Comparative Analysis of Petroleum industry in Pakistan

Submit

Comp

A

GROUP

tted to:

parati

Analysi

MEMBER

HO

M

H

SIR IM

HO

03

ive An

is of Fi

RS :

OSH MO

MUHAMM

HAFEEZ-U

MTIAZ AS

OSH MO

342-380

nalysisPa

inancia

OHAMMA

MAD FARO

U-RAHMA

SKARI

OHAMMA

02305

s of Peakista

al state

AD (MBA

OOQ (BBA

B

AN (MBA

AD (MBA

etrolen

ement

A) PSO SHELL

A)

BYCO

A)

ATTOCK

A)

eum In

s CID:9

Reg#

4

3

4

K

ndust

9301

4581

3610

4469

try in

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all we would like to thank almighty ALLAH who has give us this

courage and strength that we have make this report.

After that we would like to thank our teacher SIR IMTIAZ ASKARI that

he has guided us throughout the semester. Our teacher took pain to

teach us on every stage of this project what to do and how to do .We

had faced many difficulties in completing this report but our teacher

directed us on a right track at right times and that is why we have

completed this project of Comparative Analysis of Petroleum Industry in

Pakistan.

The last but not the least is that in this project we come to that how we

have collect, analyze and present the report on a given date.

SELECTED COMPANIES

The companies that have been selected for further analysis are:

PSO

BYCO

SHELL

ATTOCK

Market Share of these Four Companies

Sales To Assets Ratio

PSO

SHELL

BYCO

ATTOCK

Solvency Ratios

2009 2008

PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL

Current Ratio

1.07:1 0.72:1 1.5:1 1.03:1 Current Ratio

1.2:1 0.92:1 1.41:1 1.13:1

QUICK RATIO

0.75:1 0.12:1 1.49:1 0.87:1 QUICK RATIO

0.6:1 0.92:1 1.38:1 0.51:1

WORKING CAPITAL

866414 (6385) 5469534 (2188551) WORKING CAPITAL

106502472 (2152) 4039284 691254

2007 2006


Current Ratio

1.2:1 1.01:1 1.48:1 1.06:1 Current Ratio

1.2:1 1.07:1 1.29:1 0.88:1

QUICK RATIO

0.6:1 0.24:1 1.42:1 0.48:1 QUICK RATIO

0.6:1 0.32:1 1.28:1 0.47

WORKING CAPITAL

11127546 54 2592546 1015000 WORKING CAPITAL

10978097 (506) 1301124 24144000

2005

PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL

Current Ratio

1.2:1 1.01:1 1.51:1 0.88:1

QUICK RATIO

0.6:1 0.09:1 1.43:1 0.48

WORKING CAPITAL

8666404 34 685178 774000

CURRENT RATIO GRAPH

QUICK RATIO GRAPH

ANALYSIS (CURRENT, QUICK RATIO AND WORKING CAPITAL)

PSO

The liquidity of company detracted during the FY2009 due to increase of 38% in Current liabilities in year 2009. This is due to 35% increase in trade and other payables and 69% increase in short term borrowing

Current assets also increased 19% during FY2009 due to 37% increase in trade debts. However stock in trade has been decreased by 35%.

Otherwise in previous years other than FY2009 seems to be very stable position which shows the good short term debt paying ability of company. The company can improve its short term debt paying ability by reducing short term borrowing and trade payables.

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.6

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.6

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

BYCO

As it is cleared from the figure that we have computed that in 2009 current ratio is low so, company will hesitate to pay back its short term liabilities but in 2008 current ratio was higher then 2009, so we can say that year 2008 was more suitable for Byco Company then 2009 and 2005 was the mile stone for the company in five years. b/c in 2005 company was more efficient to pay their short term liabilities. According to quick ratio analysis company was in the good in 2008 then the other years, b/c their ratio is higher in 2009, so it means firm was able to meet its short term obligations more early in 2008.

ATTOCK

The liquidity of company detracted during the FY2009 due to increase of 10% in Current liabilities in year 2009. This is due to increase in trade and other payables in short term borrowing

Current assets also increased 15% during FY2009 due to increase in trade debts. However stock in trade has been decreased by 52% .The Company can improve its short term debt paying ability by reducing short term borrowing and trade payables

SHELL

In 2005 Shell was less efficient to pays its short term liabilities in same as in 2006 but latter on with passage of time shell has increased its efficiency to pay the short term liability. So we can say that shell has shown a bit good performance.

Comparative analysis

According to current and quick ratio PSO seems to be in a very stable position, it means that PSO manages its assets in a way that it equilibrates its assets according to Liabilities. Current ratio of Attock is high that’s only because of high amount of inventory, when we see the quick ratio of ATTOCK it is down. FY2009 is not so good for all over the industry, A leading company (PSO) has has loss in 2007, and other companies are not in a good position also. PSO has increase its borrowings in great extent that makes company more liquidity in 2009. It seems that BYCO Manages its liabilities at a stable level, but its only because of excessive amount of inventory it has in FY2009, when we see the Quick ratio of BYCO we will be clear about the short term debt paying ability of the BYCO petroleum limited. Attock also have a big amount of

inventory in FY2009, that’s why quick rato is hs been down in FY2009. Although Shell has increased its efficiency of Debt paying, it increases its assets in 2009 and reduces the liabilities that makes SHELL the more stable in market.

ACTIVITY RATIOS

2009 2008


ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER

11 times 168 times

9.1 53 times ACOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER

58.78 times

135 times

12.7 9.35 times

INVENTORY TURNOVER

13. times 11 times

265.87 times

12 times INVENTORY TURNOVER

10.1 times 3 times

157.60 times

11 times

2007 2006



105.79 times

73 times

17.6 11.77 times


81.44 times

68 times

29.3 13.0 times

INVENTORY TURNOVER

11.7 times

4 times

202.37 times

9 times INVENTORY TURNOVER

11.5 times

4 times 423.53 times

9.5 times

2005

PSO BYCO ATTOCK SHELL


73.78 times

37.78 times

38.8 16.5 times

INVENTORY TURNOVER

11.2 times

5 times

144.13 times

7.3 times

ACCOUNT RECIEVABLE TURNOVER GRAPH

PSO A/R TURNOVER

Account Receivables Turnover seems to be not good in FY2009, it can be due to company could not collect the receivables of 2008 year, That’s why the receivables turnover is so high, but the company can improve this ratio in future, because the past data shows that company has a good turnover in last 4 years. The year 2007 is seems to be best because there is not any huge receivables to collect, compare to FY2009 and FY2008, FY2006 and FY2005 seems to be stable in position, so it does not affect the position of company.

BYCO A/R TURNOVER

A/R turnover ratio for BYCO seems to be very good for company, but its only because of less receivables in current assets that makes company more recoverable,

ATTOCK A/R TURNOVER

And working capital increases because current assets are more than current liabilities it means the company have more funds to repay their obligation in FY 2009

Account Receivables Turnover seems to be not good in FY2009, it can be due to company could not collect the receivables of 2008year. That’s why the receivables turnover is so high. The year 2005 is seems to be best because there is not any huge receivables to collect, compare to FY2009 and FY2008

020406080

100120140160180

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

SHELL A/R TURNOVER

In Account Receivables turnover there is fluctuations. In 2005 Account Receivable turnover was 16.5times and in the next year it has decreased, it means that company has low performance, but latter on again company has increased its performance.

INVENTORY TURNOVER GRAPH

PSO INVENTORY TURNOVER

Inventory turnover is slightly higher in FY2009 which is a favorable trend. Otherwise remaining years have a stable position of inventory turnover. These figures shows that the company managed its inventory in a good way that’s why inventory turnover becomes stable.

BYCO INVENTORY TURNOVER

As for as inventory turn over is concerned BYCO has improve the turn over of inventory, so we can say that company is showing extra efficiency to the inventory turn over with the passage of time.

ATTOCK INVENTORY TURNOVER

Inventory turnover is higher in FY2009 and 2006 which is a favorable trend. Otherwise remaining years have a less of inventory turnover. These figures show that the company managed its inventory not in a good way that’s why inventory turnover are not stable.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

SHELL INVENTORY TURNOVER

Inventory turnover is for SHELL Pakistan has recorded very much positive performance. In given five years inventory turnover has been increased at stable rate.

Comparative analysis

Account receivable turnover is highest of BYCO but it’s because of little amount in receivables that makes company fast recoverable. PSO is looking in negative trend because last year receivables couldn’t be collectable and that are due in 2009, it makes PSO less recoverable in Account receivables. SHELL is in very good position because it maintain its receivables in a good manner and its in increasing trend, also it maintain A/R turnover ratio in past years. Attock is also in negative trend.

Inventory Turnover Ratio is in increasing trend for all the companies, why? That’s because of purchasing of inventory in a great extent, All companies are focusing to purchases and they are not thinking about their paying ability, it will obviously hit them on profitability of company.

Debt Ratio =Total Liabilities/Total Assets 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO 86.4% 75.6% 79.1% 70.3% 67.2% BYCO 35% 48% 76.2% 75.1% 72.3% ATOCK SHELL 80% 73.1% 72.66% 68.72% 55.46%

0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

Debt Equity Ratio =Total Liabilities/Shareholder’s Equity 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO 635% 300% 256.9 % 237.1% 230% BYCO 200.9% 17.56% 39.35% 37.56% 32.87% ATOCK 157% 180.2% 160% 222.7% 141.6% SHELL 420.3% 270% 230.5% 220% 179%

PSO

The debt management ratios of PSO show the negative trend in FY2009, because in 2009 short term liabilities have been increased. It includes Trade and other payables and short term borrowings. Trade and other payables have 35% increment in 2009 and short term borrowing have 69% increment. Also 52% of reserves of the company have been decreased. That’s why debt ratio of the company has rose in FY2009. The reason for the increase of Debt /Equity ratio is same that reserves have been decreased by 52% in Year 2009. Long term deposit have no effect to the company, and Retirement and other benefit have negligible impact over the company’s debts, Short term liabilities have been so much increase that result in bad management of debts and also loss in FY2009. The PSO manages its debts very smoothly from FY2005 to FY2007, but it shows the increase trend in debt ratio from FY2008 to FY2009.

BYCO

With the passage of time company has improved his equity by reducing leverages in 2005 it was 72.3% but in 2009 it shirked and become 35% so it is quite good sign. According to debt equity ratio Company has declared more debt with the passage of time. According to this ratio company has good condition in 2005 but letter on it because worst in 2009.

0.00%

100.00%

200.00%

300.00%

400.00%

500.00%

600.00%

700.00%

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

ATTOCK

The debt management ratios of ATTOCK show the decreasing trend in FY2009, because in 2009 short term liabilities have been increased and in 2009 and in 2005 the debt ratio is higher because current assets are low. It includes Trade and other payables and short term borrowings The debt equity holder decreases in 2009 because equity has been increased more as compared to the liabilities. The have maximum amount of equity and the debt cost is negligible.

SHELL

In debt ratio company has been inefficient. Specially in 2009 the debt ratio was on its peek. By doing analysis we came to know that In 2005 debt ratio was 55.4% as a time goes on debt ratio has increased at stable rate. In debt equity ratio company again has been failed to achieve good performance, in debt/equity ratio company has negative trend and with the passage of time this negative performance has increased.

Profitability Ratios

Gross Profit Margin Graph

Gross Profit Margin =Gross profit/Net sales 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO 0.42 % 5.1 % 3.0% 4.9% 5.4% BYCO (8.76)% 5.98 % (0.37)% 3.48% 3.92% ATOCK 5.32% 5.16% 4.63% 4.44% 4.35% SHELL 7.8% 8.1% 6.3% 3.4% 7.84%

-1.00%0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

PSO

Byco

Attock

Shell

PSO

PSO facing declining in profit an FY2009, it is due to increase in cost of good sold, the cost of goods sold increase by 31.04% as compare to FY2008, it is the main reason that company incurs loss in FY2009, however net sales also increased by 23.7%, but it is not enough to grow profit margin, company should try to decrease the CGS as well as increase in sales. In 2008 CGS increased by 37.9%, but sales increased by 42%, that results in increment of 45% in Gross profit. FY2008 seems to be in good position in which Gross profit margin is 5.1%. However FY2007 is less profitable due to increase in CGS.

BYCO

In 2009 company has shown loss in gross profit margin, so one can say that financial health of the company is not so good and in the future company will be unable to pay its operating and other expenses.

ATTOCK

T he gross profit margin increase every year. Because the company increase their sale and this increment is due to high prices of petroleum products.

SHELL

As for as Gross profit is concerned company has increased its performance, although in 2006 Gross profit ratio has decreased but latter on company recover the loss and increased its ratio so we can say that this is the quite good sign for the company.

Net Profit Margin = Net Income before minority share of Earnings and Non Recurring Items /Net Sales

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (.93)% 2.4 % 1.1% 2.1% 2.2% BYCO (23.15)% 0.5% (1.13)% 1.3% 1.3% ATOCK 4.98% 4.96% 3.92% 3.41% 4.65% SHELL 1.5% 3.6% 6.1% (0.56)% 2.34%

Return on Assets =Net Income before minority shares of earning and nonrecurring items /Average total Assets

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (4.37)% 11.1% 6.3% 10.7% 10.8% BYCO (4.17)% 2.2% (0.07)% 0.6% 0.4% ATOCK 18.25 21.57 22.18 30.84 24.35 SHELL 5% 9.1% 7.2% (1.32)% 11.03%

PSO

The profitability of the PSO fell by 48% in FY2009. Although the sales of the company increased, but due to increased in CGS, company face loss, that result in negative ROA in FY2009, overall ROA of the PSO is very stable, except FY2007 which is due to less profit in 2007.

BYCO

In 2009 company has shown loss, and in 2007 company also incurred loss, than in remaining years company has earned profit, but not as much as other companies. In 2009 company has incurred heavy loss and 2008 was quite good. We can say that company has earned on their assets, but in 2007 again company got the loss, so we can say that company is in inefficient to get the return on assets.

ATTOCK

The net profit rate of FY2009 is 4.98% and FY2008 4.96%. The net profit margin ratio approximately same in FY2009,2008,2005 but in 2007 and 2006 net profit margin go down because their expenses have been increased in 2007 and 2006.

ROA in FY 2006 is higher and continuously decreasing till 2009. It mean the company don’t have ability to used the assets efficiently and don’t earn a handsome return on from the sources available to the company

SHELL

As for as Net Profit margin is concerned company has not been good in performance, it has decreased the net profit margin continuously, and 2009 net profit margin has been shrieked to 1.5% so we can say its not a favorable for company.

In 2005 Return on Asset were 11.03% it means company has earned quit well on their Assets, but in the second year 2006 company incurred loss. Then again in the next year company recovered itself and showed a good sign till 2009.

Return on Equity 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (32.10)% 44.5% 22.4% 36.2% 32.2% BYCO (24.7) % 7.14% 4.33% 4.2% 3.8% ATOCK 43.52 % 47.72% 50.04% 68.08% 45.45% SHELL 22.9% 19.7% 3% 30.9% 25.2%

Degree of financial Leverage=EBIT/Earnings before tax 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (49.1) 1.06 1.11 0.98 0.9 BYCO (0.436) 10.5 (0.42) 1.66 1.61 ATOCK 0.80 0.92 0.89 0.97 0.47 SHELL 1.33 1.2 1.1 (0.6) 1.8

Price/Earning ratio=Market price per share/earning per share

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (5.47) times 5.1 times 14.3 times 7.0 times 11.6 times BYCO (0.31) times 250 times (4.46) 11.25 times 14.58 times ATOCK 5.94 times 9.43 times 13.92times 9.28 times 13.73 times SHELL 9.1 times 8.5 times 31.8 times 8.4 times 9.9 times

PSO

Return on Equity is most valuable profitability ratio, Return on equity reveals how much profit a company earned in comparison to the total amount of shareholder equity found on the balance sheet, PSO has loss in 2009 so ROE is in negative trend, the best year for PSO in regard of ROE is FY2008, in this year Net is higher than previous years, and in FY2007 due to less income it is less ROE, in 2006‐5 is in a stable position.

A leverage ratio summarizing the affect a particular amount of financial leverage has on a company's earnings per share (EPS). The higher the degree of financial leverage, the more volatile EPS will be.

This ratio can be used to help determine the most appropriate level of financial leverage to use to achieve that goal. The company’s P/E ratio is in increasing trend from 2005 to 2008, but due to loss in 2009 it becomes in negative. Although EPS in FY2008 is about 81.9 and Market share price at year end is Rs 417.2 which is highest rate as compare to previous years, it reduces the P/E Ratio of the company, P/E ratio of the company is fluctuating during 2005 to 2009. In 2007 due to less profit and high Earning/Share.

BYCO

In 2005 the company has 1.66 leverage o earning ratio, but with the passage of time it showed negative trend because leverage on earning ratio has increased. In 2009 it got the highest position of worth 10.5%.

If we will take a sigh of P/E ratio that we can analyze that company has earned more profit, but it is also fact that company has shown loss in FY2009 and FY2007 as well and rest of the years company has shown stable profit.

ATTOCK

ROE in FY 2006 is higher and continuously decreasing till 2009. It mean the company don’t have ability to used the assets efficiently and don’t earn a handsome return on from the sources available to the company

The financial leverage in FY 2006 is higher it mean in 2006 the company is more risky. In FY2009 and FY 2005 the degree of financial leverage is low and the risk factor is also low in these years.

Theoretically, a stock's P/E tells us how much investor are willing to pay per dollar of earning. P/E ratios are generally lower during times of high inflation

Price earing ratio is higher in FY 2005 and FY 2007 but in FY 2009 it is decrease due to low market price of shares of the company. And high value of EPS.

Price earning ratio fluctuate every year because there is a high change in market price therefore P ratio fluctuate in FY 2007 and 2005 the company is more stable because P ratio is higher in these years

SHELL

In 2005 company had 1.8% leverage on Earning/Share it directly affected the earning but latter on leverage on per share has decreased so we can say company showed a good performance. In 2005 P/E ratio was so good but latter on company has shown decreasing trend till 2008, then again company has earned good profit.

Total Asset Turnover 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO 5.13 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.37 BYCO 1.4 1.1 1.2 6.4 3.90 ATOCK 3.66 4.35 5.66 9.04 5.24SHELL 4.01 4.35 4.2 4.9 5

DuPont Analysis

DuPont= Net Profit Margin*Asset Turnover*Financial leverage

DuPont Analysis 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 PSO (234)% 14.75% 7% 12% 10.6 BYCO (14)% 5.07% (0.6552) 13.8% 8% ATOCK 44% 48% 49% 68% 45% SHELL 0.0798% 1.87 % 2.81% (0.16) 0.21%

PSO

In FY2009 loss incurred to the company , the investors had got nothing from company. In FY2008 the ROE is highest which shows the better sign for company and it also shows maximization of profit compare to other years, this is because of Highest sale in 2005 to 2008 which result in good Asset turnover, it means company utilized its assets in a efficient way.

BYCO

In 2009 BYCO didn’t utilized its assets in efficient way, because sales decreased in that year. But in 2008 it seems to be profitable but still company has many problems to become profitable. Because company failed to earn profit in two year, company’s ability to run in long term seems to be not possible.

ATTOCK

If a company's ROE goes up due to an increase in the net profit margin or asset turnover, this is a very positive sign for the company. InFY2006 the value is high and in FY 2009 it decreased it means that the company don’t use its assets effectively.

SHELL

ROE of shell shows the decreasing trend, however these rates are fluctuating year by year. Company’s net income margin (which is due to increase in operating expenses) is very low in each year that’s why it makes the company in downward trend.

Comparative analysis of Profitability and Debt ratio

Debt Ratio of all the firms are in increasing trend, its main reason is that they borrow short term loans without interest and they want to take benefit of it that’s why companies have increasing debt ratio.

When we see the gross profit of the firms; PSO has very low gross profit margin and BYCO has loss, that is result of High amount of CGS, but ATTOCK and SHELL has a good position in Gross Profit, ATTOCK is seems to be a very good in Gross profit ratio and ROA as compare to other companies, that is because the ATTOCK is a small company as compare to PSO and SHELL so that it seems to be very effective in Gross profit and ROA; for example if ATTOCK gross profit is 1000 on sale of Rs. 10000 it will show the margin of 10% that is a good margin for ATTOCK but it will be no more good for other companies, so we can not compare ATTOCK’s GP ratio on other companies.

Net Profit margin shows that PSO and BYCO companies are in Loss and reason is described at many positions, But ATTOCK and SHELL are in Profit. However Shell has low Net income margin which is because of increase in Operating expenses, Shell need to control its operating expenses, but still its in a good position because overall industry is going in loss and Shell runs in profit.

Return on Equity of Petroleum Firms seems to be 2:2 ratio, it means that 2 companies earned profit in FY2009 and 2 got Losses. But it can not be decided on the basis of ROE that the companies who had losses can not run in Long term. PSO is a very stable and profitable in previous years but due to high Raw material cost it run in Loss, that doesn’t mean that PSO will be liquidify, PSO is in a very strong position, its debt paying ability is very good, and it can run in Long Term relationship with its investors, The BYCO is really in trouble, because it had incur losses two times within 5 years. And its debt paying ability is also not in a good position, its amount of Profit is also very low.

ATTOCK has maintained its ROE in a good manner, however it is also in downtrend in FY2009 but it is quit possible for Firm to keep it high in next year.

Shell has increasing trend in ROE, that is sign of good move in market, Shell Pakistan is running in profit and it maintained its sales and Assets very efficiently, although FY2009 is not good for most of the Oil companies but Shell Pakistan proved itself as a stable company, Return on Assets of Shell is in increasing trend which means the company is utilizing its assets very effectively.

We can not say that a Single firm has a best performance in this industry, because PSO is a largest petroleum company in the Pakistan and it has 72% market share. However it incurred

loss in 2009 but it does not mean that It will not cover it in next year, the Firm has a best debt paying ability, and a it has good control over Receivables and inventory as compare to others.

Although this time Shell is seems to be good profitable in Financial statements.

Changes in Cost, Sale and Gross Profit PSO =====Change in Sale, CGS, and Gross Profit

Sales Volume: Per Year (given)

2009: 92.4 million barrel 2008: 91 million barrel 2007: 82.6 million barrel 2006: 68.6 million barrel 2005: 67.9 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel

CGS (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)

Per Barrel cost A/B

Change within year

2009 609685478 92. 4 m 6598 1468 2008 465254907 91 m 5112 1027 2007 337446896 82.6 m 4085 (‐12) 2006 281042813 68.6 m 4097 1170 2005 212503650 67.9 m 3129 ‐ Change in Sale/barrel

Sales (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)

Per Barrel Sale price A/B (Rs.)

Change within year

2009 612695589 92. 4 m 6631 1189 2008 495278533 91 m 5442 1208 2007 349706326 82.6 m 4233 (114) 2006 298250039 68.6 m 4348 1219 2005 198757319 67.9 m 2927 ‐ Change in Gross Profit

Gross Profit / Year

Change within year

2009 3010111 (27014) 2008 30023626 17765 2007 12259430 (4948) 2006 17207226 3461 2005 ‐ ‐

PSO =====Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Opening Cost 621.8 277 300 262 180 Charges

thereon 10.9 9.86 15 11.5 19

Purchase cost 5431 4787 3648.7 3692 2670 Charges

thereon 623 37 123 132 56

PSO

In FY2009 company faced loss of Rs. (9966) millions. Why Company faced this Loss?

However the sale volume increased in a great extent but CGS also increased, company could not control its cost, In 2009 Cost/barrel of Oil was Rs. 6598 with increase of Rs. 1468, it’s a very big amount and in sale price there is of only deference of Rs.33, its not sufficient to earn profit, the increase in CGS was the result of increase the Cost in Purchases in FY2009, the deference between 2009‐2008 purchases is about 644, that result in loss to the company. In 2008 Cost/barrel also increased but the Sale price/barrel was also increased by Rs.330. it is a good amount to increase profitability, the purchases amount also increased at a great extent in FY2008 but Prices were so high that makes company profitable. In FY2007 company reduces Rs.12 in cost of goods sold, that was actually because of low prices of Oil in International Market.

BYCO ====Change in Sale, CGS and Gross Profit

Production Volume: million barrel/ Year 2009: 7.03 million barrel 2008: 6.188 million barrel 2007: 5.06million barrel 2006: 4.808 million barrel 2005: 3.789 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel

CGS (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)

Per Barrel cost A/B

Change within year

2009 48530050 7036809 6896.5 1397.4 2008 33664208 6121878 5499 1627.5 2007 19401391 5011337 3871.5 236.9 2006 17475318 4807983 3634.6 1005.6 2005 9607392 3654390 2629 ‐‐‐ Change in Sale/barrel

Sales (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)


Change within year

2009 44621016 7036809 6341 492.2 2008 35806116 6121878 5848.8 1991.8 2007 19328906 5011337 3857 128 2006 17929007 4807983 3729 993 2005 9998865 3654390 2736 ‐‐‐‐ Change in Gross Profit

Gross Profit / Year

Change within year

2009 (3,909,034) (1767126) 2008 2,141,908 2099423 2007 42485 (552144) 2006 624629 233156 2005 391473 ‐‐

BYCO== =Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Raw

Material 6732.7 5371 3740 3468 2448

Salaries 27 24.5 21 16 15 Fuel and

Power 44 35 34 46 49

Others 92.3 67 75 104 117

BYCO

In FY2009 however Production volume increased but company could control its cost of production, the coast was about 500 higher than sale price/barrel that’s why companies faced loss. The reason of increasing cost is that Raw material (Crude oil) price was so much high in 2009 that result in increase in overall cost and sale price was about 400 low than the cost.

ATTOCK =====Change in Sale, CGS and Gross Profit

Sales Volume: million barrel/ Year 2009: 9.14 million barrel 2008: 9.6 million barrel 2007: 11.6 million barrel 2006: 11.36 million barrel 2005: 3.79 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel

CGS (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)

Per Barrel cost A/B

Change within year

2009 58570802 9144543 6405 1190 2008 50,493,929 9682184 5215 1592 2007 42085565 11616219 3623 188 2006 39027444 11361701 3435 935 2005 94786368 3791455 2500 ‐‐‐ Change in Sale/barrel

Sales (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)


Change within year

2009 61863152 9144543 6765.03 1266.03

2008 53242330 9682184 5499 1700 2007 44,130,536 11616219 3799 204.6 2006 40,839,299 11361701 3594.4 980.7 2005 9909682 3791455 2613.7 ‐‐‐‐

Change in Gross Profit

Gross Profit / Year (Billion)

Change within year

2009 3,292,350 543949 2008 2,748,401 703430 2007 2,044,971 233116 2006 1,811,855 1380812 2005 431,043, ‐‐

ATTOK====Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Purchase 5898.4 5168.7 3296 2919 2225 Petroleum

development levy 497.4 20.9 289.8 234 175

Others 9.2 25 72 171.5 100

ATTOCK

The company sale increases in rupees in 2009 due to increase the price of the petroleum products. But the company sale in barrel is decrease in FY 2009 at 9.14 million barrel to 9.6 million barrel in 2008. But in FY 2007 and 2006 the sale in barrel is higher. But the gross profit increase due to increase in prices. And gross profit ratio also increases.

Shell ====Change in CGS, Sale and Gross Profit

Sales Volume: million barrel/ Year 2009: 18.09 million barrel 2008: 20.35 million barrel 2007: 19.04 million barrel 2006: 14.3 million barrel 2005: 15.4 million barrel Change in Cost/barrel

CGS (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)

Per Barrel cost A/B

Change within year

2009 104486910 18.09 5776 ‐351 2008 124,694,471 20.35 m 6127 420 2007 108,664,932 19.04 5707 560

2006 890954358 17.3 5147 ‐985 2005 96074000 15.4 6132 ‐‐‐

Change in Sale/barrel

Sales (Rs.000) (A)

Barrels sold (B)


Change within year

2009 129354243 18.09 7150 224 2008 140944995 20.35 6926 60 2007 130736885 19.04 6866 648 2006 90347400 14.3 6318 118

2005 95480000 15.4 6200 ‐‐

SHELL===Cost Per Unit 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Purchase 5898.4 5168.7 3296 2919 2225 Petroleum

development levy 497.4 20.9 289.8 234 175

Others 9.2 25 72 171.5 100

Break Even Point and DOL PSO Break Even Point

Rs in (000) 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

1770502655 62952188 104486524 52007889 45296321

Operating Income

‐5577 22,451 7,950 11264 9340

DOL contribution Margin / Operating Income DOL ‐248.3464228 1288.969 1460.553 1442.309 1389.849

Break Even Point and DOL

Attock years 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005Break Even Point Rs

5003272819

2969589682

3532535319

2863417311

2216141318

DOL contribution Margin/Op: Income

DOL 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.089 0.68

Common Size Anaylsis

PSO

HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

ASSETS Non‐ Current Assets

Property, plant and equipment 86.14% 91.98% 98.78% 92.70% 100.00% Intangibles 2.97% 4.55% 5.45% 6.68% 100.00% Long term investments 92.91% 116.54% 129.03% 141.47% 100.00% Long term loans, advances and receivables 52.72% 62.07% 81.59% 90.71% 100.00% Long term deposits and prepayments 79.55% 75.21% 62.68% 71.00% 100.00% Deferred tax 4035.01% 326.55% 321.50% 327.32% 100.00% Total Non Current Assets 127.29% 97.04% 105.62% 104.84% 100.00%Current Assets Stores, spare parts and loose tools 85.89% 88.71% 97.96% 95.77% 100.00%

Stock-in-trade 197.72% 302.96% 143.62% 136.85% 100.00%

Trade debts 1185.52% 499.25% 200.26% 172.52% 100.00%

Loans and advances 196.02% 185.80% 171.62% 129.30% 100.00%

Deposits and short term prepayments 75.99% 55.28% 218.12% 177.36% 100.00%

Other receivables 123.64% 151.40% 152.07% 140.59% 100.00%

taxation/short term investments 7039.25% 100.00%

Cash and bank balances 150.01% 157.06% 79.21% 98.80% 100.00%

Total Current Assets 340.47% 284.47% 153.47% 142.47% 100.00%

TOTAL ASSETS 293.31% 243.00% 142.88% 134.15% 100.00% EQUITY AND LIABILITIES Share Capital 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Reserves 121.01% 184.78% 121.44% 0.12% 100.00%

Total Equity 118.96% 176.49% 119.35% 118.63% 100.00%

Non-Current Liabilities Long term deposits 126.59% 123.61% 113.79% 110.19% 100.00%

Retirement and other service benefits 126.39% 118.92% 124.20% 117.47% 100.00%

Total Non-Current Liabilities 126.46% 120.51% 120.69% 115.01% 100.00%

Current Liabilities Trade and other payables 427.00% 314.33% 160.65% 142.75% 100.00%

Provisions 91.29% 96.27% 91.29% 103.06% 100.00%

Accrued interest / mark-up 870.38% 340.92% 206.43% 188.87% 100.00%

Short term borrowings 387.70% 228.57% 188.39% 158.97% 100.00%

Taxes payable 0.00% 54.06% 5.16% 126.11% 100.00%

Total Current Liabilities 396.85% 286.09% 156.83% 143.62% 100.00%

Total Equity and liabilities 293.31% 243.00% 142.88% 134.15% 100.00%

PSO

VERTICAL ANALYSIS OF BALANCE SHEET

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005ASSETS Non‐ Current Assets

ASSETS Non‐ Current Assets

Property, plant and equipment 4.55% 5.87% 10.72% 10.72% 15.51%

Intangibles 0.04% 0.08% 0.17% 0.22% 4.43%

Long term investments 1.40% 2.13% 4.00% 4.67% 4.43%

Long term loans, advances and receivables 0.26% 0.38% 0.84% 0.99% 1.47%

Long term deposits and prepayments 0.05% 0.06% 0.09% 0.11% 0.20%

Deferred tax 3.28% 0.32% 0.54% 0.58% 0.24%

Total Non Current Assets 9.60% 8.84% 16.36% 17.29% 22.13%

Current Assets

Stores, spare parts and loose tools 0.07% 0.09% 0.17% 0.18% 0.25%

Stock-in-trade 26.53% 49.06% 39.55% 40.14% 39.35%

Trade debts 52.48% 26.67% 18.20% 16.70% 12.98%

Loans and advances 0.27% 0.31% 0.49% 0.39% 0.41%

Deposits and short term prepayments 0.36% 0.32% 2.12% 1.84% 1.39%

Other receivables 8.35% 12.34% 21.08% 20.75% 19.80%

taxation/short term investments 0.46% 0.02%

Cash and bank balances 1.88% 2.37% 2.04% 2.71% 3.67%


TOTAL ASSETS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

EQUITY AND LIABILITIES Share Capital 1.12% 1.35% 2.29% 2.44% 3.28%

Reserves 12.49% 23.01% 25.72% 0.03% 30.26%

Total Equity 13.60% 24.36% 28.02% 29.66% 33.54%

Non-Current Liabilities Long term deposits 0.56% 0.66% 1.03% 1.06% 1.29%

Retirement and other service benefits 1.09% 1.24% 2.20% 2.22% 2.53%

Total Non-Current Liabilities 1.65% 1.90% 3.23% 3.28% 3.82%

Current Liabilities Trade and other payables 71.78% 63.78% 55.44% 52.47% 49.30%

Provisions 0.45% 0.57% 0.92% 1.11% 1.44%

Accrued interest / mark-up 0.36% 0.17% 0.18% 0.17% 0.12%

Short term borrowings 12.16% 8.65% 12.13% 10.90% 9.20%

Taxes payable 0.00% 0.57% 0.09% 2.42% 2.57%

Total Current Liabilities 84.75% 73.74% 68.76% 67.06% 62.64%

Total Equity and liabilities 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

PSO------INCOME STATEMENT HORIZONTAL ANALYSIS Income statement 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005Net sales 288.32% 233.07% 164.56% 140.35% 100%

Cost of products sold 306.75% 234.08% 169.78% 141.40% 100%

Gross profit 21.90% 218.41% 89.18% 125.18% 100%

Operating costs

Transportation costs 163.97% 107.86% 117.89% 116.77% 100%

Distribution and marketing expenses 167.97% 138.44% 116.42% 105.70% 100%

Administrative expenses 133.81% 134.85% 116.49% 108.69% 100%

Depreciation 116.02% 113.73% 111.60% 110.00% 100%

Amortisation 0.94% 0.85% 0.75% 126.99% 100%

Other operating expenses 371.27% 311.65% 70.21% 206.82% 100%

EBITDA 96.70% 83.00% 53.76% 126.99% 100%Other income 65.49% 26.46% 35.77% 117.50% 100%

Profit from operations -59.71% 240.37% 85.11% 123.11% 100%

Finance costs 1681.16% 369.01% 312.41% 238.51% 100%

Share of profit of associates 203.71% 132.69% 148.92% 468.40% 100%

Profit before taxation -121.59% 228.87% 76.25% 123.11% 100%

Taxation -131.76% 207.14% 68.79% 116.80% 100%

Profit for the year -118.44% 248.48% 82.92% 133.04% 100%

Earnings per share - basic and diluted -118.41% 248.45% 82.90% 133.02% 100%

PSO----VERTICAL ANALYSIS Income statement 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Net sales 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cost of products sold -99.51% -93.94% -96.49% -94.23% -93.53% Gross profit 0.49% 6.06% 3.51% 5.77% 6.47% Other operating income 0.24% 0.28% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% Operating costs Transportation costs -0.084% -0.07% -0.11% -0.12% -0.15% Distribution and marketing expenses -0.6465% -0.66% -0.79% -0.84% -1.11% Administrative expenses -0.1880% -0.23% -0.29% -0.31% -0.41% Depreciation -0.1863% -0.23% -0.31% -0.36% -0.46% Amortisation -0.0086% -0.01% -0.01% -2.38% -2.63% Other operating expenses -0.6519% -0.68% -0.22% -0.75% -0.51% Other income 0.1268% 0.06% 0.12% 0.47% 0.56% Profit from operations -0.9102% 4.53% 2.27% 3.86% 4.40% Finance costs -1.0172% -0.28% -0.33% -0.30% -0.17% Share of profit of associates 0.0737% 0.06% 0.09% 0.35% 0.10% Profit before taxation -1.8536% 4.32% 2.04% 3.86% 4.40% Taxation 0.7603% -1.48% -0.70% -1.38% -1.66% Profit for the year -1.0933% 2.84% 1.34% 2.52% 2.66%

Common Size Anaylsis Attock

Vertical analysis

Balance sheet

Liabilities& equity 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

% % % % % Shareholders' Equity 38.8 35.7 38.5 31 41.4

Long Term Deposit 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.5 3.4 Deferred Liability

0.5 0.1 4.3 0.4 0.6

Current Liabilities 59.9 63.4 89 67.1 54.6 Total Shareholders' Equity & Liabilities

100 100 100 100 100

Profit & Loss Items 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

% % % % % Net Sales

100 100 100 100 100

Cost of Products Sold 94.7 94.8 95.4 95.6 95.7 Operating Expenses 0.33 0.20 0.72 1.03 0.29 Gross Profit 5.3 5.2 4.6 4.4 4.3

Assets 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 % % % % %

Property, Plant and Equipment

5.1 3.4

5.5 7.4 12.4

Capital Work in Progress

1.0 2.5

1.2 0.5 1.3

Other Non-Current Assets

4.0 4.6 4.3 5.3 3.7

Current Assets 89.8 89.5 89 86 82.6 Total Assets 100 100 100 100 100

Horizontal Analysis Balance Sheet 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Increase(Decrease) %



Increase/Decrease) %


Property, Plant and Equipment

76.4 8.4 0.18 61.8 100

Capital Work in Progress

(51) 253.9 258.75 (4.6) 100

Other Non-Current Assets

3.43 83.10 9.62 289.04 100

Current Assets 18.18 73.62 39.56 182.40 100

Total Assets 17.8 72.68 36.05 168.97 100

Shareholders' Equity

27.93 60.26 68.86 101.93 100

Long Term Deposits

31.70 6.43 13.09 19.67 100

Deferred Liability

557.14 7.69 (55.17) 107.14 100

Current Liabilities

11.12 82.18 22.02 229.83 100

Total Equity & Liabilities

17.8 72.68 36.05 168.97 100

Profit & Loss Items 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Increase(Decrea

se) %



Increase/Decrease) %


Net Sales

16.2 20.6 8.1 312.1 100

Cost of Products Sold

16.0 20.0 7.8 311.7 100

Gross Profit 19.8 34.4 12.9 320.3 100

Other Operating Income

(5.8) 120.7 25.6 22.4 100

Operating Expenses

35.8 31.6 17.4 78.2 100

Net Profit 16.7 52.8 24.1 202.5 100

Common Size Analysis Shell Pakistan Income statement Horizontal Analysis

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Total Revenue 115221.51% 142.09% 116.89% 119.14% 100% Cost of Revenue, Total 116504.85% 139.04% 121.16% 119.64% 100% Gross Profit 105688.02% 175.52% 70.32% 113.16% 100% Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total 5547.17% 139.40% 120.27% 118.31% 100% Depreciation/Amortization 100.19% 98.81% 85.42% 96.88% 100% Operating Income 86841.21% 213.43% 29.35% 125.69% 100% Interest Expense, Net Non-Operating -345233.61% 265.10% 274.98% 120.28% 100% Interest/Invest Income - Non-Operating Interest Income(Exp), Net Non-Operating

Net Income Before Taxes 70970.22% 212.00% 10.40% 127.37% 100% Provision for Income Taxes 73972.98% 216.98% -27.51% 125.27% 100% Net Income After Taxes 695100.61% 209.58% 28.83% 128.40% 100% Diluted Normalized EPS 69.52% 208.98% 28.83% 128.40% 100% Vertical Analysis Total Revenue 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cost of Revenue, Total 92.14% 89.17% 94.45% 91.50% 91.12% Gross Profit 7.86% 10.59% 5.16% 8.14% 8.57% Selling/General/Admin. Expenses, Total 4.82% 98.23% 103.02% 99.42% 100.12% Depreciation/Amortization 0.00% 0.47% 0.50% 0.56% 0.68% Operating Income 3.04% 6.06% 1.01% 4.26% 4.04% Interest Expense, Net Non-Operating 1.01% -0.63% -0.79% -0.34% -0.34% Interest/Invest Income - Non-Operating 0.00% 0.15% 0.11% 0.04% Interest Income(Exp), Net Non-Operating 0.00% -0.07%

Net Income Before Taxes 2.28% 5.52% 0.33% 3.96% 3.70% Provision for Income Taxes 0.78% 1.85% -0.29% 1.27% 1.21% Net Income After Taxes 15.02% 3.67% 0.61% 2.68% 2.49%

Shell ===Common Size Analysis Balance Sheet Horizontal Analysis

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Cash 14539.95% 116.00% 108.30% 130.46% 100% Cash & Equivalents Short Term Investments 76009.69% 71.15% 55.01% 106.89% 100% Cash and Short Term Investments 31695.89% 111.06% 102.43% 127.85% 100%

Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net 441014.79% 131.21% 113.52% 139.96% 100%

Notes Receivable - Short Term

Receivables - Other 408563.90% 355.36% 349.28% 232.23% 100% Total Receivables, Net 0.00% 201.96% 187.93% 169.08% 100% Total Inventory 20160.45% 274.12% 125.30% 151.02% 100% Prepaid Expenses 0.00% 275.15% 173.20% 132.04% 100% Other Current Assets, Total 68756.10% -35.98% 1303.66% 176.22% 100%

Total Current Assets 195022.25% 232.76% 151.84% 157.07% 100%

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total - Gross

73393.01% 128.27% 121.06% 64.79% 100%

Accumulated Depreciation, Total 0.00% 135.70% 125.08% 15.85% 100%

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Net

0.00% 122.57% 117.97% 102.32% 100%

Deferred taxation Intangibles, Net 0.00% 39.77% 72.73% 143.56% 100% Long Term Investments 112453.82% 113.95% 110.46% 105.56% 100% Note Receivable - Long Term 231267.37% 172.44% 215.08% 164.43% 100%

Other Long Term Assets, Total

Long term debtors

Total Assets 182821.35% 192.72% 141.94% 137.47% 100% Accounts Payable 1444692.09% 47.09% 307.96% 252.06% 100% Payable/Accrued 4901.87% 330.14% 160.12% 135.39% 100% Accrued Expenses 0.00% 3210.04% 2516.88% 164.53% 100% Notes Payable/Short Term Debt 20456.03% 159.24% 205.54% 137.19% 100%

Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases

Other Current liabilities, 89082.42% 97.63% 0.00% 118.48% 100%

Total Total Current Liabilities 225312.92% 190.91% 160.64% 147.25% 100% Long Term Debt Capital Lease Obligations 1254907.98% 13.50% 3.07% 42.94% 100% Total Long Term Debt 12269.94% 15350.92% 3.07% 42.94% 100%

Total Debt 0.00% 228.03% 205.52% 136.78% 100% Deferred Income Tax 0.00% 249.28% 0.00% 252.66% 100% Other Liabilities, Total 0.00% 600.63% 434.17% 308.15% 100%

Total Liabilities 246092.44% 212.19% 160.87% 147.71% 100% Common Stock, Total 195289.42% 156.23% 156.23% 124.98% 100% Additional Paid-In Capital/reserves 103457.55% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100%

Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit)

78133.18% 186.25% 116.21% 129.80% 100%

Total Equity 0.00% 163.93% 113.94% 122.32% 100%

Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity

182821.35% 192.72% 141.94% 137.47% 100%

Veritcal Analysis

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Cash 0.29% 2.20% 2.79% 3.47% 3.65% Cash & Equivalents Short Term Investments 0.19% 0.17% 0.17% 0.35% 0.45% Cash and Short Term Investments 0.71% 2.37% 2.96% 3.82% 4.11% Accounts Receivable - Trade, Net 43.81% 12.37% 14.53% 18.49% 18.16% Notes Receivable - Short Term Receivables – Other 18.72% 15.44% 20.61% 14.15% 8.38% Total Receivables, Net 0.00% 27.81% 35.14% 32.64% 26.54% Total Inventory 3.54% 45.67% 28.35% 35.27% 32.11% Prepaid Expenses 0.00% 0.36% 0.31% 0.24% 0.25% Other Current Assets, Total 0.03% -0.01% 0.73% 0.10% 0.08%


Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Gross 19.17% 31.78% 40.72% 22.50% 47.75%

Accumulated Depreciation, Total 0.00% -14.59% -18.26% -2.39% -20.72%

Property/Plant/Equipment, Total – Net 0.00% 17.18% 22.46% 20.11% 27.02%

Deferred taxation 6.79% Intangibles, Net 0.00% 0.03% 0.07% 0.13% 0.13% Long Term Investments 5.75% 5.53% 7.28% 7.18% 9.35% Note Receivable - Long Term 0.52% 0.37% 0.63% 0.49% 0.41% Other Long Term Assets, Total 0.29% 0.70% 2.09%

Long term debtors 0.18%

Total Assets 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%Accounts Payable 62.97% 1.95% 17.29% 14.61% 7.97% Payable/Accrued 0.47% 30.23% 19.91% 17.38% 17.65% Accrued Expenses 0.00% 3.79% 4.03% 0.27% 0.23% Notes Payable/Short Term Debt 1.99% 14.72% 25.80% 17.78% 17.81%

Current Port. of LT Debt/Capital Leases 0.04% 0.14% 0.11%

Other Current liabilities, Total 7.63% 7.94% 0.00% 13.50% 15.66%

Total Current Liabilities 73.11% 58.76% 67.14% 63.54% 59.32% Long Term Debt 6.64% 6.30% 0.00% Capital Lease Obligations 0.54% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08% Total Long Term Debt 0.01% 6.31% 0.00% 0.02% 0.08%

Total Debt 0.00% 21.17% 25.91% 17.80% 17.89% Deferred Income Tax 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.18% 0.10% Other Liabilities, Total 0.00% 0.48% 0.47% 0.35% 0.15%

Total Liabilities 80.30% 65.68% 67.61% 64.10% 59.66% Common Stock, Total 1.82% 1.38% 1.88% 1.55% 1.70% Additional Paid-In Capital/reserves 5.57% 5.11% 6.94% 7.16% 9.84%

Retained Earnings (Accumulated Deficit) 12.31% 27.83% 23.58% 27.19% 28.80%

Total Equity 0.00% 34.32% 32.39% 35.90% 40.34%

Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Cash Flow statements

PSO

Cash Flow Activities 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Cash inflow from operating activities (4828554) 4050125 3691454 1633774 5307821 Net cash (outflow) from investing activities (2889) (172926) (707953) (173687) (1219568)Net cash (outflow) from financing activities 511790 (9649840) (1565507) (4104443) (3087422)Cash & Cash equivalents at end of the year (1510325) (7190672) (1418031) (2836025) (191669)

In FY2009 cash inflow from operation is in bad condition, its because of low recievabels turnover in 2009, the company was unable to recover its recievables in FY2009. However remaining years have positive value and seems to be good.

Net cash flow from investing activities is in negative in FY2009, but its amount is so minimal that does not affect on equity, however in FY2009 inventory has been purchased in a big extent.

PSO has no longterm debts, it has only short term borrowings and deposits in its account, so PSO has positve value in FY2009 that’s not in good condition. Remaining years have very good outflow activities from financing.

Comparative Analysis of Petroleum industry in Pakistan

Documents

Transcript of Comparative Analysis of Petroleum industry in Pakistan