"#er rati" ! $ssets "et #ales Total %i&ed

ASSET &ANA'E&ENT RATI!S CALCULATI!NS

(arti)ul ars $T' %$T' 2) 2 1) 1 0) 0 1++) %$T' $T' *++, *+++ 0 68( 1 1 4)( 1 0 4)(1 0 8*(1 ,--0 31(1 0 )6(1 ,--. 0 32(1 0 )2(1 ,--/ 0 26(1 0 46(1 ,--0 0 28(1 0 4)(1 ,--1 0 33(1 0 )+(1

1++6

1++*

1++8

1+++

2000

2001

ASSET &ANA'E&ENT RATI! C!NCLUSI!N The increasing $T' shows that the firm has ,roducti-e ,erforming assets o-er its current le-el of sales showing effecti-e utilization .ncreasing %$T' shows that ,roduction is in e/ui-alence to ca,acity leading to increased amount of sales

(R!$ITA ILITY ANALYSIS

Rele#ant rati"s are2 'r"ss (r"3it 4 ! 0ross 1rofit 2 100 "et #ales Net (r"3it 4 ! "et 1rofit after ta& 2 100 "et #ales Return "n Assets ! "et 1rofit 2 100 Total $ssets Return "n E5uit6 ! "et 1rofit 2100 Total 3/uity

RATI!S CALCULATI!N
(arti)u lar 014 "14 614 '6$ '63 *++, 2* 1+ 5 12 +4 5 1* 35 8 85 *+++ 3) 43 5 1* +3 5 21 85 8 15 ,--38 )1 5 1+ )+ 5 6 15 ,--. 36 88 5 26 11 5 6 *5 14* )* 5 ,--/ 3* *6 5 2) 60 5 23 85 6 *5 288 )1 5 ,--0 41 )2 5 30 +4 5 24 *5 8 65 1+8 *4 5 ,--1 41 +1 5 2* )1 5 24 +5 + 25 230 83 5

23 15 22 85

2)1 41 1)1 *) +0 )0 5 5 5

(R!$ITA ILITY RATI! C!NCLUSI!N

The 0147 614 and "14 are continuously decreasing o-er the year which is an indication that the com,any is ma8ing low on income and ,rofits on sales '6$ is stable o-er the year with a little fluctuation which indicates an increase in ,rofit o-er assets #ince '63 is increasing it indicates com,any is growing o-er the year

4)0 005 400 005 3)0 005 300 005 2)0 005 200 005 1)0 005 100 005 )0 005 0 005 1++) 1++6 1++* 1++8 1+++ 2000 2001 '63 '6$ 614 "14 014

CA(ITALISATI!N ANALYSIS
Rele#ant rati"s are2 Debt7E5uit6 rati" ! 9ebt : 3/uity T"tal Debt Rati"! Total $ssets Total ;iabilities
(arti)u lar 9:3 'atio T9' *++, + 6(1 1(1 *+++ 8 )(1 1(1 ,--+(1 1(1 ,--. * 4(1 1(1 ,--/ 16 6(1 1(1 ,--0 * 2(1 1(1 ,--1 6 4(1 1(1

DE T T! E8UITY RATI!
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1++) 1++6 1++* 1++8 1+++ 2000 2001 9:3 'atio

DE T E8UITY RATI! ANALYSIS

he debt is too much higher in com,arison to /uity so it is not feasible to in-est in such a om,any

LI8UIDITY ANALYSIS
Rele#ant rati"s are2 9"rking Capital ! <urrent = <urrent assets ;iabilities Current Rati" ! <urrent ;iabilities <urrent $ssets

RATI! CALCULATI!N
(arti)ul ar <' >< *++, 1 83 4148 21 *+++ 2 03 ,--1 6) ,--. 1 23 +*4 31 ,--/ 1 13 46* 3+ ,--0 2 03 1+40 + * ,--1 2 11 1))4 4 )

3+88 1 3363 2 81

CURRENT RATI!
2) 2 1) 1 0) 0 1++)

<'

1++6

1++*

1++8

1+++

2000

2001

LI8UIDITY RATI! C!NCLUSI!N

The <' for the year 2001 is 1 83(1 which is abo-e the standard industry ratio 1 33(17 so this is feasible for the industry as it shows that the <urrent ;iabilities are co-ered by <urrent $ssets by 1 83 times ?ut the ratio this year has decreased from the ,re-ious year stating an increase in the current ;iabilities of the com,any

9!R:IN' CA(ITAL
4)00 4000 3)00 3000 2)00 2000 1)00 1000 )00 0 1++) 1++6 1++* 1++8 1+++ 2000 2001 ><