Financial Management Analysis of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto Limited

This report analyzes the liquidity, profitability, market performance and capital structure of two mining companies in Australia, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto Limited, using ratio analysis and computation. The report concludes that Rio Tinto Limited outperforms BHP Billiton Limited in terms of profitability position, liquidity position and market structure.

Running head: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Financial management
Name of the university
Name of the student
Authors note

1
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction:....................................................................................................................................2
Discussion:.......................................................................................................................................2
Evaluation of liquidity position of firms:........................................................................................3
Evaluation of profitability position of firms:...................................................................................4
Evaluation of capital structure position of firms:............................................................................5
Evaluation of market performance of firms:...................................................................................7
Calculation of share price of BHP Billiton using assumed values:.................................................8
Calculated of bond price traded in the market:................................................................................9
References list:...............................................................................................................................11
Introduction:

2
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The report is prepared to analyze the liquidity, profitability, market performance and
capital structure of two mining companies in Australia. Analysis of financial position is done in
terms of ratios computation. Interpretations of ratios have been done with references to
theoretical concepts that have assisted in the evaluation of operation and performance of
companies. Two companies that are selected are BHP Billiton Limited and Rio Tinto Limited
being the peer. BHP Billiton is one o the top listed public company that derives majority of its
income from its division of metal ore mining (Bhp.com 2018). Operations of company are done
through its divisions such as coal, iron ore and potash and petroleum. Rio Tinto is one of the
largest mining and metal corporations operating in Australia. Main business of Rio Tinto is the
production of several minerals such as diamonds, bauxite, iron ore, gypsum, uranium and
borates.
Discussion:
Ratio analysis and ratio figures of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto limited:
BHP Billiton Rio Tinto Limited
2016 2015 2016 2015
Current ratio 1.435 1.274 1.611 1.548
Return on equity
ratio
-0.114 0.042 0.118 -0.023
Debt ratio 0.495 0.434 0.560 0.592
Price earnings
ratio
-28.625 6.808 14.218 -112.617

3
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Evaluation of liquidity position of firms:
Liquidity positions of both the companies are analyzed by the computation of current
ratio for two financial year period. Current ratio enables business to analyze their level of risks
and requirement of working capital. Current ratio depicts the ability of organizations to clear
their short-term obligations. This particular ratio for BHP Billiton limited stood at 1.435 and
1.274 in financial year 2016 and 2015 respectively. It is indicative of the fact that liquidity
position of company has increased in recent years. Increase in current ratio of BH Billiton
indicates the employment of more conservative approach to working capital management and
improvement in liquidity position of company (Agosto et al. 2016). On other hand, ratio for Rio
Tinto Limited stood at 1.611 and 1.548 for year 2016 and 2015 indicating increase liquidity
position. Therefore, there has been improvement in the liquidity position of both the companies.
However, ratios for both the companies have improved but current ratios for Rio Tinto is
comparatively higher than that of BHP Billiton Limited. Since, the companies operating in
mining industry, is required to maintain a standard current ratio of 2
(Ibisworld.com.au.aib.idm.oclc.org 2018). Therefore, from the perspective of industry standard,
liquidity position of Rio Tinto is favorable compared to BHP Billiton limited.

4
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
2016 2015
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
Current ratio
BHP Billiton
Rio Tinto Limited
The reason behind the higher current ratio is attributable to the fact that current liabilities
of Rio Tinto limited are significantly lower than BHP Billiton. However, there has been decrease
in current assets along with increase in current liabilities. On other hand, current assets of BHP
Billiton have increased in year along with decline in current liabilities. Improvement in liquidity
position is indicative of the fact that company has adopt more efficient management practices
and maintains a strong working capital cycle (Cavusgil et al. 2014).
Evaluation of profitability position of firms:
Profitability position of companies has been analyzed by the evaluation of return on
equity. Investors prefer higher value of return on equity as this depicts that company is efficient
in generating income. Ability of organization to generate profits from the investment of
shareholders is depicted by return on equity ratio. Investors always prefer higher return on equity
compared to lower return on ratio (Uechi et al. 2015). In order to check the trend of ROE,
investor is required to compare companies. It can be seen from the figures of return on equity
that profitability position of BHP Billiton as well as Rio Tinto has improved in the recent years.

5
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Return on equity of BHP Billiton stood at 0.042 and -.114 for the year 2015 and 2016
respectively. It indicates that return on equity ratio has worsened and negative returns have been
contributed to shareholders. The reason is attributable to decline in total value of shareholder’s
equity and negative net income generation (Mason et al. 2015). On other hand, ratio for Rio
Tinto limited stood at -0.023 and .118 for year 2015 and 2016 respectively. This figure depicts
that ratio has increased in recent years. This improvement in return on equity is because Rio
Tinto has generated a positive net income in year 2016 compared to negative income in year
2015. Moreover, the value of shareholder’s equity has also increased by considerable amount in
year 2016 that has lead to an improvement in return on equity.
2016 2015
-0.150
-0.100
-0.050
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
Return on equity
BHP Billiton
Rio Tinto Limited
From the above graph, it can be seen that the position of organizations in terms of return
on equity has reversed. ROE of Rio Tinto Limited was negative in year 2015 that has improved
in recent year to a positive value. BHP Billiton situation in terms of ROE has reduced in year
2016 compared to favorable position in year 2015. The component ROE of BHP Billiton Limited
that is favorable is total value of shareholder’s equity and net income is inferior component.
Negative value of ROE depicts that funds of investors are not utilized effectively. Management

6
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
of organization is not effective in generating returns from investor’s funds (Zhang and Moffat
2015).
Higher value of ROE for Rio Tinto depicts that the funds of shareholders are utilized
effectively and management is effective in making use of equity financing for funding the
growth and operations of company (Titman et al. 2017). Therefore, position of Rio Tinto
Limited has improved in year 2016 and has provided better returns to its shareholders.
Evaluation of capital structure position of firms:
Positions of capital structure of companies have been analyzed by the evaluation of debt
and solvency position of companies. The financial leverage of company is measured using debt
ratio that depicts the ability of business to pay off its debt and continue its operation. Long-term
financial sustainability of business is indicated by the value of debt ratio (Muhammad et al.
2015).
Debt ratio of BHP Billiton has increased from 0.434 in year 2015 to 0.495 in year 2016
respectively. Solvency position of company has increased in the recent year that is not regarded
as favorable from investor’s point of view. This increment in debt ratio is because of increase in
amount of total liabilities and decrease in amount of total assets. Value of debt ratio for Rio Tinto
stood at 0.592 in year 2015 as against .560 in year 2016 respectively. This fall in debt ratio is
attributable to declining total liabilities of company in recent years. Nonetheless, there has been
fall in total assets of Rio Tinto limited (Hong et al. 2015). Now, when comparing the solvency
position of both BHP Billiton and its peer that is Rio Tinto limited, it can be seen that solvency
position of BHP Billiton is better compared to Rio Tinto Limited. It is so because although the

7
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
value of total liabilities BHP Billiton is more than Rio Tinto limited, the total amount of assets
that has led to lower debt ratio.
2016 2015
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
Debt ratio
BHP Billiton
Rio Tinto Limited
From the above graph, debt ratio of Rio Tinto has decreased in recent years and that of
BHP Billiton has increased. Nevertheless, total value of debt ratio has for BHP Billiton ratio is
lower than its competitor is and this is illustrative of the fact of better solvency position of
company. Lower ratio of BHP Billiton assets of company is sufficient to meet their obligations.
However, this might result in restricted growth of company indicated by underutilization of
major finance source (Karadag 2015). Higher debt ratio of Rio Tinto is indication of high risks
for both the equity investors and debt holder of company. It would make it difficult for company
to obtain finance for raising money at good terms.
Evaluation of market performance of firms:
Market performance of organizations is analyzed by the evaluation of price earnings
ratio. An increase in the price earnings ratio of the company is indicative of the fact that the
market value of company is increasing. This particular ratio is used by investors for evaluating

8
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
the fair market value of stock of company. It is expected that companies with higher earnings
have appreciation in the future value of stocks and higher dividends. Price earnings ratio of BHP
Billiton for the two financial years stood at -28.65 in year 2016 and 6.808 in year 2015
respectively. It is suggested by figure that price earnings ratio of the company has become
negative. This decline in ratio is because of loss per share attributed to shareholders of company.
This negative value is usually indication of poor future and current performance of company and
this might be associated with poor investment (Gitman et al. 2015). Moreover, it also anticipates
that there will be lower growth and performance in future and will not make investors to invest
in the company. On other hand, price earnings ratio of Rio Tinto Limited has improved in recent
years and this anticipates improvement in performance of company in future. Value of ratio
stood at 14.218 in year 2016 compared to -112.617 in year 2015. This improvement in ratio is
attributable to positive earnings per share of 2.57 in year 2016 as against negative value of 0.47
in 2015 respectively. However, market price per share has reduced from 52.93 in 2015 as against
36.54 in year 2016. This higher value makes investors anticipate higher growth and better
performance of company in upcoming years (Biddle et al. 2016).
Conclusion:
From the analysis of above figures of different ratio, it can be inferred that the overall
financial performance of Rio Tinto is better than BHP Billiton. Rio Tinto Limited in terms of
profitability position, liquidity position and market structure has outperformed BHP Billiton
Limited. Management of Rio Tinto limited is more efficient in generating income using their
total available assets (Lodhia and Hess 2014). Moreover, the ability of current assets of
organization is more efficient for fulfilling their current obligations compared to BHP Billiton
Limited. The only factor that is not favorable supporting the financial position of company is its

9
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
solvency position (Dudin et al. 2014). However, the total liabilities of BHP Billiton have
increased but it is increasingly finance by the availability of total assets. Therefore, performance
of BHP Billiton is lower than that of Rio Tinto followed by the negative mining industry growth
of -1.7 million. Furthermore, it is commendable to note that current growth rate of revenue of
industry is negative at -2.8% (Hosseinzadeh et al. 2018). Nevertheless, the revenue generation of
both the mining companies is positive. In the nutshell, it can be concluded that overall financial
performance of BHP Billiton Limited is not surpassing Rio Tinto Limited.
Calculation of share price of BHP Billiton using assumed values:
Particulars Amount
Risk Free Rate of Return A 2%
Market Risk Premium B 7%
Beta C 1.285
Cost of Capital
D=A+
(BxC) 11.00%
Dividend paid per share E 2.2
Dividend Growth Rate F 4%
Expected Dividend G=Ex(1+F) 2.288
Market Value of Shares
H=G/(D-
F)
32.7090
8
In this particular assignment, the selected company is BHP Billiton that has market share
price of 34.35. On other hand, the calculated share price of company is done by using dividend
discount model. Valuation of price of stock using this model is based on the theory that future
payment of dividend is discounted the present value. This particular model only focuses dividend
declared by company for computing the share price (Cornell 2015). Valuation of stock of
company is done on future dividends net present value. However, market share price takes into

10
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
consideration several other factors for the computation of share price (Uechi et al. 2015). This is
the reason why there is difference between the calculated figures and actual share price of
company. Furthermore, the share price calculated is based on assumed figures about market risk
premium, growth rate and beta of company that is not relevant.
Calculated of bond price traded in the market:
Particulars
Amoun
t
Face Value A $ 1,000
Coupon Rate B 5.75%
No. of Payments in a year C 2
Coupon Payments D=(AxB)/C $ 28.75
Years to Maturity E 10
Market Rate p.a. F 2.37%
Semi-Annual Market Rate G=F/2 1.19%
Total Nos. of Payments H=CxE 20
Price to Bond
I=Dx[1-(1/(1+G)^H)]/G+[A/
(1+G)^H] $ 1,299
The computed price of bond that will be traded in the market is $ 1299.

11
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
References list:
Agosto, A., Mainini, A. and Moretto, E., 2016. Covariance of random stock prices in the
Stochastic Dividend Discount Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03029.
Bhp.com. (2018). [online] Available at:
https://www.bhp.com/-/media/bhp/documents/investors/annual-reports/2016/
bhpbillitonannualreport2016.pdf?la=en [Accessed 10 Feb. 2018].
Biddle, G.C., Callahan, C.M., Hong, H.A. and Knowles, R.L., 2016. Do Adoptions of
International Financial Reporting Standards Enhance Capital Investment Efficiency?.
Cavusgil, S.T., Knight, G., Riesenberger, J.R., Rammal, H.G. and Rose, E.L.,
2014. International business. Pearson Australia.
Cornell, B., 2015. Using Dividend Discount Models to Estimate Expected Returns. The Journal
of Investing, 24(1), pp.48-51.
Dudin, M., Lyasnikov, N., Yahyaev, M. and Kuznecov, A., 2014. The organization approaches
peculiarities of an industrial enterprises financial management.
Gitman, L.J., Juchau, R. and Flanagan, J., 2015. Principles of managerial finance. Pearson
Higher Education AU.
Hong, Y., Huseynov, F. and Zhang, W., 2014. Earnings management and analyst following: A
simultaneous equations analysis. Financial Management, 43(2), pp.355-390.
Hosseinzadeh, A., Smyth, R., Valadkhani, A. and Moradi, A., 2018. What determines the
efficiency of Australian mining companies?. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 62(1), pp.121-138.

12
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Ibisworld.com.au.aib.idm.oclc.org. (2018). Shibboleth Authentication Request. [online]
Available at: http://www.ibisworld.com.au.aib.idm.oclc.org/australian-company-research-
reports/mining/bhp-billiton-limited-company.html [Accessed 10 Feb. 2018].
Irimia-Dieguez, A.I., Medina-Lopez, C. and Alfalla-Luque, R., 2015. Financial Management of
large projects: A research gap. Procedia Economics and finance, 23, pp.652-657.
Karadag, H., 2015. Financial management challenges in small and medium-sized enterprises: A
strategic management approach. Emerging Markets Journal, 5(1), p.26.
Lazzati, N. and Menichini, A.A., 2015. A dynamic approach to the dividend discount
model. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies, 18(03), p.1550018.
Lodhia, S. and Hess, N., 2014. Sustainability accounting and reporting in the mining industry:
Current literature and directions for future research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 84, pp.43-
50.
Mason, C.M., Paxton, G., Parsons, R., Parr, J.M. and Moffat, K., 2014. “For the benefit of
Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry. Resources Policy, 41, pp.1-
8.
Muhammad, N., Scrimgeour, F., Reddy, K. and Abidin, S., 2015. The relationship between
environmental performance and financial performance in periods of growth and contraction:
evidence from Australian publicly listed companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 102,
pp.324-332.
Petty, J.W., Titman, S., Keown, A.J., Martin, P., Martin, J.D. and Burrow, M., 2015. Financial
management: Principles and applications. Pearson Higher Education AU.

13
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Titman, S., Keown, A.J. and Martin, J.D., 2017. Financial management: Principles and
applications. Pearson.
Uechi, L., Akutsu, T., Stanley, H.E., Marcus, A.J. and Kenett, D.Y., 2015. Sector dominance
ratio analysis of financial markets. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 421,
pp.488-509.
Zhang, A. and Moffat, K., 2015. A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts and confidence in
governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia. Resources Policy, 44, pp.25-34.