Effects of the 2007 2009 Recession on Strategic Marketing Management Essay

Effects of the 2007 2009 Recession on Strategic Marketing Management Practices - Essay Example The impact of the economic downturn has redrawn the competitive structure of markets and created new and often unfamiliar situations for suppliers. One of the contributing factors for this â€Å"new normal† has been growing international protectionism and reduced access to finances that has circumscribed growth options in recovery (Muller, 2010, 67). In the wake of this challenging market situation, many businesses have managed to overcome market-place challenges and maximize opportunities by conducting strategic consumer and competitor analysis, and shifting their strategies accordingly. With this regard, this generally involves changing the target market and/or adapting the business’ marketing mix. However, the response that the recession elicited from marketing managers depended on their perceptive of its meaning and the impact it had on their businesses (Muller, 2010, 244). The Case of Revlon, Inc One organization that had to alter its strategic marketing management practices to overcome the marketing challenges of the 2007 – 2009 economic recession is Revlon, Inc. Revlon is an American multinational corporation that specializes in the provision of beauty products. Its line of business involves cosmetics, skincare, personal care and fragrance products. The company’s portfolio brands include: Revlon ® color cosmetics, Revlon ® beauty tools, Revlon Colorsilk ® hair color, Almay ® color cosmetics, Charlie ® fragrances, Ultima II ® skin care, Mitchum ® anti-perspirant deodorants, and Gatineau ® skin care. The US has a relatively large market for color cosmetics, accounting for more than 18% of the world’s market for color cosmetics. Revlon has a massive market share considering that it...The consumption per user growth rate of the industry dropped to 0.7% in 2008 from 1.4% in 2007, and continued to drop steadily throughout half of the following year. In addition, the average per unit price declined significantl y in the course of the recession period as consumers switched to low-priced brands due to reduced disposable income (Glamface, 2013, n.p). The marketing challenges that Revlon faced during and after the recent recession were not only caused by the reduced consumer spending, but also due to strong competition from the major players in the industry. According to Glamface (2013), Revlon is only a middle-level player in the cosmetics industry and is not able to invest as large amounts in research and development as the larger players such as L’oreal (LRLCY) and Proctor & Gamble. In addition, competition from smaller competitors than Revlon such as Avon and Estee Lauder Companies increased. Conclusion Revlon’s performance in the beauty industry has improved significantly since the initiation of its adapted strategic marketing management practices to cope with the effects of the 2007 – 2009 financial and economic crises. Revenue and Market share have increased significantly, indicating that adjustment of marketing practices are crucial for businesses to overcome the challenges of recession.

4g and 3g Network Essay Example for Free

4g and 3g Network Essay In this paper I will be discussing the different wireless networks, 3G and 4G. I will compare and contrast the 3G wireless networks to 4G networks. This essay shall also distinguish which wireless network has the fastest download speeds and service availability. I will identify the competition between the 3G and 4G networks, and which service customers prefer to use. I also will provide which phone services such as Verizon and ATT have the most network coverage throughout America. Concluding this article I would like for the reader to get a better understanding with the comparison of the 3G and 4G wireless networks. The 3G service is a high speed to information and voice services, made within the 3G wireless network. A 3G network is a high-speed wireless network, offering speeds of at least 144 kilobits per second. For comparison, a dial-up Internet connection on a computer offers about 56 kilobits per second. The 3G network is a tremendous difference offering a faster speed for internet access. In your daily use of this wireless network, you will notice the 3G network vary. Factors such as signal, location and, and network traffic all come into play (Liane, Cassavoy 2013). The 4G network is the newest mobile broadband service. Network companies such as Sprint, T-Mobile, and, Verizon have jumped on the bandwagon. See more: Unemployment problems and solutions essay   Unlike 3G, 4G has a connection capable of 100Mbps with high mobility†¦ up to 1Gbps with low mobility (Wi-Fi range) (Dachis 2010). Even though there access is different because one is an upgraded system, they both is still allow for consumers to access the internet and have clearer calling service. The architecture for both systems is used on a wide area. Nonetheless 4G has been integrated on a wireless LAN network and 3G is a wide area cell base, which notes that 3G is used for voice and information network (Moore 2010). The user’s perception of these networks will be that they will be able to access the web from these at higher speeds, especially with a 4G network. There are three different types of 4G that are used in the different wireless networks. On the graph from Adam Dachis article, he has listed these networks and their providers. Sprint uses WiMax; this speed is listed as an average downstream of 3-6 mbps, 10mbs peak and its 10x faster than 3G. Its coverage is nationwide covering major cities and markets. The monthly cost or user perception will be $60 for an unlimited 4G data and 5GB of a 3G data. The compatibility of the operating system is through all OS (via mobile) Hotspot. Verizon uses the LTE network, with a downstream of 5-12 mbps and an upstream of 2-5 mbps. Its coverage is listed in 38 markets and 60 major airports on December 5, 2010 with full nation-wide coverage by 2013. The monthly cost is set for $50 for 5GB, $80 for 10GB and $10 a GB for overages. The compatibility of the operating system is through Windows only (at the launch of MAC OS X support). GoingWimax.com has listed backward compatibility for LTE is with GSM and HSPA; and that WiMax is compatible with updates standard of Mobile WiMax and the previous standard of fixed Wimax. WiBro is an internet based system that is also used for service with cell phones. Its backward compatibility is based same database system as Wimax which is WiMax standard. HSPA+ is used by T-Mobile with a peak downstream of 21mbps peak upstream of 5.7mbps with up to 3x faster than 3G. The coverage provided is Nationwide of many major cities and markets. All of these providers have proven service, but it is just up to consumer on which service they prefer. The competition between the 4G carriers has become so fierce because consumers are looking for bargains and the best service; such as how faster is the speed of the data network, the monthly payment, the coverage of the network service, the devices that are offered by the providers and the value of service. Sprint had a head start with introduction of 4G. They have excellent coverage over the United States allowing for data nationwide. Sprint is the only one of the carriers to advertise average speeds and just peak rates (Moore 2010). Moore (2010) has found that Verizon has the best speed, T-Mobile and Sprint tied with the most affective cost margin, Sprint provided the device options to consumers and best value. Verizon has been able to cover more markets because LTE has been so popular. Verizon set the stage over ATT by expanding their markets to more consumers. Verizon is able to have more mbps than ATT as well. Verizon exceeded 5 Mbps during 82 percent of our download tests and 66 percent of our upload tests; ATT surpassed this number in only 68 percent of our download tests and 40 percent of our upload tests (Moore 2012). Head-to-head comparison of these two networks measures performance over the first quarter of 2012 and across multiple markets, throwing Verizon’s more mature LTE network together with ATT’s nascent one to see what performance each offers consumers. (Moore 2012) In conclusion 3G and 4G are both still reliable services. They allow users to successfully communicate over the internet and through their mobile devices. 4G will allow new/ old consumers to purchase more high tech devices for the convenience of modern technology and communication. This essay has shown that 4G is the newer model with more services and applications to be provided. It is now the most sort after network on the market, with its speed of 100Mbps of high mobility. The fight over the best network will continue in the future. Consumers are constantly researching for the newer, better, and fastest networks available. According to Moore 2010 Sprint has proven so far to be the best network, but surely Verizon and ATT are on the rise. They are following close behind to be the top network themselves. The competition is growing the quarters, so more than likely Sprint maybe surpassed by another device or network only time will tell. References Admin. 2009. â€Å"What Is the Difference Between WiMax and LTE? Re GoingWimax.com. http://www.goingwimax.com/what-is-the-difference-between-wimax-and-lte-4155/ Cassavoy, Liane. 2013. What is 3G Service? Received from About.com. http://cellphones.about.com/od/glossary/g/3G_definition.htm Dachis, Adam. 2010. Everything You Need To Know About 4G Mobile Broadband. Received from Lifehacker.com. http://lifehacker.com/5706644/everything-you-need-to-know-about-4g-mobile-broadband Kayne R. What is WiBro? WiseGeek. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-wibro.htm Moore, Bill. 2012. Solving the LTE Puzzle: Comparing LTE Performance. Received from Gidaom.com, http://gigaom.com/2012/04/14/solving-the-lte-puzzle-comparing-lte-performance/

General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Comparison

General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Comparison Financial Statement Analysis General Dynamics vs. Lockheed Martin Executive Summary: This analysis provides a comparison of two major companies within the Aerospace and Defense industry, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. General Dynamics had an ROE of 25% whereas Lockheed Martin was 49% demonstrating LMT has a higher spread and generated a higher amount of return above its cost of equity capital as compared to GD. GD generates a higher NOPAT margin over LMT (9.4% and 7.8%, respectively) allowing GD to contribute more to ROE as a result of the decreased effect interest expenses have on net income with respect to total sales revenue. LMT has a considerable advantage for generating increased asset turnover, by generating $1.37 for every dollar as compared to GDs $1.08 for every dollar spent on company assets. General Dynamics stock is extremely undervalued (estimated $77.71 compared to closing price of $57.79) whereas Lockheed Martins stock was slightly overvalued ($85.93 compared to closing price of $84.08). Equity valuation indicates that investors were overly opt imistic in LMTs earning potential and pessimistic for GDs earning potential. Despite the valuation, the destiny of this industry remains dependent on governments decisions to decrease military spending, which will have a negative impact on both companies. However, expansion of commercial airlines and partnerships with healthcare industries will have a positive effect on these companies and overall this industry will have a neutral outcome for the upcoming year. General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) General Dynamics is the sixth largest defense contractor in the world and the second largest maker of corporate jets. The company maintains four business groups including aerospace, combat systems, marine systems and information systems and technology. Net earnings for the company increased from 2006-2008 ($1.86 to $2.46), a 24% increase over 3 years. Sales for all groups increased from $24.1 to $29.3 billion from 2006-2008, a 17% increase. The company is based in Virginia and gets 67% of its revenue from the Department of Defense. The aerospace group generated $5.5 billion (19%) in sales in 2008, mostly due to Gulfstream business jet, which include long-range and ultra-long-range jets. In response to the downturn in the economy, the production of large-body and medium-size aircraft were reduced from 87 to 73 and 69 to 24, respectively, in 2008. In product development, Gulfstream introduced 2 additions, which are the ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range G650 and the super-mid-size G250. Production of both of these aircrafts, which enter into service in 2011 and 2012, are foreseeable income generators based on orders placed in 2008. The combat systems group generated $8.2 billion (28%) in sales in 2008, mostly driven by demand for combat vehicles, specifically Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The combat system group makes, repairs and supports wheeled and tracked armored vehicles and munitions. Combat system product lines include combat vehicles, guns and ammunition systems, mobile bridge systems, armor, chemical, biological and explosion detection systems. Future opportunities include delivering hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia between 2010 and 2012. The marine systems group generated $5.6 billion (19%) in sales in 2008, extremely productive as compared to 2007. The group delivers destroyers, submarines, logistic ship and the first commercial product carrier. Upcoming contracts include doubling production to two submarines per year beginning in 2011, which is predicted to increase revenue and earnings over the next three years. The information systems and technology generated $10 billion (34%) of sales in 2008; its biggest achievement developing a battlefield communications network program and Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). Customers include federal civilian agencies and commercial customers, which primarily focus on electronics for land, sea and air-based weapons systems. The acquisition of two companies in the tactical communications and healthcare information technology field are indicative of the direction this group will be making in the upcoming years. Information gathered from Morningstar1, SP500 Industry reports2 and www.generaldynamics.com3 Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) Lockheed Martin is the worlds largest military weapons maker, deriving 84% of its net sales from the United States government, including the Department of Defense. The company is comprised of four operating systems including aeronautics, electronic, space and information systems and global services. Net sales increased 7.3% from 2006 to 2008 ($39.6 to $42.7 billion) and earnings increased 21.8% over three years ($2.5 to $3.2 billion). The company operates in Maryland and employs 146,000 people. The aeronautics segment generated 27% of sales ($11.5 billion) in 2008. The segments primary production are the F-35 Lightning II combat aircraft which is projected to be completed in 2010. The aeronautics segment is focused on making fighter jets and military transport planes and on unmanned military aircraft. The segment also operates the Global Sustainment enterprise to ensure success throughout the life cycle of its aircraft. The electronics systems segment also generated 27% of sales in 2008 and primarily makes land, sea and air-based missiles and missile defense systems. Specifically, this segment is focused on maritime systems and sensors, missiles and fire control, and platform, training and energy. This system also manages and operates the Sandia National Laboratories for the US Department of Energy. Current projects include the Terminal Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD), the Ballistic Missile Defense system and the firehead control system for the Apache helicopter. The space systems segment generated 19% of sales ($8.2 billion) in 2008. This segment is comprised of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems, and space transportation systems. The US government customers accounted for 96% of this segments sales in 2008. An ongoing partner is NASA; the LMT-built Phoenix Lander will continue to rove on Mars. Another venture is with Boeing, the United Launch Alliance, which provides satellite launch services to the US government. Information systems and global services segment account for 27% of sales in 2008. This segment contains mission solutions, information systems and global services. The US government customers accounted for 93% of the segments sales in 2008. Major products/programs include communication systems, mission and combat support solutions, civil agency programs (US Census), the FAA Automated Flight Service Station, the FBIs Sentinel IT program, and various NASA programs. Collaborations and partnerships with companies around the globe enable Lockheed Martin to grow its international business both with government and industry. The establishment of Lockheed Martin Australia in 2009 indicates an international interest to grow and expand. Information gathered from Morningstar1, SP500 Industry reports2 and www.lockheedmartin.com4 Industry Outlook: Aerospace Defense The aerospace and defense industry relies heavily on US government allocation and the upcoming year will likely bring budget cuts to the defense budget in 2010. However, there are predictions that the conventional military equipment is aging and once the Iraq war ends, there will be a need for repair and replacement. Due to the high levels of deficit spending and an increasing trend for social spending, it is likely there will be cuts in defense spending and the outlook for this industry will decline. On the other hand, it is estimated that there will be an increased growth of global passenger air traffic in 2010 as compared to a decline in 2009. This is based on positive air traffic growth since comparison between 2009 and 2010. Aircrafts that are less fuel-efficient in the US will also need to be upgraded and replaced with newer aircraft. The industry predictions are moderate production cuts at Boeing and Airbus, and declines in the business jet markets due to falling corporate profits. The industry outlook is therefore at a neutral rating, due to decreased military budget but increased commercial air traffic for 2010. Competition in the industry (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell and Raytheon) will strive for contracts within the industry. Many of these defense contractors will face uncertainty from upcoming government decisions in the next year and hence the neutral outlook for this industry. Information gathered from Morningstar and SP500 Industry Reports Financial Statement Adjustments The following table contains information on the cumulative adjustment to General Dynamics and Lockheed Martins financial Statements. Adjustments General Dynamics Lockheed Martin Income Statement  · Increase Net Income by $19 million from loss from discontinued operations net of tax  · Increase Net Income by $196 million from deferred portion of income tax  · Decrease Net Income by $70 million for gain on sale of LKEI and ILS net of tax  · Decrease Net Income by $56 million for gain on land sale  · Increase Net Income by $215 million to reverse impairment charge (215 = 314(1-.316)  · Increase Net Income by $72 million to unwind deferred taxes  · Subtract $246 million from Net Income for Pension Income Balance Sheet  · Increase assets by 75% of PV of capitalized leases ($709 million)  · Decrease assets by $7 million to unwind taxes (DTA)  · Adjustments for LIFO reserve not added to Total Assets. Added in denominator of ITR and Current Asset in Current Ratio  · Added 100% of PV of capitalization of leases to Total Liabilities ($946 million)  · Subtracted 25% of PV of capitalized leases to SE ($236 million)  · Decrease SE by $7 million to unwind deferred taxes effect (-DTA; +DTL)  · Increase assets by 75% of PV of capitalized leases ($699 million)  · Decrease assets by $5,390 million to unwind deferred taxes (DTA)  · Increase liabilities by 100% of PV of capitalized leases ($932 million)  · Decrease SE by 25% of PV of operating leases ($233 million)  · Decrease SE by $5,390 million to unwind deferred tax (-DTA; +DTL) Caveats  · Termination of A-12 program in 1991 is an unlikely contingency of $690 and is currently on appeal in the Appeals Court. Cost of Equity Capital Historically, LMT common stock has proven less sensitive to the broad stock market. With a beta of .923 and using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), LMT investors require an annual rate of return of 10.2%. Although this is lower than the expected market return of 10.8% (see appendix for calculation and assumptions), it is greater than its industry (Guided Missile Space Vehicles) expected return of 8.7%. However, although LMT may be more volatile as a stock than its competitors, it enjoyed a Return on Equity (ROE) significantly higher than the industry average. In 2008, LMT had an ROE of 49.2% while the industry followed with a 23.4% average ROE. Just as significant and telling is the comparison of LMTs ROE to its own required rate of return. This spread of 39% is an impressive sign as it demonstrates the amount of return LMT generated above its cost of equity capital. This is also impressive to investors at first glance, and will warrant a deeper interest from prospective investors. Much the same can be said for GD when comparing its required rate of return to its ROE. Although the spread was only 12.9%, it is still a good sign that GD generates such a return above its cost of equity. However, unlike LMT GD has a beta greater than 1 and is therefore more sensitive to stock market moves; and has an expected return less than its industry return by approximately 1.25%. NOPAT Margin When we analyze the potential net income in the absence of debt, NOPAT, we observe that General Dynamics (9.4%) generates a higher margin over Lockheed Martin (7.8%), which allows General Dynamics to contribute more to ROE in comparison to Lockheed Martin as a result of the decreased effect interest expenses have on net income with respect to total sales revenue. However, when comparing NOPAT performance to the rest of their industry (Ship Boat Building Repair), General Dynamics comes in slightly below the 9.9% average that was established for 2008, but does not necessarily signify any under-performance in this area since the industry data only takes into account two firms when generating Industry NOPAT margin averages. Lockheed Martin was similarly compared to Industry data, generated by two firms as well, in which NOPAT margins were recorded that were more than double of what was found for similarly classified companies (Guided Missiles Space Vehicles 3.69%). Asset Turnover This portion of the ROE evaluates the efficiency to produce revenue based on the investment in assets made by the company. When we begin to evaluate the simplified Asset TO values provided by the multiplicative decomposition of ROE, we observe a noticeable advantage by Lockheed Martin since they reportedly generate $1.37 for every $1.00 spent on assets. General Dynamics generate slightly lower values at $1.08 for every $1.00 spent on company assets. We then continued to analyze Asset TO, now based on the additive decomposition of ROE to see how other variables affect the turnover rates. When this approach is taken, average assets for both companies in 2008 needed to be adjusted, and was done so by pulling out all non-interest bearing liabilities (NIBL). This is where we noticed that NIBLs for Lockheed Martin ($20,742) were 62.8% higher than those reported by General Dynamics ($12,735). As a result, the Asset TO ratios increased significantly for both companies (LMT 2.05 and GD 4.09 ) with respect to assets dollars invested by each company. As we can observe, unexpected losses in each companys pension fund had led them to classify their losses as liabilities since they will still needed to be accounted for in the near future. The 32% drop in the fair value of the LMT pension fund ($27,259 down to $18,539) in 2008 and the 35% drop in the fair value of the GD pension fund ($7,452 down to $4,823)was felt somewhat more extensively by LMT, since the higher amount lost reflects LMTs larger workforce of 140,000 employees. GD, although enduring a similar percentage drop in fund value, only accommodates a workforce of 91,000, and therefore lost less in overall value amount. Leverage When we analyze leverage, we are analyzing each companys ability and efficiency in using interest bearing debt to generate revenue. The higher the leverage value, the better the ability of a company is at using invested funds (IBLs) to obtain desired revenues. When evaluating LMTs and GDs effect of leverage as a result of their 2008 results, we observe that the numbers generated by LMT (0.17) are over three times higher than those generated by GD (0.05) during the same time period. As we continue to drill down into the effect of leverage, we notice that ROA is also higher for LMT as a result of the large variation in NIBLs between the two companies. Although a higher leverage effect value may indicate that LMT relies more on interest bearing debt to generate more sales revenue, an analysis of interest bearing liabilities for both LMT and GD was performed based on data available at the end of 2007 and 2008. This analysis revealed that LMT had reduced their interest bearing liabilities ($4,407 down to $3,805) while GD, whom recorded a smaller leverage effect, had done the opposite and showed to have increased their interest bearing liabilities ($2,791 increased to $4,024) by the end of 2008. Selected Ratio Comparison: Accounts Receivable Days General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 39.51 32.50 43.62 57.12 From the results presented above, General Dynamics demonstrates that it under-performed the rest of the industry by exceeding the average account receivable days by 7 days. In contrast, Lockheed Martin out-performed the rest of its industry by having recorded an account receivable average of 43.62 days, which means LMT was collecting from customers on an average of 13.5 days ahead of the rest of the industry. Accounts Payable Days General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 33.88 31.50 20.09 19.66 GD is collecting from customers on average over 2 days past the industry average of 31.50 days LMT is collecting just  ½ day over the industry average of 19.66 days Inventory Days General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 25.97 56.62 17.35 13.55 GD is turning inventory on average over 30 days under the industry average of 56.62 days LMT is turning inventory on average over 3 days over the industry average of 13.55 days Interest Coverage General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 29.57 30.43 14.49 5.49 GD could cover its yearly interest expenses 29.57 times in 2008, just under its industry average of 30.43 times LMT could cover its yearly interest expenses 29.57 times in 2008, significantly over its industry average of 5.49 times Equity Valuation The equity valuation of General Dynamics for 2008 produced an estimated share price of $77.71. This price is significantly higher than the closing per-share price of $57.59 for 2008 showing the companys stock was extremely undervalued. According to analyst reports5, some concerns about growth for General Dynamics stem from shrinking credit markets, which would impair the ability to finance business jets. Additionally, it is possible that investors were concerned the aerospace and defense industry would decline with a shift from government defense spending to social spending and deficit spending. Abnormal net income was computed as predicted net income less the cost of equity capital. Predicted net income was computed using 2008 pro forma net income of $2,674 and implementing annual growth rates suggested by Goldman Sachs earnings forecasts5. The growth rates from 2009 through 2013 were -2.9%, 7.3%, 5.2%, 7.3% and 7.8% respectively. The same earnings forecasts were used to calculate the predicted dividends. The predicted dividends from 2009 to 2013 are 577, 617, 643, 671 and 700 respectively. The terminal value assumption used in computing abnormal net income was the competitive equilibrium on incremental real sales assumption. This strategy was chosen because the government is one of General Dynamics most significant customers, comprising approximately 67% of the companys revenue. This lead to the assumption that General Dynamics may not need to invest a large amount of resources in developing new customers and that most of their future growth would be lead by existing custo mers. This assumption provided a terminal value of $21,999. The cost of capital for General Dynamics was calculated using a beta of 1.119, a risk free rate of 5% and a market risk premium of 4%. This produced a cost of capital of 9.5%. The present value of abnormal net income was calculated to be $20,265, by dividing abnormal net income by a discounting factor derived using the cost of capital. The present value of abnormal net income was combined with the initial book value of $9,810 to produce an estimated predicted price of $30,075. This price was divided by the number of shares outstanding according to the 2008 annual report to arrive at an estimated share price of $77.71. The equity valuation for Lockheed Martin for 2008 produced an estimated share price of $85.93, which is slightly higher than the actual share price as of the end of 2008 of $84.08. This shows the stock was slightly overvalued. This shows investors may have been overly optimistic in their opinion of Lockheed Martins earnings potential. Abnormal net income was computed just as that of General Dynamics. Using analysts reports6, estimated (negative) growth rates of (6%), (7%), (6.6%), 11% and 8.92% were applied to the 2008 pro forma net income of $3,114. The same terminal value assumption was used for Lockheed Martin as was used for General Dynamics. The US government is a substantial customer of Lockheed Martins, which lead to the assumption that a large portion of future growth could be attributed to existing customers and few resources could be devoted to developing new customers. The terminal value assumption provided a terminal value of $41,132. The cost of equity capital was calculated using a beta of .923, a risk free rate of 4% and a market risk premium of 5%. The 8.7% cost of capital was used to find the present value of abnormal net income of $37.936. This present value was combined with an initial book value of ($2,758) to produce an estimated price of $35,178. The estimated price divided by the number of s hares outstanding per the Lockheed Martin annual report to arrive at a per-share price of $85.93. References: 1www.Morningstar.com 2www.netadvantgage.standardandpoors.com 3www.generaldynamics.com 4www.lockheedmartin.com 5Richard Safran, Noah Poponak, Goldman Sachs, January 26, 2009. Noah Poponak, Chun-Yai Wang, Sai Krishna, Goldman Sachs, January 27, 2010 6Richard Safran, Noah Poponak, Goldman Sachs, January 22, 2009. Noah Poponak, Chun-Yai Wang, Sai Krishna, Goldman Sachs, January 29, 2010 APPENDIX CAPM = Rf Rate + (Beta*Rmrkt) Given Data Risk Free rate = 3.77% (10 Year Treasury as of 2/18/10) Market Premium (Rmrkt) = 7% (given on page 26 of class notes) LMT Beta = 0.923 Industry Beta = 0.697 GD Beta = 1.119 Industry Beta = 1.298 CAPM Calculations LMT = .0377 + .923*.07 LMT = 10.23% Industry = .0377 + .697*.07 Industry = 8.65% GD = .0377 + 1.119*.07 GD = 11.60% Industry = .0377 + 1.298*.07 Industry = 12.86% Financial Statement Analysis GD LMT 2008 2008 Beginning assets 25,733 28,926 Ending assets 28,373 33,439 Beginning equity 11,768 9,805 Ending equity 10,053 2,865 Beginning interest-bearing liabilities 2,791 4,407 Ending interest-bearing liabilities 4,024 3,805 Net income (pro forma) 2,674 3,114 Sales revenue 29,300 42,731 Other revenue 0 0 Research development expense 474 1,220 Selling, general administrative expense 1,700 2,344 Income tax expense 1,126 1,485 Income tax rate 0.31 0.32 Interest expense 133 341 Beginning inventory 1,621 1,718 Ending inventory 2,029 1,902 Cost of goods sold 25,647 38,082 Beginning accounts receivable 2,874 4,925 Ending accounts receivable 3,469 5,296 Beginning accounts payable 2,318 2,163 Ending accounts payable 2,443 2,030 Shares outstanding 386 393 Closing price per share 57.59 84.08 bloomberg.com Average assets 27,053 31,183 Average equity 10,911 6,335 Average interest-bearing liabilities 3,408 4,106 Average non-interest bearing liabilities 12,735 20,742 Average accounts receivable 3,172 5,111 Average inventory 1,825 1,810 Average accounts payable 2,381 2,097 After-tax interest rate 0.03 0.06 Multiplicative Decomposition of ROE ROE 0.25 0.49 Net profit margin 0.09 0.07 Asset turnover 1.08 1.37 Leverage 2.48 4.92 Additive Decomposition of ROE ROE 0.25 0.49 Market-to-book 2.21 11.53 NOPAT Margin 0.09 0.08 Asset turnover 2.05 4.09 ROA 0.19 0.32 Spread 0.17 0.26 Leverage 0.31 0.65 Effect of leverage 0.05 0.17 Gross profit margin 0.12 0.11 RD to revenue 0.02 0.03 SGA to revenue 0.06 0.05 Accounts receivable days 39.51 43.65 Inventory days 25.97 17.35 Operating cycle 65.48 61.00 Accounts payable days 33.88 20.09 Cash-to-cash cycle 31.60 40.91 Interest coverage 29.57 14.49 Debt ratio 0.65 0.91 Appendix C: General Dynamics Lockheed Martin Financial Statement Adjustments Cumulative Financial Statement Adjustments Summary of Income Statement Adjustments Summary of Income Statement Adjustments Net Income as Reported: $ 2,459 Net Income as Reported: $ 3,217 Discontinued operations 19 Loss on sale of property, (126) Unwind tax effects 196 land, equipment Adjusted Net Income $ 2,674 Reverse of Impairment charge 215 Unwind tax effects 72 Pension Income (264) Adjusted Net Income $ 3,114 Summary of Balance Sheet Adjustments Summary of Balance Sheet Adjustments Total Assets as reported $ 28,373 Total Assets as reported $ 33,439 Constructive capitalization of 709 Constructive capitalization 699 operating leases of operating leases Unwind tax effects (DTA) (7) Unwind tax effects (DTA) (5,390) Adjusted Total Assets $ 29,075 Adjusted Total Assets $ 28,748 Total Liabilities as reported $ 18,320 Total Liabilities as reported $ 30,574 Constructive capitalization 946 Constructive capitalization 932 of operating leases of operating leases Adjusted Total Liabilities $ 19,266 Adjusted Total Liabilities $ 31,506 Total SE as reported $ 10,053 Total SE as reported $ 2,865 Constructive capitalization (236) Constructive capitalization of operating leases (233) of operating leases Unwind tax effects (5,390) Unwind tax effects (7) (DTA+DTL) (DTA+DTL) Adjusted Total SE $ (2,758) Adjusted Total SE $ 9,810 Adjusted Total Liabilities + SE $ 29,075 Adjusted Total Liabilities + SE $ 28,748 General Dynamics Pension Income Pro Forma Calculation 1 Net pension cost (benefit) $ 20 Net postretirement plan cost 56 Total cost $ 76 Net earnings $ 2,459 Percentage 3.1% 2008 2007 2 Funded status pensions $ (2,922) $ 383 Funded status other postretirement plans (640) (642) Total funded status (3,562) (259) Difference $ (3,303) 3 Rate of return on U.S. plan assets 8.1% Expected return 593 Implied asset base 7,330 = 592 / .081 Actual return percentage -32.20% = 2360 / 7330 4 Implied asset base $ 7,330 Pro forma expected rate 7.0% Given Pro forma expected return 513 Less: Original expected return (593) Difference (reduction in pension income) (80) 1 Effective tax rate 68.8% =1-.312 Adjustment (reduction) to net income $ (55) OR: [(.081-.070)*7,330] * (1-.312) = $ 55 Adjusted income $ 2,404 = 2,459 55 Lockheed Martin Pension Income Pro Forma Calculation 1 Net pension cost (benefit) $ 462 Net postretirement plan cost 46 Total cost $ 508 Net earnings $ 3,217 Percentage 15.8% 2008 2007 2 Funded status pensions $ (11,882) $ (879) Funded status other postretirement plans 1426 2017 Total funded status (10,456) 1,138 Difference $ (11,594) 3 Rate of return on U.S. plan assets 8.5% Expected return $ 2,184 Implied asset base 25,694 = 2184 / .085 Actual return percentage -28.62% = 7354 / 25694 4 Implied asset base $ 25,694 Pro forma expected rate 7.0% Given Pro forma expected return 1,799 Less: Original expected return (2,184) Difference (reduction in pension income) (385) 1 Effective tax rate 68.4% =1-.316 Adjustment (reduction) to net income $ (264) Adjusted income $ 2,953 = 3,217 264 General Dynamics Capitalization of Operating Leases Enter interest rate below: 0.039 Enter operating lease commitments below (in millions): 2009 205.0 2010 174.0 2011 131.0 2012 97.0 2013 70.0 2014 thereafter 405.0 Solution: Present value of operating lease commitments $ 945.9 Calculation of Present Value of Operating Lease Payments: 0 205.0 1.000 205.0 1 174.0 1.039 167.5 2 131.0 1.080 121.3 General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Comparison General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Comparison Financial Statement Analysis General Dynamics vs. Lockheed Martin Executive Summary: This analysis provides a comparison of two major companies within the Aerospace and Defense industry, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. General Dynamics had an ROE of 25% whereas Lockheed Martin was 49% demonstrating LMT has a higher spread and generated a higher amount of return above its cost of equity capital as compared to GD. GD generates a higher NOPAT margin over LMT (9.4% and 7.8%, respectively) allowing GD to contribute more to ROE as a result of the decreased effect interest expenses have on net income with respect to total sales revenue. LMT has a considerable advantage for generating increased asset turnover, by generating $1.37 for every dollar as compared to GDs $1.08 for every dollar spent on company assets. General Dynamics stock is extremely undervalued (estimated $77.71 compared to closing price of $57.79) whereas Lockheed Martins stock was slightly overvalued ($85.93 compared to closing price of $84.08). Equity valuation indicates that investors were overly opt imistic in LMTs earning potential and pessimistic for GDs earning potential. Despite the valuation, the destiny of this industry remains dependent on governments decisions to decrease military spending, which will have a negative impact on both companies. However, expansion of commercial airlines and partnerships with healthcare industries will have a positive effect on these companies and overall this industry will have a neutral outcome for the upcoming year. General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) General Dynamics is the sixth largest defense contractor in the world and the second largest maker of corporate jets. The company maintains four business groups including aerospace, combat systems, marine systems and information systems and technology. Net earnings for the company increased from 2006-2008 ($1.86 to $2.46), a 24% increase over 3 years. Sales for all groups increased from $24.1 to $29.3 billion from 2006-2008, a 17% increase. The company is based in Virginia and gets 67% of its revenue from the Department of Defense. The aerospace group generated $5.5 billion (19%) in sales in 2008, mostly due to Gulfstream business jet, which include long-range and ultra-long-range jets. In response to the downturn in the economy, the production of large-body and medium-size aircraft were reduced from 87 to 73 and 69 to 24, respectively, in 2008. In product development, Gulfstream introduced 2 additions, which are the ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range G650 and the super-mid-size G250. Production of both of these aircrafts, which enter into service in 2011 and 2012, are foreseeable income generators based on orders placed in 2008. The combat systems group generated $8.2 billion (28%) in sales in 2008, mostly driven by demand for combat vehicles, specifically Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles. The combat system group makes, repairs and supports wheeled and tracked armored vehicles and munitions. Combat system product lines include combat vehicles, guns and ammunition systems, mobile bridge systems, armor, chemical, biological and explosion detection systems. Future opportunities include delivering hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia between 2010 and 2012. The marine systems group generated $5.6 billion (19%) in sales in 2008, extremely productive as compared to 2007. The group delivers destroyers, submarines, logistic ship and the first commercial product carrier. Upcoming contracts include doubling production to two submarines per year beginning in 2011, which is predicted to increase revenue and earnings over the next three years. The information systems and technology generated $10 billion (34%) of sales in 2008; its biggest achievement developing a battlefield communications network program and Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). Customers include federal civilian agencies and commercial customers, which primarily focus on electronics for land, sea and air-based weapons systems. The acquisition of two companies in the tactical communications and healthcare information technology field are indicative of the direction this group will be making in the upcoming years. Information gathered from Morningstar1, SP500 Industry reports2 and www.generaldynamics.com3 Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) Lockheed Martin is the worlds largest military weapons maker, deriving 84% of its net sales from the United States government, including the Department of Defense. The company is comprised of four operating systems including aeronautics, electronic, space and information systems and global services. Net sales increased 7.3% from 2006 to 2008 ($39.6 to $42.7 billion) and earnings increased 21.8% over three years ($2.5 to $3.2 billion). The company operates in Maryland and employs 146,000 people. The aeronautics segment generated 27% of sales ($11.5 billion) in 2008. The segments primary production are the F-35 Lightning II combat aircraft which is projected to be completed in 2010. The aeronautics segment is focused on making fighter jets and military transport planes and on unmanned military aircraft. The segment also operates the Global Sustainment enterprise to ensure success throughout the life cycle of its aircraft. The electronics systems segment also generated 27% of sales in 2008 and primarily makes land, sea and air-based missiles and missile defense systems. Specifically, this segment is focused on maritime systems and sensors, missiles and fire control, and platform, training and energy. This system also manages and operates the Sandia National Laboratories for the US Department of Energy. Current projects include the Terminal Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD), the Ballistic Missile Defense system and the firehead control system for the Apache helicopter. The space systems segment generated 19% of sales ($8.2 billion) in 2008. This segment is comprised of satellites, strategic and defensive missile systems, and space transportation systems. The US government customers accounted for 96% of this segments sales in 2008. An ongoing partner is NASA; the LMT-built Phoenix Lander will continue to rove on Mars. Another venture is with Boeing, the United Launch Alliance, which provides satellite launch services to the US government. Information systems and global services segment account for 27% of sales in 2008. This segment contains mission solutions, information systems and global services. The US government customers accounted for 93% of the segments sales in 2008. Major products/programs include communication systems, mission and combat support solutions, civil agency programs (US Census), the FAA Automated Flight Service Station, the FBIs Sentinel IT program, and various NASA programs. Collaborations and partnerships with companies around the globe enable Lockheed Martin to grow its international business both with government and industry. The establishment of Lockheed Martin Australia in 2009 indicates an international interest to grow and expand. Information gathered from Morningstar1, SP500 Industry reports2 and www.lockheedmartin.com4 Industry Outlook: Aerospace Defense The aerospace and defense industry relies heavily on US government allocation and the upcoming year will likely bring budget cuts to the defense budget in 2010. However, there are predictions that the conventional military equipment is aging and once the Iraq war ends, there will be a need for repair and replacement. Due to the high levels of deficit spending and an increasing trend for social spending, it is likely there will be cuts in defense spending and the outlook for this industry will decline. On the other hand, it is estimated that there will be an increased growth of global passenger air traffic in 2010 as compared to a decline in 2009. This is based on positive air traffic growth since comparison between 2009 and 2010. Aircrafts that are less fuel-efficient in the US will also need to be upgraded and replaced with newer aircraft. The industry predictions are moderate production cuts at Boeing and Airbus, and declines in the business jet markets due to falling corporate profits. The industry outlook is therefore at a neutral rating, due to decreased military budget but increased commercial air traffic for 2010. Competition in the industry (Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell and Raytheon) will strive for contracts within the industry. Many of these defense contractors will face uncertainty from upcoming government decisions in the next year and hence the neutral outlook for this industry. Information gathered from Morningstar and SP500 Industry Reports Financial Statement Adjustments The following table contains information on the cumulative adjustment to General Dynamics and Lockheed Martins financial Statements. Adjustments General Dynamics Lockheed Martin Income Statement  · Increase Net Income by $19 million from loss from discontinued operations net of tax  · Increase Net Income by $196 million from deferred portion of income tax  · Decrease Net Income by $70 million for gain on sale of LKEI and ILS net of tax  · Decrease Net Income by $56 million for gain on land sale  · Increase Net Income by $215 million to reverse impairment charge (215 = 314(1-.316)  · Increase Net Income by $72 million to unwind deferred taxes  · Subtract $246 million from Net Income for Pension Income Balance Sheet  · Increase assets by 75% of PV of capitalized leases ($709 million)  · Decrease assets by $7 million to unwind taxes (DTA)  · Adjustments for LIFO reserve not added to Total Assets. Added in denominator of ITR and Current Asset in Current Ratio  · Added 100% of PV of capitalization of leases to Total Liabilities ($946 million)  · Subtracted 25% of PV of capitalized leases to SE ($236 million)  · Decrease SE by $7 million to unwind deferred taxes effect (-DTA; +DTL)  · Increase assets by 75% of PV of capitalized leases ($699 million)  · Decrease assets by $5,390 million to unwind deferred taxes (DTA)  · Increase liabilities by 100% of PV of capitalized leases ($932 million)  · Decrease SE by 25% of PV of operating leases ($233 million)  · Decrease SE by $5,390 million to unwind deferred tax (-DTA; +DTL) Caveats  · Termination of A-12 program in 1991 is an unlikely contingency of $690 and is currently on appeal in the Appeals Court. Cost of Equity Capital Historically, LMT common stock has proven less sensitive to the broad stock market. With a beta of .923 and using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), LMT investors require an annual rate of return of 10.2%. Although this is lower than the expected market return of 10.8% (see appendix for calculation and assumptions), it is greater than its industry (Guided Missile Space Vehicles) expected return of 8.7%. However, although LMT may be more volatile as a stock than its competitors, it enjoyed a Return on Equity (ROE) significantly higher than the industry average. In 2008, LMT had an ROE of 49.2% while the industry followed with a 23.4% average ROE. Just as significant and telling is the comparison of LMTs ROE to its own required rate of return. This spread of 39% is an impressive sign as it demonstrates the amount of return LMT generated above its cost of equity capital. This is also impressive to investors at first glance, and will warrant a deeper interest from prospective investors. Much the same can be said for GD when comparing its required rate of return to its ROE. Although the spread was only 12.9%, it is still a good sign that GD generates such a return above its cost of equity. However, unlike LMT GD has a beta greater than 1 and is therefore more sensitive to stock market moves; and has an expected return less than its industry return by approximately 1.25%. NOPAT Margin When we analyze the potential net income in the absence of debt, NOPAT, we observe that General Dynamics (9.4%) generates a higher margin over Lockheed Martin (7.8%), which allows General Dynamics to contribute more to ROE in comparison to Lockheed Martin as a result of the decreased effect interest expenses have on net income with respect to total sales revenue. However, when comparing NOPAT performance to the rest of their industry (Ship Boat Building Repair), General Dynamics comes in slightly below the 9.9% average that was established for 2008, but does not necessarily signify any under-performance in this area since the industry data only takes into account two firms when generating Industry NOPAT margin averages. Lockheed Martin was similarly compared to Industry data, generated by two firms as well, in which NOPAT margins were recorded that were more than double of what was found for similarly classified companies (Guided Missiles Space Vehicles 3.69%). Asset Turnover This portion of the ROE evaluates the efficiency to produce revenue based on the investment in assets made by the company. When we begin to evaluate the simplified Asset TO values provided by the multiplicative decomposition of ROE, we observe a noticeable advantage by Lockheed Martin since they reportedly generate $1.37 for every $1.00 spent on assets. General Dynamics generate slightly lower values at $1.08 for every $1.00 spent on company assets. We then continued to analyze Asset TO, now based on the additive decomposition of ROE to see how other variables affect the turnover rates. When this approach is taken, average assets for both companies in 2008 needed to be adjusted, and was done so by pulling out all non-interest bearing liabilities (NIBL). This is where we noticed that NIBLs for Lockheed Martin ($20,742) were 62.8% higher than those reported by General Dynamics ($12,735). As a result, the Asset TO ratios increased significantly for both companies (LMT 2.05 and GD 4.09 ) with respect to assets dollars invested by each company. As we can observe, unexpected losses in each companys pension fund had led them to classify their losses as liabilities since they will still needed to be accounted for in the near future. The 32% drop in the fair value of the LMT pension fund ($27,259 down to $18,539) in 2008 and the 35% drop in the fair value of the GD pension fund ($7,452 down to $4,823)was felt somewhat more extensively by LMT, since the higher amount lost reflects LMTs larger workforce of 140,000 employees. GD, although enduring a similar percentage drop in fund value, only accommodates a workforce of 91,000, and therefore lost less in overall value amount. Leverage When we analyze leverage, we are analyzing each companys ability and efficiency in using interest bearing debt to generate revenue. The higher the leverage value, the better the ability of a company is at using invested funds (IBLs) to obtain desired revenues. When evaluating LMTs and GDs effect of leverage as a result of their 2008 results, we observe that the numbers generated by LMT (0.17) are over three times higher than those generated by GD (0.05) during the same time period. As we continue to drill down into the effect of leverage, we notice that ROA is also higher for LMT as a result of the large variation in NIBLs between the two companies. Although a higher leverage effect value may indicate that LMT relies more on interest bearing debt to generate more sales revenue, an analysis of interest bearing liabilities for both LMT and GD was performed based on data available at the end of 2007 and 2008. This analysis revealed that LMT had reduced their interest bearing liabilities ($4,407 down to $3,805) while GD, whom recorded a smaller leverage effect, had done the opposite and showed to have increased their interest bearing liabilities ($2,791 increased to $4,024) by the end of 2008. Selected Ratio Comparison: Accounts Receivable Days General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 39.51 32.50 43.62 57.12 From the results presented above, General Dynamics demonstrates that it under-performed the rest of the industry by exceeding the average account receivable days by 7 days. In contrast, Lockheed Martin out-performed the rest of its industry by having recorded an account receivable average of 43.62 days, which means LMT was collecting from customers on an average of 13.5 days ahead of the rest of the industry. Accounts Payable Days General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 33.88 31.50 20.09 19.66 GD is collecting from customers on average over 2 days past the industry average of 31.50 days LMT is collecting just  ½ day over the industry average of 19.66 days Inventory Days General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 25.97 56.62 17.35 13.55 GD is turning inventory on average over 30 days under the industry average of 56.62 days LMT is turning inventory on average over 3 days over the industry average of 13.55 days Interest Coverage General Dynamics Industry Lockheed Martin Industry 29.57 30.43 14.49 5.49 GD could cover its yearly interest expenses 29.57 times in 2008, just under its industry average of 30.43 times LMT could cover its yearly interest expenses 29.57 times in 2008, significantly over its industry average of 5.49 times Equity Valuation The equity valuation of General Dynamics for 2008 produced an estimated share price of $77.71. This price is significantly higher than the closing per-share price of $57.59 for 2008 showing the companys stock was extremely undervalued. According to analyst reports5, some concerns about growth for General Dynamics stem from shrinking credit markets, which would impair the ability to finance business jets. Additionally, it is possible that investors were concerned the aerospace and defense industry would decline with a shift from government defense spending to social spending and deficit spending. Abnormal net income was computed as predicted net income less the cost of equity capital. Predicted net income was computed using 2008 pro forma net income of $2,674 and implementing annual growth rates suggested by Goldman Sachs earnings forecasts5. The growth rates from 2009 through 2013 were -2.9%, 7.3%, 5.2%, 7.3% and 7.8% respectively. The same earnings forecasts were used to calculate the predicted dividends. The predicted dividends from 2009 to 2013 are 577, 617, 643, 671 and 700 respectively. The terminal value assumption used in computing abnormal net income was the competitive equilibrium on incremental real sales assumption. This strategy was chosen because the government is one of General Dynamics most significant customers, comprising approximately 67% of the companys revenue. This lead to the assumption that General Dynamics may not need to invest a large amount of resources in developing new customers and that most of their future growth would be lead by existing custo mers. This assumption provided a terminal value of $21,999. The cost of capital for General Dynamics was calculated using a beta of 1.119, a risk free rate of 5% and a market risk premium of 4%. This produced a cost of capital of 9.5%. The present value of abnormal net income was calculated to be $20,265, by dividing abnormal net income by a discounting factor derived using the cost of capital. The present value of abnormal net income was combined with the initial book value of $9,810 to produce an estimated predicted price of $30,075. This price was divided by the number of shares outstanding according to the 2008 annual report to arrive at an estimated share price of $77.71. The equity valuation for Lockheed Martin for 2008 produced an estimated share price of $85.93, which is slightly higher than the actual share price as of the end of 2008 of $84.08. This shows the stock was slightly overvalued. This shows investors may have been overly optimistic in their opinion of Lockheed Martins earnings potential. Abnormal net income was computed just as that of General Dynamics. Using analysts reports6, estimated (negative) growth rates of (6%), (7%), (6.6%), 11% and 8.92% were applied to the 2008 pro forma net income of $3,114. The same terminal value assumption was used for Lockheed Martin as was used for General Dynamics. The US government is a substantial customer of Lockheed Martins, which lead to the assumption that a large portion of future growth could be attributed to existing customers and few resources could be devoted to developing new customers. The terminal value assumption provided a terminal value of $41,132. The cost of equity capital was calculated using a beta of .923, a risk free rate of 4% and a market risk premium of 5%. The 8.7% cost of capital was used to find the present value of abnormal net income of $37.936. This present value was combined with an initial book value of ($2,758) to produce an estimated price of $35,178. The estimated price divided by the number of s hares outstanding per the Lockheed Martin annual report to arrive at a per-share price of $85.93. References: 1www.Morningstar.com 2www.netadvantgage.standardandpoors.com 3www.generaldynamics.com 4www.lockheedmartin.com 5Richard Safran, Noah Poponak, Goldman Sachs, January 26, 2009. Noah Poponak, Chun-Yai Wang, Sai Krishna, Goldman Sachs, January 27, 2010 6Richard Safran, Noah Poponak, Goldman Sachs, January 22, 2009. Noah Poponak, Chun-Yai Wang, Sai Krishna, Goldman Sachs, January 29, 2010 APPENDIX CAPM = Rf Rate + (Beta*Rmrkt) Given Data Risk Free rate = 3.77% (10 Year Treasury as of 2/18/10) Market Premium (Rmrkt) = 7% (given on page 26 of class notes) LMT Beta = 0.923 Industry Beta = 0.697 GD Beta = 1.119 Industry Beta = 1.298 CAPM Calculations LMT = .0377 + .923*.07 LMT = 10.23% Industry = .0377 + .697*.07 Industry = 8.65% GD = .0377 + 1.119*.07 GD = 11.60% Industry = .0377 + 1.298*.07 Industry = 12.86% Financial Statement Analysis GD LMT 2008 2008 Beginning assets 25,733 28,926 Ending assets 28,373 33,439 Beginning equity 11,768 9,805 Ending equity 10,053 2,865 Beginning interest-bearing liabilities 2,791 4,407 Ending interest-bearing liabilities 4,024 3,805 Net income (pro forma) 2,674 3,114 Sales revenue 29,300 42,731 Other revenue 0 0 Research development expense 474 1,220 Selling, general administrative expense 1,700 2,344 Income tax expense 1,126 1,485 Income tax rate 0.31 0.32 Interest expense 133 341 Beginning inventory 1,621 1,718 Ending inventory 2,029 1,902 Cost of goods sold 25,647 38,082 Beginning accounts receivable 2,874 4,925 Ending accounts receivable 3,469 5,296 Beginning accounts payable 2,318 2,163 Ending accounts payable 2,443 2,030 Shares outstanding 386 393 Closing price per share 57.59 84.08 bloomberg.com Average assets 27,053 31,183 Average equity 10,911 6,335 Average interest-bearing liabilities 3,408 4,106 Average non-interest bearing liabilities 12,735 20,742 Average accounts receivable 3,172 5,111 Average inventory 1,825 1,810 Average accounts payable 2,381 2,097 After-tax interest rate 0.03 0.06 Multiplicative Decomposition of ROE ROE 0.25 0.49 Net profit margin 0.09 0.07 Asset turnover 1.08 1.37 Leverage 2.48 4.92 Additive Decomposition of ROE ROE 0.25 0.49 Market-to-book 2.21 11.53 NOPAT Margin 0.09 0.08 Asset turnover 2.05 4.09 ROA 0.19 0.32 Spread 0.17 0.26 Leverage 0.31 0.65 Effect of leverage 0.05 0.17 Gross profit margin 0.12 0.11 RD to revenue 0.02 0.03 SGA to revenue 0.06 0.05 Accounts receivable days 39.51 43.65 Inventory days 25.97 17.35 Operating cycle 65.48 61.00 Accounts payable days 33.88 20.09 Cash-to-cash cycle 31.60 40.91 Interest coverage 29.57 14.49 Debt ratio 0.65 0.91 Appendix C: General Dynamics Lockheed Martin Financial Statement Adjustments Cumulative Financial Statement Adjustments Summary of Income Statement Adjustments Summary of Income Statement Adjustments Net Income as Reported: $ 2,459 Net Income as Reported: $ 3,217 Discontinued operations 19 Loss on sale of property, (126) Unwind tax effects 196 land, equipment Adjusted Net Income $ 2,674 Reverse of Impairment charge 215 Unwind tax effects 72 Pension Income (264) Adjusted Net Income $ 3,114 Summary of Balance Sheet Adjustments Summary of Balance Sheet Adjustments Total Assets as reported $ 28,373 Total Assets as reported $ 33,439 Constructive capitalization of 709 Constructive capitalization 699 operating leases of operating leases Unwind tax effects (DTA) (7) Unwind tax effects (DTA) (5,390) Adjusted Total Assets $ 29,075 Adjusted Total Assets $ 28,748 Total Liabilities as reported $ 18,320 Total Liabilities as reported $ 30,574 Constructive capitalization 946 Constructive capitalization 932 of operating leases of operating leases Adjusted Total Liabilities $ 19,266 Adjusted Total Liabilities $ 31,506 Total SE as reported $ 10,053 Total SE as reported $ 2,865 Constructive capitalization (236) Constructive capitalization of operating leases (233) of operating leases Unwind tax effects (5,390) Unwind tax effects (7) (DTA+DTL) (DTA+DTL) Adjusted Total SE $ (2,758) Adjusted Total SE $ 9,810 Adjusted Total Liabilities + SE $ 29,075 Adjusted Total Liabilities + SE $ 28,748 General Dynamics Pension Income Pro Forma Calculation 1 Net pension cost (benefit) $ 20 Net postretirement plan cost 56 Total cost $ 76 Net earnings $ 2,459 Percentage 3.1% 2008 2007 2 Funded status pensions $ (2,922) $ 383 Funded status other postretirement plans (640) (642) Total funded status (3,562) (259) Difference $ (3,303) 3 Rate of return on U.S. plan assets 8.1% Expected return 593 Implied asset base 7,330 = 592 / .081 Actual return percentage -32.20% = 2360 / 7330 4 Implied asset base $ 7,330 Pro forma expected rate 7.0% Given Pro forma expected return 513 Less: Original expected return (593) Difference (reduction in pension income) (80) 1 Effective tax rate 68.8% =1-.312 Adjustment (reduction) to net income $ (55) OR: [(.081-.070)*7,330] * (1-.312) = $ 55 Adjusted income $ 2,404 = 2,459 55 Lockheed Martin Pension Income Pro Forma Calculation 1 Net pension cost (benefit) $ 462 Net postretirement plan cost 46 Total cost $ 508 Net earnings $ 3,217 Percentage 15.8% 2008 2007 2 Funded status pensions $ (11,882) $ (879) Funded status other postretirement plans 1426 2017 Total funded status (10,456) 1,138 Difference $ (11,594) 3 Rate of return on U.S. plan assets 8.5% Expected return $ 2,184 Implied asset base 25,694 = 2184 / .085 Actual return percentage -28.62% = 7354 / 25694 4 Implied asset base $ 25,694 Pro forma expected rate 7.0% Given Pro forma expected return 1,799 Less: Original expected return (2,184) Difference (reduction in pension income) (385) 1 Effective tax rate 68.4% =1-.316 Adjustment (reduction) to net income $ (264) Adjusted income $ 2,953 = 3,217 264 General Dynamics Capitalization of Operating Leases Enter interest rate below: 0.039 Enter operating lease commitments below (in millions): 2009 205.0 2010 174.0 2011 131.0 2012 97.0 2013 70.0 2014 thereafter 405.0 Solution: Present value of operating lease commitments $ 945.9 Calculation of Present Value of Operating Lease Payments: 0 205.0 1.000 205.0 1 174.0 1.039 167.5 2 131.0 1.080 121.3

Employee Motivation and Effective Job Performance Essay -- Positive, N

â€Å"It seems that the ethos of â€Å"shared sacrifice† evoked by this past generation has gone by the wayside. In place of the Greatest Generation, we are now in the midst of what might be termed the â€Å"greediest generation,† whose hallmark include an insatiable appetite for the trappings of status and wealth† (Monheit, 2010, p.272). Studies show how effective upbringing can influence the independence of an individual and the roles these characteristics play throughout adulthood (Lekes, Gingras, Phillippe, Koestner & Fang, 2009). In addition to providing structure, consistent rewards and punishments must exist to reinforce that behavior. These traits learned throughout adolescence are detrimental for managers in determining employee motivation methods and effective job performance. For thousands of years, humans have strived for independence. Moses’ people fleeing the Egyptians and Pilgrims escaping Europe’s religious persecution are examples of people seeking freedom from hostile conditions that dampened their free will. For these groups, independence was far from free, the journey was dangerous, but the reward was extraordinary. Their nobility and perseverance is what makes their actions so admirable and memorable hundreds and thousands of years later. Getting something for nothing has not always been the norm, but a learned trait conveyed for many generations. Parental involvement has been linked to a wide variety of outcomes including perceived competence and control according to a study performed by Farkas and Grolnick (2010, p.267). Parental supported child autonomy produce high levels of warmth and involvement along with providing structure, motivation, and persistence (Farkas and Grolnick, 2010, p.266). Structure enables children ... ...e kinds of sacrifices that are essential to promote the common good† (Monheit, 2010, p.272). Receipt of â€Å"something,† whether it be tangible goods or feedback, not contingent on a specific performance will decrease an individual’s motivation and satisfaction as well as future performance (Podaskoff, 2010, p.298). Parents’ influence on adolescents mold the characteristics and behaviors for adulthood. These learned traits are pertinent for managers seeking to validate and administer rewards to reach a specific outcome or goal. With consideration of personality response to feedback, one can determine how rewards not linked to performance can have little effect on the attitudes or behaviors of individuals (Podaskoff, 2010, p.299). People who get something for nothing, become good for nothing through unwarranted honors rewarding unsatisfactory behavior and performance.

Character Cannot Be Developed in Ease and Quiet Critical Lens Essay

Critical Lens Essay Helen Keller once said â€Å"Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through the experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired and success achieved. In other words what this quotation means is what individuals go through in life makes them what they are. Individuals have to go through good and bad to learn love and strength. Two examples that support the validity of this quotation are Night by Elie Wiesel and The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros.In Night by Elie Wiesel, the protagonist, Eliezer, is taken to Birkenau during World War Two with his father and is separated from the rest of his family. When seeing such horrific conditions in the concentration camp, Eliezer starts to lose faith in God and in himself, yet as his character builds, he starts to mature as time went on. Eliezer’s experiences educate individuals that life in not always far; some individuals lose faith and give u p yet some, like Eliezer, gain strength from their experiences and build up their character.In The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros, the protagonist, Esperanza, lives on Mango Street with her family and struggles with events where she is faced with adult responsibilities and maturity. In the vignette â€Å"Red Clowns†, she is taken advantage of and experiences an act of nature where she is transformed into a woman. Esperanza shows that overcoming catastrophes make you a stronger person. With such experiences comes strength and maturity.In both Night by Elie Wiesel and The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros, the protagonists, Esperanza and Eliezer are faced with events that make them stronger and better people. They are two examples of individuals that support the validity of the quote that Helen Keller once said â€Å"Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through the experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired and success achieved†. Even when the going gets tough, individuals learn love and strength which allows them to obtain victory and build character and achieve their dreams.

Facebook Case Essay

Facebook Case Essay Facebook Case Essay In this article the author shows readers Facebook’s attempts to become a leader in online advertising. Being one of the most visited websites with more than 600 million active users, Facebook is the ultimate place for marketers to take advantage of word of mouth. Mark Zuckerberg and his team constantly improves features of the website and develops new technologies to create a unique way of personal advertising. Today Facebook allows companies to create free brand pages where users can comment and post on them. Companies and consumers communicate directly with each other, helping to better understand the market. Additionally, Open Graph technology integrates Facebook with other websites, permitting users to share interesting articles, songs and other files with their friends through the feed. However, there are major issues that challenge Facebook. First, personal advertising assumes the use of users’ personal data. Facebook tracks users’ activity and preferences, which helps target ads better. Recent use of Beacon technology resulted in a scandal, whereas a lot of people were angry that their activities were tracked and broadcasted on ads. Second, people do not perceive Facebook as a search site. Return on Facebook ads is much lower than that of Google ads. People spend more time on Facebook, but they use Google search when they are ready to make a purchase. Third problem is that Facebook does not generate any profit from companies’ free brand pages and Open Graph