Woodside Petroleum Ltd. Presentation 2022

WOODSIDE PETROLEUM
LTD.

OVERVIEW
 Organization- Woodside Petroleum Ltd.
 Profile- Australian Petroleum
 Location- Australia
 Industry- Oil and Gas

OVERVIEW
History- Established 1954
Size- Largest operator
Revenue- 3. 908 billion in
2017

EVALUATION
Assets 2017 2018
Receivables 406000 487000
Inventory 186,000 155,000
Property and equipment
23,069,00
0
23,243,00
0

EVALUATION
Equity 2017 2018
Common Stock
6,919,000 8,880,000
Liabilities 2017 2018
Accounts Payable 237,000 212000
Short/Current Long Term Debt 76,000 79000

EVALUATION
Income and Expenses 2017 2018
Income
Sales 3,975,000 5,240,000
Expenses
Selling General and Administrative 99,000 103,000

MANAGERIAL JUDGMENT
ASSETS
• Historical cost Approach
• Fair Value Approach

RATIO
Liquidity :
Current ratio Current assets 2,411,000
Current liabilities 1,045,000
Trade Receivables days Trade Debtors 487,000
Revenue *365 5,240,000 33.92
Efficiency

ANALYSIS
 As per the evaluation of ratio’s, it has been seen
that the ratio of profitability indicates the profit
amount of the company. The gross profit ratio of
Woodside Petroleum Ltd. is 0.50 which indicates that
the company earns the high profit (Woodside,
2018).. But as per the evaluation of liquidity it
indicates that the company invest large amount in
fixed asset due to which the financial position is
affected. As per the evaluation of receivable days or
payable days, it has been found that the ratio of
receivable is more as compare to payable 33.92 and
29.72 respectively. It indicates that the company
delay to receive the revenue but pay quickly due to
which the profit is reducing (Robinson, Henry, Pirie,
& Broihahn, 2015).

RATIO
Ratios's
Woodsid
e AGL
Profitability:
Return on capital
employed Operating profit
2,196,00
0
1,619,00
0
Total asset- Current liabilities
2604300
0 0.08 12310000 0.13
Gross profit margin Gross Profit
2,636,00
0
3,740,00
0
Net Sales
5,240,00
0 0.50
12,816,0
00 0.29
Profit margining. Net Profit
1,467,00
0
1,582,00
0
Net Sales
5,240,00
0 0.28
12,816,0
00 0.12
Return on equity
Net icome after preference
dividends
1,364,00
0
1,582,00
0
Average common stock 1233950

RATIO’S
Liquidity :
Current ratio Current assets 2,411,000 3,690,000
Current liabilities 1,045,000 2.31 2,323,000 1.59
Acid test ratio Current assets-stocks 2,256,000 3,320,000
Current liabilities 1,045,000 2.16 2,323,000 1.43

RATIO’S
Efficiency:
Asset turnover Sales
5,240,00
0
12,816,0
00
Total Asset
27,088,0
00 0.19
14,633,0
00 0.88
Inventory turnover Cost of Good Sold
2,604,00
0
9,076,00
0
Average Inventories 248000 10.50 545500 16.64
Trade Receivables
days Trade Debtors 487,000
1,922,00
0
Revenue *365
5,240,00
0 33.92
12,816,0
00 54.74
Trade Payables days Trade Payables 212,000 942,000
Cost of Sales*365
2,604,00
0 29.72
9,076,00
0 37.88

COMPARISON
 As per the evaluation of profitability ratio, it has been seen that
Woodside has high percentage of profitability as compare to the AGL.
The gross profit margin ratio of Woodside is 0.50 and AGL is 0.29
which is high as compare to AGL in terms of profit (Owler., 2018).
 The liquidity ratio indicates the asset of the company. Current ratio of
Woodside is 2.31 and AGL is 1.59 which is less than Woodside. It
states that the company has large amount of current assets as
compare to AGL due to which liquidity position is good. (AGL, 2018).
 Efficiency ratio states that operating efficiency of the company. Trade
receivable days evaluation indicates that the AGL collect the
receivable amount in 54.74 days and Woodside collect the amount in
33.92 days. The payable days of AGL is 37.8 and Woodside is 29.72
(AGL, 2018). It shows that the Woodside collects the amount
receivable quickly as compare to AGL which is efficient for operation
of the company. Woodside is highly efficient as compare to AGL
(Greco, Figueira, & Ehrgott, 2016).

REFERENCES
 Robinson, T. R., Henry, E., Pirie, W. L., & Broihahn, M. A.
(2015). International financial statement analysis. John Wiley
& Sons.
 Greco, S., Figueira, J., & Ehrgott, M. (2016). Multiple criteria
decision analysis. New York: Springer.
 Williams, E. E., & Dobelman, J. A. (2017). Financial statement
analysis. World Scientific Book Chapters, 109-169.
 DeFusco, R. A., McLeavey, D. W., Pinto, J. E., Runkle, D. E., &
Anson, M. J. (2015). Quantitative investment analysis. John
Wiley & Sons.
 Entwistle, G. (2015). Reflections on teaching financial
statement analysis. Accounting Education, 24(6), 555-558.
 Uechi, L., Akutsu, T., Stanley, H. E., Marcus, A. J., & Kenett,
D. Y. (2015). Sector dominance ratio analysis of financial
markets. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its
Applications, 421, 488-509.

 Woodside. (2018). Annual Report 2018. Retrieved From: https
://files.woodside/docs/default-source/investor-documents/maj
or-reports-(static-pdfs)/
annual-report-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=c9a46145_8
 Owler. (2018). Woodside's Competitors, Revenue, Number of
Employees, Funding and Acquisitions. Retrieved From: https
://www.owler.com/company/woodside
 Woodside. (2018a). About Us. Retrieved From: https://
www.woodside.com.au/About-Us
 Woodside. (2018b). Our Business. Retrieved From: https://
www.woodside.com.au/our-business
 AGL. (2018). About Us. Retrieved From: https://
www.agl.com.au/about-agl
 AGL. (2018). 2018Annual Report. Retrieved From:
https://www.2018annualreport.agl.com.au/xmlpages/resource
s/TXP/agl_energy/finrep/pdf/
AGL_Energy_Annual_Report_2018.pdf