Financial Analysis of John Deere

The problem that Deere faces is how they can successfully move to the middle of the perceptual map to be respected as a manufacturer of both small tractors and large tractors. There are several observations that can be made regarding the positioning of the competitors. The first observation is both International Harvester and Case are competing in both the large and small tractor market. It is evident that International Harvester experience financial difficulties perhaps as a result of not having a singular focus. Another observation is that Caterpillar’s decision to “reposition” itself from a small manufacturer to a large manufacturer could easily be explained by Paretti’s 80/20 rule. Caterpillar enjoyed an extensive dealer network, and their dealer sales ranged from $12 million to $70 million, versus Deere’s $1 million to $16 million in sales per dealer. By tapping into Paretti’s 80/20 principle, Deere could enjoy increased margins from the sale of parts alone.

I attest that this document is an original creation submitted in accordance with the requirement for the Comprehensive Written Project (CWP) in Seminar in Business Strategy (GB-5388) during the Fall 2015 academic term.

Massey’s competitors were International Harvester and Deere&Company. In 1976, Massey’s market share was 34%, while the other two were 27.7% and 38% respectively. International Harvester had the highest sales and it was also the most efficient in making use of its assets, with a sales/asset ratio of 1.54. Massey was in the middle, doing better than Deere&Company. With regard to financing, in 1976, Massey and International Harvester both had a less than 50% debt/total capital. While till 1980, International Harvester managed to keep the ratio around 50%, Massey had the total debt/capital ratio out of control, with more than 80% debt financing. Neither of the two competitors relied on short term debt such as STD, while Massey relied heavily on STD.

The report provides the analysis of the Harrison Company. The company financial conditions reveal that the company profitability has declined in the last three years making the company to face challenges in settling its short-term obligation. For example, Harrison Company has not been able to settle suppliers' payment on time as being stipulated in the contract agreement. The company deteriorating financial conditions has also made the company todecline the costs of marketing campaign in the last three years. With the implementation of various strategies to improve the company financial conditions, the report forecasts that the company will generate sales totaled $295 Million in the next five years compared to the company sales of $48 Million in the last year.

First of which, is the current ratio. It has been rapidly declining since 2000. To me this indicates that there is a liquidity issue. Each year their trade debt increase exceeds the increase of net income for the company. As a result, the working capital has taken a nosedive from $58,650 in 2002 to only $5,466 in 2003.

Return on Total Assets was 4.43% which is below five percent. That indicates that the company is not accurately converting its assets into profit. The total for Return on Stockholders’ Equity was 8.89%, however financial analysts prefer ROE to range between 15-20 %. The company’s low ROE indicates that the company is not generating profit with new investments. Lastly, Debt-to-Equity ratio for the company was 1.01 which indicates that investors and creditors are equally sharing assets. In the view of creditors, they see a high ratio as a risk factor because it can indicate that investors are not investing due to the company’s overall performance. The totals of these three ratios demonstrate that the company’s financial state is not as healthy as it should be.

Sears Holdings is a relatively new company, having only been created in November of 2004 (Barbash & Barbaro, 2004). At that time, Kmart Holdings purchased Sears, Roebuck, and Co. The corporation decided it would operate stores under both names, and the merger was officially completed in March of 2005. The shareholders voted to close the deal, or it would not have been able to take place. Now the company is called Sears Holdings, and it operates both Sears and Kmart stores (Barbash & Barbaro, 2004). The company also markets both brands without blending them or favoring one over the other. There were several reasons why the companies chose to combine.

Loblaw Companies Limited is the leader of Canada’s food and pharmacy, their independently-operated stores, food and household products as well as pharmacies can be found in every Canadian’s neighborhoods.

Review of Financial Research Report: This assignment is an analysis of a US publicly-traded company; its common stock could be a prospective investment.  The report is due in Week 10, in needs to be at least 5 pages, and it needs to cover the following topics:

Founded by Henry Ford in 1903, the Ford company is the world’s fifth largest automaker in the world. Publicly traded and held on the New York Stock Exchange, Ford uses the symbol of “F” to identify itself. The purpose of this document is to investigate and determine if the Ford Motor Company is a good investment. I will further cover a financial analysis of Ford Motor Company, evaluate the businesses consolidated statements of income, balance sheet, statement of stockholders equity, and statement of cash flows, which this will confirm if my conclusion is correct.

The inancial analysis of the company for 1995, comparing data from 1993 and 1994 Very well researched

Financial data from past periods of a company, provides a perspective for future outcomes. Investors give proper attention to different ratios. In this report I am analyzing the financial position and financial performance of AT & T, a US. Telecommunication Company. The objective and conclusion of this analysis will be, if is either good or not to invest in the company.

John Deere Component Works (JDCW), subdivision of John Deere and Co. was in charged specifically of the manufacturing of tractor component parts. The demand for JDCW’s products had problems due to the collapse of farmland value and commodity prices. Numerous and constant failures in JDCW’s competition for bids, alerted top management to start questioning their current costing methods. As an outcome, the analysis has to be guided to research on the current costing methods with the intention of establishing legitimacy and to help the company in adopting a more appropriate costing system.

Cartwright is a retail distributor of lumber products. It built its competitive edge based on pricing and having a careful control over its operations. The company reported an operating income of $86,000 and $111,000 in 2003 and 2004, respectively. This is a 29% increase in operating income in one year, which shows the firm’s strong ability to generate cash. The firm’s account receivables and inventory are increasing from year to year which is a good sign of a growing business. Cartwright is not an asset intensive company. It does not have to have huge fixed assets; most of its assets are cash, accounts receivable and inventory which all depend on future sales. Sourcing of materials is managed very well, purchased at discounts most of the time and contribute to having lower prices.

The purpose of this report is to perform a comparative analysis of the profitability of two potential equity investments: Auto Wash Bot Ltd. (AWBL) and Popeye’s Muscle Wash Ltd. (PMWL). AWBL is selling 50% ownership for $100,000 in efforts to pursue expansion in the mobile device industry, and PMWL is selling 100% of its business for $100,000 to pursue retirement. A complete analysis of each company’s income statement will report key issues in both firms, as well as offer a