GF Assignment Keller, Ogideh, Nyikos, Rasheed

MBA-USQ 11: Accounting for Managers
Written Assignment: Ratio Analysis and Interpretation
University of Applied Sciences Zurich (HWZ)

Supervised by: Prof. Dr. rer. pol. Thomas Rautenstrauch
Each member of the group has contributed equally to the completion of this
assignment:
THOMAS NYIKOS: thomas.nyikos@student.fh-hwz.ch
IMRAN RASHEED: imran.rasheed@student.fh-hwz.ch
ANJA KELLER: anja.keller@student.fh-hwz.ch
STANLEY OGIDEH: stanley.ogideh@student.fh-hwz.ch
Zrich, 16 June 2012

1 Introduction
Georg Fischer describes itself as a leading industrial group that focuses on its three
core businesses GF Piping Systems, GF Automotive and GF AgieCharmilles. Founded
in 1802 and headquartered in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, the Corporation generates
annual sales of CHF 3.6 billion and employs some 14,000 people worldwide.
Out of the three core divisions of George Fischer, GF Automotive contributed 45.7%,
GF Piping Systems 32.3% and AgieCharmilles 22% in group total net sales during the
year 2011. Despite the head wind which the company claims, total net sales during the
year 2011 grew by 6%, the operating profit by 31% and the net profit by 56% compared
to 2010 with free cash flow over 100MCHF. The company has been hit hard by the
financial crisis and the worldwide recession followed by strong Swiss Franc. Looking at
sales values on its consolidated financial statement, Georg Fischer is still recovering
from these events, as 2011 sales levels remain at almost 20% lower in comparison with
those from 2007. However, the company seems to have managed to optimise its cost
structure and a presentable net profit was achieved in 2011. However, question remains
as to whether this recovery is sustainable. Additionally, what impression of Georg
Fischer is generated when analysing the financial figures of previous years in greater
detail? In chapter 2 the figures of core businesses and the company as whole are
analysed and in chapter 3 a comparison is made to the performance of competitors. In
chapter 4 the findings are evaluated for potential investors in the conclusion.
2 Analysis
Due to the structure of GF with three largely independent business segments which
operate in completely different markets, the first part of the analysis investigates the
contributions and the performance of the three individual segments (2.1), in the second
part (2.2) the company is analysed on a consolidated level. As part of the analysis, the
figures found for the last years are compared to the strategic goals that GF formulated in
the Vision and Strategy 2015 (GF Vision, 2012) and (GF Investor Presentation,
2012).
Prior to detailed individual segment analysis, a historical perspective overview of GF
segment sales and EBIT performance is provided in the graph below.
GF Segment Overview 2007 - 11

BCHF EBIT %
5.0 15%
4.5 11.5% 11.7%
10.0% 11.6% 10%
4.0 6.4% 4.6%
3.1% 7.5% 3.1% 5%
3.5 5.9%
3.0 2.4% 4.3%
-0.2% 0%
2.5
2.0 -5%
-4.8%
1.5 -10%
1.0
-15%
0.5 -14.0%
0.0 -20%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
GF Piping System - Sales GF Automotive - Sales
GF AgieCharmilles - Sales GF Piping System - EBIT %
GF Automotive System - EBIT % GF AgieCharmilles - EBIT %
1
MBA-USQ 2011, Accounting for Managers, Written Assignment: Ratio Analysis of GF
Keller, Nyikos, Ogideh, Rasheed
2.1 Segments Detail Performance Analysis
GF Automotive is a major contributor to the total net sales (in 2011 46%) and profit (in
2011 29%) of the company. The targets for achievement of the strategic objectives for
2015 for GF Automotive include sales amounting to 2BCHF (app. 5% growth
annually), RONOA (return on net operating assets) of 13-15% and an EBIT margin
amounting to 7-8%.
GF Automotive 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trends
Net Sales Growth % 15.3% -2.8% -41.6% 23.1% 7.2%
ROS % ( EBIT Margin) 6.0% 0.0% -5.0% 2.4% 4.3%
RONOA % 16.0% -1.0% -9.0% 5.9% 11.9%
Sales Per Employee (TCHF) 381 360 217 280 291
The operational performance of the automotive business of GF Corporation has been
quite volatile in consideration of net sales development. In the period leading up to
2007, net sales had gone through constant growth, whereas the period after this has been
troublesome. In 2008 the global financial crisis caused a drastic market collapse which
continued in 2009. This, combined with a strengthening Swiss Franc (CHF), also
contributed to lower sales volumes. Sales levels during 2010-11 have recovered
somewhat, though are still lagging behind 2007 levels. Therefore, to catch up with the
strategic target of 2015, a minimum growth of 5% per year is needed. If 2010-11 growth
momentum can maintained, the strategic target is achievable. However, it seems that GF
Automotive has followed the global trend for auto sales which have declined by -18%
and -21% in 2008 and 2009 respectively, followed by two consecutive years of recovery
with +11.5% growth in 2010 and +8.6% in 2011 (Alex Taylor III, 2011).
The ROS (EBIT Margin) return on sales development for GF Automotive has also not
been free of challenges either. Underutilisation of resources and raw material prices
adversely impacted ROS in 2008; GF Automotive undertook restructuring measures and
adapted capacities by selling two plants during 2009. In the short run, the restructuring
resulted in ROS decreases of 5%. However, the restructuring started paying off during
the period 2010-11. The ROS began to show some sign of recovery, which is also partly
evident from sales per employee. Although EBITDA is at 8.6%, it is still lower than the
industry standard level of 11% (Deloitte Automotive Update, 2011). At 4.3% in 2011,
the ROS indicates that special costs and business driven measures need to be continued
in order to reach the strategic target of 7-8% ROS by 2015. Sales levels per employee
are also lagging 23% behind 2007 levels; another indicator that further efforts are
necessary in order to improve efficiency or that cost reduction measures may arise in the
near future.
For the RONOA, the period 2008-09 clearly displayed significant challenges.
Additionally, it showed that operating net assets did not yield the required return by any
means. On the other hand, 2010 showed recovery and 2011 shows value addition by the
NOA on the rise, with a return of 11.9%. If the company is able to sustain this rate of
return for the upcoming years, the achievement of the 2015 strategic object of 13-15%
RONOA seems likely.
GF Piping System is also a major contributor to the total net sales (32% in 2011) and
profit (56% in 2011) of the company. The objectives for 2015 for this segment are sales
of 2BCHF (app. 15% growth annually), a RONOA of 17-20% and an EBIT margin of
11-13%.
2
GF Piping System 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trends
Net Sales Growth % 10.3% 11.7% -12.9% 10.3% -0.2%
ROS % ( EBIT Margin) 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 11.6% 11.7%
RONOA % 27.0% 20.0% 12.0% 17.7% 16.6%
The operational performance of the piping system segment of GF can be deemed to be
quite stable. Despite net sales growth dipping during 2009 by -12.9%, overall they have
remained above 2007 levels (in CHF). Sales levels during 2011 were at a comparable
level to 2010; the strong Swiss Franc contributed to lower growth in %, as in local
currencies sales grew by 11% compared to -0.2% in the reporting currency Swiss Franc.
However, in order to achieve the strategic targets for 2015, an annual minimum growth
of app. 15% is required. Considering the current economic climate and market situation,
this seems to be a daunting task only by organic growth. However, considering the
initiatives for expansion that were taken during 2011 by opening their so far largest
plant in China, new logistics centres in Atlanta, USA, Singapore, the expansion of the
main hub in Schaffhausen and the acquisition of Harvel Plastics, the leading industrial
pipe manufacturer in the US, will surely help GF Piping System to reach to strategic
growth targets of 2015.
The ROS development for GF Piping System has been quite stable, with the exception
of a few percentage points decrease in 2009. Early cost cutting measures seem to have
paid off in 2009, as the drop in ROS was reduced to only 2% (in comparison with the
sales drop of 12.9% in 2010). A ROS of 11.7% in the year 2011 indicates that if cost
and business focused measures continue, the strategic target of 13% ROS by 2015 is
achievable. However, GF Piping System must pay due attention to sales per employee
levels, which are on a declining trend in the long run. This may affect ROS and also
force further restructuring measures.
The return on net operating assets was reported at 27% in 2007. In the following years,
the generated value has declined steadily, although it still clearly performing better than
the other segments of GF. If the company is able to sustain this return for the upcoming
years, the 2015 strategic object of RONOA of 17-20% is highly likely to be achieved.
GF AgieCharmilles is a business segment displaying moderate sales (22% in 2011)
and low profit generation (15% in 2011) for the company. For GF AgieCharmilles, the
targets set in the strategic objective for 2015 are sales over 1BCHF (app. 6% growth
annually), RONOA of 13-15% and an EBIT margin of 6-8%.
GF AgieCharmilles 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trends
Net Sales Growth % 3.6% -8.4% -46.5% 24.7% 11.0%
ROS % ( EBIT Margin) 7.0% 3.0% -14.0% 3.1% 4.6%
RONOA % 15.0% 5.0% -19.0% 7.2% 13.0%
The operational performance of the AgieCharmilles segment of GF Corporation has
been quite volatile. Net sales in 2008 declined by 8.4%, and the year 2009 was then
termed by GF AgieCharmilles the worst downturn in history in their annual report; net
sales were hit with a decrease of 46.5%. Largely responsible for this was the continued
slump in European and US markets. During the years 2010-11, net sales growth
remained positive but could not reach 2007-08 levels of 1.1BCHF. In order to be on
track towards achieving the strategic target of 2015, maintaining an annual minimum
growth rate of 6% is necessary. This could be challenging, but if the 2010-11 growth
levels can be sustained, it seems like this could be an achievable target.
3
The ROS development of GF AgieCharmilles has also not been without its challenges.
During 2008, the company initiated measures to realign the structure and to streamline
the organisation in order to increase efficiency. In spite of this, the segment experienced
an extremely bad ROS (further decreasing by 14%) in 2011. This further reiterated the
need for the organisation to adapt the market trends. During the years 201011 the
markets started recovering and the cost and efficiency initiatives that were undertaken
began to yield results, with a ROS of 4.6% in 2011. GF AgieCharmilles needs to stay on
course if 6-8% ROS are to be achieved by 2015. Of course it should be noted that sales
per employee, which had declined to its lowest point during 2009, started recovering in
the following years. However, more efforts in this area are needed to achieve sustained
profitability.
The year 2007, with a RONOA of 15%, has clearly generated the highest value for GF
AgieCharmilles. In contrast, 2009 experienced a decrease of 19% of RONOA, mainly
due to a negative EBIT Margin. 2010 showed signs of recovery and 2011 clearly
indicated that net operating assets started generating value for the business. If
AgieCharmilles is able to maintain and further build upon the RONOA in 2011 (at
13%) the 2015 strategic object of a RONOA of 15% is highly likely to be achieved.
2.2 Company Level Analysis

2.2.1 Profitability
GF Annual Report CS Analyst Report GF Strategy Trends
Performance Ratios 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015S
Sales BCHF 4.5 4.5 2.9 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.0 5.0
EBIT Margin 7.2% 5.1% -2.0% 5.2% 6.5% 6.5% 6.7% 7.1% 8.5%
Sales growth 11.1% -0.7% -34.9% 18.6% 5.5% 3.8% -0.1% 4.7%
ROIC 14.1% 5.3% -12.5% 9.1% 13.3% 12.9% 12.9% 14.1% 15.0%
ROE 16.4% 4.7% -18.6% 9.5% 14.3% 13.2% 12.4% 12.9%
The numbers for GF on company level in terms of profitability reflect the sum of the
three business segments on a consolidated level. Therefore, also on this level, the effect
of the financial crisis is obvious in various KPIs that were identified. Additionally, the
effect of the strengthening Swiss Franc becomes obvious for the year 2011. E.g.,
looking at sales growth in CHF was 6% in 2011 compared to the sales growth in local
currency which amounted to 18% (GF Investor Presentation, 2012). The target of sales
of approx. 5BCHF formulated in the GF strategy 2015 (GF Investor Presentation, 2012)
presents an almost unreachable goal only by organic growth, also in the opinion of the
analysts of Credit Suisse (CS Equity Research Report, 2012) which put the expected
sales in 2014 at 4BCHF. The planned acquisitions worth 500MCHF in revenue will be
needed to achieve the objectives in sales (Memo Interview GF, 2012) and to expand the
piping segment to the desired volume of 40% of total revenue to compensate for the
volatility in the other segments. GF has proven by acquiring Harwell (US) and IPP (US)
that it is pursuing the strategy with vigour.
EBIT margin in 2011 with 6.5% recovered from the crisis in 2009 and compared to the
success in 2007 of 7.2%, this is still in line. Comparing again with the GF strategy
2015, the target of an EBIT margin of 8-9% presents a high projection and will be
difficult to achieve without acquisitions of high performing companies. The ROE for
2011 of 14.3% represents a substantial improvement in performance for GF by
considering 2009 with a ROE of -18.6%. On the other hand, this is still slightly below
the successful year of 2007 with a ROE of 16.4%. GF ROIC for 2011 of 13.3% signifies
a solid recovery in invested capital performance regarding 2009 and almost reaches pre-
crisis values of 2007. Again, looking at the GF strategic target for 2015, the set goal of
4
an ROIC of 15.0% seems to be achievable, which is also confirmed in (CS Equity
Research Report, 2012).
2.2.2 Liquidity
GF Annual Report CS Analyst Report Trends
Liquidity Ratios 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E 2013E 2014E
Quick Ratio 119% 75% 87% 117% 114% 119% 129% 135%
Current Ratio 186% 141% 152% 188% 183% 188% 199% 206%
Cashflow-Analysis
Cashflow-Margin 9% 4% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 7%
Tilgungsfaktor (Verschuldung) 1.1 -2.8 5.0 2.1 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.1
The Quick Ratio (acid test) of 114% in 2011 presents a slight decrease compared to
2010 ratio of 117%. This is still a presentable value considering the liquidity issues in
2009 and 2008. A basis for the turnaround was the GF debt reduction performance
(Tilgungsfaktor) of 5.0 in 2009 compared to 2008 with a negative debt ratio of -2.8. As
background, also gearing ratios should be considered (see 2.2.3). GF performed the
necessary restructuring measures in the financial crises and reduced the number of
employees from 14326 FTE in 2008 to 12481 FTE in 2009 to reduce the overcapacity.
GFs Current Ratio (working capital) of 183% in 2011 presents, equivalent to the acid
test, a slight decrease compared to 2010 ratio of 188%. Again, as the acid test, this
represents a recovery compared to 2009 and 2008. This drop was largely caused by the
dramatic drop in sales from 4.5 BCHF in 2008 to 2.9 BCHF in 2009, which represents a
decrease of almost 36%. Due to aforementioned restructuring measures, personnel cost
of 1103 MCHF in 2008 could be cut back to 893MCHF in 2009. Additionally,
operating expenses could be reduced from 840MCHF in 2008 to 553MCHF in 2009.
GF Annual Report CS Analyst Report Trend
OPEX (operating expenses) incl. personell 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E 2013E 2014E
OPEX cost in BCHF 1.90 1.94 1.45 1.51 1.50 1.57 1.58 1.65
OPEX variation to previous period 2% -26% 5% -1% 4% 1% 5%
OPEX in % to sales 42% 44% 50% 44% 41% 41% 41% 41%
Stock Efficiency (Margin) 49% 51% 46% 48% 50% 49% 48% 48%
Depr & amort, goodwill MCHF 158 173 164 149 135 139 140 145
excl. Special changes (restructuring)
The operating expenses including personnel expenses (OPEX) dropped down from
1.94BCHF in 2008 (starting phase of the financial crisis) to 1.45BCHF in 2009 and
panelled to 1.5BCHF in 2010 and 2011. Considering the GF strategy 2015, the 41%
OPEX to sales in 2011 should be reduced to 40% by improving process efficiency
(centralisation), also owing to acquisitions. GF strategy 2015 (GF Investor Presentation,
2012) sets an EBIT target of 425MCHF which seems be reasonable regarding the
acquisition strategy (Memo Interview GF, 2012) and organic growth (CS Equity
Research Report, 2012).
2.2.3 Gearing
GF Annual Report CS Analyst Report Trend
Lending Ratios 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012E 2013E 2014E
Equity Ratio 45% 43% 40% 40% 42% 44% 46% 48%
Gearing Ratio 34% 31% 39% 44% 39% 37% 35% 32%
Interest Cover 9.6 3.6 -5.7 4.6 6.7
Asset Utilization
Current Assets 58% 54% 50% 55% 56% 57% 58% 60%
The Equity Ratio of 42% in 2011 signals a good equity situation for GF. The Gearing
Ratio of 39% in 2011 compared to 2007 with 34% is also an acceptable value.
5
Similarly, the interest cover of 6.7 in 2011 is a presentable value and a sign that the
company is on a good path towards recovery from the financial crisis. The situation for
Current Assets with a ratio of 56% in 2011 compared to 2007 of 58% is also stable. All
these ratios point towards a prudent and conservative lending strategy of GF where the
financial crisis couldnt cause lasting damage.
2.2.4 Activity/Efficiency
Efficency Ratios 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend
Staff Efficiency Sales per Employee (TCHF) 346 312 233 267 267
Stock Efficiency (Margin) 49% 51% 46% 48% 50%
Capital Efficiency 3% 4% 5% 4% 3%
Activity / Efficiency Ratios 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trend
Trade receivables turnover 6.2 7.0 6.0 7.7 7.3
Trade receivables turnover in days 58 52 60 47 49
Inventory turnover 3.2 3.0 1.9 2.8 3.0
Inventory turnover in days 111 119 187 127 120
Trade payables turnover 7.0 7.4 5.7 7.0 6.5
Trade payables turnover in days 51 49 63 51 55
Asset Turnover 1.4 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.3
GF staff efficiency, i.e. sales per employee was reported in 2011 with 267TCHF
compared to 2007 with 346TCHF. This represents a drastic decrease in performance.
With the help of prudent acquisitions and overall optimisation measures, staff efficiency
may be improved again. Regarding the strong CHF and the economic situation in
Europe, staff of production intensive processes will have to be shifted to low-cost
countries as China. The location Switzerland with 2650 FTE or approx. 20% of the
company in 2011, compared to 2007 with 2705 FTE was not cut back significantly.
Thanks to highly automated processes (robotics), production in Switzerland can still be
competitive. Another reason why the headcount in Switzerland remains stable is
because of the large share of R&D which cannot be easily shifted to Asia. Contrarily, in
Europe headcount was reduced substantially from 7511 FTE in 2007 to 6806 FTE in
2011, but this still represents 50% of total employees. At the same time, the location
Asia grew form 2051 FTE in 2007 to 3076 FT in 2011, which clearly shows the shift
of production from Europe to Asia.
The trade receivables turnover in days with 49 in 2011 compared to 2007 with 58 days
are a sign of stricter terms of condition handling with the customers (Memo GF
Interview, 2012) and a new bonus system, which considers the payment days. The
Inventory Turnover in days of 120 in 2011 slightly increased compared to 2007 with
111 days, which cannot be reduced as they are given by production cycles (Memo GF
Interview, 2012).
2.2.5 Shareholder Return
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Trends
Dividend per Share 25 5 0 10 15
Dividend Payout Ratio 43% 36% n/a 42% 38%
Dividend Yield 4% 2% 0 2% 5%
Earning per Share 58 14 -61 24 39
Price Earning Ratio 12 17 n/a 22 8
George Fischer follows a dividend policy that is based on earnings, with the aim of
distributing approximately one third of the consolidated returns to its shareholders.
6
Looking at the dividend payout ratio over the years 2007-2011, all periods yielded a
return for investors in accordance with the companys dividend policy, with the
exception of 2009 where the company had suffered net losses of 238MCHF. The
earnings per share (EPS) ratio for GF has experienced significant fluctuations over the
period under analysis. In 2007 the EPS was 58, whereas analysts are forecasting an
EPS of 38.5 for 2012. Resultantly, investors are likely to take a cautious approach in
deciding whether to invest in GF stock which may have the effect of furthering the
instability of the share price. Additionally, the Price/Earning (PE) ratio in 2011 was 8
and, compared to previous years, clearly indicates that price per earnings have declined.
This does not send a positive signal to potential investors in terms of future earnings
growth prospects. Whilst these aforementioned ratios are important for investment
decision, it should be noted, however, that they are not the sole ratios and factors that a
diligent investor takes into consideration.
3 Competitor Analysis
A practical benchmark and competitor analysis for GF was carried out with due
consideration of the three different business segments of the company, owing to the fact
that no single one of the reviewed competitors shared all the similarities of GF. Below
graph gives an overview of the performance of three main competitors that were chosen
according to (GF Investor Presentation, 2012) compared with the respective segments
of GF.
35 % 400'000
EBIT Margin
30 % 350'000
25 % 300'000
ROIC
250'000
20 %
200'000 Earnings per
15 %
150'000 Employee
10 % 100'000
5% 50'000
0% 0
GF Piping Systems realised in 2011 more than 50% of the entire earnings of one of its
biggest competitors, Geberit, through the GF piping division. However, Geberit
achieved a better EBIT Margin, Cash flow margin, and ROIC than GF piping. Geberit
also attained better employee efficiency. It is yet worthy to mention that most KPIs for
Geberit declined sharply in 2011 in comparison to the previous fiscal year, while major
KPIs for GF increased in the same time period. In addition, GF earnings have increased
progressively since 2009, i.e. the end of the financial crisis.
3'638 Earnings (Millions) EBIT (Millions)
2'123
1'664
1'174
576 800 672.30
235 137 449.2
71 29.8 37 69
GF Group Total GF Piping Geberit GF Auto Componenta GF Agie Sodick
7
GF Automotive maintains a global market lead in iron casting, and it earned almost
190% more income in 2011 than the chosen competitor, Componenta. GF Automotive
also produced better EBIT, cash flow margin and ROIC than its rival, while at the same
time maintaining a better employee efficiency. Particularly low is the 0.62% cash flow
margin of Componenta, which is 91% lower than that of GF group.
GF AgieCharmilles has seen some declines in the past years; nevertheless it is still
quite competitive. Compared to one of its major rivals, Soddick Co Ltd., GF
AgieCharmilles maintains a higher ROIC and employee efficiency, but the rival has
better EBIT and Cash Flow Margin.
A look at the share price development of GF (see Appendix B) illustrates a close
correlation between GF share price movement and the SMIM for the period from 2004
to date. GF shares performed above SMIM average prior to the financial crisis, attaining
at one point in mid-2007 a 55% increase (1,016 CHF) above the SMIM average. The
financial crisis took a serious hit on GF Automotive due to a reduction in the trucking
segment and the automated machines segment of GF AgieCharmilles. Owing to this bad
performance combined with the miserable mood at the market, the share price dropped
to a low of about 108 CHF in early 2009. However, there has been a constant recovery
of the share price after the financial crisis, even though not yet at pre-crisis levels. It is
important to note that the major competitors of GF also had similar drops in their share
prices during the same period, with slow recoveries in most cases, except for Geberit
that has experienced a faster-than-average recovery in its share price, which could be
attributed to the non-volatility of its major products.
4 Conclusion
Based on 2007-11 financial and business analysis, one can conclude that GF is a
company with relatively strong financial fundamentals in place. Its recovery from
financial and economic crisis of 2008-09 is quite evident from 2011 results with 6%
sales growth, 31% and 56% growth in operating and net profit with a free cash flow of
100MCHF. GF seems very well placed in the global market in all its business segments,
but they must continue to be very innovative in order to maintain their lead and remain
competitive. Expanding the Piping Systems segment seems to be a prudent strategy and
can be understood with the troubles the company went through in their other segments
during the financial crisis as seen in the analysis. In addition, GF tries to strengthen its
position in non-cyclical markets also in the other segments as for example with
AgieCharmilles, where they try to expand their position in the medical device and
dental industry.
Overall concluded, the company faces the standard problems of Swiss industrial
companies operating globally; the strong CHF, high labour costs in Switzerland and
also Europe, shrinking margins due to heavy global competition, volatile markets in a
nervous market environment and the risk of plagiarism in Asia to name a few. The
management seems to opt for more conservative strategies in terms of financial risks
and seeks to defend the market position with innovation and cutting edge technology by
investing heavily in R&D and collaborating with Universities.
For the present and potential investors, ambitiously laid strategic targets for 2015 make
GF a very interesting company. These targets are well supported with aggressive
business and efficiency driven approaches. Considering recovering profitability, a
strong balance sheet combined with ambitious plans, which, if executed well and
completed on time, could lead the company into a bright future. A continuous pursuit of
their dividend policy will not only keep the present investor interested but will also be
attractive enough for both long and short term investors.
8
A List of References
Alex Taylor, Senior editor at large, September 22, 2011, The incredible shrinking auto
boom, Fortune Magazine, viewed on 09.06.2012,
<http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/22/autos/auto_sales_forecasts_lowered.fortune/index.h
tm>
Componenta Financial Report, viewed on 07.06.2012,

<http://www.componenta.com/investors/componenta_ir/key_figures/>
Credit Suisse, May 22, 2012, Equity Research Report, see Appendix E for content.
Deloitte Corporate Finance LLC, Q1 2011, Automotive Update, see Appendix F for
content.
Geberit Group 2011 Annual Report, viewed on 07.06.2012,

<http://annualreport.geberit.com/geberit/annual/2011/gb/English/pdf/Geberit_GB2011_
en_2.pdf >
Georg Fischer, Annual Report 2011, viewed on 21.04.2012,

<http://www.georgfischer.com/content/dam/gf/documents/en/annual_report_2011.pdf>

<http://annualreport2010.georgfischer.com/georgfischer/annual/2010/gb//English/pdf/re
port.pdf>

http://annualreport2010.georgfischer.com/georgfischer/annual/2010/gb//English/pdf/ann
ual_report_2009.pdf
Georg Fischer, Investor Presentation 2012, found on:

<http://www.georgfischer.com/content/dam/gf/documents/en/GF_Investorpresentation_
16052012.pdf>
Georg Fischer, Vision and Strategy 2015, viewed on 15.05.2012,

<http://www.georgfischer.com/content/gf/com/en/UeberGeorgFischer/strategie-
2015.html?lang=en>
Georg Fischer AG Market Data, viewed on 07.06.2012, <http://www.six-swiss-

exchange.com/shares/security_info_en.html?id=CH0001752309CHF4>
Sodick Financial Report 2011, viewed on 07.06.2012,

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=614
3:JP&dataset=incomeStatement&period=A&currency=US%20Dollar>
Sodick Financial Reports, viewed on 07.06.2012,

<http://www.sodick.jp/company/investors.html#fs>
9
B GF Share Price Development 2004-2012
Fischer N Share (red) compared to SMIM (black) for the years 2004 up to 2012 (Swissquote)
10
C Company Level KPI Analytics
KPI - RATIO ANALYTICS GF 2007 GF 2008 GF 2009 GF 2010 GF 2011
Lending Ratios
Equity Ratio Equity 1542 1404 1152 1124 1223

Equity + Liabilities 3395 0.45 3291 0.43 2866 0.40 2838 0.40 2925 0.42
Gearing Ratio long term financial liabilities 805 621 750 878 798
Equity + long term Liabilities 2347 0.34 2025 0.31 1902 0.39 2002 0.44 2021 0.39
Financial Leverage Financial Liabilities 1048 1266 964 836 904

Equity 1542 0.68 1404 0.90 1152 0.84 1124 0.74 1223 0.74
Interest Cover EBIT 326 134 -201 180 235

-5.74
interest payable 34 9.59 37 3.62 35 39 4.62 35 6.71
Asset Utilization
Current Assets Current Assets 1975 1790 1468 1569 1651

Total Assets 3415 0.58 3333 0.54 2915 0.50 2838 0.55 2925 0.56
Non-current Assets Non-current Assets 1440 1543 1447 1269 1274

Total Assets 3415 0.42 3333 0.46 2915 0.50 2838 0.45 2925 0.44
Investment ratio Current Assets 1975 1790 1468 1569 1651

non current Assets 1440 1.37 1543 1.16 1447 1.01 1269 1.24 1274 1.30
11

Liquidity Ratios
Quick Ratio Current Assets - Inventory 1244 947 842 980 1029
current Liabilities 1048 1.19 1266 0.75 964 0.87 836 1.17 904 1.14
Current Ratio current Assets 1953 1790 1468 1569 1651

current Liabilities 1048 1.86 1266 1.41 964 1.52 836 1.88 904 1.83
Golden B/S - Rule
Coverage Rate 1 of
non-current Assets Equity 1540 1404 1152 1124 1223
1.07 0.91 0.80 0.77 0.96
Non-current Assets 1440 1543 1447 1469 1274
Coverage Rate 2 of
non-current Assets Equity + long term. fin. Liabilities 2288 2025 1902 2002 2021
1.59 1.31 1.31 1.58 1.59
Non-current Assets 1440 1543 1447 1269 1274
Performance Ratios
Return on Equity (ROE) Profit 245 69 -238 108 168

-0.19
Equity 1494 0.16 1472 0.05 1278 1138 0.09 1174 0.14
Return on Assets (ROA) EBIT 326 134 -201 180 235

-0.06
Total Assets 3312 0.10 3374 0.04 3124 2877 0.06 2882 0.08
12

Performance Ratios
Return on invested
capital (ROIC) Net Profit + interest expnses 245 69 -238 -0.13 108 168
0.14 0.05 0.09 0.13
(Equity + financial liabilities) 2486 2630 2393 2164 2044
Gross Profit Margin Gross Profit 4497 4465 2906 3447 3638
Sales 1567 2.87 1503 2.97 999 2.91 1228 2.81 1256 2.90
EBIT Margin EBIT 326 227 -58 180 235

-0.02
Sales 4497 0.07 4465 0.05 2906 3447 0.05 3638 0.06
EBITDA-Margin EBITDA-Margin 484 400 106 329 370

Sales 4497 0.11 4465 0.09 2906 0.04 3447 0.10 3638 0.10
Profit Margin Profit 245 69 -238 108 168

-0.08
Sales 4497 0.05 4465 0.02 2906 3447 0.03 3638 0.05
Overhad / Sales Overhead Expenses 1083 1103 893 899 886

Sales 4497 0.24 4465 0.25 2906 0.31 3447 0.26 3638 0.24
Efficency Ratios
Staff Efficiency Sales

per Employee (TCHF) Sales 4497 4465 2906 3447 3638
No. of employee 12986 346.30 14326 311.67 12481 232.83 12908 267.04 13606 267.38
13

Efficency Ratios
Stock Efficiency Cost of Sales 2203 2277 1326 1648 1818
(Margin) Sales 4497 0.49 4465 0.51 2906 0.46 3447 0.48 3638 0.50
Capital Efficiency Depreciation 151 159 152 140 121

Sales 4497 0.03 4465 0.04 2906 0.05 3447 0.04 3638 0.03
Cashflow-Analysis
Cashflow-Margin Operating Cash Flow 426 197 242 243 250

Sales 4498 0.09 4465 0.04 2906 0.08 3447 0.07 3638 0.07
Tilgungsfaktor
(Verschuldung) Net financial Liabilities 264 546 -2.77 472 321 294
1.09 5.02 2.14 2.85
Free Cashflow 243 -197 94 150 103
Activity / Efficiency
Ratios
Trade receivables Credit Sales 4563 4533 2975 3511 3704

turnover trade receivables (brutto) 736 6.20 652 6.96 499 5.97 459 7.66 506 7.33
Trade receivables 360 360 360 360 360 360

58.03 51.74 60.32 47.01 49.13
turnover in days trade receivables turnover 6 7 6 8 7
14

Activity / Efficiency
Ratios
Cost of Sales 2203 2277 1326 1648 1818
Inventory turnover
Inventory stock 682 3.23 755 3.02 689 1.92 583 2.83 606 3.00
Inventory turnover in 360 360 360 360 360 360

111.45 119.37 187.06 127.35 119.90
days Invenory turnover 3 3 2 3 3
Trade payables (credit) purchases 3020 3117 1879 2261 2433

turnover trade payables 431 7.01 421 7.40 331 5.68 322 7.02 375 6.50
Trade payables 360 360 360 360 360 360

51.38 48.62 63.42 51.27 55.41
turnover in days trade payables turnover 7 7 6 7 6
Sales 4497 4465 2906 3447 3638

Asset Turnover
Total Assets 3302 1.36 3343 1.34 3079 0.94 2852 1.21 2882 1.26
15
KPI - RATIO ANALYTICS 2007 2008 08-07 vari % 2009 08-09 vari % 2010 09-10 vari % 2011 10-11 vari %
Lending Ratios
Equity Ratio
0.5 0.4 -0.0 -6% 0.4 -0.0 -6% 0.4 -0.0 -1% 0.4 0.0 6%
Gearing Ratio
0.3 0.3 -0.0 -11% 0.4 0.1 29% 0.0 11% 0.4 -0.0 -10%
0.4
Financial Leverage
0.7 0.9 0.2 33% 0.8 -0.1 -7% -0.1 -11% 0.7 -0.0 -1%
0.7
Interest Cover
9.6 3.6 -6.0 -62% -5.7 -9.4 -259% 10.4 -180% 6.7 2.1 45%
4.6
Asset Utilization
Current Assets
0.6 0.5 -0.0 -7% 0.5 -0.0 -6% 0.6 0.0 10% 0.6 0.0 2%
Non-current Assets
0.4 0.5 0.0 10% 0.5 0.0 7% 0.4 -0.0 -10% 0.4 -0.0 -3%
Investment ration
1.4 1.2 -0.2 -15% 1.0 -0.1 -13% 1.2 0.2 22% 1.3 0.1 5%
16
Liquidity Ratios
Quick Ratio
1.2 0.7 -0.4 -37% 0.9 0.1 17% 1.2 0.3 34% 1.1 -0.0 -3%
Current Ratio
1.9 1.4 -0.4 -24% 0.1 8% 1.9 0.4 23% 1.8 -0.1 -3%
1.5
Golden B/S - Rule
Coverage Rate 1 of non-

current Assets 1.1 0.9 -0.2 -15% 0.8 -0.1 -13% -0.0 -4% 1.0 0.2 25%
0.8
Coverage Rate 2 of non-

current Assets 1.6 1.3 -0.3 -17% 1.3 0.0 0% 1.6 0.3 20% 1.6 0.0 1%
Performance Ratios
Return on Equity (ROE)

0.2 0.0 -0.1 -71% -0.2 -0.2 -497% 0.1 0.3 -151% 0.1 0.0 51%
Return on Assets (ROA)

0.1 0.0 -0.1 -60% -0.1 -0.1 -262% 0.1 0.1 -197% 0.1 0.0 30%
17
Performance Ratios
Return on invested capital
(ROIC) 0.1 -0.1 -62% -0.1 -0.2 -336% 0.2 -173% 0.0 46%
0.1 0.1 0.1
Gross Profit Margin

3.0 0.1 4% -0.1 -2% -0.1 -4% 0.1 3%
2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9
EBIT Margin
0.1 -0.0 -30% -0.0 -0.1 -139% 0.1 -362% 0.0 24%
0.1 0.1 0.1
EBITDA-Margin
0.1 -0.0 -17% -0.1 -59% 0.1 162% 0.0 7%
0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Profit Margin
0.0 -0.0 -72% -0.1 -0.1 -630% 0.1 -138% 0.0 47%
0.1 0.0 0.0
Overhad / Sales
0.2 0.0 3% 0.1 24% -0.0 -15% -0.0 -7%
0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2
Efficency Ratios
Staff Efficiency Sales per

Employee (TCHF) 346.3 311.7 ##### -10% 232.8 ##### -25% 267.0 34.2 15% 267.4 0.3 0%
Stock Efficiency (Margin) 0.5 0.0 4% -0.1 -11% 0.0 5% 0.0 5%

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
18
Efficency Ratios
Capital Efficiency
0.0 0.0 6% 0.0 47% -0.0 -22% -0.0 -18%
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Cashflow-Analysis
Cashflow-Margin
0.1 0.0 -0.1 -53% 0.1 0.0 89% 0.1 -0.0 -15% 0.1 -0.0 -3%
Tilgungsfaktor
(Verschuldung) -2.8 -3.9 ##### 7.8 -281% -2.9 -57% 0.7 33%
1.1 5.0 2.1 2.9
Activity / Efficiency Ratios
Trade receivables turnover 7.0 0.8 12% -1.0 -14% 1.7 28% -0.3 -4%
6.2 6.0 7.7 7.3
Trade receivables turnover in

51.7 -6.3 -11% 60.3 8.6 17% ##### -22% 2.1 5%
days 58.0 47.0 49.1
Inventory turnover 3.2 3.0 -0.2 -7% 1.9 -1.1 -36% 2.8 0.9 47% 3.0 0.2 6%
19
Activity / Efficiency Ratios
Inventory turnover in days 111.4 119.4 7.9 7% 187.1 67.7 57% 127.4 ##### -32% 119.9 -7.5 -6%
Trade payables turnover 7.0 7.4 0.4 6% -1.7 -23% 7.0 1.3 24% -0.5 -7%
5.7 6.5
Trade payables turnover in

51.4 48.6 -2.8 -5% 63.4 14.8 30% ##### -19% 4.1 8%
days 51.3 55.4
Asset Turnover 1.4 1.3 -0.0 -2% 0.9 -0.4 -29% 1.2 0.3 28% 1.3 0.1 4%
20
D Memo Interview GF Head of Investor Relations
Kurz-Protokoll, Arth, 08.06.12
Besuch bei Georg Fischer, Daniel Bsiger, Leiter Konzern-Controlling, Investor Relations
Schaffhausen, 10:30 Uhr bis 12:30 Uhr - Interview durch: Anja Anastasja Keller USQ 11
Abkrzungen: GF Piping System (PS), GF Automotive (AM), GF AgiCharmilles (AC)
1. Besprechung und Analyse der Grafik Segment Overview 2007 2011 (Assg. Seite 2).
Diskussion wie hat sich die Finanzkrise in der GF Gruppe wiedergespiegelt und ob es
voraussehbar war, ob frhzeitig interveniert werden konnte oder ob es die Gruppe unverhofft
traf.
Die Finanzkrise ist aus GFs Sicht auf Lehman Brothers zurckzufhren, was in einem ersten
Schritt dazu fhrte, dass Banken die Kreditvergabe einschrnkten. Dies wiederum betraf die
gesamte Gruppe, da Kunden Auftrge stoppten bzw. aus Konsequenz weniger Auftrge
hereinkamen. Ein weiterer Punkt war der LKW Bereich, welcher rund 70% der Krise
ausmachte, da der LKW Bereich vor allem KMU Kunden betraf, welche sehr unter der
Finanzkrise bzw. Leasingfinanzierungen / fehlende Kreditvergabe litten und Auftrge auf
Seiten LKW ausblieben. Darber hinaus betraf es natrlich die Gesamtindustrie,
schwerwiegend den AM Bereich. Nichts desto trotz, sind keine wesentliche Konkurse von
bestehenden Kunden registriert worden. Die Krise hat sich im Q4-2008 (CF Effekt: Cash
Flow 08 4.4% vs. 09 8.3% zu Sales) in der Gruppe ausgebreitet und traf insbesondere das Gj
2009 (P&L Effekt: EBITDA 08 8.9% vs. 09 3.6% zu Sales).
PS ist ein eher Konjunktur unabhngiger Geschftsbereich, da sich diese in einem
Antizyklischen Umfeld bewegt. Der Kundenstamm betrifft vorwiegend Grosskunden; die
Lieferungen gehen demzufolge vorwiegend zu Hndlern, welche die Produkte fr
Installationen verwenden. Solche Bereiche wurden von der Krise nicht stark getroffen, wie
dies auf an dem minimalen Umsatzeinbruch 2008 zu 2009 zu sehen ist.
AM ist ein Konjunktur abhngiger Geschftsbereich, der LKW Bereich macht rund 70% aus
im Gegensatz zu den Fahrzeugen. Die Krise hat die Gruppe stark getroffen und der
Umsatzeinbruch war immens. Allerdings ging GF davon aus, dass die Krise der AM Bereich
langfristig strken knnten, in der Annahme, dass ein Teil der Mitkonkurrenten die Krise
nicht berleben wrden. Im Weiteren ist noch zu erwhnen, dass der AM Beriech sich 90%
auf Europa fokussiert und die GF fhrend im Bereich Eisen & Eisenguss bereits war, deshalb
war die Annahme berechtigt, dass die kleineren Konkurrenten htten Konkursgehen knnen.
Interessanterweise hat die Autoindustrie Finanzierungsuntersttzungen der Zulieferer
dargeboten, um gerade deren Ausfall wegen der Krise zu verhindern. Aus diesem Grund
haben viele kleine Zulieferer (welche die Finanzkrise nicht berlebt htten, da die
Kreditvergaben der Banken oft nicht als Option zu Verfgung standen) die Krise berlebt,
weil die Autoindustrie selber eine Finanzierungsuntersttzungen wahrnehmen hat, dies auch
darum, da sie selber von den Zulieferer abhngig waren. Fr die Autoindustrie ist gerade der
grosse Mitbewerber von Zulieferer operativ sehr wichtig, weshalb die GF AM Gruppe, hier
nicht mehr Marktanteil gewinnen konnte.
AC ist ein zyklischer Geschftsbereich, weshalb die Krise auch hier wie beim AM Bereich
Einzug hielt und als Folge einer berkapazitt entstand.
2. Bezugnehmend auf die Strategie 2015 (Investoren Prsentation) wurde besprochen, wie
Sales von 5000 MCHF zu erreichen ist sowie der ROIC +15% und EBIT Margin von 8-9%.
Im Vergleich die CS Analysten, welche einen Sales von 4007 MCHF im 2014
prognostizieren, wie auch einen ROIC +14.1% und einen EBIT Margin von 7.1%.
21
Die Strategie 2015 beinhaltet auch Firmenakquisition, welche die CS Analysten nicht
bercksichtigt haben. Es werden gegenwrtig Akquisitionen geplant, welche 500 MCHF
Umsatzwachstum einbringen sollten. Durch organische Wachstum soll ein Umsatz von 4500
MCHF erreicht werden. Im 2011 wurde Harwell (US) akquiriert und vor drei Wochen IPP
(US), welche im H2-2012 auch in der konsolidierten Jahresrechnung enthalten sein wird. Der
Zweck der Firmenzukufe ist vor allem auch deshalb notwendig, um den Geschftsbereich PS
zu strken, idealerweise ein Gewicht von 40% in der Gruppe zu geben, um ein diversifizierte
Zusammensetzung der Geschftsbereiche zu erlagen, so dass volatile Schwankungen
ausgeglichen werden knnen. Bei der Umsetzung der Firmenzukufe befindet sich die Gruppe
noch nicht in der Hlfte, demzufolge werden bis 2015 noch weitere Firmenkufe (2- 3)
erfolgen.
3. In Betrachtung der Krise wurden ber die Massnahmen gesprochen und was die Krise der
Gruppe gelehrt hat. Die Umsetzung Restrukturierungsmassnahmen und wie die Situation
heute aussieht. Wie auch aus dem Bericht hervorgeht, musste die -1845 FT von 2008 auf
2009 (-13%) abgebaut werden.
Zu den ersten Massnahmen galten das angemietete Personal im Bereich AM und PS
anzugehen, was relativ unproblematisch war, da GF keine Arbeitsvertrge hatte und eine
Kndigung relativ schnell umgesetzt werden konnte, um gerade der berkapazitt entgegen
zu wirken. In einem weiteren Schritt wurde das bestehende Personal zustzlich in den
Bereichen, welche berkapazitten hatten, weiter abgebaut, was frh angegangen werden und
sorgfltig geplant werden musste. Danach folgte die Kurz-Arbeitszeit, welche ebenfalls
frhzeitig eingeleitet werden musste wegen der Zusammenarbeit mit Behrden, welche
entsprechend organisiert werden musste. In diesem Sinne war dies eine Massnahme, die
lngerfristig geplant werden musste, da die Umsetzung sehr viel Zeit in Anspruch nahm.
Zu den strukturellen Massnahmen galten zuerst die Desinvestition von unrentablen
Unternehmungen innerhalb der Gruppe, welche bis dato immer wieder eine Schonfrist
erhielten und aufgrund der nicht zu friedenstellender Performanceleistung der Entscheid zum
Verkauf gerade in der Krise umgesetzt werden konnte um die Krfte im Konzern zu
fokussieren. Im Weiteren betraf es auch der AC Bereich; ein Werk in Genf musste aufgrund
der berkapazitt geschlossen werden. Allerdings konnten die bestehenden Auftrge in das
Werk Tessin berfhrt werden; nicht aber die Mitarbeiter. Das Werk im Tessin wurde somit
durch die Krise gestrkt.
4. Thematisierung ob Massnahmen bestehen um knftig in Billiglohnlnder z.B. Polen die

Geschftsbereiche auszubauen, um dem Kostendruck gerecht zu werden.
Im Vergleich zu Service orientierten Unternehmungen beispielsweise einer Bank, kann eine
Auslagerung in ein Billiglohnland wie beispielsweise Polen Sinn machen (CS -> Auslagerung
HR & Operation nach Polen), da der Headcount einer der grssten Kostenfaktoren ist. Im
Gegensatz zu
einer Industrieunternehmung, ist bei GF gerade die Industrialisierung im Vordergrund, wie
zum Beispiel die Hochautomatisierung. Eins solcher Geschftsbereich kann auch in der
Schweiz weiterbestehen, da dieser in einem von Robotern gesttzten Arbeitsprozesse die
Produktionsablauft optimiert (weniger FT). Um in der Schweiz langfristig zu bestehen, ist es
wichtig sich auf hochautomatisierte Prozesse zu fokussieren und auch ber Nischenbereiche
zu Verfgen, welche nicht ganz so Preissensitive sind. Beispielsweise baut GF den AC
Geschftsbereich in China auf, da China die Nr. 1 fr Werkzeugherstellung ist, demzufolge
auch eine operative Ausweitung China. Dies hat keinen Arbeitsverlust in der Schweiz zur
22
Folge (jedoch teilweise Europa). Gerade ein Projekt wie eine Auslagerung von Knowhow in
ein Land wie Polen, ist ein langwieriger Prozess und muss gut durchdacht sein. Es gibt
Autowerke die ihre Fabriken nach Polen auslagern und daraufhin weitere Zulieferer mit sich
ziehen, die ihnen nach Polen folgen. Die Frage sollte grundstzlich sein, ist die Auslagerung
dazu gedacht, um die Nhe zu den Kunden zu optimieren? Ein weiterer Punkt ist auch zu
berlegen, da eine Auslagerung ein langfristiger Prozess ist, ob die These in Polen kriegt man
5 FT zum Preis fr einen in der Schweiz, ob dies auch nach einer langfristigen Transaktion,
welche hohe Kosten verursacht, auch noch in fnf Jahren ein Verhltnis von 5:1 darstellt. Die
Polen werden wohl auch hhere Lohnansprche stellen knnen, welche einzukalkulieren ist.
Ein weiterer Faktor, welche gerade bei China Werkzeugproduktion ein Thema sein knnte, ob
in einem medizinal-technischen Bereich beispielsweise bei einem Hftgelenk billig in
China zu produzieren ist, oder ob man hinsichtlich der relativ hohen Chirurgiekosten bei dem
Implantat eher Kosten-immun einkauft und dafr Qualittsfaktoren eine hhere Prioritt
gibt (AC Medical and Detal). Weiter ist in China ist zu beachten, dass die Mitarbeiter nicht
so loyal sind wie in der Schweiz, dies bedeutet fr die GF, dass zwar Werkzeuge in China
hergestellt werden knnen, aber alles was sensitiv ist, da eine grosse Besorgnis im Bereich
Kopiergefahr besteht, dass dieser Geschftsprozess sicherzustellen ist. AC ist gerade im
Bereich Software in China vorsichtig; so dass dieser Prozess nicht in China selber
abgewickelt wird, sondern die Kontrolle des Prozesses durch die Gruppe bestimmt wird
(keine vollstndige Auslagerung).
5. Bei der Liquidittsanalyse bzw. Liquidittslage innerhalb der Gruppe wurde die
Problematik whrend der Krise besprochen. Es wurde auf die Anfangs ausgewiesenen
Bankguthaben vor der Krise auf die daraus entstandenen Bankschulen erlutert.
Aufgrund der Netto-Verschuldung (Net debt) konnten GF durch die erfolgreich eingeleiteten
Restrukturierungsmassnahmen Net debt / EBITDA Faktor von 19.7x im Jahr 2009 im
Folgejahr auf 1.0x korrigieren. Im Weiteren wurden den Converance (Kreditbestimmungen)
Sorge getragen und mit der frhzeitiger Kommunikation mit den Banken und Ausarbeitung
von Finanzplnen innerhalb der Gruppe die Gefahr vor einer Illiquiditt entgegen gewirkten.
Eine Netto-Verschuldung bereits ab 2.5x sollte ernst zu nehmen sein. Vor der Krise hatte GF
einen Faktor von 0.6x (2007) und nach der Krise 0.8x (2011). Whrend der Krise ist 19.7x
(2009) ein durchaus erschtternder Faktor.
6. Kurz zur GF Strategie, die Berechnung aufgrund der CS Finanzanalysten ergibt ein Delta
von -45 MCHF zum EBIT Target von 425 MCH, allerdings wurde das Akquisitionvolumen
von 500 MCHF nicht in Betracht gezogen. Erluterungen zur Strategie 2015.
Zu bercksichtigen ist, dass die OPEX durch die Firmenzukufen von den gegenwrtigen 41
% etwas tiefer ausfallen sollten. Ihr EBIT Margin von 8 -9% knnte auch adaptiert werden.
Die GOGS von 48% sind zwar relativ hoch, doch korrekt, da die GF durch hohe
Rohstoffeinkufe und mit den
Produktionskosten sehr Kosten intensiv ist. Es wre interessant zu sehen, wie die Berechnung
aussehen wrde, nach den Adaptionen und ob sich das Delta verringern wrde. Bzgl. OPEX
Entwicklung 2007 zu 2011 ist auch die Fremdwhrungsentwicklung zu beachten, weshalb GF
heute tiefere OPEX ausweist; allerdings auch tieferen Sales.
Siehe Berechnung nach Adaption:
7. Zu den Aktivitts- / Effizienz-Kennzahlen; die Debitorenzahlungsfrist ist whrend der Krise
von 52 Tagen (2008) auf 60 Tage (2009) angestiegen und jetzt auf 49 Tagen (2011).
Thematisierung der Kennzahlen.
23
Durch die Krise hat GF auch neue Zahlungsmodulalitten mit den Kunden vertraglich
geregelt, grundstzlich von lngeren Zahlungszielen (58 Tagen, 2007) zu verkrzen. Im
Inventorybereich ist GF heute auf 120 Tagen (2011) von dazumal 111 Tagen (2007), was
grundstzlich auf die relativ langen Produktionsprozesse nicht verkrzt werden kann. Im
Kreditorenbereich von 51 Tagen (2007) auf 55 Tagen (2011) relativ unvernderte
Zahlungskonditionen vor und nach der Krise.
8. Zukunftsaussichten der F&E in der CH und ob GF gezwungen sein wird, vieles aus der
Schweiz zu verlagern wegen dem anhaltenden Whrungsdruck.
F&E in SH (Hochautomatisierung) wie auch die Zusammenarbeit mit Hochschulen wird in
der Schweiz bleiben, da gerade der F&E Bereich geschtzt werden muss und Stellen nicht auf
und ab besetzt werden knnen, da hochqualifizierte Mitarbeiter nicht mehr zurck kommen
werden bei einer
Entlassung. Beim Werkzeugbau ist in China hat GF ein F&E lokal vor Ort, da
Kundenanliegen so vor Ort besser betreuen knnen. Bei einer grundstzlichen F&E
Verlagerung nach China wre der Verlust zu hoch in Bezug auf Know-How,
Mitarbeiterloyalitt und Kopiergefahr.
Bezglich der Fremdwhrungsproblematik. Das Netto-Exposure betrgt ca. 10%, Sales
growth LC by 18% zu konsolidiert 6%. Das Exposure von 300 MFx ist in EUR 200 MFX und
in USD 100 MFX. Getroffene Massnahmen: Rohstoffeinkufe / Granulat beim Hndler wenn
mglich in Ursprungswhrung einkaufen > USD (PS + AC). Im AM Bereich ist der
Aufwand / Ertrag grundstzlich in EUR. Im Weiteren wird ein Head-Accounting gem. IFRS
betrieben und CF geheadged.
9. Perspektiven fr Investor (nicht beantwortet) doch wird GF sich im PS fokussieren, da
diese Antizyklisch ist und fr Investor relativ interessant sein wird, denn alles was nicht einer
Konjunkturschwankung unterliegt Medizinalbereich kann durch Finanzinvestoren besser
und sicherer analysiert werden und birgt weniger Risiko durch bevorstehende
Konjunkturschwankungen.
10. Ist GF ber dem Berg oder hat die kriselnde Weltwirtschaft ein grosses negatives
Potential. Vor allem AC scheint anfllig zu sein (ev. auch AM) (nicht beantwortet) doch
ist GF durch Aufbau PS fr die Zukunft gerstet; AM ist abhngig von der Fahrzeugindustrie,
welche Konjunkturabhngig ist und somit Gefahr zur Volatilitt hat. AC wird in China
aufgebaut unterliegt allerdings auch der Konjunktur. Allerdings durch Aufbau PS kann der
Volatilitt entgegen gewirkt werden.
11. Konkurrenzanalyse relativ schwierig, Besprechung von Vergleichsmglichkeiten.
Am besten wird der SMIM als Vergleich genommen, da es keinen Konzern gibt, welcher
vergleichbar mit GF sind. Geberit ist lediglich nur im PS Bereich und da nur im
Haustechnologie Bereich ein Konkurrent. Geberit hat dort eine gute Position, weil durch die
teureren Produkte die Hndler sowie auch die Installationsfirmen durch eine hhere Marge
mehr profitieren und deshalb wenig Interesse haben, nicht-Geberit Produkte einzusetzen. Fr
den Endkufer sind die % Kosten vom verwendeten Geberitprodukt am Endeffekt kaum
eruierbar oder wahrnehmbar, da die Gesamtkosten eines Hausbau / Umbau wesentlich hher
sind. In diesem Sinne ist Geberit in einer Nische sehr erfolgreich, nicht nur Geberit, sondern
auch die Hndler und Installationsfirmen. Rieter kann als Vergleich fr AM herbeigezogen
werden. Aliaxis wrde sich fr den PS Bereich empfehlen. Grundstzlich empfehlt sich aber
der SMIM, da dieser bereits aus mehreren Unternehmungen besteht.
24
E Credit Suisse Equity Research Report 05/2012
25
26
27
28
29
30
F Deloitte Automotive Update 2012
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
- END -
38

GF Assignment Keller, Ogideh, Nyikos, Rasheed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GF Assignment Keller, Ogideh, Nyikos, Rasheed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MBA-USQ 11: Accounting for Managers

Written Assignment: Ratio Analysis and Interpretation

University of Applied Sciences Zurich (HWZ)

THOMAS NYIKOS: thomas.nyikos@student.fh-hwz.ch

IMRAN RASHEED: imran.rasheed@student.fh-hwz.ch

ANJA KELLER: anja.keller@student.fh-hwz.ch

STANLEY OGIDEH: stanley.ogideh@student.fh-hwz.ch

Zrich, 16 June 2012

GF Segment Overview 2007 - 11

2.2 Company Level Analysis

GF Group Total GF Piping Geberit GF Auto Componenta GF Agie Sodick

Componenta Financial Report, viewed on 07.06.2012,

Geberit Group 2011 Annual Report, viewed on 07.06.2012,

Georg Fischer, Annual Report 2011, viewed on 21.04.2012,

Georg Fischer, Annual Report 2010, viewed on 01.05.2012,

Georg Fischer, Annual Report 2009, viewed on 01.05.2012,

Georg Fischer, Investor Presentation 2012, found on:

Georg Fischer, Vision and Strategy 2015, viewed on 15.05.2012,

Georg Fischer AG Market Data, viewed on 07.06.2012, <http://www.six-swiss-

Sodick Financial Report 2011, viewed on 07.06.2012,

Sodick Financial Reports, viewed on 07.06.2012,

Equity Ratio Equity 1542 1404 1152 1124 1223

Financial Leverage Financial Liabilities 1048 1266 964 836 904

Interest Cover EBIT 326 134 -201 180 235

Current Assets Current Assets 1975 1790 1468 1569 1651

Non-current Assets Non-current Assets 1440 1543 1447 1269 1274

Investment ratio Current Assets 1975 1790 1468 1569 1651

KPI - RATIO ANALYTICS GF 2007 GF 2008 GF 2009 GF 2010 GF 2011

Current Ratio current Assets 1953 1790 1468 1569 1651

Golden B/S - Rule

Return on Equity (ROE) Profit 245 69 -238 108 168

Return on Assets (ROA) EBIT 326 134 -201 180 235

KPI - RATIO ANALYTICS GF 2007 GF 2008 GF 2009 GF 2010 GF 2011

EBIT Margin EBIT 326 227 -58 180 235

EBITDA-Margin EBITDA-Margin 484 400 106 329 370

Profit Margin Profit 245 69 -238 108 168

Overhad / Sales Overhead Expenses 1083 1103 893 899 886

Staff Efficiency Sales

KPI - RATIO ANALYTICS GF 2007 GF 2008 GF 2009 GF 2010 GF 2011

Capital Efficiency Depreciation 151 159 152 140 121

Cashflow-Margin Operating Cash Flow 426 197 242 243 250

Trade receivables Credit Sales 4563 4533 2975 3511 3704

Trade receivables 360 360 360 360 360 360

KPI - RATIO ANALYTICS GF 2007 GF 2008 GF 2009 GF 2010 GF 2011

Inventory turnover in 360 360 360 360 360 360

Trade payables (credit) purchases 3020 3117 1879 2261 2433

Trade payables 360 360 360 360 360 360

Sales 4497 4465 2906 3447 3638

Golden B/S - Rule

Coverage Rate 1 of non-

Coverage Rate 2 of non-

Return on Equity (ROE)

Return on Assets (ROA)

Gross Profit Margin

Staff Efficiency Sales per

Stock Efficiency (Margin) 0.5 0.0 4% -0.1 -11% 0.0 5% 0.0 5%

Activity / Efficiency Ratios

Trade receivables turnover in

Trade payables turnover in

4. Thematisierung ob Massnahmen bestehen um knftig in Billiglohnlnder z.B. Polen die

You might also like