NORTH SOUTH

UNIVERSITY
ASSIGNMENT ON FIN254
FACULTY: MJD
SECTION: 17

SUBMITTED BY:
1. TASAWAR HOSSAIN- 1731830630
2. FAYSAL DHALI- 1731832630
3. ABDULLAH AL SAADMAN BEGH- 1731833630
4. AMBER SHAMI MULLICK- 1811362030
5. NABILA NAWRIN NIJHUM- 1812309630
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................3
RATIO ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................4
1. LIQUIDITY RATIO..................................................................................................................4
CURRENT RATIO:...........................................................................................................................4
QUICK/ACID TEST RATIO...............................................................................................................5
2. ACTIVITY RATIOS..................................................................................................................7
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER:............................................................................................7
AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD:....................................................................................................8
INVENTORY TURNOVER:.............................................................................................................10
AVERAGE AGE OF INVENTORY:...................................................................................................11
TOTAL ASSET TURNOVER:...........................................................................................................12
FIXED ASSET TURNOVER:............................................................................................................13
3. LEVERAGE/SOLVENCY/DEBT RATIOS..................................................................................15
DEBT RATIO:................................................................................................................................15
DEBT- EQUITY RATIO:..................................................................................................................16
TIMES INTEREST EARNED............................................................................................................18
4. PROFITABILITY RATIOS.......................................................................................................19
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN..............................................................................................................19
NET PROFIT MARGIN..................................................................................................................20
RETURN ON ASSET......................................................................................................................21
RETURN ON EQUITY....................................................................................................................22
OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN......................................................................................................23
5. MARKET RATIOS................................................................................................................25
EARNING PER SHARE(EPS)..........................................................................................................25
PRICE/ EARNING RATIO(P/E).......................................................................................................27
DIVIDEND PER SHARE(DPS).........................................................................................................28
DIVIDEND PAYOUT......................................................................................................................30
DIVIDEND YIELD..........................................................................................................................31
BOOK VALUE PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK..........................................................................32
MARKET/BOOK RATIO.................................................................................................................33
RECOMMENDTION.....................................................................................................................35
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX........................................................................................................................36
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS............................................................................................................36
REFERENCE.......................................................................................................................41

2
INTRODUCTION

BSRM STEELS LIMITED

BSRM is the leading steel manufacturing company and one of the prominent corporate
houses in Bangladesh. Over the years, BSRM steel products have been chosen solely for
building major National landmarks and infrastructures. To name a few, the Padma Bridge,
Rooppur Neuclear Power Plant, Hatirjheel Project, Zillur Rahman Flyover, Mayor Hanif
Flyover and Shah Amanat Bridge were built with BSRM.
BSRM Xtreme is a product that was introduced when there was no graded steel in
Bangladesh. It was a major change in the steel industry of Bangladesh. The core driver was
the belief in evolution in steel products, which resulted in bringing the first EMF tested rod,
the first steel brand that passed 5 million cyclic loading Fatigue testing in the U.K. and
conformed to 10 global standards. With the largest steel producing factory in the country
and employing the best technology from Europe, the company maintains volume with
uncompromising quality. BSRM is dedicated to providing the best solution for the
construction industry. The first ever 50 mm rod was specially designed and rolled for the
deep pilling requirements of Padma Bridge. Various specialized products of BSRM are also
designed to meet special needs for the construction industry.

GPH ISPAT LIMITED

GPH Ispat Ltd. One of the leaders of Bangladesh in manufacturing steel promises a
super strong future and economy with its world –class products. Not only structural
bar, but GPH Ispat Ltd. is also one of the producers of low & medium carbon and low
alloy steel billets in Bangladesh, the main ingredient of manufacturing graded steel
bar. As GPH is ensuring the highest quality products in Bangladesh as per various
international and national standards, GPH steel billets and Bars is getting exported to
other countries after nourishing national demand.

3
RATIO ANALYSIS

1. LIQUIDITY RATIO
Liquidity Ratios measure a firm’s ability to payoff its short term liabilities with its short term
assets.

CURRENT RATIO:
= (CURRENT ASSET/CURRENT LIABILITIES)
Standard= 2:1
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 1.05 1.11 1.08 1.06
GPH ISPAT 1.28 1.63 1.38 1.003

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: The current ratio of BSRM has increased between 2015 to 2016 from 1.05 to 1.11
respectively but started to decrease gradually between 2017 and 2018. It went down to
1.08 in 2017 & to 1.06 in 2018. From 2015 to 2016, both current assets and current liabilities
increased but current assets increased more than the current liabilities due to which the
ratio increased but the current liabilities of the firm have been increasing over time, that is
its short term debts has increased from 2016 to 2018 thus the current ratio is decreasing.
The company’s current ratio is below the standard for all the 4 years.

CURRENT RATIO
1.12

1.10

1.08

1.06

1.04

1.02

1.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: The current ratio of GPH Ispat also increased between 2015 to 2016 but it
gradually started to decrease from 2017 to 2018. It was 1.28 in 2015 from which it rose to
1.63 in 2016 and then it stated falling to 1.38 in 2017 and 1.003 in 2018. There was an
increase in 2016 because the current asset of the firm nearly doubled from 2015 to 2016.
And later on the current assets increased slowly over the years but the current liabilities
began to grow at a faster rate than the current assets due to which the ratio started to
decrease over the years.
CURRENT RATIO
1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

4
We can say from the data that GPH ISPAT has a higher ratio than BSRM from 2015 to 2017
but BSRM has over taken GPH ISPAT in 2018. Both the company’s current liabilities as well
as assets increased over time and GPH ISPAT was doing better than BSRM but in 2018
current liabilities of GPH ISPAT nearly equaled to its current assets, thus the ratio has fallen
down and became nearly to 1.

CURRENT RATIO
1.80

1.60

1.40

1.20
BSRM
1.00
GPH ISPAT
0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

QUICK/ACID TEST RATIO

= (Current Asset-Inventories)/Current Liabilities
Standard= 1:1
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 0.50 0.75 0.70 0.58
GPH ISPAT 0.60 1.02 0.96 0.67

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: The quick ratio increased over time from 0.50 in 2015, 0.75 in 2016 but stated to
decrease to 0.70 in 2017 and to 0.58 in 2018. The ratio increased because the current assets
and the current liabilities increased over time. The ratio decreased because the current
liabilities increased at a higher rate more than the current assets and the inventories in 2018
had a great amount of value in the current assets due to which the ratio had decreased.

QUICK RATIO
0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: The ratio of GPH ISPAT grew at the same pattern as BSRM. It grew from 0.60 in
2015 to a peak level of 1.02 in 2016 but started to gradually decease in 2017 to 0.96 and

5
0.67 in 2018. The reason of this drastic increase in 2016 is that the current assets almost
doubled in the year. But stared to decrease in the following years because the rate rate at
which the current liabilities was increasing was higher than the rate of increase of current
assets. Also the inventories held up a good amount of money.

QUICK RATIO
1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

Both the companies follow the same pattern. That is the ratios increased in the year 2016
but stared to decrease gradually from 2017. But when comparing both the companies, GPH
ISPAT is in a better position than BSRM. This is because GPH ISPAT is being able to manage
its current assets to pay off its debts better than BSRM and also GPH ISPAT does not hold as
much inventory compared to its other current assets which BSRM does, it hold a huge stock
of inventory.

QUICK RATIO
1.20

1.00

0.80
BSRM
GPH ISPAT
0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

6
 2. ACTIVITY RATIOS
It measures the firm’s efficiency rate at which it utilizes various accounts in order to
generate sales for the business.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER:

= CREDIT SALES/AVERAGE ACCOUNTS RECEIVALBE
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 13.16 5.78 8.73 7.47
GPH 6.05 1.02 0.96 0.67

TIME SERIES ANALYIS

BSRM: BSRM collected its average accounts receivable 13 times during 2015. It was a very
good number. It indicated that the company is very efficient at collecting credit sales from
it’s customers. In 2016 the ratio dropped to less than half of what it was the previous year. It
shows a significant reduction in their efficiency. It increased in 2017. And then the ratio
dropped again in 2018. It means BSRM is not very consistent in collecting it’s receivables.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH has a very low average accounts receivable turnover ratio. It went below 1
in both 2017 & 2018.
It means GPH is not efficient at collecting credit sales from it’s customers.
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER
7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

7
We see from the data collected from 2015 to 2018 that BSRM’s average receivable turnover
ratio is much better than GPH’s. It means BSRM’s better at collecting credit sales from it’s
customers. It may be because BSRM has better policies that encourage trade partners to
pay their credit.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00 BSRM
GPH ISPAT

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD:

=365/ACCOUNTS RECEIVALBLE TURNOVER
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 27.74 63.14 41.83 48.83
GPH 60.31 71.36 83.80 60.76

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: The average collection period for BSRM is quite good. It was the lowest in 2015
which was less than a month and the highest in 2016 which was two months. It stayed
around one and a half months after 2017. Their debtors are paying up fast. It may be due to
receivables decreasing considerably.

AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

8
GPH ISPAT: GPH’s average period is above two months for all of the four years that we see.
In 2015 & 2018 it was two months. Two months is an acceptable time. However it was a lot
more than that in 2016 & 2017. It may have been due to increased number of trade debtors
or due to sales falling

AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD

90.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

BSRM’s average collection period is less than GPH’s in all for years that we see. The highest
collection period of BSRM is closer to GPH’s lowest. This means GPH’s offered credit period
is long or that GPH’s products don’t have enough demand and won’t sell as well if the credit
terms are not lenient.

AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00 BSRM
GPH ISPAT

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

9
INVENTORY TURNOVER:
= COST OF GOODS SOLD/INVENTORY
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 3.27 2.44 3.72 3.00
GPH 2.25 1.56 2.63 2.87

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM’s inventory turnover decreased in 2016 either because the sales have
decreasing or the firm holding on to stocks. Then the ratio rose both in 2017 & in 2018. This
was due to not holding on to stocks and increased sales.
INVENTORY TURNOVER
4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH saw a huge dip in sales in 2016 causing a low inventory turnover. Low sales
made it unnecessary to restock on inventory. This changed in 2017. The sales increased
even from 2015. Thus we see higher inventory turnover. The trend continued in 2018. Both
sales and inventory turnover increased in 2018.
INVENTORY TURNOVER
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

10
BSRM has consistently had higher sales than GPH. Which means BSRM’s ratio is better than
GPH's. Though, both BSRM and GPH have a pretty low inventory turnover ratio. It means
that they both need to increase their sales. Changes in the market and demand for the
product may be a reason for the decline in sales.
INVENTORY TURNOVER
4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50
BSRM
GPH ISPAT
2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

AVERAGE AGE OF INVENTORY:

=365/INVENTORY TURNOVER
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 111.67 149.52 98.03 121.51
GPH 162.18 233.76 138.56 127.25

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM saw an increase in the average age of inventory in 2016. It may have resulted
from either low sales or increased inventory. Then it fell drastically in 2017. It could be a
result of either low sales or increased sales. In 2018 BSRM again saw an increase in the
average age of inventory most likely due to the same reasons as in 2016.
AVERAGE AGE OF INVENTORY
160.00

140.00

120.00

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH's average age of inventory has drastically increased in 2016. It was most
likely due to a combination of both low sales and increased inventory. It did fall even more

11
drastically in 2017 indicating the firm got rid of it's access inventory and increased sales. The
trend continued in 2018 and the ratio dropped again.
AVERAGE AGE OF INVENTORY
250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

BSRM's average age of inventory is much lower than GPH’s in every year that we see. Thus
BSRM is much better at managing their inventory.

AVERAGE AGE OF INVENTORY

250.00

200.00

150.00 BSRM
GPH ISPAT

100.00

50.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

TOTAL ASSET TURNOVER:

= SALES/TOTAL ASSETS
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 1.18 0.62 1.01 1.06
GPH 0.99 0.56 0.61 0.43

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM has earned a low amount of return on total assets invested from 2015 through
2018. However, the ratio was the lowest in 2016. It was below 1 Indicating loss. This may
have resulted from the firm’s decision of increasing the inventory level.
TOTAL ASSET TURNOVER
1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

12
GPH ISPAT: GPH's increased investment had no positive effect on sales. The ratio dropped in
both 2016 & 2018 which shows that the sales have not increased even with the
investments. It indicates to the firm’s poor performance.
TOTAL ASSET TURNOVER
1.200

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS:

BSRM’s position is better than GPH. BSRM has managed assets more efficiently than GPH.
Both BSRM & GPH has increased their sales in 2017.However BSRM’s ratio is consistently
better than GPH’s. This was caused by increased asset investments and subsequent
increased sales.
TOTAL ASSET TUNOVER
1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80 BSRM
GPH ISPAT

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

FIXED ASSET TURNOVER:

= SALES/FIXED ASSET
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 2.90 1.75 3.14 3.45
GPH 3.41 2.73 1.65 0.70

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS:

BSRM: BSRM's increased investment had no positive effect on sales in 2016. Asset turnover
decreased 2016 which reflects poorly on the firm's performance. We do however see in an
incredible boost in 2017 and 2018. It may indicate that the firm is not investing enough.
FIXED ASSET TURNOVER
4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: The asset turnover ratio dropped in 2016 and the trend continued through 2017
& 2018. It indicates that the firm is making a lot of investments. In 2018 the ratio was below
1. Which means the increased investments didn’t result in proportionate increase in sales.
13
 FIXED ASSET TURNOVER
4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS:

Between BSRM and GPH BSRM was the only one who saw a positive return on it's
investments. Which means BSRM is doing a much better job at efficiently utilizing their
assets. GPH’s return on asset has declined. This means GPH has been investing in non-
profitable assets. On the other hand, increasing investment in capital work in progress has
caused the ratio to slightly reduce for BSRM.

FIXED ASSET TURNOVER

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50
BSRM
GPH ISPAT
2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

3. LEVERAGE/SOLVENCY/DEBT RATIOS
Solvency ratio is a ratio that measures a firm's risk. It helps to figure whether the firm has
enough availability of Assets to pay of its Liabilities. In other words, debt ratio, debt equity
ratio and times interest earned shows how many assets the company needs to sell in order
to pay off all its Debts to have a positive financial position.

14
DEBT RATIO:
= (Total Liabilities / Total Asset)

2015 2016 2017 2018

BSRM 0.64 0.67 0.69 0.72
GPH 0.66 0.53 0.61 0.76

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS:

BSRM: We can see the debt ratio of BSRM in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 were 0.64(64%),
0.67(67%), 0.69(69%) and 0.72(72%) which shows that the ratios were increasing each year
from 2015 till 2018. This explains, the debt ratio of the BSRM is not efficient enough.

GPH: We can see the debt ratio of GPH in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 was 0.66(66%), 0.53(53%),
0.61(61%), 0.76(76). Comparing with 2015, ratio decreased in 2016 to 53% which was good
for the GHP Company. But later the debt ratio again started to increase in 2017 by 61% and
in 2018 by 72%.

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

Having Debt ratio less than 1 is better and preferable. We can see the debt ratio of both
BSRM and GPH is 0.64 and 0.66 which is less than 1 in 2015. But in 2016 the ratio of GPH
(0.53) was better than BSRM (0.67) as the ratio of GPH was less than BSRM and the lower

15
the debt ratio the better it is for both the companies. Moreover, in 2017, both the
Companies ratios increased comparing to their previous year that is for BSRM (0.69) and for
GPH (0.61). Similarly, in 2018 the ratios for BSRM and GPH again increased more than 2017.
However, supporting BSRM will be more reliable than GPH as the ratios of BSRM increased
by few numbers than GPH.

DEBT- EQUITY RATIO:

= (Total Liabilities / Stockholder's Equity)

2015 2016 2017 2018

BSRM 1.75 2.07 2.23 2.57

GPH 1.94 1.14 1.56 3.10

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM The ratios of Debt-Equity Ratio of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 were 1.75, 2.07, 2.23,
and 2.57. This showed that the ratios were increasing each year from 2015 till 2018 which
was not a good indication for BSRM as the debts were increasing.

GPH: The Debt-Equity Ratios of 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 were 1.94, 1.14, 1.56 and 3.10.
The ratios decreased from 2015 to 2016 from 1.94 to 1.14 and again increased in 2017 and
2018 that is 1.56 and 3.10. This is not a good indication also for GPH as the debts for GPH
increased also.
16
CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

Having Debt-Equity Ratio less than 1 is better and preferable. We can see the debt-equity
ratio of both BSRM and GPH is 1.75 and 1.14 which is greater than 1 in 2015. But in 2016 the
ratio of BSRM (2.07) increased and the ratio of GPH (1.14) decreased showing that the debts
equity ratio of GPH was better than BSRM as the ratio of GPH was less. Moreover in 2017
the ratios for the Companies, BSRM (2.23) and GPH (1.56) increased comparing with the
previous year. Lastly in 2018 the debt-equity ratios increased too that is (2.57) for BSRM and
(3.10) for GPH. Though the ratio values of BSRM increased in each year than GPH Company’s
value decreased in 2016 still supporting BSRM will be suitable as the ratio values of GHP
increased significantly than BSRM

DEBT-EQUITY RATIO
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00 BSRM
GPH ISPAT

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

TIMES INTEREST EARNED

= (Earnings Before Interest Tax/Interest Expenses)

COMPANY 2015 2016 2017 2018

BSRM 4.29 15.87 3.85 3.14

17
 GPH 2.19 2.01 2.25 2.37

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS:

BSRM: The Times Interest Earned ratio for 2015 was 4.29 which increased significantly in
2016 which was 15.87. The ratio then decreased to 3.85 in 2017 and again decreased in
2018 to 3.14. BSRM had similar and mixed ratios and had the highest ratio in 2016 which
may have favored BSRM. As the higher the times interest ratio the better it is for the
company.

GPH: The Times Interest Earned ratio of GPH for four years were similar that is in 2015 it
was 2.19, in 2016 it was 2.01, in 2017 it was 2.25 and in 2018 it was 2.37. The ratio
decreased in 2016 and afterwards from 2017 till 2018 the ratios increased but it increased
insignificantly. Moreover, increase over time will help to improve GPH Company’s
profitability.

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

We can say the higher the Times Interest Earned ratio the better the company is performing.
In this case in 2015 BSRM Company’s ratio (4.29) was greater and better than GPH
Company’s ratio (2.19). Similarly, in 2016, 2017 and in 2018 the Times Interest Earned ratio

18
for BSRM was greater than GPH. Moreover, supporting BSRM will be suitable as we know
the higher the times earned ratio the better it is for the company and we can see that the
ratios of BSRM was higher for all the years and significantly higher specially in 2016 than
GPH.

4. PROFITABILITY RATIOS
An indication of good financial health & how effectively the firm is being managed. The
percentage of profit the firm earns in return to its assets, equity & sales

GROSS PROFIT MARGIN

= (GROSS PROFIT/SALES)*100
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 14.38 16.60 11.99 10.10
GPH ISPAT 15.06 16.72 17.52 16.33

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM’s gross profit margin increased in 2016 because sales increased. Later in 2017
and 2018 it started to fall. Because they were not having enough sales.
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN
18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: had a good growth starting in 2016 to 2017 due to increase in sales. Later in
2018 they faced a decline in gross profit margin due to some decline in sales.

19
 GROSS-PROFIT MARGIN
18.00

17.50

17.00

16.50

16.00

15.50

15.00

14.50

14.00

13.50
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

GPH had a more constant growth in gross profit margin than BSRM. But lastly in 2018 they
both faced a decline in sales which got the gross profit margin to decline.
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN
20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

NET PROFIT MARGIN

= (NET PROFIT/SALES)*100
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 6.26 6.25 4.49 3.73
GPH ISPAT 4.88 5.04 7.29 6.56

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM’s net profit margin was constant in 2015 and 2016. But later in 2017 and 2018
it started to decline due to increase in their expenses.

NET PROFIT MARGIN

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: In the beginning of 2015 and 2016 the net profit margin was not much. But later
in 2017 and 2018 the experienced a growth in their net profit margin due to perfectly
allocation of resources.

20
 NET PROFIT MARGIN
8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

BSRM and GPH both had constant growth in their net profit margin. But BSRM lost their
track in maintaining it in the recent years. But GPH continued improving their net profit
margin.
NET PROFIT MARGIN
8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

RETURN ON ASSET
= (NET PROFIT/TOTAL ASSET)*100
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 7.36 3.86 4.53 3.94
GPH ISPAT 4.87 2.81 4.44 2.84

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM’s return on asset was higher in 2015 compared to 2016, 2017, 2018. It faced a
decline in the recent years as assets weren’t utilized properly.
RETURN ON ASSET
8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH return on asset was higher in 2015 compared to 2016, 2017, 2018. It faced
a decline in the recent years as assets weren’t utilized properly.

21
 RETURN ON ASSET
6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

Both GPH and BSRM had a unstable return for asset in the years compared 2015, 2016,
2017 and 2018. The stats suggest that the assets are not utilized properly.

NET PROFIT MARGIN

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

RETURN ON EQUITY
= (NET PROFIT/SHAREHOLDE’S EQUITY)*100
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 20.22 11.84 14.66 14.06
GPH ISPAT 12.22 13.12 13.96 13.00

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM had a high return on equity at 2015. Later it fell 2016. And had some recovery
in 2017 and 2018.
RETURN ON EQUITY
25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH had a high return on equity at 2015. Later it fell 2016. And had some
recovery in 2017 and 2018.

22
 RETURN ON EQUITY
16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

Both BSRM and GPH had an unstable return from equity. Due to misallocation of equity.

RETURN ON EQUITY
25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN

= (Operating profit/Sales)*100
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 11.00 12.89 8.62 6.59
GPH ISPAT 12.22 13.12 13.96 13.00

TIME SERIES ANAYSIS

BSRM: BSRM had a high profit margin in the years 2015 and 2016. But later in 2017 and
2018 they reduction in profit margin due to decrease in sales.
OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN
14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH had constant rate of profit margin. They did not face any huge change in it.
All the years had almost close margins.

23
 OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN
14.50

14.00

13.50

13.00

12.50

12.00

11.50

11.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

BSRM had a reduction in the last 2 recent years. But GPH kept a constant rate as a result
they are better off in the profit margin rates.

OPERATING PROFIT MARGIN

16.00

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

5. MARKET RATIOS
Relate to a firm’s market value, as measured by its current share price, to certain accounting
values

24
EARNING PER SHARE(EPS)
= Net Profit/No. of Common stock Outstanding
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 6.14 3.67 4.99 5.27
GPH ISPAT 1.56 1.55 3.05 3.44

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM earns $6.14 per share in 2015 which indicates a strong profitability position of
the company. It also indicates that investors will be willing to pay more for the company
with higher profits. In 2016 the EPS dropped to $3.67 per share almost half of what it was in
2015. This is due to the lower profits in 2016 and this indicates a poor management of the
company. EPS increased by $1.32 per share in 2017 which is still lower than the value of
2015. The company’s cost of goods sold is increasing every year which makes profits and
EPS lower. In 2018 the EPS became $5.27 per share which is a good indicator of improving
performance of the company but EPS increased by a very insignificant amount from 2017 to
2018 which is $0.27 per share. The company’s management should focus on its EPS because
it is an important indicator of success of a company and it is affecting their market price per
share.
EARNING PER SHARE
7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH makes an earring of $1.56 per share in 2015 which is very less according to
their number of common stock outstanding. This is due to the lower profits of the company.
The company’s management should pay attention to this because lower EPS will make
the investors to rethink for investing in this company causing a lower share price. In

25
2016 the EPS decreased by $0.01 per share which is a very insignificant change from
2015.This reflects that the company is having the same management problem which
they were having in 2015.The EPS increased to $3.05 per share in 2017, which indicates
a better performance than the previous years. It also shows that the company is making
more money for each share of its stock. In 2018 EPS became $3.44 per share, which is
higher than the EPS of 2017. Gradually the company’s EPS is increasing year after year,
which means the company is doing well than the previous years. The higher the EPS the
better it is for the company.
EARNING PER SHARE
4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

We can see from the past years ratios of both the company that BSRM’s earning per
share(EPS) throughout the 4 year is much better than that of GPH’s earning per share(EPS).
It means that BSRM has an efficient management system than GPH and BSRM is successful
at making higher profits.
EARNING PER SHARE
7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

PRICE/ EARNING RATIO(P/E)

= Market Price Per Share/ Earning Per Share
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 15.69 25.60 18.22 13.30
GPH ISPAT 8.96 9.04 4.59 4.07

26
TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: In 2015 BSRM’s price earning(P/E) ratio was $15.69 this indicates that the investors
were paying $15.69 for each $1 of earrings. It also tells us that investors were willing to pay
a higher share price because of growth expectations in the future. The price earning(P/E)
ratio increased by $9.91 in 2016. A higher ratio than the previous year indicates a higher
degree of confidence that investors have in the firm’s future performance. However, in 2017
the price earning(P/E) ratio fell to $18.22. This could be due to the increasing debt of the
company. In 2018 the price earning(P/E) ratio again declined by $4.92 and this is due to
lower market price, which means investors are willing to pay less for the company’s share.
And it also indicates that investors are loosing confidence in the success of the firm.
PRICE/EARNING RATIO
30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: GPH makes a price earning(P/E) ratio of $8.96 in 2015, which is a good indicator
of the market value of a stock as compared to the company’s earnings. The ratio increased
by $0.08 in 2016 than the previous year. The rate by which the ratio has increased over
the year is very insignificant but it shows that investors confidence has increased for the
firm from the previous year. In 2017 the ratio fell drastically to $4.59, which is a very
bad indicator for the company. This indicates that investors are loosing confidence in
the company. The ratio became $4.07 in 2018, which means price earning(P/E) ratio has
decreased consistently from 2015 to 2018. This means investors are willing to pay less
for the company’s stock.

PRICE/EARNING RATIO
10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

We can see from the past data that BSRM’s price earning(P/E) ratio is higher than GPH’s
ratio throughout the 4 years. It means that investors are more willing to invest in BSRM’s
stock and they have more confidence in BSRM than GPH.

27
 PRICE-EARNING RATIO
30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

DIVIDEND PER SHARE(DPS)

= Cash Dividend/ No. of Common Stock Outstanding
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 1.49 2.98 2.00 1.50
GPH ISPAT 0.95 1.13 2.00 0.71

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: BSRM’s dividend per share(DPS) in 2015 is $1.49 per share, which means the
common stockholders will be making an income of $1.49 for each shares that they have
invested
In the company. In 2016 DPS increased to $2.98 per share from 2015, which means
shareholders are earning more dividends per share. The DPS fell by $0.98 per share in 2017
this means that the company is not willing to pay more dividends to the shareholders
despite of having an increase in profits. In 2018 the DPS became almost the same as what it
was in 2015, which $1.50 per share. This indicates that BSRM is not focusing on maximising
shareholders wealth. If shareholders are unhappy then it will affect the business.
DIVIDEND PER SHARE
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: In 2015 GPH’s dividend per share(DPS) was $0.95 per share which means that
common stockholders are getting $0.95 for every share that they have invested in the
company. DPS increased to $1.13 per share in 2016, which is a good indicator for the
investors. Increasing dividends attract more people to invest in the company. In 2017 DPS
increased by $0.87 per share than the previous year. Common stockholders earnings are

28
increasing year after year from 2015 to 2017. It reflects a good performance of the
company. However, DPS in 2018 fell drastically to $0.71 per share, which means the
company is paying less to stockholders despite of making higher profits in the year.
DIVIDEND PER SHARE
2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

As we can see from the data table that BSRM’s dividend per share(DPS) is better than GPH’s
dividend per share(DPS) throughout the years. Both the company’s DPS was same in 2017
but overall BSRM’s dividend per share(DPS) is better than that of GPH’s dividend per
share(DPS).

DIVIDEND PER SHARE

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

DIVIDEND PAYOUT
= DIVIDEND PER SHARE/ EARNING PER SHARE
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 0.24 0.81 0.40 0.28

29
 GPH ISPAT 0.61 0.73 0.65 0.21

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: In 2015 BSRM’s dividend payout was 0.24, which means that the company is paying
24% of its income as dividends and keep the rest amount for paying off debts or to reinvest.
The dividend payout increased to 0.81 in 2016 which means common stockholders are
getting 81% of the company’s income as dividends. They are getting 57% more dividend in
2016 than 2015. In 2017 the ratio fell by almost half of what it was in 2016. Dividend payout
became 0.40, which means stockholders are being paid only 40% of the company’s profit
and the rest 60% is kept within the company. In 2018 dividend payout decreased to 0.28,
which means shareholders are getting a very small amount of dividend compared to the
company’s profit.
DIVIDEND PAYOUT
0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: In 2015 GPH’s dividend payout was 0.61, which is a good amount and it
indicates that shareholders are getting a greater proportion of profits as dividend. Dividend
payout increased to 0.73 in 2016. The company is paying 73% of its earnings as dividend.
Stockholders are getting 12% more dividends in 2016 than what they used to get in 2015. 
In 2017 the dividend payout decreased by 0.08, which means shareholders are getting 8%
less dividend in 2017 than the previous year. In 2018 the ratio decreased drastically to 0.21.
This could be because the company can be saving to re-invest or to payoff its debts.
DIVIDEND PAYOUT
0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

If we take a look at the overall Dividend Payout ratios of the 4 years, we can say that GPH
ISPAT has held a better position than BSRM. Both the company’s ratio increased in 2016 but
gradually began to decrease in the following years. However, in 2018 BSRM’s Dividend

30
payout ratio is better than GPH ISPAT. Both the company’s have a fluctuating ratio
throughout the years.
DIVIDEND PAYOUT
0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

DIVIDEND YIELD
= DIVIDEND PER SHARE/ MARKET PRICE PER SHARE
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02
GPH ISPAT 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.05

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM:
DIVIDEND YIELD
0.04

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT:
DIVIDEND YIELD
0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

31
 DIVIDEND YIELD
0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

BOOK VALUE PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK

= COMMON STOCK EQUITY/ NO. OF COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 30.34 31.02 34.03 37.48
GPH 10.93 25.76 26.91 29.55

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM:
BOOK VALUE PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT:

BOOK VALUE PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

32
 MARKET BOOK RATIO
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

MARKET/BOOK RATIO
= MARKET PRICE PER COMMON STOCK/ BOOK VALUE PER COMMON STOCK
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 3.17 3.03 2.67 1.87
GPH 1.28 0.54 0.52 0.47

TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

BSRM: Over time the ratio is decreasing. It started from 3.17 in 2015 and decreased to 1.87
in 2018. This means that the book value of common stock is increasing at a higher rate than
the market price of the common stock. The market price has decreased over time and the
book value has increased.
MARKET/BOOK RATIO
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

GPH ISPAT: From the data we can see that the ratio for GPH ISPAT has decreased over the
years. This is because the market price of the shares has remained constant to 14 but the
book values have increased over time due to which the ratios have decreased.
MARKET/BOOK RATIO
1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS

33
BSRM’s market price is greater than its book value through out the years, whereas GPH’s
market price was constant but the book value kept increasing over the years and the book
value increased more than its market price, so we can say that BSRM’s market book ratio is
better than GPH ISPAT

MARKET BOOK RATIO

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
2015 2016 2017 2018

34
RECOMMENDTION

1. LIQUIDITY: GPH ISPAT’s liquidity position was better than BSRM over the first 3 years
period but its current liability increased in 2018 due to which the ratio became worse
than BSRM. GPH should try and reduce its current liabilities so that it can gain it
position back in future years.
2. ACTIVITY: GPH needs to improve its activity ratios or else they will face obsolete.
They have high average collection period time which they need to reduce and collect
their money faster from its debtors and also they have low inventory turnover, low
fixed asset turn over and low total asset turnover. Therefore, they need to be more
efficient in using its assets and inventories.
3. SOLVENCY/DEBT RATIOS: BSRM needs to reduce its liabilities as it has more
liabilities compared to its assets than GPH ISPAT. If BSRM does not reduce its
liabilities, then it will face problems in repaying its debts but the ratio is less than 1
so it is not in high risk. Despite having high debt ratios, the company’ times interest
earned ratio is higher than GPH. GPH ISPAT has better ability to service debt as the
ratio is lower than BSRM and this means that the company has more assets than its
liabilities.
4. PROFITABILITY: Overall GPH has a better profitability ratio than BSRM and BSRM
should try and improve its profitability ratios and try and manage the firm more
efficiently to generate more sale. Also the company should try to reduce its cost of
goods sold & expenses so that its Gross Profit Margin & Net Profit Margin gets better
in the future.
5. Market Ratios: Market Ratios for BSRM is better than GPH ISPAT. We can say the
GPH ISPAT is not performing well as their Earning per share is lower than BSRM but it
is improving over time. This may mean that they are not generating enough income
compared to the no. of common stocks outstanding. They should try and increase
their net income to support these ratios.

CONCLUSION
Overall we can see that GPH ISPAT is performing better in most cases than BSRM as
supported by the ratios calculated, though we can see in some cases BSRM has been
performing better than GPH ISPAT but according to the overall report we can conclude that
investing in GPH ISPAT is less risky because it has enough assets to meet its liabilities. So in
our opinion, investing in GPH ISPAT is safer. But both the companies need to improve their
performance in the sectors they are lagging behind.

35
APPENDIX

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

GPH ISPAT LIMITED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30
JUNE

DETAILS 2015 2016 2017 2018

Gross Revenue 6072946736 5843411764 7955715990 9923406006

Value Added Tax (84550207) (99803088) (116149952) (109304886)

Net Revenue 5988396529 5743608676 7839566038 9814101120

Cost of Sales (5086543324) (4783440644) (6465845702) (8211556579)

Gross Profit 901853205 960168032 1373720336 1602544541

Administrative Expense (87447213) (106251330) (127880015) 150634386

Selling & Distribution Expense (82717471) (100172476) (151075061) 175643139

Profit from Operating Activities 731688521 753744226 1094765260 1276267016

Financial expense (334134686) (398754106) (493780124) (566614721)

Non operating income 25026382 53562993 200297742 173405115

Changes in Fair Value of Tradable (21372900) - - -

securities

Profit before WPPF & Welfare Fund 401207317 408553113 801912878 883057410

Contribution to WPPF & Welfare (20060366) (20427656) (40095644) (44152871)

Fund
Profit before Income Tax 381146951 388125457 761817234 838904539

Income Tax Expenses

-Current (89002983) (88022624) (179191873) 167700951

-Deferred 325254 (10483017) (11322000) (27616163)

Profit After Tax 292469222 289619816 571303361 643587425

Other Comprehensive Income

Unrealized Gain/(Loss) - (2753307) 19432608 5671383

Total Comprehensive Income 292469222 286866509 590735969 649258808

GPH ISPAT LIMITED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT 30 JUNE

36
DETAILS 2015 2016 2017 2018
ASSETS
NON CURRENT ASSET 1758280062 2107531015 4746153926 14093479693
Property, Plant & Equipment 1602247723 1537845553 1645280683 2433275880
Capital Work in Progress - 254959924 2735692870 11285676865
Intangible Asset 630000 1161000 999000 1164431
Investment 155402339 313564538 3641181373 373362517
CURRENT ASSET 4245588483 8186724848 8120052898 8600764720
Short Term Investment 222278247 308794493 2443736696 1886025036
Advances, Deposits & Prepayments 637632353 1060118605 1110464916 1993941113
Inventories 2260144618 3063485982 2454596463 2862785186
Trade Receivables 989400218 1122973036 1799922366 1633664201
Cash & Cash Equivalent 136133047 2631352732 311332457 224349184
TOTAL ASSETS 6003868545 10294255863 12866206824 22694244413
EQUITY & LIABILITIES
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY 2045236997 4819087643 5035603612 5528937420
SHARE CAPITAL 1247400000 3118500000 3118500000 3274425000
SHARE PREMIUM 388000000 1136440000 1136440000 1136440000
UNREALIZED GAIN/(L0SS) ON - (2753307) 16679301 22350864
TRADEABLE SECURITIES

TAX HOLIDAY RESERVE - - - -

RETAINED EARNINGS 409836997 566900950 763984311 1095721736
NON CURRENT LIABILITIES 634356633 4570308391 1948609409 8588537548
LONG TERM LOAN 502256691 323073319 1720967205 8359030241
Finance Lease Obligations 29174027 18808970 101164102 75413042
Deferred Tax Liability 102925915 115156102 126478102 154094265
CURRENT LIABILITIES & PROVISIONS 3324274915 5018129829 5881993803 8576769445
Current Portion of Long term Loan 65182930 47613367 60340400 280862291
Current Portion of Finance Lease 21877632 14017261 22001232 25931192
Obligation

Short term Borrowings 2922047896 4254214515 4971423126 7254491296

Creditors & Accruals 223249125 591253677 644846114 841587359
Provision for Tax 91917332 111031009 183382931 173897307
Total Shareholders Equity & 6003868545 10294255863 12866206824 22694244413
Liabilities

BSRM STEELS LIMITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR

THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE

37
DETAILS 2015 2016 2017 2018

Revenue 33493228651 20066076442 37996410539 48289925736

Cost of Sales (28678277200) (16735003517) (33439115539) (43410757954)

Gross Profit 4814951451 3331072925 4557295000 4879167782

Selling & Distribution Cost (858647893) (591086940) (938883694) (1304112525)

Administration Cost (302967383) (166232017) (367152978) (409221690)

Other Operating Income 29617617 13053810 22332934 14814291

Operating Profit 3682953791 2586807778 3273591262 3180647858

Finance Cost (830836624) (217490264) (1528142105) (2039113061)

Finance Income 67645276 30021553 977094415 1027369378

Profit before WPPF & Welfare Fund (763191348) 2399339067 2722543572 2168904175

Contribution to WPPF & Welfare (145656791) (119941223) (136181349) (108445209)

Fund
Profit on Bargain Purchase - - - 10196786

Share of Profit/(Loss) of Associates 75311775 (18555854) (225874590) 237876679

Profit before Tax 2849417428 2260841990 2360487633 2308532431

Income Tax

-Current (393336207) (988631268) (683917742) (552700219)

-Deferred (358790800) (17439632) 28844769 44963346

Net Profit after Tax 2097290421 1254771090 1705414660 1800795558

Other Comprehensive Income

Actuarial Gain/(Loss) on Defined - - - (3392066)

Benefit Plans

Total Comprehensive Income 2097290421 1254771090 1705414660 1797403492

BSRM STEELS LIMITED CONSOLDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT 30 JUNE

DETAILS 2015 2016 2017 2018

ASSET

38
NON CURRENT ASSET
Property, Plant & Equipment 9921677186 9856126601 10747146750 9563331957
Capital Work in Progress 27353337 - - 2841135643
Intangible Assets 38374145 36225284 31927564 27629844
Investment 1569466903 1550911049 1325036459 2562913138
Total Non Current Asset 11556871571 11443262934 12104110773 13995010582
Current Asset
Short Term Investment 270424930 393152273 496529288 323908621
Inventories 8773744844 6855554513 8980713498 14451900658
Trade & Other Receivables 2545202973 3471156709 4354600097 6460423147
Current Account with Related 2358219806 6839313744 9648559106 6970340553
Companies
Advances, Deposits & Prepayments 2438950252 3352058656 1945407207 2954281030
Cash & Cash Equivalent 541118785 176040266 77855172 524690721
Total Current Asset 16927661590 21087276161 25503664368 31685544730
Total Assets 28484533161 32530539095 37607775141 45680555312
Equity & Liabilities
Equity
Share Capital 3417750000 3417750000 3417750000 3417750000
Retained Earnings 4215356323 4458086923 5503470464 6777298362
Revaluation Reserve 2629576682 2621828110 2601996609 2613852170
Non-Controlling Interest 107111570 104158489 107081608 -
Total Equity 10369794575 10601823522 11630298681 12808900532
LIABILITIES
NON CURRENT LIABILITIES
Long Term Borrowings 659385605 1613237376 1117900968 1777555668
Defined Benefit Obligations 74583446 77869987 98761816 136970002
Deferred Tax Liability 1231685328 1246542103 1211086834 1157754016
TOTAL NON CURRENT LIABILITIES 1965654379 2937649466 2427749618 3072279686
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Trade Payables 61486527 91190699 103026404 5767311018
Short Term Borrowings 14708174314 16264707464 21346253998 19295024003
Current Portion of Long Term Loans - - 496382365 1093625713
Current Account with Related - 20234964 59622907 1540077748
Companies
Liabilities for Expenses 257170277 366375912 314217165 461123854
Provision for Income Tax 560347182 1548978450 1074981753 957113965
Provision for WPPF & Welfare Fund 145656791 212671072 136181349 109253966
Other Liabilities 416249116 486907546 515443266 575844827
Total Current Liabilities 16149084207 18991066107 23549726842 29799375094
Total Liabilities 18114738586 21928715573 25977476460 32871654780
Total Equity & Liabilities 2848533161 32530539095 37607775141 45680555312

DATA OUTSIDE THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN USED

1. DIVIDEND
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 509125727 1019453037 683397579 512662500
GPH ISPAT 177407553 211557822 373303873 132749484

39
 2. No. of Common Stock
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 341775000 341775000 341775000 341775000
GPH ISPAT 187110000 187110000 187110000 187110000

3. Market Price Per Share

2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 96.3 94.0 90.9 70.1
GPH ISPAT 14 14 14 14

4. Interest Expense
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 858979213 163009989 849239332 1011743683
GPH ISPAT 334134686 375,823,819 486,690,991 539,220,206

5. Stockholder’s Equity
2015 2016 2017 2018
BSRM 10369794575 10601823522 11630298681 12808900532
GPH ISPAT 2045236997 4819087643 5035603612 5528937420

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE REPORT

NAME WORK DONE

1. TASAWAR HOSSAIN DEBT RATIOS & ITS ANALYSIS, & MS WORD

2. FAYSAL DHALI LIQUIDITY RATIOS & ITS ANALYSIS, MS

EXCEL (GRAPHS), MS WORD,
(RECOMMENDATION, CONCLUSION)
3. ABDULLAH AL SAADMAN BEGH PROFITABILITY RATIOS & ITS ANALYSIS

4. AMBER SHAMI MULLICK MARKET RATIOS & ITS ANALYSIS, MS

WORD, RECOMMENDATION &
CONCLUSION
5. NABILA NAWRIN NIJHUM ACTIVITY RATIOS & ITS ANALYSIS

REFERENCE
BSRM:
https://bsrm.com/bsrm-steels-ltd/

40
GPH ISPAT
http://www.gphispat.com.bd/InvestorMatters/

END OF REPORT

41