Stock Market Data Analysis 2016-2017

This assignment presents a dataset of stock market data spanning from August 1st, 2016 to December 1st, 2017. It includes daily information on the opening price, percentage change in price, and trading volume. Students are expected to analyze this data to understand trends and fluctuations in the stock market during this period.

Comparison Apple vs Google from
financial management

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview of the study..................................................................................................................1
Aim and objectives of the study..................................................................................................1
Literature review..........................................................................................................................1
Research methodology.................................................................................................................3
1. Comparing financial performance and position of Apple in against to rival firm Google......4
2. Stock market performance.....................................................................................................13
3. Assessing elements that help in assessing long-term viability of manufacturing.................15
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................17
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................17
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................19
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................21
1. Share price evaluation of Apple v/s Google..........................................................................21
Figure 1: NP ratio............................................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Retrurn of Capital Employed Apple V/s Google.............................................................5
Figure 3: Current ratio.....................................................................................................................7
Figure 4: Quick ratio........................................................................................................................7
Figure 5: Debt-equity ratio..............................................................................................................9
Figure 6: Fixed assets turnover ratio.............................................................................................10
Figure 7: Total assets turnover ratio..............................................................................................10
Figure 8: Inventory turnover ratio.................................................................................................11
Figure 9: EPS Apple v/s Google....................................................................................................12
Figure 10: DPS of Apple...............................................................................................................13
Figure 11: Stock performance Apple v/s Google..........................................................................14

Overview of the study
Financial analysis is the process that assists company in analyzing whether its monetary
position and performance is good or not. In the recent times, firms lay high level of emphasis on
measuring or evaluating their performance over the years and in comparison to the rival firm.
This in turn gives clear indication to the firm about the areas that require improvement and gives
input for the development of competent as well as strategic framework. The present report is
based on Apple, a leading American multinational technology company, which is involved in
designing and selling electronic and computer related products or services. In this, report will
highlight the extent to which financial aspects or management of Apple is sound as compared to
Google. With the motive to present fair view of study and evaluation Google, another leading
firm of America which is engaged in offering internet related services, has been selected. Along
with this, report also depicts the manner in which returns associated with the stock of Apple and
Google were fluctuated over the time frame. Further, it also entails the aspects that assist in
evaluating long-term viability of manufacturing.
Aim and objectives of the study
Aim of the present study is to analyze or evaluate financial management practices of
Apple over its rival firm Google. On the basis of such aim following objectives have drafted
such as:
 To analyze financial position of Apple over the years and in against to competitor
namely Google.
 To evaluate stock returns of Apple over its competitor Google.
 To ascertain elements that helps in assessing long term viability of manufacturing.
 To recommend suitable ways that aid in effective financial management of Apple.
Literature review
Theme 1: Ratio analysis and evaluation of firm’s financial performance
According to the views of Sujan and et.al., (2017), ratio analysis may be served tool that
helps in summarizing financial statements and gives quick as well clear indication in several key
areas. Hence, by undertaking the tool of ratio analysis firm can assess profit margin generated
over the years and in against to competitors. Hence, by analyzing profitability through the means

of ratio analysis firm can develop effective strategic framework. However, on the critical note,
Maynard (2017) said that ratio analysis technique presents financial performance on the basis of
past data set, whereas management is concerned about future aspects. Thus, such technique does
not reflect current condition or position and thereby impacts future planning’s. Further, Rehman
and et.al., (2015) mentioned in their study that ratio analysis tool furnishes information about the
level to which liquidity and solvency position of the concerned firm is sound. Thus, outcome and
evaluation of ratio analysis aid in decision making aspects to a great extent. This in turn gives
clear indication to the firm about the sources of finance that it needs to undertake for building
and maintaining suitable financial structure. On the contradictory note, Kou, Peng and Wang
(2014) mentioned that lack of standard pertaining to making comparison of performance is
recognized as one of the major limitations.
Further, Jordan (2014) identified that through performing ratio analysis business unit can
assess its position over the rival firm. Besides this, it also assists firm in identifying strategic
action or measure that it needs to undertake for gaining competitive edge over others. However,
it is to be critically evaluated by Ibn-Homaid and Tijani (2015), who said that, irrespective of
having IASB and IFRS different business units undertake varied accounting policies. In such
case, it is not possible for the firm to evaluate or compare its position over rivals in the best
possible way. Vogel (2014) depicted in their study that by comparing cost, sales, profit margin
and other numeric figures via ratio analysis technique firm can measure its operational efficiency
aspect. Thus, by using tool firm can make appropriate forecast regarding future business
activities in numeric terms. Considering such assessment it can be said that ratio analysis is the
most effectual tools that help in evaluating performance and aid in appropriate decision making.
Theme 2: Factors that have an influence on share price
Mantzari and et.al., (2015) stated that attainment of high margin from fund invested is
one of the main motives of investors. Thus, before investing money concerned or potential
shareholders make evaluation of firm’s performance to analyze return. There are several internal
and external factors that influences share prices of firm. As per Wahlen, Baginski and Bradshaw
(2014) internal factors such as company’s new and performance has significant impact on share
price. In the study, they mentioned that news release on earnings and profit has greater impact on
share price. Along with this, announcements related to dividends, anticipated takeover and

merger, employee layoffs, anticipated errors etc have significant influence on stock price. On the
other side, Jenter and Kanaan (2015) argued that along with internal there are some external
factors which in turn affects share price. In this regard, external factors include investors
sentiment also has influence on stock value. In other words, sentiments or confidence of
investors in relation to increasing or decreasing price level has high level of impact on stock
performance. Zhang and Pan (2015) claimed that movement take place in exchange rates, gold
prices & bond having an impact on the prices of stock. Along with this, economic conditions and
stock prices are significantly associated with each other. On the basis of such aspect, when
economic conditions are good then investors feel high level of confidence. The rationale behind
this, at the time of good economic outlook, companies perform well, earn high margin and offers
dividend to shareholders with increasing rate (North and Stevens, 2015). Thus, both internal and
external factors have high level of impact on share prices of the firm traded on stock exchange.
Research methodology
 Research type: Specifically, there are mainly two research types that can be undertaken
for evaluating issue. In this, quantitative research type has been selected for analyzing
financial position of Apple over Google. Besides this, stock performance evaluation of
both the concerned companies is based on quantitative data set. Considering all such
aspects, quantitative research technique has been selected.
 Data collection: In order to assess financial position and performance of Apple in against
to Google monetary data has been gathered from the financial statements of the
concerned firms for five years period. Hence, by evaluating final accounts of Apple and
Google pertaining to period 2013 to 2017 data regarding profitability, liquidity and
solvency aspect has been gathered. Along with this, books, journals and scholarly articles
related to ratio as well as stock return analysis has also been evaluated to gain
understanding about the issue investigated.
 Data analysis: For analyzing gathered data set in the best possible way and meeting
research objectives ratio analysis tool has been applied by scholar. Hence, through the
means of ratios, extent to which profitability, liquidity and solvency position of Apple in
against to Google has evaluated.

1. Comparing financial performance and position of Apple in against to rival firm Google
Ratio analysis is the most effectual financial tool that assists in evaluating performance of
firm under different categories such as profitability, liquidity, solvency, efficiency and
investment.
Ratio analysis of Apple v/s Google from 2013 to 2017 is as follows:
Profitability ratio analysis
Apple Google
Form
ula 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
201
3 2014 2015 2016 2017
Profitability
ratios
Gross profit
64,3
04
70,5
37
93,6
26
84,2
63
88,1
86
33,9
67
40,3
10
46,8
25
55,1
34
Net profit
37,0
37
39,5
10
53,3
94
45,6
87
48,3
51
12,9
20
14,4
44
16,3
48
19,4
78
1568
2
Sales
revenue
170,
910
182,
795
233,
715
215,
639
229,
234
59,8
25
66,0
01
74,9
89
90,2
72
7853
2
Shareholder'
s equity
123,
549
111,
547
119,
355
128,
249
134,
047
87,3
09
104,
500
120,
331
139,
036
1571
00
NP ratio
21.7
%
21.6
%
22.8
%
21.2
%
21.1
%
21.6
%
21.9
%
21.8
%
21.6
% 20%
ROCE
29.9
8%
35.4
2%
44.7
4%
35.6
2%
36.0
7%
14.8
0%
13.8
2%
13.5
9%
14.0
1%
9.98
%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Apple Google
18.50%
19.00%
19.50%
20.00%
20.50%
21.00%
21.50%
22.00%
22.50%
23.00%
NP ratio
NP ratio
Figure 1: NP ratio
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Apple Google
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
ROCE
ROCE
Figure 2: Retrurn of Capital Employed Apple V/s Google
Interpretation: Tabular presentation shows that NP margin of Apple was not improved
over the time frame. In the context of five years period, such ratio of Apple was 21%
respectively. In 2017, irrespective of increased sales revenue from 215639 to 229234 net margin
of the firm was declined. In this regard, high level of indirect expenses recognized as main cause
due to which margin decreased. On the other side, net profit margin of Google was decreased
from 21% to 20% in the year of 2017. In the accounting year, due to the decline in revenue

business unit failed to generate enough margin. Hence, considering overall evaluation it can be
presented that profitability position or aspects of Apple is good over Google.
From ratio analysis, it has found that ROCE of Apple was increased from 29.98% to
36.07% during concerned financial years. Increasing trend of ROCE presents that company has
made effectual use of shareholder’s equity. It also indicates that strategic and policy framework
undertaken by Apple is prominent. In contrast to this, declining trend has assessed in the ROCE
of Google. In 2017, ROCE of Google declined from 14.80% to 9.98% significantly that is not
good. Moreover, decreasing return implies for company’s inefficiency in relation to making use
of funds invested by shareholders while carry out business activities and functions.
Liquidity ratio analysis
Apple Google
Formula
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
Current
assets
73,
286
68,
531
89,
378
106,
869
128,
645
72,
886
80,
685
90,
114
105,
408
119
345
Inventory
1,7
64
2,1
11
2,3
49
2,13
2
4,85
5 426 268 765
Prepaid
expenses
2,8
27
3,4
12
3,1
39
4,57
5
Current
liabilities
43,
658
63,
448
80,
610
79,0
06
100,
814
15,
908
16,
805
19,
310
16,7
56
206
93
Current
ratio
Current assets /
current liabilities
1.6
8
1.0
8
1.1
1 1.35 1.28
4.5
8
4.8
0
4.6
7 6.29
5.7
7
Quick
ratio
Quick assets /
current liabilities
1.6
4
1.0
5
1.0
8 1.33 1.23
4.3
8
4.8
0
4.5
0 6.00
5.7
3

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Apple Google
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Current ratio
Current ratio
Figure 3: Current ratio
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Apple Google
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Quick ratio
Quick ratio
Figure 4: Quick ratio
Interpretation: Graphical presentation exhibits fluctuating trend in the current ratio of
Apple. From 2014 to 2016, current ratio of Apple was increased but not with the higher rate or
significantly. Further, in 2017, current ratio of fallen down from 1.35 to 1.28 who is not
considered as good over ideal such as 2:1. Along with this, current ratio of Google was also
fluctuated from 2013 to 2017. At the end of 2017, current ratio accounted for 5.77:1 that was
greater than ideal measure. From assessment, it has found neither higher nor lower liquidity is

good for the business unit. Moreover, maintenance of higher liquidity closely impacts
profitability and monetary position of the firm. However, overall Google was highly capable in
relation to meeting its obligations from current assets rather than Apple.
Quick ratio of Apple and Google pertaining to year 2017 implied for 1.23:1 and 5.73:1
respectively. Ideal standards or measure such as .5:1 presents that in against to 2 current debts,
business unit must have 1 quick asset that can be sold for cash generation. Ratio analysis result’s
from 2013 to 2017 period shows that both the firms have maintained enough quick assets for
fulfilling current obligations. However, as compared to standards Google has maintained enough
cash within the firm which in turn impacts overall monetary aspects. Moreover, company can
earn high margin by investing money in other profitable investment opportunities rather than
preserving with itself. Hence, it can be said that Apple’s policies pertaining to maintain liquidity
position is sound over Apple.
Solvency ratio analysis
Apple Google
Formula
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
20
13
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7
Long
term
debt
16,
960
28,
987
53,
463
75,
427
97,
207
2,2
36
3,2
28
1,9
95
3,9
35
396
4
Sharehol
ders
123
,54
9
111
,54
7
119
,35
5
128
,24
9
134
,04
7
87,
30
9
104
,50
0
120
,33
1
139
,03
6
157
100
Debt-
equity
ratio
Long term debt /
shareholders equity
0.1
4
0.2
6
0.4
5
0.5
9
0.7
3
0.0
3
0.0
3
0.0
2
0.0
3
0.0
3

2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Apple Google
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Debt-equity ratio
Debt-equity ratio
Figure 5: Debt-equity ratio
Interpretation: Outcome of ratio analysis shows that debt-equity ratio of Apple was
increase significantly over the time frame. In the year of 2013 debt-equity ratio of Apple
accounted for .14:1, whereas at the end of 2017 it reached on .73:1 which is a good indicator. On
the other side, within the period of five years from 2013 to 2017, such ratio was implied for
0.03:1. Hence, considering the results of such analysis it can be depicted that solvency position
of Apple is sound over Google. Moreover, Apple has maintained its solvency in line with the
ideal ratio such as .5:1. According to such ratio, there must be 2 equities in against to 1 which in
turn ensures optimal capital structure. This aspect clearly shows that financial structure of Apple
is good. On the other side, for reducing fixed obligations in terms of interest payment Google
laid more focus on raising funds through equity which in turn negatively influence capital
structure. Hence, at the time of raising funds firm should keep in mind ideal solvency or debt-
equity ratio.
Efficiency ratio analysis
Apple Google
Particulars Formula
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
13
20
14
20
15
201
6
20
17
Fixed assets
turnover ratio
Net sales /
Fixed assets
10.
67
9.8
2
10.
85
8.7
1
7.5
4
4.2
2
3.2
7
2.8
4 2.85
2.8
7

Total assets
turnover ratio
Net sales / total
assets .89 .83 .89 .70 .66 .58 .55 .54 .57 .60
Inventory
turnover ratio
COGS /
inventory
83.
45
57.
94
62.
82
58.
64
40.
37
55.
55 - -
131.
11
63.
41
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Apple Google
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fixed assets turnover ratio
Fixed assets turnover ratio
Figure 6: Fixed assets turnover ratio
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Apple Google
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Total assets turnover ratio
Total assets turnover ratio
Figure 7: Total assets turnover ratio

2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Apple Google
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Inventory turnover ratio
Inventory turnover ratio
Figure 8: Inventory turnover ratio
Interpretation: From financial statement analysis, it has found that fixed assets turnover
ratio of Apple decline every year except 2015. In 2017, fixed assets turnover ratio of Apple
declined from 10.67 to 7.54 times. It presents that Apple failed to generate enough sales through
using fixed assets. In addition to this, fixed assets turnover ratio of Google also decreased from
4.2 to 2.87. Further, declining trend has also found in the total assets turnover ratio of Apple
from .89 to .66 times. Thus, for enhancing level using both fixed and current assets firm needs to
organize training session for personnel. This in turn enables personnel to perform activities and
functions in an effectual way. Along with this, by evaluating opportunities firm can develop
suitable plan and would become to effectively utilize current assets.
Apart from this, stock turnover ratio of Apple declined from 83.45 to 40.37 which show
that company is facing difficulty in selling or replacing its inventory. This aspect can clearly be
supported with SWOT analysis which shows that Apple has weak distribution channels in
overseas market such as India (SWOT analysis of Apple, 2018). In addition to this,
overdependence on i-phone sales considered as another main cause behind lower stock turnover
ratio. Further, investment of Apple in R&D activities is not higher over other leading companies
which in turn impacts stock turnover ratio. Thus, firm needs to make focus on innovative aspects
for enticing decision making aspect of customers. In addition to this, firm need to focus on the
selling of other products and adoption of stock control methods for managing inventory in the

best possible way. On the contrary to this, stock turnover ratio of Google inclined from 55.55 to
131.11 in 2016, whereas in 2017 it was 63.41 respectively. Hence, in comparison to Apple, stock
turnover ratio of Google is sound but still both the companies need to undertake significant
measure for improvement.
Investment ratios
Apple Google
Formula
201
3
201
4
201
5
201
6
201
7 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EPS 5.68 6.45 9.22 8.31 9.21
18.7
9
20.5
7
22.8
4
27.8
5
29.8
9
DP
S 1.63 1.81 1.98 2.18 2.40 -
- - - -
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Apple Google
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
EPS
EPS
Figure 9: EPS Apple v/s Google

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Apple
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
DPS
DPS
Figure 10: DPS of Apple
Interpretation: By doing ratio analysis, it has assessed that EPS of Apple inclined from
5.68 to 9.21 in 2017. Further, increasing trend also assessed in the EPS of Google from 18.79 to
29.89 respectively. Thus, considering the trend of EPS it can be mentioned that high portion of
profit is allocated by Google to each outstanding share of common stock. On the other side, DPS
measure presents that high returns are offered by Apple to its shareholders. In the year of 2013
and 2014, DPS provided by Apple to its shareholders implies for 1.63 and 1.81 significantly.
Besides this, in 2016 and 2017, DPS of Apple accounted for 2.18 & 2.40 respectively. Thus,
considering overall evaluation of DPS, it can be presented that from investment perspective
Apple is considered as good for shareholders.
2. Stock market performance
For evaluating performance or return of Apple and Google’s stock data of share prices
from 2013 to 2017 has been considered:

:
2/1/2013
5/1/2013
8/1/2013
11/1/2013
2/1/2014
5/1/2014
8/1/2014
11/1/2014
2/1/2015
5/1/2015
8/1/2015
11/1/2015
2/1/2016
5/1/2016
8/1/2016
11/1/2016
2/1/2017
5/1/2017
8/1/2017
11/1/2017
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Stock performance Apple v/s Google
Apple stock return Google stock return
Figure 11: Stock performance Apple v/s Google
(Source: Share prices of Apple, 2018)
(Source: Share prices of Google, 2018)
Interpretation: The above depicted line chart presents fluctuating trend or pattern in the
stock returns of Apple and Google. By applying statistical tools on stock data set, it has
identified mean return offered by Apple and Google to their investors during five years period
accounts for 2.01% & 1.90%. Hence, average return associated with the stock of Apple
considered as good as compared to Google. Along with this, data set presented in appendix
shows that share price of Apple increased significantly from $58 to $169 during 2013 to 2017.
On the other side, in 2017 share price of Google also increased from $375.40 to 1046.4
significantly. This aspect or situation can be linked with secondary data set which presents that
economic condition or outlook is the major factor that affects firm’s performance and thereby
share price. From assessment, it has found that GDP level of US increased from 527085 to 57436
in 2016 (US economic outlook, 2018). Along with this, it has identified that after recession now
US economic condition seems stable or good. Thus, positive economic condition is recognized
as the main aspects behind increasing share prices of both the companies namely Apple and
Google.

However, changes take place in the share price of Apple and Google over five year
period implied for 188% & 179% significantly. Thus, referring overall evaluation it can be
mentioned that stock market performance of Apple is effective as compared to Google. Further,
from evaluation it has assessed investor’s sentiments and faith also have major impact on share
prices (Important factors influencing share prices, 2018). Customers of Apple believe that it is
leading firm in technology sector and will grow in the near future significantly. Such sentiments
of investors may also cause of increasing and decreasing trend in financial aspects. Thus,
investors should take decision regarding investment after considering all the aspects that have an
influence on share price.
3. Assessing elements that help in assessing long-term viability of manufacturing.
Long term viability of manufacturing units
This determines the ability of a firm in context with having the long term operations as
well as revenue gathering. It helps in facilitating the adequate information’s about the firm's
economic health such as solvency, level of equity and the turnover obtained by entity. However,
in accordance with manufacturing industries like Apple and Google it can be said that both the
organisations will have higher costs of production. These are the departments which needs high
amount of capital funds to have favourable operations for the long period (Hamilton and Wu,
2015). There may be variations in the numbers of operations such as Apple mainly deals in
producing mobile phones, Mac books, I pad, I pod etc. relevant gadgets that has a segmented
market criteria. On the other side, Google is mainly known for it services like search engine,
mailing web sites etc. they have the manufacturing units which facilitates many gadgets. Thus, it
can be said that Google has wider market for its operations. However, to understand the financial
viabilities of both the organisation there are several points that will be helpful in context with
analysing the financial viability of such firms:
Revenue:
In terms with the revenue gathered by both entities Apple is having a consistent growth in
revenue generation. Therefore, it can be said that this firm is having the increment in the sales
and in production as well as they are capable of invites more buyers to its products. The revenue
of firm was in 2016 as 215,639 and in 2017 it increased to 229,234 This can be analysed here

that there appropriate brand image of Apple as well as adequate revenue retention by the firm.
On the other side Google has revenue for the period 2015 as 74,989 while in 2017 it was 90,272.
Therefore, it can be said that Apple is more financial viable than Google Inc.
Cost of sales:
The cost of sales from both the organisation has variations as Apple is having high costs
because of the nature of business and the priority of its operations mainly deals with production
and manufacturing. In the year 2016 the cost of sales was 131,376 while in 2017 it was increased
to 141,048. On the other side, Google has Cost of sales in 2015 as 28,164 while in 2016 it was
35,138. Therefore, it can be said that the firm is having costs of sales which is based on level of
its operations.
Current ratios:
To have the information regarding the ability of firm in terms of meeting the long terms
and short terms debts which will be based on its current ratio. However, the ratio will be
analysed on the basis of current assets and current liabilities over the period. However, Apple has
Current ratio on 2016 as 1.35 while in 2017 it was 1.28. On the other side Google has Current
ratio in 2015 as 4.67 while in 2016 it was 6.29. Thus, here the firm is more capable of meeting
the short terms as well as long terms liabilities in comparison with Apple.
Equity:
The total equity gathered by a firm in a period will help in analysing the capital structure
of the entity. In accordance with this ability of the firm the business will have adequate amount
of funds to have smooth operations over the period as well as they can be able to make
investments in innovative projects, research and development as well as business expansion
(Tadasse and et.al., 2016). Apple has total shareholder equity in 2016 as 128,249 while in 2017 it
was 134,047. On the other side Google has Equity in 2015 as 120,331 while in 2016 it was
139,036.

CONCLUSION
From the above report, it has been concluded that financial position of Apple is sound as
compared to its rival firm Google. It can be seen in the report that profitability, liquidity and
solvency position of Apple is good than Google. Along with this, it has been articulated that
Apple has provided investors with high return during the time frame considered for evaluation. It
can be seen in the report that Apple failed to make enough or effectual use of both current and
fixed assets from financial year 2013 to 2017. It can be summarized from the report that over the
past years, approximately 5 years time span, share prices of Apple was increased with higher rate
in comparison to Google. From literature review section, it can be stated that both internal and
external factors affects share prices of firm such as firm’s announcement, investor’s sentiment,
economic outlook etc. It can be depicted from assessment that by making evaluation of cost
return and other aspects firm can make evaluation of long-term viability of manufacturing.
Besides this, through applying the tool of investment appraisal firm can assess the extent to
which proposal is viable in monetary terms.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering evaluation of financial aspect of Apple, some recommendations are given for
performance improvement such as:
 Apple is advised to lay emphasis on employing budgetary control tools or techniques
which in turn facilitates optimal allocation of financial resources and thereby restricts
overspending. Hence, considering such technique firm can identify deviations within the
suitable time frame and would become able to enhance margin by taking appropriate
action on time.
 Besides this, it is recommended to Apple to make focus on maintaining enough current
ratio by controlling spending associated with liquid assets. Hence, by maintaining current
assets in line with ideal ratio firm can strengthen its liquidity position.
 Along with this, for improving efficiency ratio performance Apple needs to conduct
effective training session for personnel. This in turn enhances proficiency level of
personnel and thereby overall performance.

Hence, by working on all the above mentioned aspect Apple can get desired level of outcome
or success and build competitive position. Thus, firm should focus on the development of
strategic framework that contributes in organizational success by making evaluation of both
internal as well as external factors.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Hamilton, J.D. and Wu, J.C., 2015. Effects of Index‐Fund Investing On Commodity Futures
Prices. International economic review, 56(1), pp.187-205.
Ibn-Homaid, N. T. and Tijani, I. A., 2015. Financial Analysis of a Construction Company in
Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 4(3).
pp.80-86.
Jenter, D. and Kanaan, F., 2015. CEO turnover and relative performance evaluation. The Journal
of Finance. 70(5). pp.2155-2184.
Jordan, B., 2014. Fundamentals of investments. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Kou, G., Peng, Y. and Wang, G., 2014. Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk
analysis using MCDM methods. Information Sciences. 275. pp.1-12.
Mantzari, E. and et.al., 2015. Personal financial incentives for changing habitual health-related
behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive medicine. 75. pp.75-85.
Maynard, J., 2017. Financial accounting, reporting, and analysis. Oxford University Press.
North, D. S. and Stevens, J. L., 2015. Investment performance of AAII stock screens over
diverse markets. Financial Services Review. 24(2). p.157.
Rehman, A. and et.al., 2015. financial performance, ratio analysis and evaluation of Agricultural
Bank of China. International Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3(5). pp.69-
73.
Sujan, M. H. K. and et.al., 2017. Financial profitability and resource use efficiency of boro rice
cultivation in some selected area of Bangladesh. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 12(29), pp.2404-2411.

Tadasse, G. and et.al., 2016. Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and volatility.
In Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy (pp. 59-82).
Springer International Publishing.
Vogel, H. L., 2014. Entertainment industry economics: A guide for financial analysis.
Cambridge University Press.
Wahlen, J., Baginski, S. and Bradshaw, M., 2014. Financial reporting, financial statement
analysis and valuation. Nelson Education.
Zhang, S. and Pan, N., 2015. Supercapacitors performance evaluation. Advanced Energy
Materials. 5(6).
Online
Important factors influencing share prices. 2018. [Online]. Available through:
<https://accountlearning.com/16-important-factors-that-influence-share-prices/>.
Share prices of Apple. 2018. [Online]. Available through:
<https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?
period1=1356978600&period2=1514658600&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo
>.
Share prices of Google. 2018. [Online]. Available through:
<https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/history?
period1=1356978600&period2=1514658600&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo
>.
SWOT analysis of Apple. 2018. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/swot-analyses/apple-swot-analysis.html>.
US economic outlook. 2018. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/united-states>.

APPENDIX
1. Share price evaluation of Apple v/s Google
Date
Adj
Closin
g
prices
of
apple
Retur
n in %
Adj
Closin
g
prices
of
Google
Retur
n in %
12/1/2012 null null
1/1/2013
58.848
9
375.40
3
2/1/2013
57.028
5 -3.1%
398.01
1 6.0%
3/1/2013
57.524
6 0.9%
394.52
9 -0.9%
4/1/2013
57.540
2 0.0%
409.62
1 3.8%
5/1/2013
58.443
4 1.6%
432.79
5 5.7%
6/1/2013 51.871 -11.2%
437.34
1 1.1%
7/1/2013
59.196
5 14.1%
441.00
7 0.8%
8/1/2013
63.734
4 7.7%
420.71
4 -4.6%
9/1/2013
62.776
5 -1.5%
435.12
5 3.4%
10/1/2013 68.827 9.6% 511.96 17.7%
11/1/2013
73.221
1 6.4%
526.37
1 2.8%
12/1/2013
74.304
2 1.5%
556.73
4 5.8%
1/1/2014
66.301
8 -10.8%
586.66
9 5.4%
2/1/2014
69.697
7 5.1%
603.89
7 2.9%
3/1/2014
71.513
9 2.6%
555.44
5 -8.0%
4/1/2014
78.622
1 9.9% 523.78 -5.7%
5/1/2014
84.339
4 7.3%
556.82
8 6.3%

6/1/2014
87.156
5 3.3%
572.13
4 2.7%
7/1/2014
89.660
6 2.9%
568.47
4 -0.6%
8/1/2014
96.131
9 7.2%
568.47
4 0.0%
9/1/2014
94.960
6 -1.2%
574.20
3 1.0%
10/1/2014
101.79
4 7.2%
556.02
3 -3.2%
11/1/2014
112.09
6 10.1%
538.86
7 -3.1%
12/1/2014
104.48
8 -6.8%
523.52
1 -2.8%
1/1/2015
110.90
6 6.1%
531.59
5 1.5%
2/1/2015
121.60
3 9.6%
555.34
4 4.5%
3/1/2015
118.25
3 -2.8%
545.00
1 -1.9%
4/1/2015
118.93
8 0.6% 537.34 -1.4%
5/1/2015
123.81
3 4.1% 532.11 -1.0%
6/1/2015
119.70
2 -3.3% 520.51 -2.2%
7/1/2015 115.76 -3.3% 625.61 20.2%
8/1/2015
107.76
3 -6.9% 637.61 1.9%
9/1/2015
105.73
9 -1.9% 608.42 -4.6%
10/1/2015
114.55
9 8.3% 710.81 16.8%
11/1/2015
113.40
8 -1.0% 742.6 4.5%
12/1/2015
101.33
9 -10.6% 758.88 2.2%
1/1/2016
93.714
4 -7.5% 742.95 -2.1%
2/1/2016
93.088
6 -0.7% 697.77 -6.1%
3/1/2016 105.5 13.3% 744.95 6.8%
4/1/2016
90.738
2 -14.0% 693.01 -7.0%
5/1/2016 96.662 6.5% 735.72 6.2%

2
6/1/2016 93.102 -3.7% 692.1 -5.9%
7/1/2016
101.48
7 9.0% 768.79 11.1%
8/1/2016
103.32
8 1.8% 767.05 -0.2%
9/1/2016
110.69
3 7.1% 777.29 1.3%
10/1/2016
111.17
2 0.4% 784.54 0.9%
11/1/2016
108.21
5 -2.7% 758.04 -3.4%
12/1/2016
113.98
7 5.3% 771.82 1.8%
1/1/2017
119.42
9 4.8% 796.79 3.2%
2/1/2017
134.82
2 12.9% 823.21 3.3%
3/1/2017
141.99
9 5.3% 829.56 0.8%
4/1/2017
141.98
9 0.0% 905.96 9.2%
5/1/2017
150.99
4 6.3% 964.86 6.5%
6/1/2017
142.94
3 -5.3% 908.73 -5.8%
7/1/2017
147.61
8 3.3% 930.5 2.4%
8/1/2017
162.77
3 10.3% 939.33 0.9%
9/1/2017
153.56
8 -5.7% 959.11 2.1%
10/1/2017
168.43
4 9.7%
1016.6
4 6.0%
11/1/2017
171.23
4 1.7%
1021.4
1 0.5%
12/1/2017 169.23 -1.2% 1046.4 2.4%