BMGT 495
Sembcorp Industries, Ltd.
Competitor Profile Matrix
|
|
|
Keppel Corporation Ltd |
Samsung Heavy Industries |
Hyundai heavy industries |
|||
|
CSF |
Weight |
Rating |
Score |
Rating |
Score |
Rating |
Score |
|
Business model |
0.10 |
3 |
0.30 |
4 |
0.37 |
1 |
0.37 |
|
Talent management |
0.15 |
2 |
0.30 |
3 |
0.24 |
2 |
0.48 |
|
Global networks of shipyards |
0.11 |
4 |
0.44 |
2 |
0.05 |
4 |
0.20 |
|
Solid waste management |
0.14 |
3 |
0.42 |
3 |
0.14 |
3 |
0.42 |
|
Executive resources |
0.14 |
1 |
0.14 |
2 |
0.21 |
3 |
0.63 |
|
Strong pipeline of leadership |
0.13 |
3 |
0.39 |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
0.08 |
|
Staff well being |
0.15 |
2 |
0.30 |
3 |
0.13 |
3 |
0.39 |
|
Ownership ethos |
0.08 |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
0.10 |
1 |
0.10 |
|
Total |
1 |
|
2.53 |
|
1.32 |
|
3.62 |
|
SWOT Analysis |
|
|
Opportunities |
Threats |
|
· Has an opportunity of spreading more in Europe. · The rise in demand for electricity. · Gas demand is still attractive. · Key M&As are always successful · Advancements in technology |
· China is taking a larger share of the market. · High prices of steel · The local currency that is not strong · Rig orders still low · Carbon tax introduction. |
|
Rig orders still low |
0.13 |
2 |
0.26 |
|
A local currency that is very strong |
0.07 |
2 |
0.14 |
|
Total |
1 |
|
2.24 |
SWOT Analysis showing the strengths and weaknesses of the organization.
|
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
|
Facilities and location: Multiple international locations for fabrication and manufacturing. |
Small customer base: The majority of revenue is tied to a small group of customers. |
|
Supply management: Supply control though limited vertical integration. |
Reliance on suppliers: Some critical components have a single source. Growth: As a public sector corporation, there is no allowance for capital expenditure and expansion. The existing attentiveness to other industries could lead to trailing shares in shipbuilding. |
|
Asset acquisition: Strategic acquisition of rival businesses and technologies. |
|
External factor evaluation
|
|
Weight |
Rating |
Weighted score |
|
Opportunities |
|||
|
Has an opportunity of spreading more in Europe |
0.11 |
3 |
0.33 |
|
Rise in demand for electricity |
0.24 |
2 |
0.48 |
|
Gas demand is still attractive |
0.10 |
1 |
0.10 |
|
Key M&As are always successful |
0.04 |
2 |
0.08 |
|
Advancements in technology |
0.03 |
4 |
0.12 |
|
Threats |
|||
|
China is taking a larger share of the market. |
0.17 |
2 |
0.34 |
|
Carbon tax introduction |
0.03 |
1 |
0.03 |
|
High prices of steel |
0.12 |
3 |
0.36 |
Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) matrix
Financial Analysis
|
KEY FINANCIAL RATIOS |
|||
|
|
Formula |
Calculation* |
Industry Average** |
|
Leverage Ratios |
|||
|
Long Term Debt Ratio |
Long-term Debt / Total Assets |
50,454 / 340,576 = 14.81 |
58.95 |
|
Debt-to-Equity Ratio |
Total Liabilities / Total Shareholders' Equity |
180,336 / 160,240 = 1.13 |
12.94 |
|
Liquidity |
|||
|
Cash Ratio |
Cash and Cash Equivalents / Current Liabilities |
58,185 / 116,383 = 0.5 |
1.06 |
|
Current Ratio |
Current Assets/Current Liabilities |
233,205 / 116,383 = 2.0 |
2.64 |
|
Quick/Acid Test |
(Current Assets - Inventories)/Current Liabilities |
(233,205 - 51647) / 116,383 = 1.56 |
1.6 |
|
Efficiency Ratios |
|||
|
Asset Turnover Ratio |
Total Sales / (Beginning Assets + Ending Assets)/2 |
322,540 / (402,953+340,576)/2 = 0.87 |
0.68 |
|
Inventory Turnover Ratio |
Cost of Goods Sold/Inventories |
256,367 / 371,764.5 = 0.69 |
4.5 |
|
Profitability |
|||
|
Gross Profit Margin |
(Net Sales - COGS) / Net Sales |
(322,540 - 256,367) / 322,540 = 20.51 |
50.85 |
|
Net Profit Margin |
Net Income/Sales |
(43,637) / 322,540 = -13.53 |
23.52 |
|
Return on Equity (ROE) |
Net Income/Average Shareholder's Equity |
(43,637) / 160,240 = -27.23 |
25.86 |
|
*Financial data acquired from Sembcorp Industries Ltd 2018 Sembcorp Industries Ltd Annual Report Annual Report |
|||
|
**Industry Average data acquired from CSI Market |
|
QSPM for NeoPhotonics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Key Factors |
Improve the cost of operations |
Acquire competitor |
||||
|
|
Weight |
AS |
TAS |
Weight |
AS |
TAS |
|
Strengths |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unique Product |
0.15 |
4 |
0.6 |
0.15 |
2 |
0.3 |
|
Location of Business |
0.15 |
2 |
0.3 |
0.13 |
2 |
0.26 |
|
Workers unique skillset |
0.09 |
2 |
0.18 |
0.06 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Quality of Product |
0.11 |
3 |
0.33 |
0.15 |
2 |
0.3 |
|
Increasing work productivity |
0.09 |
4 |
0.36 |
0.05 |
1 |
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weaknesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of quality and customer service |
0.08 |
0 |
0 |
0.1 |
1 |
0.1 |
|
Poor marketing and sales |
0.1 |
1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
1 |
0.1 |
|
Undifferentiated product |
0.15 |
2 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
3 |
0.6 |
|
Negatively sensitive to globalization |
0.08 |
2 |
0.16 |
0.06 |
1 |
0.06 |
|
Sum Weights |
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
Opportunities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new developing market |
0.09 |
2 |
0.18 |
0.15 |
3 |
0.45 |
|
The possible acquisition of a competitor |
0.14 |
3 |
0.42 |
0.1 |
3 |
0.3 |
|
Membership in a trade alliance |
0.16 |
0 |
0 |
0.05 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increasing competition in the market |
0.08 |
3 |
0.24 |
0.15 |
3 |
0.45 |
|
Price war |
0.1 |
2 |
0.2 |
0.12 |
1 |
0.12 |
|
Competitor oligopoly |
0.18 |
3 |
0.54 |
0.1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Concerning talks of trade wars |
0.09 |
2 |
0.18 |
0.18 |
2 |
0.32 |
|
Intellectual property being stolen |
0.16 |
2 |
0.32 |
0.15 |
1 |
0.15 |
|
Sum Weights |
100% |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sum Total Attractiveness Score |
4.41 |
> |
3.62 |