Finanical Management Project
jams_r1
SampleProject.docx( Term Project FINC 6352 P age I 30 )
“Analysis of Schlumberger’s New Project”
23903
May 6, 2012
........................................................................................................................ 4
..................................................................................................................................... 5
................................................................................................................. 5
......................................................................................................................... 7
.......................................................................................................... 7
– ................................................................................... 8
....................................................................................................................... 8
–
................................................................................ 9
....................................................................................................... 9
–
....................................................................... 10
...................................................................................................... 10
–
........................................................................ 11
– ............................................................................. 11
................................................................................................................. 12
–
.................................................................................. 12
–
................................................................................ 13
.............................................................................................................. 13
– ............................................................................................. 14
–
................................................................ 14
................................................................................................................... 15
– ................................................................................ 15
– .......................................................................... 16
..................................................................................................... 16
– ....................................................................................... 17
............................................................................ 17
........................................................................................................................... 18
– .............................................................................................. 18
(
2
)
– ......................................................................................................... 18
– ............................................................................ 19
– ............................................................................................................ 19
– ....................................................................................................... 20
...................................................................................................... 20
................................................................................................... 21
– .................................................................................... 22
– .................................................................................. 22
– ................................................................................... 23
............................................................................................................ 23
– ........................................................................... 24
............................................................................................................... 24
– .................................................................... 25
–
....................................................... 25
.................................................................................................................. 25
– ....................................................................... 26
.................................................................................................................................... 26
..................................................................................................................................... 28
....................................................................................................................................... 29
– ................................................................................... 29
– ....................................................................... 30
– ............................................................................ 30
.
o firm’s financial standing
stro
h
diversification will serve to strengthen the firm’s position and profit.
ecommendation for Schlumberger’s new $300M project is an unequivocal yes to
The details of the project’s cash flow
INTRODUCTION
The intention of this paper is to examine the financial standing of Schlumberger Ltd., review its history, current financial position, outlook, and then conduct a capital budgeting analysis for a proposed project. In the course of the analysis, cost of debt, cost of preferred stock, cost of common equity, capital structure, and the weighted average cost of capital is determined.
The use of capital budgeting methods such as NPV, IRR, and MIRR, allows the firm to project the proposed project forward and, while reviewing cash flows and depreciation trends, formulate an analytical framework for the support or blockage of the new project.
After a complete analysis and modeling, recommendations about the proposed project
will be outlined. The results of the capital budgeting analysis will directly impact the decision to move forward on the project; as such, the detail needed is significant to support the decision process. The detail of the report follows.
Schlumberger Limited
As expected from Schlumberger’s preeminent market position, the firm describes itself confidently. From www.slb.com, we see Schlumberger’s self-description:
Schlumberger is the leading oilfield services provider, trusted to deliver superior results and improved E&P performance for oil and gas companies around the world. Through our well site operations and in our research and engineering facilities, we are working to develop products, services and solutions that optimize customer performance in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
( P age I 5 ) ( Term Project FINC 6352 )
Schlumberger’s diversified and global operations uniquely position the firm for a
1
2
.
2 “We believe the firm thinks more like a
.”
3
4
5
Schlumberger’s priority on information
1
( 1104 )2
3
4
5
(
6
)
on
snapshot of the firm’s strength while the detailed lo
Table 1 compares Schlumberger’s ratios to the S&P 500 and, more importantly, to the industry NAICS 213112 itself. Schlumberger’s key ratios are all “healthy” or “very healthy”
ranging from “healthy” to “average,” “weak,” and “poor.” Schlumberger finds itself in a strong
–
“healthy,” blue for “very healthy,” yellow for “average,” buff for “weak,” and red for “poor.”
Term Project FINC 6352 P age I 8
|
Schlumberger Ratios 2007-2011 |
Including Industry: Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations {NAICS 213112) |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Plus Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
2010 |
2009 |
2008 |
2007 |
Average |
Industry |
S&P 500 |
|
SLB |
Industry |
|
Current Ratio |
1.95 |
1.55 |
1.84 |
1.42 |
1.43 |
1.64 |
2.10 |
1.60 |
|
Healthy Healthy Healthy Healthy |
Healthy Healthy Healthy Healthy |
|
Acid Test Ratio |
1.30 |
1.22 |
1.47 |
1.22 |
1.14 |
1.27 |
1.40 |
1.10 |
|
|
|
|
Long Term Debt/ Equity Ratio |
26 .00% |
25.22% |
29 .00% |
33.21% |
36.41% |
29.97% |
31.00% |
82.00% |
|
|
|
|
Total Debt/ Equity Ratio |
32 .00% |
26.00% |
29.00% |
31.00% |
37.00% |
31.00% |
37.00% |
96.00% |
|
|
|
|
Times Interest Earned |
23.30 |
17.69 |
17.48 |
27.49 |
23.58 |
21.91 |
7.30 |
5.50 |
|
Very Healthy |
Healthy |
|
Return on Asset s |
9.50% |
9.08% |
9.18% |
21.00% |
21.20% |
13.99% |
5.40% |
3.10% |
|
Healthy Healthy |
Average |
|
Return on Common Equity |
16.48% |
16.54% |
17.65% |
34.98% |
40.23% |
25.18% |
7.40% |
7.90% |
|
|
Weak |
|
Gross Profit Margin |
28 .8 0% |
28.12% |
28 .54% |
28.44% |
26 .8 1% |
28.14% |
30.50% |
46.90% |
|
Healthy Healthy Healthy |
Healthy Healthy Healthy |
|
EBITDA Margin |
23 .53% |
26.83% |
28.89% |
33.99% |
37.34% |
30.12% |
22.20% |
18.90% |
|
|
|
|
Pretax Profit Margin |
25 . 20% |
33 .00% |
23 . 21% |
23.44% |
17.50% |
24.47% |
22.20% |
18.90% |
|
|
|
|
Net Profit Margin |
1 2 .00% |
18.27% |
19.00% |
17.20% |
15.10% |
16.31% |
8.00% |
9.00% |
|
Very Healthy |
Healthy |
|
Cash Turnover |
6.30 |
6.05 |
5.90 |
8.10 |
7.90 |
6.85 |
7.50% |
5.00% |
|
Healthy Healthy |
Healthy Healthy |
|
Accounts Receivable Turnover |
4.46 |
4.30 |
3.63 |
4.57 |
4.99 |
4.39 |
4.30% |
7.60% |
|
|
|
|
Inventory Turnover |
6.40 |
7.95 |
9.66 |
10.98 |
10.85 |
9.17 |
4.60 |
8.30 |
|
Healthy |
Weak |
|
Working Capital Turnover |
4 .10 |
3 .81 |
3 .56 |
5 .68 |
6 .58 |
4 .75 |
4 .50% |
7 .20% |
|
Healthy Healthy Healthy |
Healthy Healthy Healthy |
|
PPE Turnover |
3 .1 7 |
2.67 |
2.36 |
3.14 |
3.56 |
2.98 |
4.00% |
6.20% |
|
|
|
|
Total Assets Turnover |
0 .80 |
0.63 |
0.65 |
0.91 |
0.90 |
0.78 |
0.70 |
0.40 |
|
|
|
|
Price-to-Earnings Ratio |
17 .70 |
23 .52 |
22 .20 |
12 .52 |
22.10 |
19.61 |
28.50 |
17.70 |
|
Healthy Healthy |
Poor |
|
Earnings Yield |
5 .65% |
4.25% |
4.50% |
7.99% |
4.52% |
5.38% |
3.51% |
5.65% |
|
|
Average |
|
Dividend Yield |
1.60% |
1.00% |
1.33% |
2.10% |
6.50% |
2.51% |
1.10% |
2.10% |
|
Healthy |
Healthy |
|
Dividend Payout Rate |
26 .00 |
23 .99 |
22 .70 |
1 7 .54 |
15.49 |
21.14 |
19.00 |
30.00 |
|
Healthy |
Average |
|
Price-to-Book |
2.88 |
3 .89 |
4 .01 |
3 .1 5 |
8 .08 |
4.40 |
2.33 |
2.41 |
|
Healthy |
Healthy |
Table 1 – Financial Ratio Overview
Liquidity Ratios
Schlumberger’s liquidity is highlighted from Table 1 and a review of the current ratio as well as the quick ratio or acid-test ratio. Over the period from 2007 to 2011, the current ratio held stable at 1.43 to 1.95 with an average of 1.64. During the same period, the acid-test ratio showed the same stability of 1.14 to 1.30 in 2011 with an average of 1.27. In this case, the steady nature shows little risk for the firm. Of greater concern would be fluctuations or decreases.
The overall trending indicates continued strength for liquidity.
![]()
1 – ![]()
Schlumberger’s data from Table 1
4.99 7 66 1
39
2 allows for a basis viewpoint of Schlumberger’s accounts receivable
2010.
–
level for a firm in Schlumberger’s market position. No issues of concern.
(
10
)
2 –
Schlumberger’s debt management ratio
2011. These ratios clearly show Schlumberger’s conservative use of debt for financing. The
three years’ experience reflecting a competitive market and conservative debt acquisition.
Term Project FINC 6352 P age 1 11
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
Long Term Debt/ Equi t y Ratio |
36.41% |
33.21% |
29.00% |
25.22% |
26.00% |
|
-- Tota l Debt/ Equ ity Ratio |
37.00% |
31.00% |
29.00% |
26.00% |
32.00% |
( Debt Ratios SLB 40 . 00% 35.00% 30 . 00% 25.00% 20.00% 15 . 00% ) Figure 3 - SLB Debt Management Ratios
( 2011 23.30 2010 17.69 2009 17.48 2008 27.49 2007 23.58 Times Interest E arn ed 30.00 28.00 26.00 24.00 22 . 00 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 Times Interest Earned SLB )
Figure 4 - SLB Times Interest Earned
Profitability Ratios
Schlumberger sees a slight weakening of the key profitability ratios from 2007 to 2011, particularly EBITDA Margin moving from 37.34 in 2007 to 23.53 in 2011. This is not a cause
for concern, but bears careful watching as competitive pressures mount. Schlumberger’s foray
into IT has an impact here as cash is spent with varying returns as discussed earlier. Figure 6
notes the declining profit margin trend since 2007 and this indicates Schlumberger’s work at
diversification even as the profitability remains strong.
Figure 5 – SLB Profitability Ratios
( P age I 12 ) ( Term Project FINC 6352 )
Figure 6 – SLB Profit Margin Trend
Market Value Ratios
Fluctuating since 2007, Schlumberger’s P/E ratio has stabilized at 17.7 in 2011. The
common stock remained undervalued by most analysts and it backed by research of the same. Earnings and dividend yields have freshened from their lows in 2010 of 4.25% and 1% respectively to 5.65% and 1.6% in 2011. The trend is encouraging and supports the value of the common stock and the solid credit rating given the firm. Price to book has remained steady as it expected for Schlumberger – based on firm history. The firm’s growth and continued
diversification will support a trend of strengthening PIE, Earnings Yield, and increased dividends over the next five years. Growth projects within the firm will enhance the earnings numbers significantly.
Term Project FINC 6352 P age 114
|
|
|||||
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
-+- Pr ice-to- Ea rnings Ratio - Pr ice-to- Boo k |
22.10 8.08 |
12.52 3.15 |
22.20 4.01 |
23.52 3.89 |
17.70 2.88 |
( Price Ratios SLB 25.00 20.00 15 . 00 10.00 5.00 0.00 )Figure 7 -SLB Price Ratios
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
|
-+- Ea rnings Yie ld - Divi dend Yie ld |
4.52% 6.50% |
7.99% 2.10% |
4.50% 1.33% |
4.25% 1.00% |
5.65% 1.60% |
(
Earnings
and
Dividend
Yields
SLB
9.00%
8.00%
7.00%
6.00%
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
)
Figure 8 - SLB Earnings and Dividend Yields
7
during the period, Schlumberger’s growth looks better to
6
on the firm’s oper 7 2011. As we review Schlumberger’s cash from operations in
2011
6.2
1
10 10
.
7
hlumberger’s dramatic increase in revenue
![]()
2 –
6
7
(
15
)
9 –
uses to finance its assets. The firm’s use of debt, common stock, and preferred stock impacts the marketplace and, as a result, the firm’s cost of capital is impacted in both positive and negative
–
–
, “a firm’s value is unaffected by its capital
structure” (p. 611) as in V .
Schlumberger’s capital structur
Schlumberger, based on market value, has a capital structure of 18.56% debt and 81.44% equity in the form of common stock totaling a market capitalization of $105B. Using book value, the balance becomes 42.87% debt and 57.13% equity with a value of $32B. Please see Table 3 below for the summarized data.8
|
Market Value Method / Weights %
DEBT $23,938,000,000 " 18.56% EQUITY $105,055,590,000 81.44% |
|
|
|
Book Value Method / Weights %
DEBT $23,938,000,000 42.87% EQUITY $31,901,840,000 57.13% |
Table 3 – SLB Capital Structure
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
Knowing the true cost of capital is crucial when considering any new project. Even before the analysis of the project itself, the capacity of the firm to finance the project and, under what terms, is essential knowledge. The Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) is the calculated, average, cost of capital based on the proportional weight of all capital sources used by the firm (as found in the capital structure above). In the case of Schlumberger, we find both debt and common-stock equity to be used as capital sources.
8 Babaian Excel Worksheet: WACC Est. & Capital Struct. (2012)
( P age I 17 ) ( Term Project FINC 6352 )
We use three methods to estimate the firm’s component cost of common equity: Capital Asset Pricing Modem (CAPM), Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), and bond-yield-plusrisk
premium (BYPRP). The WACC calculation will be based on the average of these three estimates. Additionally, the component cost of debt (after tax) is found by using the corporate tax rate and the cost of debt (Kd) based on Schlumberger’s bond rating via Kd(1-T).
Cost of Debt
Reviewing Table 4, we find the after-tax cost of debt for Schlumberger to be 2.53%. The
10 year bond is A1 and represents Schlumberger’s rating based on the current market.
|
Cost of Debt (Kd) |
3.34%"' |
(Al 10-year bond) |
|
After Tax Cost of Debt |
2.53% |
Kd(1-T} |
|
|
|
|
|
Corp Tax Rate |
24.38%"' |
|
Table 4 – SLB Cost of Debt9
Cost of Equity – CAPM
From Morningstar (2012) we know that CAPM is formally defined as:
A mathematical model used to help price a security by determining the relationship between risk and expected return. CAPM is a key element in portfolio theory, in which the expected rate of return (E) on an investment is expressed in terms of the expected rate
9 Babaian Excel Worksheet: WACC Est. & Capital Struct. (2012)
As part of Schlumberger’s interest in the new project, the CAPM cost of equity calculation is
10.98%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
–
10
–
r = D1 +g
s PO
10
( 19 )
By using rs = (D1IP0) + g we are able to calculate the cost of equity using the discounted cash flow method. D1 is the expected dividend and is found by using the current dividend D0 (1.10) and multiplying that by 1+g (g = estimated growth= 13% for Schlumberger according to current analysts at Nasdaq). Schlumberger’s current stock price is: $77.1911 =P 0.
We have:
rs = (D 1 IP 0 ) + g = (((D0( l +g))/P0) + g) = (((1.1(1+.13))/77.19)+.13)
DCF cost of equity rs= 14.6%
Cost of Equity – BYPRP
Using the bond yield plus risk premium method is simple and works for a publically traded firm such as Schlumberger. The cost of equity using the BYPRP method simply adds the cost of debt from above (2.53%) to the estimated bond risk premium of 6%.
BYPRP cost of equity= 2.53 + 6 = 8.53%
WACC for Schlumberger
To calculate the useful WACC for the firm, we first average the costs of equity found in the above three methods: (CAPM + DCF + BYPRP) /3 = 10.98+14.6+8.53/3 = 11.37%
Average cost of equity= 11.37%
11 Ibid.
( P age I 20 ) ( Term Project FINC 6352 )
In that Schlumberger has no preferred stock issued, this component of the WACC will be ignored. Further, market-based capital weights, as calculated above, will be used.
WACC = wdrd + Wcefs = weight of debt * cost of debt + weight of equity * average cost of equity
WACC = 18.56%(2.53%) + 81.44%(11.37%)
WACC = .47% + 9.26% = 9.73%
Project Cash Flow Estimation
In that Schlumberger is considering a new project, full cash-flow estimation for the proposed eight-year length of the project is required. Estimating the annual cash flows as well as calculating the depreciation basis and annual depreciation will serve to advise on the feasibility of the project and provide needed data for the capital budgeting analysis.
The detailed analysis and calculations for the cash flow estimation and depreciation details are included in the attached spreadsheet. Selected highlights are provided here for reference as we make project recommendations. Note that the WACC calculated above is used as the discount rate for this project. The critical nature of an accurate WACC cannot be underestimated when analyzing a project of this magnitude.
The requirements are as follows for the 8 year proposed project’s life:
|
Inputs (Dollars in Thousands) Base-Case |
|
|
Equipment cost |
$300,000 |
|
Salvage value, equipment, Year 4 |
$15,000 |
|
Opportunity cost |
$20,000 |
|
Externalities (cannibalization) |
$0 |
|
Units sold, Year 1 |
2,000,000 |
|
Annual change in units sold, after Year 1 |
10.00% |
|
Sales price per unit, Year 1 |
$0.30 |
|
Annual change in sales price, after Year 1 |
2.80% |
|
Variable cost per unit (VC), Year 1 |
$0.22 |
|
Annual change in VC, after Year 1 |
2.80% |
|
Nonvariable cost (Non-VC), Year 1 |
$0 |
|
Annual change in Non-VC, after Year 1 |
0.00% |
|
Project WACC |
9.73% |
|
Tax rate |
24.38% |
|
NOWC |
12.00% |
Table 6 – SLB Project Parameters12
The depreciation basis and annual depreciation are calculated under the assumption that Schlumberger will continue to use accelerated depreciation. Using accelerated depreciation improves project profitability and this is why we choose this method. The details are as follows:
( Year: 4 )
( 0 I I I Accelerated Depreciation Depreciable basis : $300 , 00 Rate/ yea r l 14% 25% 17% 13% I 9% 9% Dollars/year $42 , 000 $75 , 000 $51 , 000 $39 , 000 $ 27 , 000 $27 , 000 $27 , 000 $ 12 , 000 )I I
Table 7 – SLB Project Deprecation 13
Further, the estimate of the annual cash flows and the cash-flow timeline are instructive as we evaluate this project:
12 Babaian Excel Worksheet: Cash Flow & Budget Analysis. (2012)
13 Ibid.
8 – 14
15
· NPV: Net Present Value, “The difference between the present value of cash inflows and
project.”
· IRR: Internal Rate of Return, “The discount rate often used in capital budgeting that makes the net present value of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero.”
· MIRR: Modified Internal Rate of Return, “the modified IRR assumes that p
of a project.”
•
14
15
(
23
)
· Payback: “The length of time required to recover the cost of an investment.”
· Discounted Payback, “Future cash flows are considered are discounted to time "zero."
money.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 – 16
16
The details of the analysis follow along with the graphic representation of the same.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (Prices in thousands)
|
Deviation |
|
|
|
NPV |
Deviation |
|
NPV |
Deviation |
|
NPV |
|
from Base |
Equipment |
602,600 |
from Base |
Unit Sales |
602,600 |
from Base |
Sales Price/Unit |
602,600 |
||
|
-30% |
$210,000 |
676,633 |
-30% |
1,400,000 |
324,961 |
-30% |
$0.21 |
-485,472 |
||
|
0% |
$300,000 |
602,600 |
0% |
2,000,000 |
602,600 |
0% |
$0.30 |
602,600 |
||
|
30% |
$390,000 |
528,567 |
30% |
2,600,000 |
880,239 |
30% |
$0.39 |
1,690,673 |
||
|
|
||||||||||
|
Deviation |
|
NPV |
Deviation |
|
NPV |
Deviation |
|
NPV |
||
|
from Base |
VG/Unit |
602,600 |
from Base |
Tax Rate |
602,600 |
from Base |
Project WACC |
602,600 |
||
|
-30% |
$0.15 |
1,413,033 |
-30% |
17.07% |
674,286 |
-30% |
6.81% |
744,565 |
||
|
0% |
$0.22 |
602,600 |
0% |
24.38% |
602,600 |
0% |
9.73% |
602,600 |
||
|
30% |
$0.29 |
-207,833 |
30% |
31.69% |
530,914 |
30% |
12.65% |
485,151 |
Table 10 – SLB Project Sensitivity Analysis17
Figure 10 – SLB Project Sensitivity Analysis Graph18
Scenario Analysis
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid. Note, Tax Rate and Equipment have overlapping trend lines.
( P age I 25 ) ( Term Project FINC 6352 )
As with a sensitivity analysis, it is useful to conduct a multi-variable change analysis to better understand the impact of disparate changes in the project inputs. The changes to NPV are used to identify risk and potential pitfalls in varied input swings. The scenario analysis follows
( Scenario Analysis (Values in thousands) Squared Deviation Sales Unit Variable Times Scenario Probability Price Sales Costs NPV Probability Best Case 25% $0.50 3 , 000,000 $0.11 $6,718 , 323 9350517019129 $602,600 181563380000 ($75 , 019) 114792028062 Base Case 50% $0.30 2,000,000 $0.22 Worst Case 25% $0.20 1,500,000 $0.40 Expected NPV = sum , prob times NPV $1,962,125.89 $3,105,941 1.58 Standard Deviation = Sq Root of column H sum Coefficient of Variation= Std Dev / Expected NPV )I .
Table 11 – SLB Project Scenario Analysis19
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Schlumberger is in a forward-looking growth mode that is moderated by worldwide environmental, political, and economic changes and stressors. Of particular note is the strong position that the firm finds itself in and the stable, positive outlook presented by the financial analysis. Schlumberger has a solid balance sheets and liquidity is good. Stock price for Schlumberger is undervalued and its credit rating from Morningstar of A+ underlines the financial strength of the firm, liquidity included.
The proposed project, as outlined by the project team, leant itself toward an exhaustive cash-flow and capital budgeting analysis that was supplemented by a sensitivity and scenario analysis. Upon review of the capital budgeting analysis, all six indicators point toward a strong YES to move forward with the project. Specifically, the IRR of 37.09% and the MIRR of
19 Ibid.
–
( 27 )
REFERENCES
Ehrhardt, M.C., & Brigham, E.F. (2011). Financial management: Theory and practice, 13e.
Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Leaming.
Ellis, S. (2012, May 2). Schlumberger Limited analyst note. Retrieved May 3, 2012 from http://library.moming star.com/.
Hoover's Inc. (2012). Schlumberger, Limited. Hoover's Company Records - In-Depth Records.
Retrieved April 16, 2012 from Hoover’s Company Records database.
Morningstar, Inc. (2012). Morningstar research. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from http://lib raray.momingstar.com/.
Schlumberger. (2012, April 16). 10-K. Retrieved April 16, 2012 from Mergent Online database.
( P age I 28 ) ( Term Project FINC 6352 )
APPENDIX
Table 12 – Schlumberger Balance Sheet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
1,705.00 |
1,764.00 |
243.00 |
188.93 |
197.23 |
|
Net Receivables |
9,500.00 |
8,278.00 |
6,088.00 |
6,257.86 |
5,361.11 |
|
Inventories Assets |
4,700.00 |
3,804.00 |
1,866.00 |
1,918.50 |
1,638.19 |
|
Other Current Assets |
4,634.00 |
4,252.00 |
5,453.00 |
4,528.39 |
3,858.84 |
|
Total Current Assets |
20,539.00 |
18,098.00 |
13,650.00 |
12,893.68 |
11,055.38 |
|
Net Fixed Assets |
12,993.00 |
12,071.00 |
9,660.00 |
9,690.34 |
8,007.99 |
|
Other Noncurrent Assets |
21,669.00 |
21,598.00 |
10,155.00 |
9,406.71 |
8,790.00 |
|
Total Assets($ Million) |
55,201.00 |
51,767.00 |
33,465.00 |
31,990.73 |
27,853.37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts Payable |
|
|
|
|
1,554.00 |
|
Short-Term Debt |
1,377.00 |
2,595.00 |
1,125.00 |
1,597.37 |
1,671.64 |
|
Other Current Liabilities |
9,161.00 |
8,270.00 |
6,134.00 |
6,527.28 |
4,279.22 |
|
Total Current Liabilities |
10,538.00 |
10,865.00 |
7,259.00 |
8,124.65 |
7,504.85 |
|
Long-Term Debt |
8,556.00 |
5,517.00 |
4,355.00 |
3,372.18 |
3,794.47 |
|
Other Noncurrent Liabilities |
4,844.00 |
4,159.00 |
2,731.00 |
3,631.52 |
1,678.17 |
|
Total Liabilities |
23,938.00 |
20,541.00 |
14,345.00 |
15,128.36 |
12,977.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock Equity |
31,263.00 |
31,226.00 |
19,120.00 |
16,862.37 |
14,875.89 |
|
Total Equity |
31,263.00 |
31,226.00 |
19,120.00 |
16,862.37 |
14,875.89 |
|
Shares Outstanding |
1,333.78 |
1,361.00 |
1,200.76 |
1,196.17 |
1,195.87 |
( Term Project FINC 6352 P age I 29 )
Table 13 – Schlumberger Cash Flow Statement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the Beginning of the Year |
1,764.00 |
243.00 |
188.93 |
197.23 |
165.82 |
|
Net Cash Provided in Operating Activities |
6,169.00 |
5,494.00 |
5,266.00 |
6,961.06 |
6,258.94 |
|
Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities |
(3,525.00) |
(2,938.00) |
(4,024.00) |
(5,142.56) |
(4,600.30) |
|
Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities |
(2,700.00) |
(1,409.00) |
(1,188.00) |
(1,824.41) |
(1,630.43) |
|
Net Increase/Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
(56.00) |
1,147.00 |
54.00 |
(5.90) |
31.42 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the End of the Year |
1,705.00 |
1,764.00 |
243.00 |
188.93 |
197.23 |
Table 14 – Schlumberger Income Statement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue |
39,669.00 |
28,931.00 |
23,248.00 |
27,564.77 |
23,276.54 |
|
Cost of Goods Sold |
31,418.00 |
21,499.00 |
17,395.00 |
18,967.03 |
15,481.75 |
|
Gross Profit |
8,251.00 |
7,432.00 |
5,853.00 |
8,597.74 |
7,794.80 |
|
Gross Profit Margin (%) |
21.00% |
26.00% |
25.00% |
31.00% |
33.00% |
|
SG&AExpense |
427.00 |
650.00 |
623.00 |
679.24 |
598.79 |
|
Depreciation & Amortization |
3,281.00 |
2,759.00 |
2,476.00 |
2,268.51 |
1,953.99 |
|
Operating Income |
6,338.00 |
5,156.00 |
4,207.00 |
6,852.46 |
6,467.51 |
|
Operating Margin (%) |
16.00% |
18.00% |
18.00% |
25.00% |
28.00% |
|
Nonoperating Income |
0.00 |
1,270.00 |
|
|
269.50 |
|
Nonoperating Expenses |
129.00 |
214.00 |
61.00 |
401.83 |
|
|
Income Before Taxes |
6,338.00 |
5,156.00 |
3,934.00 |
6,852.46 |
6,624.45 |
|
Income Taxes |
1,545.00 |
890.00 |
770.00 |
1,430.12 |
1,447.93 |
|
Net Income After Taxes |
4,793.00 |
4,266.00 |
3,164.00 |
5,422.33 |
5,176.52 |
|
Continuing Operations |
4,793.00 |
4,266.00 |
3,164.00 |
5,396.95 |
5,176.52 |
|
Discontinuing Operations |
220.00 |
0.00 |
(22.00) |
37.85 |
|
|
Total Operations |
4,997.00 |
4,267.00 |
3,134.00 |
5,434.80 |
5,176.52 |
|
Total Net Income |
4,997.00 |
4,267.00 |
3,134.00 |
5,434.80 |
5,176.52 |
|
Net Profit Margin (%) |
13.00% |
15.00% |
13.00% |
20.00% |
22.00% |
|
Diluted EPS from Continuing Operations |
3.51 |
3.38 |
2.61 |
4.42 |
4.20 |
|
Diluted EPS from Total Operations |
3.67 |
3.38 |
2.59 |
4.45 |
4.20 |
|
Diluted EPS from Total Net Income |
3.67 |
3.38 |
2.59 |
4.45 |
4.20 |
|
Dividends Per Share |
1.00 |
0.84 |
0.84 |
0.84 |
0.70 |
