The relevant data for the given case study is summarised below (Yahoo Finance, 2016)

1. Formula for Holding Period Return (HPR) = [(P₁ + D – P₀)/P₀]*100

Where P₁ = Next year price, P₀ = Current year price , D = Dividend

Hence, using the above formula the HPR for the two companies is as shown below.

2. Expected returns (Domino) = (30.03+81.35+20.74+107.49+72.78)/5 = 62.48%

Expected returns (RFG) = (9.58+34.05+74.84+32.00+34.46)/5 = 36.99%

3. The risk of each company is measured by the calculation of the standard deviation of the sample returns calculated above (Damodaran, 2008)

The standard deviation for Domino based on sample return is captured in the table below.

Hence, standard deviation = √(0.528319/4) = 0.3634 = 36.34% pa

The standard deviation for RFG based on sample return is captured in the table below.

Hence, standard deviation = √(0.22239/4) = 0.2358 =23.58% pa

4. Total Return to Shareholders (Dominos) = [(35.09 + 2.185714)/4.12]^1/5 -1 = 55.35% pa

Total Return to Shareholders (RFG) = [(5.04 + 1.310714)/1.7]^1/5 -1 = 30.16% pa

5. It is apparent that in terms of returns the performance of Dominos is comparatively superior in comparison with RFG. However, the underlying risk in case of Dominos is also more as indicated by the higher standard deviation of the returns of the stock. As a result, in order to compare the performance of the two stocks we need to compute the risk adjusted shareholder’s return for each of the stock as shown below (Brealey, Myers & Allen, 2008).

Risk adjusted shareholder’s return (Dominos) = (55.35/36.34) = 1.52

Risk adjusted shareholder’s return (RFG) = (30.16/23.58) = 1.28

Based on the above computation, it is apparent that performance of Dominos stock is significantly superior to RFG during the given period.

Case Study 2

1. Contribution Margin = Sale Price – Variable Cost

Unit sale price of cupcake (Given) = $ 3

Royalty Expenses = 8% of sales = (8/100)*3 = $ 0.24

Contribution to marketing cost = 5% of sales = (5/100)*3 = $ 0.15

Cost of ingredients per unit = $ 0.38

Hence, unit variable costs = 0.24 + 0.15 + 0.38 = $ 0.77

Hence, unit contribution margin = 3 -0.77 = $ 2.23

2.

Let the breakeven volume be x cupcakes

Then, according to the breakeven condition

Unit contribution margin * x = Total fixed costs

The calculation of the total annual fixed costs is shown below.

Yearly rental = 350*52 = $ 18,200

Annual outgoings = $ 3,500

Total wages = (16+17)*8*252 = $ 66,528

Superannuation = (9.5/100)*66528 = $ 6,320.16

Hence, total fixes costs = 18,200 + 3,500 + 66,528 + 6,320.16 = $ 94,548.16

Hence, 2.23x = 94,548.16

Solving the above, we get x = 42,399 units

3.

No. of cupcakes produced in a day = 144

Hence, annual pre-tax profit = Total contribution margin – Total fixed costs = 144*2.23*252 – 94,548.16 = – $ 13,625.9

Hence, the pre-tax annual loss would be $ 13,625.9.

4.

New selling price = 3.70

Unit contribution margin = 3.70 – (0.13*3.70)- 0.38 = $ 2.839

No. of cupcakes produced in a day = 134

Hence, annual pre-tax profit = Total contribution margin – Total fixed costs = 134*2.839*252 – 94,548.16 = $ 1,319.19

Thus, the pre-tax annual profit would be $ 1,319.19

5.

New selling price = 2.70

Unit contribution margin = 2.70 – (0.13*2.70)- 0.38 = $ 1.969

Pre-tax profit desired = $ 10,000

Let the cupcake required to achieve the above profit be x

Hence, 1.969x – (94,548.16 +17*8*252*1.095) = 10000

Solving the above, we get x= 72,157

Thus, the annual sales of cupcakes need to be 72,157 in order to earn an annual pre-tax profit of $ 10,000.

Case Study 3

1. The assumptions for computation of discounted payback are as follows.

All cash inflows and outflows are expected to occur at the end of the year only.

Further, the initial investment on fittings has been depreciated on a straight line basis over a period of 10 years.

The discounted value of the incremental cash flows arising from the business during the first 12 years is summarised in the table shown below (Petty et. al., 2015)

It is apparent from the above table, that discounted payback period cannot be found out in the given case as the years increase the discounted value of the cash flow would keep on decreasing and the vendor would not be able to ever recover the initial investment of $ 200,000 using the discounted cash flow. The analysis has been extended to future years (i.e. upto 50 years) and then also the discounted cash flows are not sufficient to meet the initial investment. Hence, the discounted payback period cannot be computed in the given case since it does not exist (Damodaran, 2008).

2. In this case, since the business is sold in third year only, hence depreciation is considered to be absent in this case. The NPV of the business is calculated using the table below.

The NPV of the given business is -$ 95,781.57

3. The formula for profitability index is as shown below.

Profitability index = (NPV + Initial Investment)/Initial Investment

Profitability index = (-95781.57 + 200000)/200000 = 0.52

4. The investment in not financially viable since the NPV of the project is negative. Hence, Jane should not make an investment in the project (Parrino & Kidwell, 2011).

5. From the article, it is apparent that there are significant business risks that are attached with the cupcake business. In order to overcome these risks, it is imperative that Jane should look to build up a brand and there focus on the whole value chain. This is imperative due to the low entry barriers and difficulty in differentiation. Thus, Jane should try to a premium baker with a strong brand so that it could differentiate itself from the competitors whose offering may be quite similar (Petty et. al., 2015). Thus, the current strategy of Jane of low price volume model may not be suitable as the market share in the cupcake market tends to be dynamic.

Case Study 4

1. The requisite table is shown below (Dominos, 2015; RFG, 2015).

Dominos Enterprises (Dominos, 2015)

Net profit margin = Net profit/ Total Revenue = (68421/539138)*100 = 12.69%

Asset Turnover Ratio = Total Revenue/ Total Assets =539138/630600 = 0.85

Leverage Ratio = Total Liabilities /Total Equity = 325544/305056= 1.067

Return on Equity = Net profit/Total Equity =(68421/305056)*100 = 22.43%

RFG (RFG, 2015)

Net profit margin = Net profit/ Total Revenue = (34219/120768)*100 = 28.33

Asset Turnover Ratio = Total Revenue/ Total Assets = 120768/680048 = 0.177

Leverage Ratio = Total Liabilities /Total Equity = 276266/403782 = 0.68

Return on Equity = Net profit/Total Equity =(34219/403782)*100 = 8.47%

Quick Ratio (RFG) = (Current Assets – Inventory)/Current Liabilities = (90182-20901) /97025 = 0.71

Net debt to equity ratio (RFG) = Total Liabilities /Total Equity = 276266/403782 = 0.68

Quick Ratio (Dominos) = (Current Assets – Inventory)/Current Liabilities = (116547-12282) /131131 = 0.795

Net debt to equity ratio (Dominos) = Total Liabilities /Total Equity = 325544/305056= 1.067

2. It is apparent from the above stats especially the EPS, that the performance of Dominos has been significantly better than that of RFG. This is apparent from the fact that in 2010, both companies had an EPS of $0.25. However, five years hence, the EPS of Dominos has enhanced to $ 0.742 while that of RFG has further languished to $ 0.22. This robust increase in the business and corresponding profitability has also reflected in the share prices of the shares of the both the companies over the period of five years (Parrino & Kidwell, 2011).

3. The Total Return to Shareholders over the last five years for the two companies is summarised below.

Total Return to Shareholders (Dominos) = 55.35% pa

Total Return to Shareholders (RFG) = 30.16% pa

The variables that impact the total return to shareholders are the dividend payments and share price. Since the EPS of the Dominos has witnessed a stupendous growth, this has also reflected in the stock price and the dividend paid. Normally, the higher the profits of the company, the higher would be the absolute dividend payouts to shareholders.  This trend is also reflected in the below shown data.

In the last five years, the dividend payments for Dominos have become twice unlike RFG. Also, the stock price of Dominos has become almost 9 times since 2010 unlike PFG where the price has become only thrice in the last three years. The above difference is mainly linked with the respective financial performance of the two firms (Damodaran, 2008)

Case Study 5

1. The completed table is shown below.

2. The completed table is shown below (Brigham & Ehrhardt, 2013).

3. It is apparent from the table above that market value of Dominos share is significantly greater than that of RFG. Additionally despite the difference in outstanding shares, the market capitalisation of Dominos is more than six times that of RFG which is indicative that amongst the two companies Dominos has more net worth as compared to RFG. The Dominos share is trading at a very high P/E in comparison with RFG which is indicative of the high growth potential of Dominos in the view of shareholders. Further, the main source of income for Dominos shareholders is expected in the form of capital appreciation as the dividend yield is very low. This is not true for RFG where the dividend yield at around 6% continues to be lucrative (Brealey, Myers & Allen, 2008).

Brealey, R, Myers, S & Allen, F 2008, Principles of Corporate Finance, 9^th edn, McGraw Hill Publications, New York

Dominos 2015, Annual Report 2015, Dominos Website, Available online from https://dominosinvestors.com.au/?utm_source=dominos&utm_medium=website&utm_term=investors&utm_campaign=menulink (Accessed on August 17, 2016)

Parrino, R & Kidwell, D 2011, Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, 3rd edn, Wiley Publications, London

Petty, JW, Titman, S, Keown, AJ, Martin, P, Martin JD & Burrow, M 2015, Financial Management: Principles and Applications,6^th edn, Pearson Australia, Sydney

RFG 2015, Annual Report 2015, RFG Website, Available online from https://www.rfg.com.au/images/investor_docs/RFG2015AnnualReport.pdf  (Accessed on August 17, 2016)

Yahoo Finance 2016, Historical Price of Stocks, Available online from www.yahoo.finance.au (Accessed on August 16, 2016)