By Julia Price,2014-11-30 12:39
13 views 0

    Cash-based accounting ratios - breaking the silence

    by John Richard Edwards

     01 Oct 2000

    The merits of cash based financial reporting ; for example, it is based

    principally on facts rather than problematic accounting measurements ;

    have been known for many years. However, it was not until 1990 (revised 1996) that the Accounting Standards Board made the publication of Cash Flow Statements (FRS 1) a standard requirement for UK companies. FRS 1 tells us that the ;cash flow statement in conjunction with a profit and

    loss account and balance sheet provides information on financial position and performance as well as liquidity, solvency and financial adaptability;. Wise words, but what do they mean?

    The usefulness of financial statements is enhanced by an examination of

    the relationship between them; also by comparisons with previous time periods, other entities and expected performance. Value can be further added through the calculation and interpretation of accounting ratios. An examination of accounting textbooks and the pages of accounting

    periodicals reveals an enthusiasm for rehearsing the potential of ;accounting ratios; demonstrated through calculations of the net

    profit margin, return on capital employed, current ratio and a host of other ;traditional; measures based on the contents of the profit and loss and balance sheet. But what about the cash flow statement? We have

    seen that its publication was required by the ASB in order to improve the informative value of published financial information. Indeed, some say it is the most important financial statement. One based on ;hard

    facts; which has helped prevent financial machinations such as those that are believed to have occurred at companies such as Polly Peck in the 1980s.

    The lack of attention to cash flow-based ratios in accounting textbooks

    is particularly surprising given their acknowledged role in credit rating

    assessments and in the prediction of corporate failure. In these and other contexts, the traditional ratios suffer from the same defect as the financial statements (the profit and loss account and balance sheet) on which they are based. Such ratios are the result of comparing figures

    which have been computed using accounting conventions and

    ;guestimations;. Given the difficulty of deciding the length of the period over which a fixed asset should be written off, whether the tests which justify the capitalisation of development expenditure have been satisfied, the amount of the provision to be made for claims under a manufacturer;s twelve month guarantee (to give just a few examples), ratios based on such figures are also bound to have limited economic

    significance. This is not to suggest that the traditional ratios are irrelevant. Clearly this is not so, as they reveal important relationships and trends that are not apparent from the examination of individual figures appearing in the accounts. However, given the fact

    that cash flow ratios contain at least one element that is factual (the numerator, the denominator or both), their lack of prominence in the existing literature is puzzling.

    Some recognition of cash flow ratios

    The importance of cash flow ratios was dramatically demonstrated, early on, by W. H. Beaver whose 1966 study showed that the most effective predictor of corporate failure was the ratio of cash flow to total debt. Indeed, one of his most surprising findings was that the current ratio

    proved to be one of the least useful ratios in predicting impending collapse. The importance of cash as an indicator of continuing financial health should not be surprising in view of its crucial role within the business. Colourfully described as a company;s ;life-blood;, a strong

    cash flow will enable a business to recover from temporary financial problems whereas future negative cash flow will cause even an apparently sound enterprise to move towards liquidation. Expressing the importance of cash differently: a company which descends into a loss-making position

    often succeeds in making a comeback; one which runs out of cash is unlikely to have a second chance.

    Another US-based writer, Yuji Ijiri, has noted the paradox between the way in which investment decisions are made by business and other entities and the way in which the results of those decisions are evaluated. The principal focus for informed investment decisions is cash flows, whether

the capital project appraisal method is ;payback; or one of the more

    sophisticated discounted cash flow-based techniques, namely ;net

    present value; and ;internal rate of return;. Turning to performance

    evaluation, however, the emphasis usually shifts to techniques such as return on investment. The inconsistency between the two approaches is highlighted by the use of depreciation cost allocation for computing ROI; a calculation which has no place whatsoever in the above project appraisal methods. Ijiri persuasively argues, therefore, the importance of making

    project appraisal and performance evaluation consistent.

    In the remainder of this paper are presented:

    ; ratios which link the cash flow statement with the two other principal financial statements;

    ; ratios and percentages based entirely on the contents of the cash flow statement.

    To illustrate the calculations, the results of Tamari plc for 1998 and 1999 appear in Figure 1. For each ratio is presented both the calculation and a discussion of its significance. Inevitably, there will be some overlap in the messages conveyed by the various ratios presented. This may be due to similarities in the nature of the calculations or to the

    fact that the results of just one company are used for illustration purposes. The application of the same ratios to different financial facts might well yield additional valuable insights.

    Ratios which link the cash flow statement with the two other

    principal financial statements

    Cash flow from operations to current liabilities

    Cash flow from operations to current liabilities

    = Net cash flow from operating activities x 100

Average current liabilities


    Net cash flow from operating activities is taken directly from the cash flow statement published to comply with FRS 1. Average current

liabilities are computed from the opening and closing balance sheet.

    This ratio examines the liquidity of the company by providing a measure

    of the extent to which current liabilities are covered by cash flowing into the business from normal operating activities. The ratio is thought to possess some advantage over balance sheet-based ratios such as the

    liquidity ratio as a measure of short-term solvency. This is because

    balance sheet ratios are based on a static positional statement (the ;instantaneous financial photograph;) and are therefore subject to

    manipulation by, for example, running down stock immediately prior to the year end and not replacing it until the next accounting period. Balance sheet based ratios may alternatively be affected by unusual

    events which cause particular items to be abnormally large or small. In either case, the resulting ratios will not reflect normal conditions.

    Cash recovery rate

    Cash recovery rate (CRR) =

    Cash flow from operations x 100

Average gross assets


    Cash flow from operations is made up of ;net cash flow from operating

    activities; together with any proceeds from the disposal of long-term

    assets. Gross assets is the average gross value of the entity;s assets.

    Assets are required to generate a return which is ultimately, if not immediately, in the form of cash. The CRR is, therefore, a measure of the rate at which the company recovers its investment in fixed assets. The quicker the recovery period, the lower the risk. You may have noticed that the CRR is thus the reciprocal of the pay back period used for capital

    project appraisal purposes assuming projects have equal (or roughly equal) annual cash flows.

    Cash flow per share

    Cash flow per share =

    Cash flow

Weighted average no. of shares

    There are two versions of cash flow reflecting different applications

    of the cash flow per share calculation:

    Version I: Where cash flow = operating profit plus non-cash adjustments

    such as depreciation and amortisation of fixed assets.

    This version provides a measure of the amount of cash that a company generates from operating activities, exclusive of working capital changes. It draws attention to the important role of non-cash adjustments

    in this process. A company may be operating at a low profit or even a loss and still be capable of generating a significant amount of ;cash


    Version II: Where cash flow = net cash flow from operating activities +/; returns on investments and servicing of finance ; taxation and

    dividends paid. This version recognises the fact that cash is available for long-term investment only after working capital requirements, tax and dividends have been met. It indicates the ability of the company to fund long-term investment out of resources generated internally.

    In either case, the number of shares used as the denominator should be

    the weighted average of the number in issue during the year. However, the average only needs to be weighted if there is an issue of shares involving an inflow of resources; in the case of a bonus issue (where no extra resources are generated), the number of shares post bonus issue

    should be used without weighting and the number in issue the previous year made comparable.

    Capital expenditure per share

    Capital expenditure per share =

    Capital expenditure x 100

Weighted average no. of shares

    Where: Capital expenditure = net investment (purchases less sales proceeds) in fixed assets.

    This ratio, in conjunction with cash flow per share (Version II) can be

    used in order to obtain a broad indication of whether a business is a net generator of cash or whether it is ;cash hungry;.

    Debt service coverage ratio

    Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) =


annual debt repayments and interest

    Where: EBITDA = Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

    The purpose of this ratio is to help assess the ability of a company to

    meet debt repayments and interest out of cash flow generated from operations. A feature of this ratio is that it is forward looking with the denominator representing expected future cash flows. (If available, the numerator should also be prospective.) It is seen to be superior to traditional methods used by banks to analyse risk of exposure to debt finance such as interest cover. A drawback of interest cover is that, as conventionally applied, it is backward looking. Also, it takes no

    account of capital repayments which, of course, can vary considerably depending on the period of the loan repayment.

    Cash flow adequacy ratio

    Cash flow adequacy ratio (CFAR) =

    Annual net free cash flow (NFCF)

annual debt repayments

    Where NFCF = EBITDA minus capital expenditure, interest, tax and preference dividends.

    This is a measure widely used in the United States which, in common with the DSCR, attempts to redress some of the weaknesses of traditional analytical ratios through taking a dynamic view of a company;s credit

    quality by capturing the extent and direction of future financial changes. The calculation of the ratio is based on estimates for the forthcoming five years. Working capital changes and equity dividends are not adjusted in computing NFCF on the grounds that management has

considerable discretion, in the short term, concerning working capital

    levels and dividend policy. The outflows included in NFCF are, therefore,

    those judged to be unavoidable. The company has no option but to pay interest, tax and preference dividends; also, it must incur capital

    expenditure in order to maintain its competitive position.

    The significance of the ratio is as follows: the higher the CFAR, the

    more financial pressure the company is able to withstand before its financial stability and therefore its credit rating is eroded.

    Figure 1

    Published accounts of Tamari plc for year ended 31 1999 1998 December 1999

    Cash Flow Statement

     ?000 ?000

    Operating profit 501 420

    Depreciation charges 660 600

    (-)Increase/decrease in stocks 250 ;305

    (-)Increase/decrease in debtors 220 ;184

    Increase in trade creditors 420 120

    Net cashflows from operating activities 1,092 1,610

    Returns on investment and servicing of finance

    Interest paid ;150 ;50

    Taxation paid ;130 ;110

    Capital expenditure and financial investment

    Purchase of tangible fixed asset ;1,620 ;900

    Equity dividends paid ;160 ;160

    Cash outflow before financing 390 ;968


    Issue of loan 1,000 100

    Increase in cash 32 290

    Profit and Loss Account extracts 1999 1998

     ?000 ?000 Operating profit for 1999 501 420 Interest paid 150 50 Profit before tax 351 370 Taxation: 125 115 Profit after tax 226 255 Dividends paid and proposed 175 175 Retained profit for 1999 51 80

    Profit and loss account balance 31 December 1998 282 202 Profit and loss account balance 31 December 1999 333 282

    Balance Sheet at 31 December 1999 1998 Tangible Fixed Assets ?000 ?000 Cost 5,220 3,600 Accumulated depreciation 2,360 1,700

     2,860 1,900 Current Assets 1,893 1,372 Creditors falling due within one year Loan repayment due 150 ; Other current liabilities including dividends and taxation 1,270 840

     1,420 840 Net current assets 473 532 Total assets less current liabilities 3,333 2,432

     Creditors; Amounts falling due after

    more than one year 10% Loan repayable 2000-2009 1,350 500

     1,983 1,932 Capital and Reserves Called up share capital

(?1 ordinary shares) 1,400 1,400

    Share premium account 250 250 250 250

    Profit and loss account 333 282

     1,983 1,932

    Note: Tamari raised a loan of ?1 million during 1999; this together with the already existing loan is repayable by ten equal instalments over the period 2000;2009.

    We can now apply some of the above ratios to the information provided

    for Tamari plc in Figure 1 together with the following information for

    31 December 1997: fixed assets at cost, ?2,700,000; current assets, ?1,802,000; creditors falling due within one year, ?838,000; called up share capital, ?1,400,000. Cash flow per share (version 1), which is of

    limited interest in this case given Tamari;s profit record, is not

    calculated below. Neither do we calculate CFAR because future forecasts are not provided. Cash flow from operations to current liabilities. There has been a startling decline in this ratio between 1998 and 1999, falling to one half of the previous level. This has been caused by a combination of a reduction in the operating cash flow and a rise in average current liabilities. Nevertheless, the current liabilities (which include taxation and proposed dividends not payable until well into the year)

    remain adequately covered by cash flow on the assumption that this aspect of Tamari;s financial affairs is repeated in the year 2000.

    Cash recovery rate. The cash recovery rate has also fallen to about one half of the figure of the previous year. This implies that the company may now be recovering its investment in business assets over twice the

    period that was previously the case. It should be borne in mind, however, that the 1998 ratio benefited from the release of investment in working capital which was not, and probably could not, be repeated in 1999.

    Cash flow per share (version II) and Capital expenditure per share. There

    is a small improvement in cash flow per share which shows that management is utilising more effectively the funds provided by equity shareholders in order to produce a surplus available for use in the business after

    all direct claims (interest, taxation and dividends) have been met. The capital expenditure per share has risen dramatically and it is patently obvious that the company has had to look elsewhere to fund a much greater proportion of that investment in 1999 (115.7p ; 51.5p = 64.2p per share)

compared with 1998 (64.3p ; 50p = 14.3p per share).

    Table Ratio Calculation 1999 Calculation 1998

    Cash flow from 1,092 96.6% 1,610 191.9% operations

    to current [1,420 + 840] 1/2 [840 + 838] liabilities

    Cash recovery rate 1,092 18.1% 1,610 34.0%

    1/2 [7,l 13 + 1/2 [4,972 + 4,972] 4,502]

    Cash flow per 721/1,400 x 100 51.5p 700/1,400 x 100 50p

    share (version II)

    Capital expenditure 1,620/1,400 x 100 115.7p 900/1,400 x 100 64.3p

    per share

    DSCR l,161/[150 + 150] 3.9x 1,020/150 6.8x

    DCSR. The DCSR for 1998 is strong, with EBITDA 6.8x the prospective interest charges for 1999; there is no loan repayment in that year. For 1999, the ratio declines to 3.9x but still shows debt commitments to be comfortably covered out of internally generated cash flow. The multiple also suggests that there is surplus cash available for working capital, capital expenditure, tax and dividend payments.

    Ratios and percentages based entirely on the contents of the cash flow statement

    Figure 2 sets out the relationship between the various numbers in Figure

    1. ;Net cash flow from operating activities; is given an index of 100

    and becomes the pivotal figure for each of the other calculations. The presentation of calculations in Figure 2 is analogous to the expression

    of expenses in the profit and loss account as a percentage of sales.

    Figure 2 Cash Flow Statement 1999 1998

     % %

    Net cash flows from operating activities 100.0 100.0

    Returns on investment and servicing of finance

    Interest paid ;13.7 ;3.1

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email