Financial Performance Analysis Of Crown Resorts And Its Comparison With Tatts Group Limited

Limitations

1.0 Introduction:

1.1 Purpose:

            The current report aims to assess the financial performance of an Australian public listed entity based on its financial statements for the past years. For meeting the purpose of this report, Crown Resorts Limited is selected as the entity operating in the integrated resorts sector and it is listed in ASX under the code CNW. The financial analysis is carried out by taking into consideration five different financial ratios to understand the current standing of the organisation in the Australian market.

1.2 Scope:

            For extending the scope of this particular report, comparison is made with one of the major competitors of Crown Resorts, which is Tatts Group Limited with the ASX code of TTW. In addition, three different methods of comparison are used to determine the organisation that is enjoying competitive advantage over the other one.

1.3 Limitations:

            It has already identified that comparative analysis of the financial statements of the two selected organisations would be made with the help of five financial ratios. However, it is to be borne in mind that financial ratios only have the ability to depict the previous trends. In other words, the future progress of an entity could not be predicted with the help of financial ratios, since they do not take into consideration the effects of inflationary pressures on the economy, changes in industrial trends along with consumer preferences. Moreover, the ratios of only the past two years would be evaluated. If the timeframe would be five years, more accurate overview of the financial position of both the organisations could be evaluated in a better way.

2.0 Company overview of Crown Resorts Limited:

            Crown Resorts Limited is one of the biggest gaming and entertainment groups having market capitalisation of nearly $8.7 billion in April 2018 (Crownresorts.com.au 2018). It is involved in fully operating and owning two leading entertainment and gaming complexes of Australia, which are Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne. In addition, it has strong portfolio of future projects along with complementary investments that are anchored on the part of Crown Sydney. In addition, it provides grants to community welfare, arts, healthcare, education and environment by contributing above $100 million over ten years to aid in community projects in Australia.       

3.0 Ratio analysis:

            The following ratios are considered in the context of Crown Resorts Limited to measure its financial condition in the past two years:

Overview of Crown Resorts Limited

3.1 Quick ratio:

Table 1: Quick ratio of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

 Figure 1: Quick ratio of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

            In the words of Atoom, Malkawi and Al Share (2017), quick ratio measures the efficiency of an organisation in meeting its short-term dues and obligations. It is a conservative version of the liquidity metric, current ratio, since it provides a greater rigorous evaluation of the ability of a firm to meet its short-term liabilities. The reason is that it does not consider the most liquid current assets, which are inventories and prepaid expenses. In case of Crown Resorts Limited, the quick ratio has increased significantly from 0.90 in 2016 to 1.78 in 2017, while the ideal ratio is considered as 1. A lower ratio indicates that the organisation is struggling to discharge its existing obligations, while a higher ratio signifies the presence of huge amount of idle working capital (Gitman, Juchau and Flanagan 2015). The latter is the case with Crown Resorts Limited due to significant increase in cash and cash equivalents in 2017 from 2016.

3.2 Gross profit margin:

Table 2: Gross profit margin of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018) Figure 2: Gross profit margin of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

            Gross margin denotes the profitability of an organisation before the overhead expenses are incurred. The greater value signifies that more cents are made per dollar of revenue, which is favourable because greater profit would be available for covering the non-production costs (Grant 2016). For entertainment industry, gross profit margin provides an overview of the pricing strategies of the organisations. In case of Crown Resorts, there is a slight decline in gross margin from 96.01% in 2016 to 95.27% in 2017. Despite such decline, it could be stated that the organisation is following an aggressive pricing strategy by charging greater mark-up on the products sold and services rendered to the customers.

3.3 Return on equity:

Table 3: Return on equity of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

 Figure 3: Return on equity of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

            The return on equity ratio gauges the rate of return that the owners of common stock of an organisation obtain on their shareholdings. In other words, it determines the ability of an organisation in generating returns on investment made from the shareholders (Ibn-Homaid and Tijani 2015). The higher the return, the better it is for the organisation. In case of Crown Resorts Limited, the return on equity has increased significantly from 18.75% in 2016 to 36.30% in 2017, which denotes that the organisation has earned adequate income that has helped in providing greater returns to the shareholders.

Ratio Analysis

3.4 Debt to equity ratio:

Table 4: Debt to equity ratio of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

 Figure 4: Debt to equity ratio of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

            Debt to equity ratio is a measure of solvency that denotes the soundness of the long-term financial policies of an organisation (Jami and Bahar 2016). It depicts the association between the parts of the assets that the creditors and the investors fund respectively. The ideal debt to equity ratio of any organisation falling in the entertainment sector of Australia is considered as 0.50. For Crown Resorts Limited, the debt to equity ratio of the organisation has fallen from 0.56 in 2016 to 0.44 in 2017. This signifies that the organisation obtains funds by issuing equity shares in the market, which has helped in minimising long-term debt burden. Hence, in terms of solvency, Crown Resorts Limited is in a favourable position in the Australian market.

3.5 Days inventory:

Table 5: Days inventory of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

 Figure 5: Days inventory of Crown Resorts Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Crownresorts.com.au 2018)

            Days’ inventory is the amount of time that an organisation takes to release its inventory. In other words, it helps in providing the investors with an idea of the time that an organisation takes for converting its inventory into sales (Titman, Keown and Martin 2017). The lower the number of days, the faster is the release of inventory for the organisation. In case of Crown Resorts Limited, it has fallen from 39.84 days in 2016 to 39.11 days in 2017, which signifies that the inventories are released at a faster rate due to rising demand in the market. Thus, from the efficiency point of view, it could be stated that Crown Resorts has improved its position in the Australian market compared to 2016.

4.0 Analysis and comparison of Crown Resorts Limited with Tatts Group Limited:

            For evaluating the financial position and performance of Crown Resorts Limited more effectively, it is compared with its key competitor, Tatts Group Limited. It provides gambling services through lotteries, wavering and gaming having operational footprint throughout Australia and New Zealand, except Western Australia (Tatts Group 2018). The evaluation is made by considering three ratios, which include gross margin, quick ratio and debt to equity ratio.

Comparison with Tatts Group Limited

Gross margin:

Table 6: Quick ratio of Tatts Group Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Tatts Group 2018)

 Figure 6: Quick ratio of Tatts Group Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Tatts Group 2018)

            According to the above figure, it is inherent that there is significant decline in quick ratio over the years and it is well below the ideal standard and that of its competitor, Crown Resorts Limited. This denotes that Tatts Group is struggling to meet its existing dues with the available short-term asset base. Hence, it could be stated that in terms of liquidity, the position of Crown Resorts is much better compared to Tatts Group.

Gross profit margin:

Table 7: Gross profit margin of Tatts Group Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Tatts Group 2018)

 Figure 7: Gross profit margin of Tatts Group Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Tatts Group 2018)

            Based on the above table, it could be cited that the gross profit margin of the organisation has increased from 31.24% in 2016 to 31.34% in 2017; however, it is much lower compared to Crown Resorts Limited due to lower pricing structure (Vogel 2014). Hence, from the profitability viewpoint, Crown Resorts Limited is enjoying competitive edge over Tatts Group Limited in the Australian market.

Debt to equity ratio:

Table 8: Debt to equity ratio of Tatts Group Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Tatts Group 2018)

 Figure 8: Debt to equity ratio of Tatts Group Limited for the years 2016 and 2017

(Source: Tatts Group 2018)

            From the above figure, it is evident that the debt to equity ratio of the organisation has fallen from 0.54 in 2016 to 0.45 in 2017, which implies that long-term liabilities are minimised while the equity base has increased (Vogel 2016). The trend is similar to that of Crown Resorts Limited and hence, it could be said that both the organisations have the same standing in terms of solvency in the Australian market.

            However, by taking into account the other financial aspects, the financial performance and position of Crown Resorts Limited is much better in contrast to Tatts Group Limited in the Australian market.

References:

Atoom, R., Malkawi, E. and Al Share, B., 2017. Utilizing Australian Shareholders’ Association (ASA): Fifteen Top Financial Ratios to Evaluate Jordanian Banks’ Performance. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking, 7(1), p.119.

Crownresorts.com.au., 2018. Crown – Crown Resorts.

Crownresorts.com.au., 2018. Crown Resorts – Crown Resorts

Gitman, L.J., Juchau, R. and Flanagan, J., 2015. Principles of managerial finance. Pearson Higher Education AU.

Grant, R.M., 2016. Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition. John Wiley & Sons.

Ibn-Homaid, N.T. and Tijani, I.A., 2015. Financial Analysis of a Construction Company in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 4(3), pp.80-86.

Jami, M. and Bahar, M.N., 2016. Analysis of Profitability Ratios to Evaluation of Performance of Indian Automobile Industry. Journal of Current Research in Science, (1), p.747.

Tatts Group., 2018. Investor Relations | Annual Reports – Tatts Group. 

Tatts Group., 2018. Tatts Group – Moments that Thrill!. 

Titman, S., Keown, A.J. and Martin, J.D., 2017. Financial management: Principles and applications. Pearson.

Vogel, H.L., 2014. Entertainment industry economics: A guide for financial analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Vogel, H.L., 2016. Travel industry economics: A guide for financial analysis. Sprin