071022 Parthasarathy Financial TAPPI Jacksonville
-
Upload
gaurav-madan -
Category
Documents
-
view
18 -
download
6
description
Transcript of 071022 Parthasarathy Financial TAPPI Jacksonville
FINANCIAL AND VALUE METRICS BASED PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION OF NORTH AMERICAN PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES
AND IDENTIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF DEFICIENCIES TO
COMPETE IN THE GLOBAL MARKET PLACE
V.R. (PERRY) PARTHASARATHY, PhD
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
PORT WENTWORTH, GA 31407
“YOU CAN’T MANAGE WHAT YOU CAN’T MEASURE.”Knowledge @ Wharton, September 6, 2006
In any industry cyclical or otherwise, the winners are the “Atomizers” focusing
on segments where they can achieve dominant position even though they may
hold only a small fraction of the assets or revenue. The companies that create
value become “Leaders” irrespective of their size, and the “Under Achievers”
of the industry have to follow the model of the “Leaders” even though they
may be the largest; this is the only way the companies can deliver the
promised “value proposition” to their stakeholders.
Campbell and Hulme, The McKinsey & Co
There is not a single perfect measure to describe different aspects of
performance of a Company. It is recommended that a framework of economic
and accounting measures is used to describe performance. In using these
metrics, it is important to understand the impact of factors outside
management’s control and exclude them in accessing how a company is
doing.
Copeland, Koller and Murrin in “Valuation – Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies”.
FINANCIAL METRICS
OPM = Operating Profit Margin, %
NOPLAT= Net Operating Profit Less Adjusted Taxes, %
ROI = Return on Investment, %
ROE = Return on Equity, %
VALUE METRICS
EVA = Economic Value Added
MVA = Market Value Added
TSR = Total Shareholder Return
SVC = Shareholder Value Creation (Risk Adjusted Basis)
FCF = Free Cash Flow (Current and Future (Forecasted))
To take the “CAP” effect, Value Metrics are calculated as ratios.
EVA/TIC = Economic Value Added/Total Invested Capital
MVA/MV of E = Market Value Added/Market Value of Equity
TSR = Total Shareholder Return
SVC/CR = Shareholder Value Creation/Return on Capital
FCF/EBITDA = Free Cash Flow/Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation and Amortization
Common equity is the cheapest yet the largest value distribution in the Enterprise
Valuation (EV) of a company with multiple business segments. With continued poor
performance, a company will eventually lose significant shareholder equity (common EV)
which would force it to raise capital from other sources (like junk bond, etc.). Such a
capital is expensive and would make it difficult for the company to post positive EVA.
Value of the
Operating Units
750*
450
350
250
200 250
1750
400
200
1150
Corporate
Overhead
TOTAL = 2000
Enterprise
Value
Value
Distribution
Common
Equity Stock
Preferred
Stock
Debt
Operation A
Operation B
Operation C
Operation D
Convertible Securities
*all values in million US$
EXHIBIT 1.
Valuation of an
Enterprise with
Multi-Business
Segments
Source: Copeland, Koller and Murrin in “Valuation – Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies”. John Wiley Press, NY 2003.
EQUITY FLIGHT IS REAL
By any stretch of measurement, value and/or financial, the performance of North
American P&FP Industry, to put it mildly, is anemic. The industry destroyed EVA over the
years and even with the current price support for its products, it will take a long time for
the industry to gain positive EVA.
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
Comparative EVA Analysis
-30,000
-25,000
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
BE
VE
RA
GE
*
CH
EM
IC
ALS
**
HO
US
EH
OLD
PR
OD
UC
TS
SP
EC
IA
LT
Y
CH
EM
IC
ALS
HO
ME
BU
ILD
IN
G
ME
TA
LS
&M
IN
IN
G
OT
HE
R
PU
BLIS
HIN
G
NE
WS
PA
PE
R
PU
BLIS
HIN
G
ST
EE
L
TE
XT
ILE
S*
**
P&
FP
US
$ M
illi
on
s
* Non-Alcoholic Beverage
** Basic and Diversified
FO
OD
PR
OC
ES
SIN
G
*** Specialty Textiles and Non-Wovens
EXHIBIT 2.
NA P&FP Destroyed
EVA of More than
US$ 20 Billion
For a 10-year period (1994 to 2004), the ROTC was 5.8% in comparison to a WACC of
8.6%. In all, the industry earned only twice over a 30 year period higher ROTC than
WACC and only once between 1994 and 2004. The industry has returned 37% less than
the WACC during this period.
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT 3.
ROTC is Lower Than
the Cost of Capital:
Value is Being
Destroyed
1988 19921990 19961994 1998 2000
0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
15.0
Industry WACC = 10.8%
Industry ROTC Average = 7.1%
% R
etu
rn
Source: BDCI Date Base. Value Performance Based on 47 NA/ Canadian/ European Companies
Value is Being Destroyed – The Industry’s Returns are 37% Below the
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
2002 20041988 19921990 19961994 1998 2000
0
12.0
9.0
6.0
3.0
15.0
Industry WACC = 10.8%
Industry ROTC Average = 7.1%
% R
etu
rn
Source: BDCI Date Base. Value Performance Based on 47 NA/ Canadian/ European Companies
Value is Being Destroyed – The Industry’s Returns are 37% Below the
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
2002 2004
o The industry’s record on MVA (Market Value Added) is no better than its record on EVA.
o The MVA in 2003 was US$ 9.71 billion in 2003. The up tick in MVA/EC (the so called “Rate of
Market Capitalization” = an efficiency measure as to how the Economic Capital (EC) is
converted to market value) between 2002 and 2005 is an indication to shareholders guarded
belief that future performance would be better than in previous nine (9) years
o The ratio of MVA/EC, if greater than (>) 1 indicates value being created but less than (<) 1 is an
indication of value destruction.
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT 4.
ROTC is Lower Than
the Cost of Capital:
Value is Being
Destroyed
o In 1988 to 2004, P&FP industry’s Return to Risk were worse than that of the other benchmarked
industries except textiles. Even the steel and homebuilding sectors that were lagging the P&FP
industry, have reversed course in the past 10 years, improving their value position and out
performed the P&FP industry significantly
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT 5.
P&FP Industry Has
Returned Poorly
Relative to the Risk
of Investment(Source: VLI Data Base and
BDCI Data Base)
Comparative Risk versus Return Analysis
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
HO
US
EH
OLD
PR
OD
UC
TS
FO
OD
PR
OC
ES
SIN
G
BE
VE
RA
GE
*
SP
EC
IA
LT
Y
CH
EM
IC
ALS
OT
HE
R
PU
BLIS
HIN
G
CH
EM
IC
ALS
**
NE
WS
PA
PE
R
PU
BLIS
HIN
G
ME
TA
LS
AN
D
MIN
IN
G
HO
ME
BU
ILD
IN
G
ST
EE
L
P&
FP
TE
XT
ILE
S
Re
turn
/Ris
k (
ER
/WA
CC
), %
* Non-Alcoholic Beverage
** Basic & Diversified
o Given the drubbing that the investors had taken in investing in new technology start-ups and other
dot com investments, one troubling aspect of the P&FP Industry is that it suffers poor valuation
relative to investment in other industries but for textiles.
o The driving factor behind this poor valuation is the Capital Turnover (CT = Sales/EC) which is one
of the lowest among the benchmarked manufacturing industries
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT 6.
Capital Turnover
(Indexed) for the
Other Manufacturing
Industries as
Compared to P&FP
Industry
Capital Turnover (CT) for the Industry Considered
(1994-2003)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Ca
pit
al T
urn
ov
er,
CT
(Sa
les
/EC
)(R
ati
o)
CT is indexed with respect P& FP Industry (P&FP Index =1.0)
o The P&FP industry could never be able to exploit shifts in supply and demand situation because
the producers have always invested their excess cash flow back into capacity increases rather
than investing in product development, R&D, developing new markets for the products or priming
the supply chain.
o The new capacities in the P&FP industries have often come on line all at once in big chunks and
that too at the start of the recovery from the trough in business cycle, thereby chocking off any
sustainable recovery. This has perpetuated price and earnings volatility ( see the next exhibit).
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT 7.
Capital Spending is
Decreased and R&D
Spending is Flat but
Insignificant
1990 19941992 19981996 2000 2002
0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
10.0
Capital Spending as % of Sales = 4.45% (Average)
R&D Spending as % of Sales = <0.85% (Average)
% o
f N
et
Sale
s
Source: BDCI Date Base. Value Performance Based on 14 NA/Canadian Companies
NA Capital Spending as a % of Sales has Fallen to its Lowest Point and
R&D Spending as a % of Sales is Flat but Miniscule
2004
o These boom and bust cycles have consequential effect on valuation and the viability of the
industry in many ways.
(1) Cash is “Automatically” and unjustifiably reinvested when available, thus tipping the
supply-demand balance.
(2) The Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) is very sensitive to early year cash flows and
the volatility of the cycle makes project timing and therefore adequate returns
difficult.
(3) The industry continues to grow value destroying businesses instead of re-deploying
the assets or fixing them.
(4) Operating profit volatility increases the risk of equity investment in the business and
therefore, increases the cost of equity capital
THE STATE OF NA P&FP INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT 8.
Volatility of Net
OPM for the
P&FP Industry (Source: VLI Data Base, BDCI
Data Base and 2005 Pulp&Paper
Global Fact & Price Book)
Net Operating Profit Margin (NOPM)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pe
rce
nt
Average = 4.7%
o The industry performance is the cumulative performance of individual companies. Despite the fact
that the industry performance is poor, there are individual companies within the industry that
performed better or superior to its peers. In this study, 27 individual P&FP companies were
compared and their performance ranked. To keep the anonymity of the companies, they are
represented by letters A to AA with their 2005 revenue (audited) detailed . Most of the data used
in preparing this research came from public domain documents including annual reports,10K
filings, etc., The companies were ranked based on certain Value and financial metrics with each
metric weighted to their relative importance to the “Valuation” process (see next exhibit)
INDIVIDUAL COMPANY PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT 9.
List of 27 Companies
with their FY 2005
Revenue
FINANCIAL METRICS
OPM = Operating Profit Margin, %
NOPLAT= Net Operating Profit Less Adjusted Taxes, %
ROI = Return on Investment, %
ROE = Return on Equity, %
VALUE METRICS
EVA = Economic Value Added
MVA = Market Value Added
TSR = Total Shareholder Return
SVC = Shareholder Value Creation (Risk Adjusted Basis)
FCF = Free Cash Flow (Current and Future (Forecasted))
To take the “CAP” effect, Value Metrics are calculated as ratios.
EVA/TIC = Economic Value Added/Total Invested Capital
MVA/MV of E = Market Value Added/Market Value of Equity
TSR = Total Shareholder Return
SVC/CR = Shareholder Value Creation/Return on Capital
FCF/EBITDA = Free Cash Flow/Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation and Amortization
o Weighted ranking of the companies based on four key financial metrics (see previous exhibit for
the list of value and financial metrics) is summarized below. Companies S, T are ranked lower
than the Company M (index = 1.00) and Companies G, B, C and K while ranked above M, only
slightly. These companies are weak performers in all the four key financial metrics and were
responsible for pulling down the average performance of the P&P industry as a whole.
RANKING BASED ON FINANCIAL METRICS
EXHIBIT 10.
Weighted Ranking
(Indexed) For NA
P&FP Companies
Based on Four Key
Financial
Performance Metrics
Financial Metrics = % OPM, %
NOPLAT, % ROI and %ROE
ROE VERSUS ROI
EXHIBIT 11.
ROE versus ROI
Matrix for the
P&P Companies
(PG and KMB is
included for
comparison)
o Return on Investment (ROI) is a long-term financial performance metric and used to calculate
the value metric EVA. Return on Equity (ROE) is a short-term performance metric and decides
the market capitalization (MVA/MV of E) and forward Price to Earning ratio (P/E) of the
company.
o The matrix between ROE and ROI can be used to compare the short- and long-term
performance of the companies. The companies that registered strong short- and long-term
performances (1st quadrant, I), companies that recorded strong short- but weak long-term
performance (2nd quadrant, II), companies that are lackluster in short- but strong in long-term
performance (3rd quadrant, III) and companies that are mediocre in both short- and long-term
performance (4th quadrant, IV)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
%ROE
%R
OI KMB
PG
Z
D
T
S GM
A
C
W
E
U
L
H
I, Q
O
FK
B
Y
LOW HIGH
LOW
HIGH
J
N
I
II
III
IV
VALUE METRICS
VALUE METRICS
EVA = Economic Value Added
MVA = Market Value Added
TSR = Total Shareholder Return
SVC = Shareholder Value Creation (Risk Adjusted Basis)
FCF = Free Cash Flow (Current and Future (Forecasted))
EVA VERSUS MVA
EXHIBIT 12.
EVA versus MVA
Matrix for the
P&FP Companies
(PG and KMB is
included for
comparison)
o EVA decides the ROI realized by the company and dictates the cost of borrowing.
o MVA is an indirect measure of ROE, because any added market value would ultimately result in
top line (revenue) growth and significant bottom line profit (NOPLAT) under constant DDA
resulting in substantial increase in cash flow from operations.
o Increased revenue and NOPLAT growth will attract equity flow into the company. Also, an
increase in equity flow under constant debt will change the Debt to Equity ratio of the company
thus helping the companies to consistently post positive MVA.
o The relationship between EVA and MVA is depicted below and resembles the ROE
versus ROI matrix closely as depicted in Exhibit 11.
VALUE METRICS: SVC OVER TSR
VALUE METRICS
TSR = Total Shareholder Return
SVC = Shareholder Value Creation (Risk Adjusted Basis)
SVC is an indexed metric and in a sense is the true TSR delivered by the
companies. To eliminate the influence of the size of the company (the so-
called “CAP Effect”), each company’s equity volatility (beta) is weighted and
indexed relative to the industry and sector volatility.
SVC OVER TSR
There are at least three advantages in using SVC over TSR.
(1) SVC is an intrinsic metric like TSR but unlike TSR measures the
economic impact in absolute dollar terms. This allows the easy
comparison of companies of different sizes within the industry group.
(2) While the TSR reflects only the return to common shareholders, SVC
reflects the value created for all shareholders including the preferred
shareholders.
(3) SVC challenges the very notion that only large corporations have the
resources to realize their objective of focus or specialization.
SVC = ∆MC – Required ROIMEC1 – Shares Issued2 + Other Equity
Events3
1. The Required ROIMEC is calculated by compounding company’s initial equity market
value by the beta (ß) adjusted market index return; the same value adjustment is
made for share issuances, dividends and spin-offs starting on the issue date.
2. Includes both common and preferred issues
3. Other equity events include dividends, share (stock) buy-backs, spin-offs, etc.,
SHAREHOLDER VALUE CREATION (SVC)
EXHIBIT 13.
The Big Three
Companies
Destroyed More than
US$ 27 Billion in SVC.(Source: ZACKS Investment
Research 2003, Forrester
Research 2003, BDCI Data Base,
Annual Reports 1998 -2005)
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
6 0
5 0
7 0
9 0
8 0
1 0 0
-1 0
-2 0
-3 0 U S $ -1 4 .4 B illio n
U S $ 1 .4 B illio n
U S $ 6 6 .5 0 B illio n
U S $ 5 5 .8 B illio n
U S $ 5 .7 B illio n
R e v e n u e
S V C
U S $ -1 4 .7 B illio n
T O P 35
1.9
4%
4.4
5%
N E X T 7
M ID D L E 1 7
in U S $ , B illio n s
43
.59
%
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
6 0
5 0
7 0
9 0
8 0
1 0 0
-1 0
-2 0
-3 0 U S $ -1 4 .4 B illio n
U S $ 1 .4 B illio n
U S $ 6 6 .5 0 B illio n
U S $ 5 5 .8 B illio n
U S $ 5 .7 B illio n
R e v e n u e
S V C
U S $ -1 4 .7 B illio n
T O P 35
1.9
4%
4.4
5%
N E X T 7
M ID D L E 1 7
in U S $ , B illio n s
43
.59
%
o The total SVC lost by the 27 P&FP companies over a 8-year period is about US$ 41.23 billion.
o Out of the 27 Companies, only five had a positive SVC
o The two of the largest P&FP companies (Companies K and M) had a negative SVC of about
US$ 14.4 Billion.
o It is not easy to compare the disposition of P&FP companies share prices to their FCF because
traditional value proposition models cannot be applied to valuation of cyclical industry. One such
process is comparison of market-to-capital to TSR ratio and as an extension, MC to SVC
MARKET TO CAPITAL VERSUS TSR
EXHIBIT 14.
Market-to-Capital and
TRS for 15 leading NA
P&FP Companies.
o It is not easy to compare the disposition of P&FP companies share prices to their FCF
because traditional value proposition models cannot be applied to valuation of cyclical
industry. One such process is comparison of market-to-capital to TSR ratio and as an
extension, MC to SVC
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
M
1
43
2
T
K
W
H
Z
Market-to-Capital (Dec.2005) (Indexed)
Average Annual TSR (Jan.1989-Dec.2005) (Indexed)
-1.0
-2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Source: 1990 to 2005 Annual Reports
5.0
Kimberly-ClarkProcter & Gamble
L
S
A
D
B C
N
E
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
M
1
43
2
T
K
W
H
Z
Market-to-Capital (Dec.2005) (Indexed)
Average Annual TSR (Jan.1989-Dec.2005) (Indexed)
-1.0
-2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Source: 1990 to 2005 Annual Reports
5.0
Kimberly-ClarkProcter & Gamble
L
S
A
D
B C
N
E
o Weighted ranking of the companies based on four key financial metrics (see previous exhibit for
the list of value and financial metrics) is summarized below. Companies S, T are ranked lower
than the Company M (index = 1.00) and Companies G, B, C and K while ranked above M, only
slightly. These companies are weak performers in all the four key financial metrics and were
responsible for pulling down the average performance of the P&P industry as a whole.
RANKING BASED ON VALUE METRICS
EXHIBIT 15.
Weighted Ranking
(Indexed) For NA
P&FP Companies
Based on Four Key
Value Performance
Metrics
Performance Metrics = EVA/TIC,
MVA/MV of Equity, SVC/CR and
TSR
Company
Weighted Scale Indexed Scale Rank
Kimberly-Clark 34.65 20.61 **
Procter and Gamble 39.38 23.42 **
D 43.03 25.60 1
Z 16.53 9.83 2
L 11.14 6.63 3
E 9.43 5.61 4
I 9.30 5.53 5
Q 9.30 5.53 5
H 9.07 5.39 7
F 5.86 3.48 8
U 4.96 2.95 9
C 4.75 2.82 10
N 2.49 1.48 11
O 1.68 1.00 12B 0.34 0.20 13
S 0.14 0.08 14
T (3.37) (2.00) 15
Y (3.56) (2.12) 16
G (4.24) (2.52) 17
K (4.94) (2.94) 18
A (6.73) (4.00) 19
M (10.46) (6.22) 20
W (24.89) (14.81) 21
o Weighted ranking of the companies based on four key financial metrics (see previous exhibit for
the list of value and financial metrics) is summarized below. Companies S, T are ranked lower
than the Company M (index = 1.00) and Companies G, B, C and K while ranked above M, only
slightly. These companies are weak performers in all the four key financial metrics and were
responsible for pulling down the average performance of the P&P industry as a whole.
QUARTILE RANKING OF NA P&FP COMPANIES
EXHIBIT 16.
Quartile Ranking of
North American
P&FP Companies
Based on the
Weighted Strength
Index of Eight
Financial and Value
Performance
Metrics
Assigned
Proportional
Weight
0.45 0.52 0.03 1.00
Financial Metrics Value Metrics FCF/EBITDA Weighted
Scale
Strength
Index1
Quartile
Rank
COMPANY COMPANY Quartile Rank
Kimberly-Clark 24.60 20.61 0.94 21.82 4.50 Kimberly-Clark 1
Procter & Gamble 22.12 23.42 0.59 22.15 4.60 Procter & Gamble 1
1 Company A 3.55 (4.00) 1.65 (0.43) (0.14) 4 Company D 1
2 Company B 2.46 0.20 0.00 1.21 0.25 4 Company Z 1
3 Company C 2.62 2.82 0.50 2.66 0.55 3 Company E 2
4 Company D 13.98 25.60 0.59 19.62 4.07 1 Company H 2
5 Company E 7.84 5.61 0.83 6.47 1.34 2 Company I 2
6 Company F 3.94 3.48 2.85 3.67 0.76 3 Company L 2
7 Company G 1.98 (2.52) 3.64 (0.31) (0.06) 4 Company Q 2
8 Company H 6.70 5.39 3.06 5.91 1.23 2 Company U 2
9 Company I 6.70 5.53 0.00 5.89 1.22 2 Company C 3
10 Company K 2.79 (2.94) 0.00 (0.27) (0.06) 4 Company F 3
11 Company L 7.97 6.63 1.02 7.06 1.46 2 Company N 3
12 Company M 1.00 (6.22) 0.00 (2.78) (0.58) 4 Company O 3
13 Company N 4.17 1.48 0.57 2.66 0.55 3 Company A 4
14 Company O 4.73 1.00 2.12 2.71 0.56 3 Company B 4
15 Company Q 6.45 5.53 0.00 5.78 1.20 2 Company G 4
16 Company S (1.36) 0.08 0.11 (0.57) (0.12) 4 Company K 4
17 Company T (2.35) (2.00) 0.58 (2.08) (0.43) 4 Company M 4
18 Company U 9.64 2.95 0.76 5.89 1.22 2 Company S 4
19 Company W 3.14 (14.81) 1.81 (6.23) (1.29) 4 Company T 4
20 Company Y 4.59 (2.12) 0.90 0.99 0.21 4 Company W 4
21 Company Z 8.94 9.83 0.00 9.13 1.90 1 Company Y 4
Mean 4.74 1.98 1.00 3.19 0.66
Std.Error of Population Mean 0.85 1.71 0.25 0.71
Strength Index Ranking
Strength Index Quartile Position
>1.8 1
< 1.7 but > 1.2 2
< 1.2 but > 0.3 3
<0.3 4
CONCLUSIONS
o
o On a micro level the health of the industry is dictated by the
performance of individual companies within its sector.
o The recent events in the equity market suggest that it is the
“winner-takes-all” economy and the P&FP industry is no exception.
o Across NA P&FP sector, a select few companies are creating
almost all of the new shareholder value; two of its largest players
are not presently among them.
o Two indicators were used.
o One is the ranking using five key financial measures, %OPM,
%NOPLAT, %ROE, %ROI and %FCF.
o The other is a measure using value metrics, EVA and MVA,
supplemented with TSR and SVC.
CONCLUSIONS
o The profit drivers distinguish the “Leaders” from the
“Followers” and the “Trailers”. Profit drivers include, Capital
Turnover (CT), %OPM, %NOPLAT, ROI and ROE.
o Financial indicators like revenue growth and ROIC though
useful should be supplemented with strategic value drivers
like MVA to gauge where a company is heading and to
decide the course of action to maximize performance and to
enhance TSR.
o Almost 50% of the companies in the P&FP sector are value
destroyers including two of its largest. The P&FP industry
over an 8 year period destroyed EVA of more than US$ 20
billion, which makes barrowing capital for project financing
expensive; compounding with low ROI, the equity inflow to
the industry is one of the lowest among all manufacturing
industry as reflected in the poor MVA to MV of Equity.
CONCLUSIONS
To become a global leader again, the
NA P&FP industry should focus on
delivering decent numbers on the five
key financial measures and the four
value measures.
Thanks.
V.R. (PERRY) PARTHASARATHY, PhD
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
PORT WENTWORTH, GA 31407