Myer Holdings Limited 1H2018 Results Analysis: Performance Review

This presentation analyzes the first half 2018 financial results of Myer Holdings Limited (MYR), focusing on the period ending January 27, 2018. The presentation highlights a statutory total loss of $476.2 million, reduced sales, and a decline in Operating Gross Profit (OGP). It examines the company's strategies, including a focus on product, price, and customer service improvements. The analysis compares the 1H2018 results with 1H2017, pointing out key areas of concern and strategic initiatives such as improving online performance, key product focus, transparent pricing, and new customer services. The presentation concludes by emphasizing the need for a closer look at product, price, and customer service to enhance the company's competitiveness and growth. Works cited include references to various research papers and publications related to management, customer satisfaction, and financial analysis.

MYER FIRST HALF 2018
(1H2018)RESULTS
-A brief presentation

INTRODUCTION
 Myer Holding Limited, which is publicly
recognized as MYR, announced the first half
2018 financial result on 9th February.
 The result was prepared for 26 weeks to 27th
January of 2018.
 The product, price and customer service of
the company is seeking for a closer look for
the improvement.
 The service quality of the company requires
to have an assistance from the authority to
make it better (Keeling, 2018).

ABOUT MYER
 Myer Holdings Limited is a department store
company and it is based on Australia only.
 The company has 60 different stores in
many places of the country.
 It provides 11 different types of products to
its customers.
 Apart from the department store, the
company also participates in other activities
outside.
 In order to improve its quality and service,
the final result was declared (Ferreira and
Coelho 2015).

CONTEXT OF 1H2018 RESULT
 A statutory total loss of $476.2 million was
found in the result even after paying the tax
also.
 There was loss in the impairment charge also
and it is cashless(Dabholkar, 2015).
 The cost of other impairments even including
the balance sheet was $6.4 million (post-
tax).
 The cost of implementation of the company
was $9.7 million (post-tax).

COMAPRISON OF 1H2018 RESULT
AND 1H2017 RESULT
 The total sales cost is reduced by 3.6% to
$1719.7 million.
 OGP, which is the acronym of Operating
Gross Profit, also declined by 5.5% to $645.4
million (Ball et al., 2016).
 The margin of the OGP of the company also
reduced as per the basis point of 73 to
37.53%.
 In the NPAT of the company, a loss of worth
$476.2 million was found in the result also
(Hill and Alexander, 2017).

CONCENTRATION ON PRODUCT,
PRICE AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
 Garry Hounsell, who is the executive
chairman of the company stated that they
are looking to improve its online performance
for trading the business effectively.
 In order to achieve the goal, the team should
keep its focus in improving the product, price
and service of the company(Edelman and
Singer, 2015).
 To reduce the occupancy cost of the
company, Hounsell mentioned to work on the
loyalty of the business.

OPERATING GROSS PROFIT (OGP)
MARGIN DECLINE
From the image shown, it can
be analyzed that volume and
rate reflects some important
points.
Volume reflects
•Impact of lower scales.
Rate reflects
•Higher cost of selling.
•Lower supplier contribution.
•MEB sourcing benefits.
•It indicates reduced
purchase.
•Shift in marketing focus

FOCUS ON PRODUCT AND PRICE
 Keeping focus on key products with more
transparent price policy.
 Hilighting competitiveness by offering key
value lines.
 Introducing new, trendy and exclusive
products.
 Improving marketing in stores (Jha et al.,
2016).
 Setting the value as well as promotion of
every products.
 Setting the price of the products according to
its quality and worth.

FOCUS ON CUSTOMER SERVICE
 The main priority of any business is their
customers and so as for this company too
(Christensen et al., 2015).
 Service of any company basically helps to
define the proposition for the department
store (Yang et al., 2016).
 Myer introduced a set of new services in
order to serve customers in a better way.
 Team member app launched by the company
helps customers to earn gift cards.

CONCLUSION
 The 1H2018 result could not satisfy the team
because the service and quality could not respond
appropriately to increase the competitive
environment (Pham, C. and Pham, T.V., 2017).
 Some strategies was made too early and
implemented quickly which affected the profitability
of the company (Guajardo et al., 2015).
 So in the result, it was declared that a closer look
will be given to the price, product and customer
service of the company to make it better.
 It is being expected that a more work this, will bring
positive change for the company’s growth.

WORKS CITED
 Keeling, D., 2018. Management in government. Routledge.
 Ferreira, A.G. and Coelho, F.J., 2015. Product involvement,
price perceptions, and brand loyalty. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 24(4), pp.349-364.
 Dabholkar, P.A., 2015. How to improve perceived service
quality by increasing customer participation. In Proceedings
of the 1990 academy of marketing science (AMS) annual
conference (pp. 483-487). Springer, Cham.
 Hill, N. and Alexander, J., 2017. The handbook of customer
satisfaction and loyalty measurement. Routledge.
 Edelman, D.C. and Singer, M., 2015. Competing on customer
journeys. Harvard Business Review, 93(11), pp.88-100.
 Fleckenstein, M. and Longstaff, F.A., 2018. Shadow Funding
Costs: Measuring the Cost of Balance Sheet Constraints (No.
w24224). National Bureau of Economic Research.

WORKS CITED
 Ball, R., Gerakos, J., Linnainmaa, J.T. and Nikolaev, V., 2016. Accruals,
cash flows, and operating profitability in the cross section of stock
returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 121(1), pp.28-45.
 Jha, A.K., Pathak, A., Yang, F., Pineda, I.C., Zhu, R., So, B.S.H. and
Raman, R., Oracle International Corp, 2016. Cost Impact Simulator
and Gross Profit Analyzer. U.S. Patent Application 14/335,704.
 Yang, Z.H.O.U., 2016. Enterprise Tax Burden and Retail Enterprise
Profit Model——An Empirical Analysis Based on the Panel Data
Seemingly Unrelated Regression Model. China Business and
Market, 3, p.010.
 Pham, C. and Pham, T.V., 2017. How do Corporate Social
Responsibility announcements affect firm value? (Master's thesis,
University of Stavanger, Norway).
 Guajardo, J.A., Cohen, M.A. and Netessine, S., 2015. Service
competition and product quality in the US automobile
industry. Management Science, 62(7), pp.1860-1877.
 Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R., 2015. What is
disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), pp.44-53.