Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Coke vs pepsi compare and contrast
Comparative Study Between Pepsi And Coca Cola
Coca cola and pepsi comparison
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Coke vs pepsi compare and contrast
Among its current assets, PepsiCo’s accounts and notes receivable to total assets percentage fall down from 9.48% in year 2011 to 7.49% in 2013, due to its receivable period becomes long. In cash cycle, the shorter receivable period, the better. PepsiCo’ inventories to total assets percentage also fall down from 5.25% in year 2011 to 4.40% in year 2013, caused by decreased number of days to sell its inventories. decreased accounts and notes receivable and decreased inventories as percentages of total assets should raise some concerns and thus need to be analyzed further with liquidity ratios and asset utilization ratios to decide whether these are warning signs of the company’s financial health or mostly caused by other current or non-current assets decreasing over those years.
Among its short-term liabilities, PepsiCo’s accounts payable to its total liabilities and shareholders’ equity went up from 5.60% in year 2011 to 6.29% in year 2013, indicating the company could have been extending its accounts payable outstanding period slightly to leverage off the effect of increasing accounts and notes receivable period.
PepsiCo’s property, plant and equipment made up 25.55% of its total assets on average from year 2011 to year 2013, Coca-Cola operated on an even lower average property, plant and equipment percentage, only17.37% to its total assets. It indicate both of them are not capital intensive. also, it can illustrate PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have always contracted out their more capital intensive operations to their affiliate factories.
PepsiCo’s long-term debt obligations to total liabilities and shareholders’ equity percentage was steady from year 2011 to year 2013 with an average of 8.12%. Coca-Cola's average long-term debt is ...
... middle of paper ...
...rt-term liabilities. In year 2012 and 2013, PepsiCo's average working capital turnover was 25.17 better than Coca-Cola’s 3-year working capital turnover 23.63, it indicated PepsiCo was consistent in generating sales from the funding working capital efficiently.
PepsiCo’s 3-year average price to earnings ratio was 17.70, lower than Coca-Cola’s 19.68. This indicates Coca-Cola’s investors had higher expectations to the company from year 2011 to year 2013, and thus were willing to pay more to buy the company’s stock. Coca-Cola delivered average dividend payout rate of 53.83%, whereas PepsiCo had relatively lower dividend yield rate 52.07% on average. It was definitely an added bonus to Coca-Cola’s investors to get much more dividends out of their investments. But PepsiCo’s dividend yield and payout were good and strong as well, even though Coca-Cola’s were much better.
At the end of 1991, PepsiCo had EBITDA of $2.1 billion or operating profit margin of 10.8% - down from profit margins of 12.2% and 11.7% in 1990 and 1989, respectively. In addition, net sales only grew by 10.1% in 1991 – considerably low versus growth of 16.8% and 21.6% in 1990 and 1989, respectively. Recent acquisitions of Taco Bell franchises in 1988, bottling operations in 1989, Smiths Crisps Ltd. and Walkers Crisps Holding Ltd. in 1989, and Sabritas S.A. de C.V. in 1990 aided sales in growth in 1989 and 1990. Additionally, a joint venture with the Thomas J. Lipton Co. in 1991 to develop and market new tea-based beverages may lead to greater sales in the future. However, there is some need for an immediate return on its investments in order to sustain historical revenue growth and increase the current profit margins.
In regards to the corporation’s balance sheet, it is necessary to place an importance on liquidity ratios to demonstrate the company’s ability to pay its short term obligations such as accounts payable and notes that have a duration of less than one year. These commonly used liquidity ratios include the current ratio, quick ratio, and cash ratio. All three ratios are used to measure the liquidity of a company or business. The current ratio is used to indicate a business’s ability to meet maturing obligations. The quick ratio is used to indicate the company’s ability to pay off debt. Finally the cash ratio is used to measure the amount of capital as well short term counterparts a business has over its current liabilities.
Its receivable turnover is 13.4 times per year, which is higher than C-P 10.5. In addition, the average number of days from sale on account to collection for P&G is 27.2 days while for C-P is 34.8 days. Based on the efficiency ratio analysis, P&G’s inventory moves quickly from purchase to sale, which the inventory turnover ratio is 6.2 and the time for the purchased inventories to be on sale is on the average of 58.6 days while C-P’s turnover ratio is 5.2 and the average days to sell is 70.6. This shows that P&G takes a shorter time than C-P to sell their inventories. However, C-P has a higher ability to pay their short-term liabilities, whereby the current ratio is 1.08 as opposed to P&G
Introduction The purpose of this report is to undertake financial analysis of the position of the three major supermarket chains (Tesco plc, Morrison plc and Sainsbury plc) in the UK, using the financial tools such as Horizontal and Vertical Analysis and Ratio Analysis. The calculations done are considering the figures from the income statement and balance sheet of these three companies for the last 2 years (2008 & 2007). Doing these calculations is an effort to find out the current position and if any forecast on their performance. Tesco Plc *Interpreting the Horizontal and Vertical *Analysis The balance sheet’s horizontal analysis reveals the first worrying statistics about the company- the fact that stock level has increased by 25.84% in the year, even though net assets have increased by only 12.59%. The vertical analysis of the balance sheet again highlights the increase in amount of stock held by the company at the end of 2008 and increase in current assets. Interpreting the Ratio Analysis By looking at the ROCE* ratio it is clear that the business has not generated any higher return in the period 2007-2008. Though there is a marginal decrease in the returns (0.14% from 0.16%), however when compared with returns of other competitors Tesco plc has performed much better. Drop in asset utilisation ratio in the year 2008 indicates that the company did not use its assets efficiently to generate sales. As a result profit margin dropped down to 5.91% in 2008 from 6.21% in the year 2007. The Acid test ratio also doesn’t meet the ‘ideal’ ratio of 1:1. In other words Tesco had only 38p of quickly realisable assets to meet each £1 of current liabilities. Stock turn shows the effect of increased stock at the end of 2008 as it s...
Therefore, the long-term brand of Coca cola and better pricing strategies would help in competing with Pepsi. Unlike, Pepsi, Coca cola had targeted entering into partnership and alliances with local distributors and firms. This helps to develop strong relationship within the domestic firms to reduce the domestic barriers and thus, enhance the company’s competitiveness (Thabet, 2015). Lastly, the Asian markets consist of related and supporting industries to the soft drink industry that helps the companies in gaining a strong competitive position in the markets. Based on the competitive advantage of nation’s model, Coca cola has more home based advantages to develop a competitive advantage in relation to other countries on a global
The liquidity position of a company can be evaluated using several ratios which evaluate short-term assets and liabilities and a firm’s ability to settle short-term debts (Gibson, 2011). These ratios can provide insight into a firm’s ability to repay its debts in the short term (Gibson, 2011). In turn they suggest a firm’s capacity for debt-satisfying capabilities into the future (Gibson, 2011). This paper will use financial statement data as cited in Gibson (2011) from 3M Company (3M) to better understand liquidity measures to evaluate a firm’s total liquidity position. The following paper will focus on various liquidity calculations, their meaning, and their interpretation relative to 3M. Finally, an overall view of 3M’s liquidity position will be evaluated. By analyzing a company using ratios, one can evaluate the effectiveness of its management and its strengths and weaknesses (Žager, Sačer, & Dečman, 2012).
Rondo's Inventory Ratio declined to 9.5 in 2005, down from a ratio of 10 in 2003 and 2004. Rondo's sales improved year-over-year and the decline in inventory turns may be the result of carrying more inventory in response to increased sales. However, Rondo is still carrying too much inventory or the company may have excess obsolete inventory. Rondo needs to utilize just-in-time methods to improve inventory turn over. (Nice catch.) Carrying fewer inventories is required to improve efficiency and reduce cost. Rondo's performance is poor in this area.
Financial statements are a vital factor of any business organization; they show where a company’s money came from, where it went, and where it is now, according to Securities and Exchange Commission website (2008). In addition, four main financial statements consist of the balance sheet, income statement, cash flow statement, and statement of shareholders’ equity. These four financial statements will be evaluated from Nike Inc. and more in depth information will be included from information on the previous paper which will be link to the working capital strategies. Furthermore, a detail working capital recommendation to senior management will be included and the impact of Nike Inc. revenue increase of their working capital.
Control of market share is the key issue in this case study. The situation is both Coke and Pepsi are trying to gain market share in this beverage market, which is valued at over $30 billion a year. Just how is this done in such a competitive market is the underlying issue. The facts are that each company is coming up with new products and ideas in order to increase their market share.
The horizontal analysis shows that IQ’s total current assets increased by 25% and its total current liabilities increased by 40% during 2005. This is largely explained by the increase in trade receivables, the increase in inventory, the increase in trades payable, and the increase in term loans (notes 5, 6, 12, and 13 of the 2005 financial statement). The higher increase in total current liabilities than in total current assets explains why the current and acid-test ratios decreased from 4.66 to 4.17 and from 4.02 to 3.5, respectively. However, IQ seems to remain highly liquid considering the values of the mentioned liquidity ratios.
Debt-to-equity ratio: The debt-to-equity ratio for 2010 is $3,738,150/ $4,781,471=.782. For the year 2011, the debt-to-equity ratio is $2,722,811/ $5,672,551=.478. This number is calculated by Total Liabilities / Owners’ Equity
Upon examining P&G’s financial ability to meet short-term obligations, it is apparent that not only have their current liabilities exceeded current assets over the last three years, but close to half of their current assets have been tied up in inventories and other illiquid assets. For example, assessing both the quick and current ratio respectively shows that less than 70% of the firm’s current assets could be converted immediately to pay current commitments, but a little more than 90% of the firm’s liabilities would ultimately be covered. Though, based on industry average similar findings occur; therefore, it must not be uncommon for industries similar to P&G to
The Quick Ratio shows that the company’s cash and cash equivalents are the highest t...
Coke and Pepsi have been raging war for over a century now, turning their sodas into a multi-billion-dollar industry. Coke has been able to drive more earnings for its bottom line, and while Coke’s net income has been trending downward in recent years, it manages to stay ahead thanks to superior margins. Pepsi, on the other hand, has produced consistent net profit margins of around 10%, while Coke margins have been in the 15-18% range for the past several years (O’Brien). Every company has a Market Cap, which is basically a fancy way of saying how much the company is worth, and Coca-Cola’s market cap is a whopping $180 billion. Pepsi’s Market Cap is $150 billion, which may not seem like a big difference, but $30 billion is a lot of cheddar. Therefore, Coca-Cola owns 51% of the soft drink market, whereas Pepsi only owns 22% of it. Coke claims to own a total of 35 different brands, including Fanta, Sprite, Powerade, Vitaminwater, and many others. Pepsi owns 22 different brands, including 7up, Gatorade, and Mountain Dew “Coke (Coca-Cola) vs Pepsi - Soda
The purpose of this report is to compare financial reports from the two largest soft drink manufacturers in the world. The Pepsi Co. and Coca Cola have been the industry's leaders in their market since the early 1900's. I will use relevant figures to determine profitability, and break down key ratios in profitability, liquidity, and solvency. By breaking down financial statements, and converting them to percentages and ratios, comparisons can be made between competitors regardless of size.