Introduction to Financial Management (FIN254)

Ratio Analysis of 2 Cement Companies in Bangladesh
Course: Introduction to Financial Management (FIN254)
Section 18
Submitted to: Khaiyyum Hashem
Senior Lecturer, Department of Accounting and Finance
Ratio Analysis of
Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh Limited & LafargeHolcim Bangladesh Limited
Submitted by:
Rowzatur Rumman Kashfi 1620135020
Anika Fairuse 1311209630

2
December 22nd, 2018
Khaiyyum Hashem
Lecturer
Department of Accounting and Finance
North South University
Bashundhara R/A, Dhaka-1229
Subject: Submission of Group Project
Dear Sir
We would like to express our gratitude to you for giving us the opportunity to do a project on
ratio analysis which not only helped us learn calculating ratios but also helped us to know the
effects of the change in these ratios in decision making.
Here is the report you asked us to submit on the analysis of financial statement of two
publicly listed companies. We have chosen Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh Ltd and
LafargeHolcim Bangladesh Limited to do our report on.
We have tried our level best to follow it according to your guidelines along with your
instructions. Any question about the report or any feedback is most welcomed.
Sincerely,
Rowzatur Rumman Kashfi
……………………….
Anika Fairuse
……………………….

3
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................5
2 Company Introductions.........................................................................................................................6
2.1 Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh Limited.......................................................................................6
2.2 LafargeHolcim Bangladesh Limited..............................................................................................6
3 Ratio Analysis (Time Series & Cross Sectional)..................................................................................7
3.1 Liquidity Ratios.............................................................................................................................7
3.1.1 Current Ratio...........................................................................................................................7
3.1.2 Quick (Acid-Test) Ratio.........................................................................................................8
3.2 Activity Ratios...............................................................................................................................9
3.2.1 Accounts Receivable Turnover...............................................................................................9
3.2.2 Average Collection Period....................................................................................................10
3.2.3 Accounts Payable Turnover..................................................................................................11
3.2.4 Average Payment Period......................................................................................................12
3.3.5 Inventory Turnover...............................................................................................................13
3.2.6 Average Age of Inventory....................................................................................................14
3.2.7 Total Asset Turnover............................................................................................................15
3.2.8 Fixed Asset Turnover............................................................................................................16
3.3 Solvency Ratios...........................................................................................................................17
3.3.1 Debt Ratio.............................................................................................................................17
3.3.2 Debt-Equity Ratio.................................................................................................................18
3.3.3 Times Interest Earned...........................................................................................................19
3.4 Profitability Ratios.......................................................................................................................20
3.4.1 Gross Profit Margin..............................................................................................................20
3.4.2 Net Profit Margin..................................................................................................................21
3.4.3 Return on Total Assets (ROA)..............................................................................................22
3.4.4 Return on Equity...................................................................................................................23
3.5 Market Ratios...............................................................................................................................24
3.5.1 Earning Per Share.................................................................................................................24

4
3.5.2 Price/ Earnings (P/E) Ratio...................................................................................................25
3.5.3 Book Value per Share...........................................................................................................26
3.5.4 Market/ Book Ratio..............................................................................................................27
3.5.5 Dividend per Share...............................................................................................................28
3.5.6 Dividend Yield......................................................................................................................29
3.5.7 Dividend Payout...................................................................................................................30
4 Recommendations and Conclusion.....................................................................................................31
5 calculations.........................................................................................................................................32
5.1 Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh...................................................................................................32
5.2 LafargeHolcim Bangladesh.........................................................................................................35
6 References...........................................................................................................................................38

5
1 Executive Summary
We had to calculate the financial ratios of two publicly listed companies using their financial
statements for the range of 3 years- 2014 to 2017. We found out the Liquidity ratios, Activity
ratios, Solvency ratios, Profitability ratios and Market for both the companies. After that we
analyzed the ratios to understand the real finance standings of the company.
We consequently did the ‘year wise’ analysis on the 2 cement industries of Bangladesh
(Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh Ltd & LafargeHolcim Bangladesh Limited) and then we
compared the ratios of the two companies with each other. We tried our best to make accurate
calculations and analysis and this term paper has benefitted all of our team members.

6
2 Company Introductions
2.1 Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh Limited
Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh Limited is one of the largest producers of cement in
Bangladesh. Sale of Portland Composite Cement (PCC) through two brands namely Scan
Cement and Ruby Cement is the key revenue driver of this company. Its manufacturing
unites are situated in Chittagong and Kanchpur having a total installed capacity of 2.1 million
MT. Recently, additional capacity of grinding unit of 750,000 MT/year in Chittagong had
started its commercial operation since January 12, 2012.
2.2 LafargeHolcim Bangladesh Limited
LafargeHolcim is the leading global construction materials and solutions company serving
masons, builders, architects and engineers all over the world. LafargeHolcim was born of the
merger of Lafarge and Holcim in 2015. With over 180 years of combined experience. Our
operations produce cement, aggregates and ready-mix concrete which are used in building
projects ranging from affordable housing and small, local projects to the biggest, most
technically and architecturally challenging infrastructure projects. As urbanization
increasingly impacts people and the planet, we provide innovative products and building
solutions with a clear commitment to social and environmental sustainability.

7
3 Ratio Analysis (Time Series & Cross Sectional)
3.1 Liquidity Ratios
3.1.1 Current Ratio
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 1.730600478 1.590219799 1.431817622 1.140134
LafargeHolcim 2.5454289 2.241171298 1.288772177 0.957723
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Heidelberg
Lafargeholcim
From the graph above, we can observe that the current ratio of Heidelberg has been
consistently decreasing starting from 2016 which is not good for the company. As we all
know higher the current ratio, the better it shows the strength of the company. On the other
hand, we can see that the current ratio of LafargeHolcim has also been gradually decreasing
each year which is bad sign for the company. So if we compare these two companies then
LafargeHolcim’s current ratio is decreasing more rapidly than current ratio of Heidelberg
Company for the period of 2016 to 2019. So we can say that the Heidelberg Company is
managing its current assets in terms of current liability more efficiently than LafargeHolcim.

8
3.1.2 Quick (Acid-Test) Ratio
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 1.341796066 1.237853702 0.790126898 0.556454
LafargeHolcim 2.160689948 1.90338616 0.685979161 0.28604
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Heidelberg
Lafargeholcim
Here we can see that quick ratio of Heidelberg Company has been decreasing in the four
years, which is bad for the company. Because we know higher the quick ratio is, the better for
the company it is. On the other hand we can see quick ratio of LafargeHolcim Company is
declining more quickly than Heidelberg. Especially for the last two years LafargeHolcim
quick ratio is declining alarmingly. So LafargeHolcim should find out the issue and try to fix
it as early as possible.

9
3.2 Activity Ratios
3.2.1 Accounts Receivable Turnover
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 16.99702541 8.577658545 11.39974341 9.937807
LafargeHolcim 9.452998035 7.479575386 8.692760845 6.92965
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
It can be seen from the graph that the account receivable turnover is smaller in Heidelberg than
LafargeHolcim. It means that the Heidelberg cement can collect its receivable more frequently and
quickly than LafargeHolcim. Constantly from 2016 to 2019 Heidelberg is doing better in this sector.
From the following trend it can be seen that Heidelberg has a higher turnover than
LafargeHolcim which indicates that it obtains a better credit policy and an aggressive
collection department. As the difference is not so big LafargeHolcim is also having in a
suitable position for Receivable and collection management

10
3.2.2 Average Collection Period
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 21.47434573 42.55240496 32.01826453 36.72842
LafargeHolcim 38.61208885 48.79956163 41.98896145 52.67222
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Heidelberg
Lafargeholcim
The graph shows that the average collection period of Heidelberg cement has been increased
in 2017 and then declined in 2018 and again slightly increased in 2019 and the graph of the
LafargeHolcim is also following the completely identical pattern. An increase in average
collection period means that the company is taking longer period of time to collect money
from its debtors, which is not good for the company.
The average collection period for LafargeHolcim increased from 2016 to 2019. The company
has not been efficiently collecting money from its debtors as well.
Form the graph above it can be depicted that Heidelberg has a lower average collection
period. Therefore is more efficient at collecting money.

11
3.2.3 Accounts Payable Turnover
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 4.164274984 2.402810033 3.17260202 2.789022003
LafargeHolcim 2.81919483 3.180198278 3.473190247 2.282134853
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
From the above graph it can be seen that the Account Payable Turnover of Heidelberg
successfully has risen from 2017 to 2018. Then it’s decreased in 2019 and also in the year of
2016.
LafargeHolcim shows a slight decrease of the Account Payable Turnover from 2016 to 2017
but increased in 2018 and then again decreased in 2019.
From the graph it can be determined the account payable turnover for LafargeHolcim is
higher than Heidelberg. Therefore it indicates that it is paying off suppliers more faster rate
and thereby is in a good financial condition.

12
3.2.4 Average Payment Period
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 87.65031162 151.9054752 115.0475218 130.8702476
LafargeHolcim 129.4695904 114.772718 105.0907016 159.9379632
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
The average payment period for Heidelberg has increased from 2016 to 2017 and then has
declined in 2017 to 2018 and then increased in 2019. The higher the average payment period,
the better it is for the company in terms of reserving funds. As it means that the company has
more funds by delaying to pay off to its creditors/suppliers. But delaying to pay for too long
might affects the reputation of the company in a bad way.
For LafargeHolcim it shows that the average payment period started from 129 days and in
2016 and 160 days in 2019. This shows that LafargeHolcim has a longer payment period and
thereby hold its payments to creditors than that of Heidelberg does.

13
3.3.5 Inventory Turnover
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 5.254829642 6.695955382 5.127746431 4.607253063
LafargeHolcim 5.588815594 6.112159845 6.732031828 4.013149814
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Lafargeholcim
Heldelberg
In the case of Heidelberg we can see a fluctuation of inventory turnover from 2016 to 2019. It
has increased in the year of 2017 and declines all the other years. Inventory turnover shows
how much time a company needs to sell out its all inventory so the lower value is better for
the company.
For LafargeHolcim the inventory turnover is seen to fall gradually between the time periods
of 2017 to 2019. From the trend it can be depicted that even if Heidelberg had faced decline
in inventory turnover its turnover in 2019 was higher than LafargeHolcim.

14
3.2.6 Average Age of Inventory
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 69.45991114 54.51051855 71.18136688 79.22291114
LafargeHolcim 65.30900758 59.71702463 54.21840082 90.95100281
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Heidelberg
lafargeholcim
Heidelberg’s average age of inventory increased significantly from 2016 to 2019. However, in
2017, the company average age of inventory decreased to 54.5 days, marking its
improvement.
On the other hand, LafrageHolcim’s average age of inventory continuously improved
throughout the 4 years from 65.31 in 2016 to 54.2 days in 2018. But the value has been
significantly increased in 2019
If we compare the two companies’ ratios together we can see that Heidelberg’s inventory is
being sold/used up faster than that of LafargeHolcim and thus it is in a better position though
it is following increasing trend for the last 2 years.

15
3.2.7 Total Asset Turnover
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 1.040433697 1.122674202 1.305760339 1.052601476
LafargeHolcim 0.511395006 0.502032537 0.686701548 0.499250416
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
It can be seen from the data above that Heidelberg’s fixed asset turnover ratio has been
increasing from 2016. However it has declined in the year of 2019.
LafargeHolcim, on the other hand, had an almost constant ratio for the year of 2016, 201, and
2019 but increases significantly in the year of 2018
While both the companies’ fluctuations were not that significantly large, Heidelberg has a
higher ratio compared to LafrageHolcim and we can thus conclude that Heidelberg is doing
better in terms of fixed asset turnover.

16
3.2.8 Fixed Asset Turnover
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 3.001549978 2.846459157 2.967631743 2.075481837
LafargeHolcim 0.842048907 0.856800438 0.996902633 0.674503318
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
Heidelberg’s total asset turnover fluctuated throughout the 4 years. It first increased in 2015
and then decreased in 2016. However in 2017 it increased to 1.12.
As for LafrageHolcim, the company’s ratio only decreased throughout the years and in 2017 it
had a ratio of 0.50
Comparing the two companies together, we can conclude that Heidelberg is generating more
revenue per dollar of assets compared to LafrageHolcim.

17
3.3 Solvency Ratios
3.3.1 Debt Ratio
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 0.451184555 0.461695947 0.459363445 0.485669477
LafargeHolcim 0.267266822 0.291265088 0.420626795 0.411272656
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
It can be seen that Heidelberg consistently has a debt ratio that is higher than that of
LafargeHolcim. The indebtedness of Heidelberg has a almost constant trend from 2016 to
2019. The figures suggest that a high amount of the equity is indebted to the other people
and/or financial institutions.
As for LafargeHolcim, the debt ratio is seen taking a significantly growing trend from 2017
but the significant movement was in 2018. The figures suggest a significant portion of
indebtedness, and a growing trend suggests financial crisis.
It is clear that Heidelberg has greater degree of indebtedness and financial leverage than that
of LafargeHolcim but the gap is getting smaller and from the recent two years LafargeHolcim
has also been increasing its debt amount.

18
3.3.2 Debt-Equity Ratio
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 0.822106155 0.857686179 0.849671448 0.944275266
LafargeHolcim 0.364753268 0.41096478 0.725987275 0.698579166
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
lafargeHolcim
Heidelberg
Heidelberg has an inclining trend throughout the years. This shows concerns for Heidelberg,
as its debt has increased from 82% to 94.4% within 4 years. It shows that for every BDT 1
stockholder investment, it owes 94.4% to its creditors.
Lafarge on the other hand has been able to reduce its debt obligations throughout the years.
Currently it stands at a 69.8% debt to equity ratio, i.e., it owes 69.8% of every BDT 1
investment to its creditors.
So it is determined that Lafarge is in a better position than Heidelberg in debt equity ratio by
a significant margin as per the most recent debt equity ratio. Heidelberg will face difficulties
to generate enough cash to satisfy its debt obligations.

19
3.3.3 Times Interest Earned
2016 2017 2018 2019
Hieldelberg 825.5540971 N/A N/A N/A
Lafarge 42.24689682 33.72639938 2.562500862 5.988304034
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
Heidelberg did not incur any financial expenses in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. On the
other hand, it has generated significant amounts of financial income in these years. In the
year 2016, it has seen a times interest earned ratio of 825.55. This is not due to the fact of
an unusually high net income, but rather it is due to it incurring a very low amount of
interest expenses.
It has been seen that the LafargeHolcim has very good value in this ratio for the year of 2016
and 2017 but the value declined drastically for the last two years as the company increases its
loan amount and on the other hand profit has also shrink.
It can be seen that both the firms have been able to fulfill its interest obligations. They both
have considerable amounts of safety, with Heidelberg having a higher safety margin.

20
3.4 Profitability Ratios
3.4.1 Gross Profit Margin
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 0.258627687 0.199661154 0.173209798 0.100446586
LafargeHolcim 0.35135837 0.240211067 0.246516481 0.236801769
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
It can be seen from the graph above that HiedelBerg Cement had a gross profit margin
ranging from 25.86% to 19.96% from the year 2016 to 2017. From that time on the gross
profit margin has been decreasing till 2019. In 2019 it hits its lowest at 10.04%
As for LafargeHolcim Bangladesh, the gross profit margin in 2016 was 35.13% which
dropped to 24.02% in 2015 and remained almost consistent in 2018 and 2019. Even though
the sales increased from 2015 to 2017, the gross profit decreased significantly. As a result,
Lafarge experienced a fall in its gross profit margin.
It can be seen from the graph that the LafargeHolcim has a better gross profit margin ratio
Than HeidelBerg for every years and it is not also declining as HeidelBerg.

21
3.4.2 Net Profit Margin
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 0.142245728 0.081942714 0.072615661 0.001045515
LafargeHolcim 0.20752289 0.074432133 0.067020416 0.088634955
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
It can be seen from the graph above that both the HieldelBerg Cement and LafargeHolcim
has experienced a declining trend in its net profit margin over the past four years This is
because even though both the company’s sales have been increasing but there net profit did
decrease by a significant amount, which means both companies expenses has been increased
from 2016.
As for LafargeHolcim, the net profit margin decreased significantly from 2016 to 2019. It
remain almost constant in from 2017 to 2019. The fall in 2017 happened because the net
profit of the company decreased significantly in 2017 because sales did not decrease to a very
large extend, which means the company had quite a big amount of expenses.
Thus, it can be seen from the graph that LafargeHolcim Bangladesh had a much higher net
profit margin than Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh from 2016 to 2019. In 2017,, both of the
company experienced significant fall in its net profit margin and LafargeHolcim is currently
in a better position than LafargeHolcim.

22
3.4.3 Return on Total Assets (ROA)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 0.147997248 0.091994971 0.093706601 0.001136661
LafargeHolcim 0.10612617 0.037367353 0.041455016 0.044423012
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
Heidelberg Cement has experienced a decline in its return on total assets from 2016 to 2019
and it had a consistent performance in 2018. Its return on total assets decreased in 2017
because both of its net profit and total assets experienced a downfall in 2017.
LafargeHolcim had experienced a downward trend in its return on total assets over the four
years However, slightly increased in 2018. Even though its total assets kept increasing over
the four year it net profit decreased. The decrease in 2017 was quite significant.
LafargeHolcim Bangladesh had a better return on total assets than Heidelberg Cement
Bangladesh in 2019. But after in 2015 Heidelberg had overtaken LafargeHolcim and since
then Heidelberg has maintained a lead till 2018.

23
3.4.4 Return on Equity
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 0.269666697 0.170897786 0.173326424 0.002209983
LafargeHolcim 0.144836037 0.052724019 0.071551186 0.075455666
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
Heidelberg has experienced a decrease in its return on equity from 2016 to 2017. The
decrease in return on equity was by a significant percentage. This is because both the net
profit and total equity have decreased by a considerable amount.
LafargeHolcim faced a downward trend in its return on equity from 2016. This happened
because their net profit decreased by a considerable amount even though the total equity was
much higher in 2019 than it was in 2016.
Return on equity it a very crucial ratio that potential investors look into while deciding
whether to invest on a company. It is interpreted the higher the percentage, the better the
company is doing in terms of profitability. As it can be seen from the graph, only in 2019
Heidelberg Cement had a lower return on equity than LafargeHolcim but from 2016 onwards
the graph shows the dominance of Heidelberg over LafargeHolcim. So Heidelberg is in better
terms.

24
3.5 Market Ratios
3.5.1 Earning Per Share
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 26.68628194 14.21435094 14.33 0.17
LafargeHolcim 1.917111937 0.693395363 0.96 1.01
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
From the graph above, it can be seen that Heidelberg’s earnings per share was decreased
significantly in 2017. The firm’s earning per share has deceased considerably to a percentage
of 14.21.
On the other hand, unlike Heidelberg’s ratio, Lafarge’s earnings per share has decreased
significantly from 2016 to 2017 but increased in 2018 and 2019. It means LafargeHolcim is
doing well and their earnings are also increasing for the last two years.
Therefore, even though both the companies’ EPS had decreased significantly from the year
2016, Though HeidelBerg always maintain a very high EPS than LafargeHolcim last year
HeidelBerg EPS is lower than LafargeHolcim so for now LafargeHolcim is a better choice to
invest now.

25
3.5.2 Price/ Earnings (P/E) Ratio
2016 2017 2018 2019
Heidelberg 20.69602657 29.89232513 9.581297976 807.6470588
LafargeHolcim 32.01169364 102.7696517 37.39583333 35.54455446
2016 2017 2018 2019
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
lafargeholcim
Heidelberg
Heidelberg’s price earnings ratio has increased from 2016 to 2017 due to the decrease in their
earnings per share ratio. However, in 2018 it decreased significantly to 9.59% which was
almost 20.30% lower than the previous year.
On the other hand, Larfage’s price earnings ratio fluctuated throughout 2014 to 2017. It was
increased significantly in 2017 and reduced significantly in 2018 and slightly reduced in 2019
Price earnings ratio measures how much a firm earns per share for each share an investor
invests in and a higher ratio usually means that the investors anticipate higher growth. As
HeidelBerg P/E ratio has increased significantly in 2019 Investors will choose HeidelBerg share
than LafargeHolcim in terms of P/E ratio

26
Recommendation and Conclusion
After the ratio analysis of both the companies, we have seen that LafargeHolcim is in a better
position than Heidelberg in terms of its liquidity ratios. It means LafargeHolcim is better able
to pay off its liabilities with its current assets. Although, in terms of profitability Heidelberg
has a lead over LafargeHolcim because it’s all of its profitability ratios except gross profit
margin is higher. Also, Heidelberg Cement has a significantly higher earnings per share and
dividend per share, making the company more lucrative to investors. Moreover, in 2017 the
Market/Book ratio of Heidelberg is lower than that of LafargeHolcim. Investors look forward
to invest on companies with lower Market/Book ratios so that shares are priced fairly.
In terms of debt and liquidity ratios, without a doubt LafargeHolcim Bangladesh Limited is
ahead of Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh. But Heidelberg has better market and profitability
ratios.
Thus we come to a conclusion that Heidelberg would be a choice for investors to invest.
Because it most importantly has higher return on equity, higher return on assets, higher
earnings per share and higher dividends per share.

27
4 calculations
4.1 Heidelberg Cement Bangladesh
Liquidity Ratios 2016 2017
Current Ratio 1.730600478 1.590219799
Quick (Acid-Test Ratio) 1.341796066 1.237853702
Total Current Assets 6,656,843,00
0
5,287,096,000
Total Current Liabilities 3,846,551,00
0
3,324,758,000.
00
Inventory 1,495,556,00
0
1,171,532,000.
00
Activity Ratios 2016 2017
Accounts Receivable
Turnover
16.99702541 8.577658545
Average Collection
Period
21.47434573 42.55240496
Accounts Payable
Turnover
4.164274984 2.402810033
Average Payment Period 87.65031162 151.9054752
Inventory Turnover 5.254829642 6.695955382
Average Age of
Inventory
69.45991114 54.51051855
Total Asset Turnover 1.040433697 1.122674202
Fixed Asset Turnover 3.001549978 2.846459157
Costs of Sales 7,858,892,00
0
7,844,526,000
Inventory 1,495,556,00
0
1,171,532,000.
00
Revenue 10,600,466,0
00
9,801,506,000
Trade receivables 1,144,884,00
0
1,140,473,000.
00
Trade Payables 3,501,862,00
0
3,027,598,000.
00
Total Assets 10,188,507,0
00
8,730,499,000
Total Non Current Assets 3,531,664,00
0
3,443,403,000
Opening Inventory 98,322,600 1,495,556,000
Purchase 9,256,125,40
0
7,520,502,000
Debt Ratios 2016 2017

28
Debt Ratio 0.451184555 0.461695947
Debt-To-Equity 0.822106155 0.857686179
Times Interest Earned
Ratio
825.5540971 N/A
Total Current Liabilities 3,846,551,00
0
3,324,758,000
Total Non-Current
Liabilities
750,346,000 706,078,000
Total Liabilities 4,596,897,00
0
4,030,836,000
Total Assets 10,188,507,0
00
8,730,499,000
Share Capital 565,036,000 565,036,000.0
0
Capital reserve 605,657,000 605,657,000.0
0
General reserve 15,000,000 15,000,000.00
Retained Earnings 4,397,317,00
0
3,505,370,000.
00
Other Equity Components 8,600,000 8,600,000.00
Total Equity 5,591,610,00
0
4,699,663,000
Profitability Ratios 2016 2017
Gross Profit Margin 0.258627687 0.199661154
Net Profit Margin 0.142245728 0.081942714
Return On Total Assets
(ROA)
0.147997248 0.091994971
Return On Equity
(ROE)
0.269666697 0.170897786
Revenue 10,600,466,0
00
9,801,506,000
Gross Profit 2,741,574,00
0
1,956,980,000
Operating Profit/ (loss) 1,946,190,00
0
1,019,503,000
Net Profit / (loss) for the
Period
1507871000 803162000
The number of shares 56,503,600 56,503,600
Total Assets 10,188,507,0
00
8,730,499,000
Total Equity 5,591,610,00
0
4,699,663,000
Market Ratios 2016 2017
Earnings Per Share 26.68628194 14.21435094

29
Price/Earnings (P/E)
Ratio
20.69602657 29.89232513
Book Value Per Share 98.96027827 83.17460593
Market/Book (M/B)
Ratio
5.581027152 5.108530365
Dividend Per Share 29.59902718 29.27540166
Dividend Yield 0.0535923 0.06889951
Dividend Payout 1.10914766 2.059566545
Market Value Per Share 552.3 424.90
Net Profit / (loss) for the
Period
1507871000 803162000
The number of shares 56,503,580 56,503,580
Dividend paid to equity
holders of parent
--
Dividends Paid -
Preference Shares
1,672,451,00
0
1,654,165,000
Total Equity 5,591,610,00
0
4,699,663,000
Ratio Analysis
2018 2019
Heidelberg
LafargeSurm
a Heidelberg LafargeSurma
Current ratio
1.43181762
2 1.288772177
1.14013358
8 0.957722852
Acid Test Ratio
0.79012689
8 0.685979161
0.55645387
2 0.286040374
Accounts Recivables
Turnover
11.3997434
1 8.692760845
9.93780719
6 6.929649546
Average Collection Period
32.0182645
3 41.98896145
36.7284243
7 52.67221633
Accounts Payables turnover 3.17260202 3.473190247
2.78902200
3 2.282134853
Average Payment Period
115.047521
8 105.0907016
130.870247
6 159.9379632
Inventory Turnover Ratio
5.12774643
1 6.732031828
4.60725306
3 4.013149814
Average age of inventory
71.1813668
8 54.21840082
79.2229111
4 90.95100281
Total Asset Turnover
1.30576033
9 0.686701548
1.05260147
6 0.499250416
Fixed Asset Turnover
2.96763174
3 0.996902633
2.07548183
7 0.674503318
Debt- Asset Ratio
0.45936344
5 0.420626795
0.48566947
7 0.411272656
Debt-Equity Ratio
0.84967144
8 0.725987275
0.94427526
6 0.698579166
Times Interest Earned 2.562500862 5.988304034
Gross Profit Margin
0.17320979
8 0.246516481
0.10044658
6 0.236801769

30
Net Profit Margin
0.07261566
1 0.067020416
0.00104551
5 0.088634955
return on total assets
0.09370660
1 0.041455016
0.00113666
1 0.044423012
Return on Equity
0.17332642
4 0.071551186
0.00220998
3 0.075455666
EPS 14.33 0.96 0.17 1.01
P/E Ratio
9.58129797
6 37.39583333
807.647058
8 35.54455446
Dividend Per Share 7.5 0.000496757
0.74945503
5 0.000993948

31
4.2 LafargeHolcim Bangladesh
Liquidity Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017
Current Ratio 1.4241579 1.994318203 2.5454289 2.241171298
Quick (Acid-Test Ratio) 1.08172586
7
1.631344637 2.160689948 1.90338616
Total Current Assets 6,505,784,0
00
7,854,708,00
0
8,238,217,00
0
8,923,293,000.0
0
Total Current Liabilities 4,568,162,0
00
3,938,543,00
0
3,236,475,00
0
3,981,531,000.0
0
Inventory 1,564,285,0
00
1,429,587,00
0
1,245,198,00
0
1,344,902,000.0
0
Activity Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017
Accounts Receivable
Turnover
13.9151864
1
12.36851293 9.452998035 7.479575386
Average Collection Period 26.2303349
1
29.51041908 38.61208885 48.79956163
Accounts Payable
Turnover
3.30360679
5
2.901427748 2.81919483 3.180198278
Average Payment Period 110.485303
7
125.8001342 129.4695904 114.772718
Inventory Turnover 4.54914417
8
4.930620522 5.588815594 6.112159845
Average Age of Inventory 80.2348718
2
74.02719361 65.30900758 59.71702463
Total Asset Turnover 0.57926733
2
0.529979846 0.511395006 0.502032537
Fixed Asset Turnover 0.85862449
2
0.854180049 0.842048907 0.856800438
Costs of Sales 7,116,158,0
00
7,048,751,00
0
6,959,182,00
0
8,220,256,000
Inventory 1,564,285,0
00
1,429,587,00
0
1,245,198,00
0
1,344,902,000.0
0
Revenue 11,583,029,
000
10,967,952,0
00
10,728,855,0
00
10,819,131,000
Trade receivables 865,268,000 908,260,000 1,361,677,00
0
1,531,303,000.0
0
Trade Payables 2,292,362,0
00
2,473,604,00
0
2,332,586,00
0
2,899,767,000.0
0
Total Assets 19,995,999,
000
20,695,036,0
00
20,979,585,0
00
21,550,657,000
Total Non-Current Assets 13,490,215,
000
12,840,328,0
00
12,741,368,0
00
12,627,364,000
Beginning Inventory 1,556,950,0
00
1,564,285,00
0
1,429,587,00
0
1,245,198,000

32
Clossing Inventory 1,564,285,0
00
1,429,587,00
0
1,245,198,00
0
1,344,902,000.0
0
Purchase 7,123,493,0
00
6,914,053,00
0
6,774,793,00
0
8,319,960,000
Debt Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017
Debt Ratio 0.33708543
4
0.306041362 0.267266822 0.291265088
Debt-To-Equity 0.50849000
9
0.441008073 0.364753268 0.41096478
Times Interest Earned Ratio N/A 16.43432935 42.24689682 33.72639938
Total Current Liabilities 4,568,162,0
00
3,938,543,00
0
3,236,475,00
0
3,981,531,000.0
0
Total Non-Current Liabilities 2,172,198,0
00
2,394,994,00
0
2,370,672,00
0
2,295,423,000
Total Liabilities 6,740,360,0
00
6,333,537,00
0
5,607,147,00
0
6,276,954,000
Total Assets 19,995,999,
000
20,695,036,0
00
20,979,585,0
00
21,550,657,000
Share Capital 11,613,735,
000
11,613,735,0
00
11,613,735,0
00
11,613,735,000.
00
Foreign currency translation 408,334,000 377,530,000 353,123,000 574,404,000
Retained Earnings 1,295,008,0
00
2,423,190,00
0
3,488,351,00
0
3,132,305,000.0
0
Other Equity Components -61,519,000 -52,995,000 -82,748,000 -46,737,000.00
Non-controlling interest 81,000 39,000 -23,000 -4,000
Total Equity 13,255,639,
000
14,361,499,0
00
15,372,438,0
00
15,273,703,000
Profitability Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017
Gross Profit Margin 0.38563928
3
0.357332071 0.355511655 0.240211067
Net Profit Margin 0.24344219
5
0.208747631 0.20752289 0.074432133
Return On Total Assets
(ROA)
0.14101811
1
0.110632038 0.10612617 0.037367353
Return On Equity (ROE) 0.21272441
1
0.159421659 0.144836037 0.052724019
Revenue 11,583,029,
000
10,967,952,0
00
10,728,855,0
00
10,819,131,000
Gross Profit 4,466,871,0
00
3,919,201,00
0
3,814,233,00
0
2,598,875,000
Operating Profit/ (loss) 3,778,223,0
00
2,891,028,00
0
2,884,125,00
0
1,270,595,000

33
Net Profit / (loss) for the
Period
2,819,798,0
00
2,289,534,00
0
2,226,483,00
0
805,291,000
The number of shares 1,161,373,5
00
1,161,373,50
0
1,161,373,50
0
1,161,373,500
Total Assets 19,995,999,
000
20,695,036,0
00
20,979,585,0
00
21,550,657,000
Total Equity 13,255,639,
000
14,361,499,0
00
15,372,438,0
00
15,273,703,000
Market Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017
Earnings Per Share 2.42798548
4
1.971401965 1.917111937 0.693395363
Price/Earnings (P/E) Ratio 25.2060815 31.85550239 32.01169364 102.7696517
Book Value Per Share 11.4137605
2
12.36596065 13.23642911 13.15141339
Market/Book (M/B) Ratio 5.36371603
9
5.076798707 4.635196375 5.419011407
Dividend Per Share 0.49357592
5
0.984190702 0.986256359 0.994686033
Dividend Yield 0.00806496
6
0.015671826 0.016070659 0.013958547
Dividend Payout 0.20328619
3
0.499233905 0.514449021 1.434514977
Net Profit / (loss) for the
Period
2,819,798,0
00
2,289,534,00
0
2,226,483,00
0
805,291,000
The number of shares 1,161,373,5
00
1,161,373,50
0
1,161,373,50
0
1,161,373,500
Earnings Per Share - Basic 2.43 1.97 1.92 0.69
Book Value Per Share 11.41 12.37 13.24 13.15
Market Price Per Share 61.2 62.8 61.37 71.26
Total Equity 13,255,639,
000
14,361,499,0
00
15,372,438,0
00
15,273,703,000
Dividend paid to equity
holders of parent
1,143,013,00
0
Dividends Paid - Preference
Shares
573,226,000 1,145,412,00
0
1,155,202,000

34
5 References
i. http://lankabd.com/dse/stock-market/HEIDELBCEM/Heidelberg-cement-bangladesh-
limited/financial-statements?companyId=4&stockId=4
ii. http://www.Heidelbergcementbd.com/attachment/Annual_Report_2016.pdf
iii. https://www.Heidelbergcement.com/en/system/files_force/.../annual-report-2017_0.pdf
iv. https://www.lafargeholcim.com.bd/sites/bangladesh/files/atoms/files/financeannual_report_20
17_.pdf
v. http://lankabd.com/dse/stock-market/LHBL/lafargeholcim-bangladesh-limited/financial-
statements?companyId=5&goToHomePageParam=true&stockId=5
vi. https://www.lafargeholcim.com.bd/
vii. http://www.Heidelbergcementbd.com/