Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
complete business analysis of walmart
walmart business model study
complete business analysis of walmart
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: complete business analysis of walmart
Business Model Analysis of Wal Mart and Sears
While both companies belong to the retail industry (where sales of products and services are the source of business), Sears and Wal-Mart have very different business models.
Making an analysis of the profitability of the shareholder can be seen that although both companies have similar returns, the source of this return is different.
As shown in the table above, both companies have returns on capital near 20%, although the source of profitability differs among them. In the case of Sears the main source of value creation is the rotation of the assets of the estate. This high turnover can be explained largely by its funding through debt, allowing the assets represent a minor portion of the assets. Wal-Mart for its part has a high turnover of assets on their sales. This product of your business model focused on selling high volumes, thus increasing the profitability of their assets.
Looking at the ratio (total liabilities / assets) of both companies is evident in the case of Sears a ratio of 5.93 times, while in Wal-Mart, of 1.38 times. For the foregoing and in view of the increased risk associated with debt, the profitability required by the shareholders at Sears should be greater than that required to Wal-Mart.
During fiscal 1997, Sears drew much of its operation (55% of its total sales) in selling credit cards through its own brand, creating a financial business that accounted for 48% of its operating revenues in the same year .
In turn the sales of products and services grew 8% over the same period of previous year, but there was a reorientation of its premises, reducing the share of its Full Line Stores, based on its retail business (78% of the physical space available for sale), and giving way to growing its chain Home Store (offer more specialized products), which nearly tripled the footage of its stores between 1995 and 1997.
In fact, during the period 1995 to 1997 shows a shift in Sears in the distribution of their premises, with a growth of the smaller premises (Home Stores) and a reduction of the largest local (Full Line Stores and Auto Stores) . The Home Stores showed a growth of 8% over the total number of premises, about 5% of the total area and 6% over total sales area. For their part, the Auto Stores and Full Line Stores showed a decrease of 6% over the total number of local, 4% of the total area and 5% on total sales area.
This requirement makes it important to look through a majority of the return ratios, which include return on sales, return on assets, and return on equity. Additionally, investors are also interested in the ratios related to the company’s earnings, such as earnings per share (EPS) and PE ratio. Looking at return on sales, we can see that Wendy’s has a 7.27% return on sales and Bob Evans has a 1.23%, which demonstrates Wendy’s has a higher profit margin. Moreover, Wendys’ return on assets is 2.85% and Bob Evans is 1.58%. Also, Wendy’s and Bob Evan 's have return on equity ratios of 6.66% and 4.30%, respectively. All of these return ratios show that Wendy’s has a better handle on turning working capital into revenue. On the other hand, although Wendy’s return ratios are higher than Bob Evans, Bob Evans has a better performance on earnings per share and PE ratio. This is due to Bob Evans having less common stock share outstanding, which makes their earnings per share and PE ratio higher than Wendy’s. Due to the EPS being higher for Bob Evans, we would recommend that investors look towards Bob
The two companies that I will be comparing in this project are McDonalds and Wendys. Both of these companies are competitors in the same industry. I am using the information from their 2005 Financial Statements.
Analyzing Wal-Mart's annual report provides a positive outlook on Wal-Mart's financial health. Given the specific ratios and its comparison to other companies in the same industry, Wal-Mart is leading and more than likely continue its dominance. Though Wal-Mart did not lead in all numbers, its leadership and strong presence of the market cements the ongoing success. The review of the current ratio, quick ratio, inventory turnover ratio, debt ratio, net profit margin ratio, ROI, ROE, and P/E ratio all indicate an upbeat future for the company. The current ratio, which is defined as current assets divided by current liabilities, is a measure of how much liabilities a company has compared to its assets. Wal-Mart in the year of 2007 had a current ratio of .90, and as of January 2008 it had a current ratio of .81. The quick ratio, which is defined as current assets minus inventory divided by current liabilities, is a measure of a company's ability pay short term obligations. Wal-Mart in the year of 2007 had a quick ratio of .25, and as of January 2008 it had a ratio of .21. Both the current ratio and quick ratio are a measure of liquidity. Wal-Mart is not as liquid as its competitors such as Costco or Family Dollar Stores Inc. I believe the reason why Wal-Mart is not too liquid is because they are heavily investing their profits for expansion and growth. Management claims in their financial report that holding their liquid reserves in other currencies have helped Wal-Mart hedge against inflationary pressures of the US dollar. The next ratio to look at is the inventory ratio which is defined as the cost of sales divided by average inventory. In the year of 2007, Wal-Mart’s inventory ratio was 7.68, and as of January 2008 it was 7.96. Wal-Mart has a lot of sales therefore it doesn’t have too much a problem of holding too much inventory. Its competitors have similar ratios though they don’t have as much sales as Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s ability to sell at lower prices for same quality, gives them the edge against its competition. As of the year 2007, Wal-Mart had a debt ratio of .58, and as of January 2008, it had a debt ratio of .59. The debt ratio is calculated by dividing the total debt by its total assets. Wal-Mart has a lot more assets than it does debt so Wal-Mart is not overleveraged.
Return on sales is decreasing and is below the industry average, but the goods news is that sales and profits have been increasing each year. However, costs of goods are increasing and more inventory is left over each year causing the return on sales to decrease. For 1995, it was 1.7% which is less than the average of 2.44% but is a lot higher than the bottom 25% of companies as seen in exhibit 3, which actually have negative sales return of 0.7%. Return on equity is increasing each year and at a higher rate than industry average. In 1995, it was 20.7%, greater than the average of 18.25% and close to the highest companies in exhibit 3, of 22.1% showing that the return in investment in the company is increasing, which is good for the owner.
Our decision is to invest in Wal-Mart. The choice for Wal-Mart is on the basis that their functional-level strategy is really robust, nevertheless of the fact that they do not treat their employees well. The fact remains that they are financially stronger, have a better business-level strategy, and have a corporate-level strategy than Costco. Costco v. Wal-Mart: What must we learn about them? Let start with Costco. Costco is Wholesale, Retail Corporation which operates an international chain of membership distribution centers that provides quality, brand name merchandise at noticeably more affordable rates than a conventional wholesale or retail sources. Costco 's warehouses display the largest and great product categories such as groceries, candy, appliances, television and media, automotive supplies, tires, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, watches, cameras, books, house wares, apparel, health and beauty aids, tobacco, furniture, office supplies and office
Profitability ratios express ability of the company to produce profit. This shows how well a company is performing in a given period of time. To compare the profitability for the companies, the investors use profitability ratios that are return on equity, profit margin, asset turnover, gross profit, earning per share. Return on asset indicates overall profitability of assets. It is the relationship between net income and average total assets. GM has 0.034 and Ford has 0.036. This indicates Ford is more profitable. Profit margin is how much of every dollar of sales the company keeps. Computing profit margin, net income divided by net sales. This indicates higher profit margin is more profitable and it has better control. Thus, GM’s profit margin is 3.4 percentages and Ford’s is 4.9 percentages. This indicates Ford has better control profitably compared to GM. Next ratio is gross profit rate. It is how much of every dollar is left over after paying costs of goods sold. Assets turnover represents how efficiency a company uses its assets to sales. This ratio is relationship between net sales and average total assets. GM’s is 0.98 and Ford’s is 0.75. This result represents GM is using its assets more efficiently. Gross profit margin is dividing gross profit, which is equal to net sales less cost of gods sold, by net sales. This ratio indicates ability to maintain selling price above its cost of goods sold. GM’s gross profit rate is 11.6 percentages. Ford’s is 5.7 percentages. GM is higher ratio, and it indicates strong net income. Also, it indicates the company has to spend lower operating expenses and the company is able to spend left money for covering fixed costs. Earnings per share indicate the company’s net earnings to each share common stock. This ratio shows margin between selling price and cost of goods sold. From these companies’ income statement, GM is $2.71 and Ford is $1.82. Because GM’s value is higher relative to Ford’s,
Sears has gotten a good start on their Internet venture. They do have a lot of competition in this regard and a “new” business does take a while to get off the ground. Therefore it’s not surprising that they have had a slow start but they are beginning to pick up with the alliances and partnerships that they have entered into to boost their exposure. Their e-commerce trade could become as big as their chain of retail stores. All-in all, I believe that Sears is on the right road to recovery.
Wal-Mart now operates retail stores around the globe in three different facets: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club, and International.
By looking at the return on equity Hasbro is more efficient with investors money as not only did they earn more per invested dollar each year, but their efficiency increased while Mattel’s declined. By looking at the return on assets, Hasbro utilizes its assets more effectively as not only did they earn more per dollar of assets each year, but Hasbro’s ratio increased from 2015 to 2016 while Mattel’s declined. Hasbro has a higher turnover ratio than Mattel and increased from 2015 to 2016 while Mattel’s dropped. Hasbro is more efficient and is gaining efficiency while Mattel is losing it. By comparing inventory turnover ratios, Mattel’s has decreased and their days increased which means they are losing efficiency with selling their inventory. Hasbro’s is increasing meaning they are gaining efficiency. For the cash coverage ratio, Hasbro increased while Mattel fell. This means that from 2015 to 2016 Hasbro made more in cash for every dollar of interest paid while Mattel earned less per dollar from their previous year. Hasbro would be the better investment
The Dupont analysis includes the asset turnover ratio, the profit margin percantage, return on shareholder’s equity percentage, return on assets, and the equity multiplier (Spiceland, Sepe, and Nelson 258-264). The asset turnover ratio is the amount of revenue received for every one dollar of assets, it reveals how efficiently the company is distributing assets. Apple’s asset turnover ratio is 60.43 which means for every one dollar Apple has in assets, they receive approximately sixty cents (Apple Inc). Microsoft’s asset turnover ratio is 13.17 so for every dollar they only receive about thirteen cents (Microsoft Inc). Apple is doing significantly better in this category. The profit margin is just how much of a company’s sales they keep as a profit. Apple’s profit margin is 21.67% while Microsoft has a 28% profit margin so Microsoft is accumulating more profit off each sale but their sales are lower. The return on shar...
Wal-Mart’s competitive environment is quite unique. Although Wal-Mart’s primary competition comes from general merchandise retailers, warehouse clubs and supermarket retailers also present competitive pressure. The discount retail industry is substantial in size and is constantly experiencing growth and change. The top competitors compete both nationally and internationally. There is extensive competition on pricing, location, store size, layout and environment, merchandise mix, technology and innovation, and overall image. The market is definitely characterized by economies of scale. Top retailers vertically integrate many functions, such as purchasing, manufacturing, advertising, and shipping. Large scale functions such as these give the top competitors a significant cost advantage over small-scale competition.
These differences, although many are slight, would make the difference between investing as an individual or as a creditor. Each investor would have to carefully evaluate their own strategy compared to that of the company’s to ensure they were similar. A thorough evaluation of strategy against horizontal and vertical analysis of each company with subsequent ratios would lead to a successful partnership for the investor, be it a retail stock owner or a creditor.
By the 1980s, just before the rise of Wal-Mart, Kmart had become complacent. It believed it would be the king of discount retailing, now and forever. It didn't perform an accurate SWOT analysis, but to be fair, who could have seen the rise of Wal-Mart to the position of the world's number-one retailer? Still, as Wal-Mart built new stores in town after town, supported by cutthroat pricing and solid logistics, Kmart's complacency would cost them. Part of the problem was that as Wal-Mart was pouring money into information technology (IT), Kmart's IT budget continued to shrink – not just once, but several years in a row. While Wal-Mart's logistics and supply chain management got sharper, Kmart's stagnated. And while Wal-Mart was able to squeeze more value out of its stores and its systems, Kmart lost ground. By the time Kmart had finally decided to start devoting more resources to IT, it was so far behind Wal-Mart that catching up would have been a near-impossible task without the recession in the early part of this decade. With the effects of the recession taken into account, Kmart instead was consigned to also-ran status among discount retailers.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is in the discount, variety stores industry. It was founded in 1945, Bentonville in Arkansas which is also the headquarters of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart operates locally as well as worldwide. It operated 1209 discount stores, 1980 super centers, and 567 Sam’s Club by January 31, 2006. It has also extended its operations to many international countries. It runs its retail stores in two forms: Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart Stores. The Sam’s Club sells assorted product lines such as hardwares, electronics, jewelry, and to mention a few. The Wal-Mart stores also offer similar products in addition to the following: health and beauty products, apparel for women, men and children, household appliances etc (www.yahoo.finance.com). The Vision Statement, Mission Statement, Values and Code of Conduct, Corporate Governance: Directors, Executive Management, Committees and Stakeholder will be the key elements that will discussed in this report as it relates to Wal-Mart. In addition to that, the major trends in the general/macro environment and industry will be analyzed.
Poor organizational management, failure to innovate and adapt to the environment, and an outdated brand image have all contributed to Sears massive decline. By not setting a clear organizational strategy, executives of Sears strayed away from innovation, allowing for competitors to attract Sears loyal customers to their organization. In addition, the outdated brand image of Sears has failed to meet the ever changing customers of today’s society. Overall, there are many reasons that have led to the downfall of a once powerful retail giant.