Comparative,

UNIT 14 COMPARATIVE, COMMON Common Size, and

Trend Statement
SIZE, AND TREND STATEMENT
Objective
The unit aims to:
 acquaint you with the ways to anlayse changes in financial performance
 helping you to prepare analysis statements and reports from financial
statements
 acquaint you with the technique of inter-firm analysis
 explain the DuPont analysis technique

Structure
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Comparative Statement Analysis
14.3 Common-size Analysis
14.4 Trend Analysis
14.5 Inter-firm Analysis
14.6 DuPont Analysis
14.7 Using Financial Ratios to predict Bankruptcy
14.8 Applications of Financial ratios
14.9 Summary
14.10 Test Your Understanding
14.11 Additional Readings

14.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, we learnt about the various financial ratios –
Profitability, Leverage, Activity, Efficiency, and Investment ratios - how to
calculate them and the interpretation of these ratios. Estimating these ratios
for one year provides some insight into the functioning of a firm. We are in a
slightly better position in understanding the complexities of a business
enterprise. Calculating these ratios is the first step in this exercise. Such
financial ratios have limited usage as conclusive comments cannot be made.
Further analysis is therefore required to be made in order to reach to some
definitive conclusions.

In order to understand the financial statements of a firm and hence comment

on the financial performance, we need to compare the ratios over time and
compare them with other similar companies. There are various tools and
techniques to achieve this, which are discussed in this chapter.

365
Financial
Statement Analysis
14.2 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT ANALYSIS
A common approach to study the changes in the financial performance of a
firm is to simply compare the financial statements for at least two years and
calculate the changes between the two years. Such an analysis is called
Comparative Statement Analysis. In this analysis, financial statements of at
least two years need to be considered. For example, consider the Balance
sheet for a hypothetical company - ABCL Limited for two years – year
ending March 31, 2020, and 2021, given in Table 14.1. Next, we calculate
the change for each line item of the balance sheet (2021 over 2020). This is
given in column „3‟ of Table 14.1. We also express this change as a
percentage over the base year, i.e. 2020, in column „4‟ of the table. For
example, the long-term borrowing in 2021 was Rs 1466.11 Crores, while in
2020; they were Rs. 1562 Crores – a decrease of Rs 95.89 crores. In
percentage terms, this is a fall of 6.14% over 2020. ((1466-1562)/1562 *100
= -6.14%). Similarly, we calculate the „change‟ and the „percentage change‟
for each line item of the balance sheet and income statement, as shown in
Table 14.1. Such an exercise helps gain insights into the financial
statements, i.e. which items of balance sheet and income statement have
increased (or decreased) significantly over the two years. Such an analysis
may be extended to include more number of years.

Table 14.1 Comparative Analysis

ABCL Limited
(Rs.
Balance Sheet Crores)
As on March 31,
%age
Particulars 2020 2021 Change Change

Liabilities:
Equity Capital 356.00 356.00 0.00 0.00%
Reserves & Surplus 1245.00 1392.67 147.67 11.86%
Net Worth 1601.00 1748.67 147.67 9.22%
Non-Current Liabilities:
Long-term borrowings 1562.00 1466.11 -95.89 -6.14%
10% Debentures 1129.00 1550.51 421.51 37.33%
Total Non-Current
Liabilities 2691.00 3016.62 325.62 12.10%
Current Liabilities:
Trade Creditors 234.00 299.00 65.00 27.78%
Short-term Borrowings 357.95 447.81 89.86 25.10%
Other Current Liabilities &
Provisions 96.00 136.76 40.76 42.46%
Total Current Liabilities 687.95 883.57 195.62 28.44%
366
 Comparative,
Common Size, and
Total Liabilities 4979.95 5648.86 668.91 13.43% Trend Statement

Assets:
Non-Current assets:
Plant & Equipment 1964.88 2632.35 667.47 33.97%
Less Accumulated
Depreciation 186.27 256.34 70.07 37.62%
Net Plant & Equipment 1778.61 2376.01 597.40 33.59%
Investments 129.82 205.49 75.67 58.29%
Other Non-Current Assets 57.00 178.34 121.34 212.88%
Total Non-Current Assets 1965.43 2759.84 794.41 40.42%
Current Assets:
Raw Material 589.74 728.59 138.85 23.54%
Work-in-Progress 282.50 381.75 99.25 35.13%
Finished Goods 1774.84 1312.80 -462.04 -26.03%
Total Inventories 2647.08 2423.14 -223.94 -8.46%
Trade Debtors 234.76 329.99 95.23 40.56%
Cash & Bank Balances 55.67 35.92 -19.75 -35.48%
Loan & Advances 45.23 45.76 0.53 1.17%
Other Current Assets 31.78 54.21 22.43 70.58%
Total Current Assets 367.44 465.88 98.44 26.79%
Total Assets 4979.95 5648.86 668.91 13.43%

Similarly, a comparative statement may be prepared for the income statement

as well.

14.3 COMMON-SIZE ANALYSIS

Another way to analyse the financial statements is by preparing a Common-
size statement. In this, each item of the balance sheet is expressed as a
percentage of total assets or total liabilities, as shown in Table 14.2.For
example; Equity capital in the year 2020 is Rs. 356 Crores which is 7.15% of
the Total Liabilities of Rs. 4979.95 Crores. This is mentioned in column „3‟
of Table 14.2. Similarly, all other items of the balance sheet are expressed as
a percentage of the Total assets or Total liabilities. In this analysis, the
financial statements are redrafted to be expressed in terms of common base
(total Assets or liabilities in case of balance sheet and Net Sales in case of
Income Statement). Therefore such statements are called Common-size
statement Analysis.

367
Financial Table 14.2 Common -Size Analysis
Statement Analysis
ABCL Limited
Balance Sheet (Rs. Crores)
As on March 31,
Particulars 2020 2021 2020 2021

Liabilities:
Equity Capital 356.00 356.00 7.15% 6.30%
Reserves & Surplus 1245.00 1392.67 25.00% 24.65%
Net Worth 1601.00 1748.67 32.15% 30.96%
Non-Current Liabilities:
Long-term borrowings 1562.00 1466.11 31.37% 25.95%
10% Debentures 1129.00 1550.51 22.67% 27.45%
Total Non-Current Liabilities 2691.00 3016.62 54.04% 53.40%
Current Liabilities:
Trade Creditors 234.00 299.00 4.70% 5.29%
Short-term Borrowings 357.95 447.81 7.19% 7.93%
Other Current Liabilities &
Provisions 96.00 136.76 1.93% 2.42%
Total Current Liabilities 687.95 883.57 13.81% 15.64%

Total Liabilities 4979.95 5648.86 100.00% 100.00%

Assets:
Non-Current assets:
Plant & Equipment 1964.88 2632.35 39.46% 46.60%
Less Accumulated Depreciation 186.27 256.34 3.74% 4.54%
Net Plant & Equipment 1778.61 2376.01 35.72% 42.06%
Investments 129.82 205.49 2.61% 3.64%
Other Non-Current Assets 57.00 178.34 1.14% 3.16%
Total Non-Current Assets 1965.43 2759.84 39.47% 48.86%
Current Assets:
Raw Material 589.74 728.59 11.84% 12.90%
Work-in-Progress 282.50 381.75 5.67% 6.76%
Finished Goods 1774.84 1312.80 35.64% 23.24%
Total Inventories 2647.08 2423.14 53.15% 42.90%
Trade Debtors 234.76 329.99 4.71% 5.84%
Cash & Bank Balances 55.67 35.92 1.12% 0.64%
Loan & Advances 45.23 45.76 0.91% 0.81%
Other Current Assets 31.78 54.21 0.64% 0.96%
368
Total Current Assets 367.44 465.88 7.38% 8.25% Comparative,
Common Size, and
Total Assets 4979.95 5648.86 100.00% 100.00% Trend Statement

14.4 TREND ANALYSIS

Another important technique of analysing the financial statements is to
examine them over a period of time – say over five years, and study the trend
over the years, especially in items of Income statement like sales, profits or
items of balance sheet like net worth, debt etc. In order to undertake such
trend analysis, the financial statements of five years are laid out the
hypothetical firm- ABC limited are given in chapter 13. The trend analysis of
key financial indicators is given in Table 14.3 below. The important financial
indicators like– Sales, EBIT, Interest etc., are expressed as 100 for the base
year, i.e. 2016. And then, each item is expressed relative to the amount in the
base year. Sales for the year 2017 were Rs. 1957.57 Lacs, and for 2016 they
were Rs. 1890.50 Lacs. So the index value for Sales for the year 2017 would
be 104.5, i.e. Rs. 1957.57 Lacs/ Rs. 1890.50 Lacs *100 = 104.5. This means
that the sales in 2017 grew at 4.5% over 2016. Similarly, all the other figures
have been worked out, as in Table 14.3.

Table 14.3 Trend Analysis for ABC Limited.

Particulars 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sales (Net) 100.0 104.5 111.6 120.3 124.2
Earnings Before Interest & Taxes 100.0 98.8 97.1 126.0 138.7
Interest 100.0 186.1 338.2 364.3 372.5
Profit Before Taxes 100.0 85.6 76.9 100.5 107.7
Profit After Taxes 100.0 83.4 72.5 94.6 93.6
Net worth 100.0 124.3 145.4 171.7 197.7
Total Liabilities 100.0 146.7 199.6 232.1 272.0
Net Fixed Assets 100.0 186.1 338.2 364.3 372.5
Current Assets 100.0 121.4 132.8 166.3 209.3
Total Assets 100.0 146.7 199.6 232.1 272.0

An important conclusion from the above is that the firm has grown rapidly in
terms of asset base since 2018 onwards, which is fuelled by long-term
borrowings, but sales and profitability have not increased at the same pace.

14.5 INTER-FIRM ANALYSIS

Besides investigating the financial statements of the company in question,
analysts also compare the financial performance of the firm with its close
competitors or the industry averages. Such an analysis is referred to as Inter-
firm analysis or Cross-sectional analysis, which enables the analysts to
compare the firm's performance with its competitors or industry average. The
financial ratios are compared with firms that are similar in terms of sales,
369
Financial assets size, market share etc., in order to examine the financial performance.
Statement Analysis
For example, the key financial indicators – Sales, PAT, Borrowings, Fixed
Assets, Equity and retained earnings, of the top 15 fertiliser firms (in terms of
Sales) are listed in Table 14.4.From this, we can see that National Fertilizers
Limited is the largest firm in terms of Sales.

Table 14.4 Key Financial Indicators of Fertiliser Firms in India for the
year 2020.
Profit Net
S. after Long term Fixed Equity Retained
Company Sales tax borrowings Assets capital Earnings
N
Name
o. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
Million Million Rs. Million Million Million Million
National -
1 Fertilizers Ltd. 1,28,111.3 1,710.1 6,000.0 37,244.0 4,905.8 14,303.6
Rashtriya
Chemicals &
2 Fertilizers Ltd. 94,173.6 2,081.5 6,103.5 21,239.2 5,516.9 26,345.8
Gujarat State
Fertilizers &
3 Chemicals Ltd. 76,279.7 987.0 933.3 28,950.7 797.0 67,181.3
Paradeep
4 Phosphates Ltd. 41,928.7 1,940.5 1,394.2 12,140.3 5,754.5 10,286.2
Smartchem
Technologies
5 Ltd. 31,507.0 93.8 6,475.6 28,187.4 170.5 26,155.4
Fertilisers &
Chemicals,
6 Travancore Ltd. 27,753.5 9,755.2 9,056.4 2,571.4 6,470.7 -11,384.9
Mangalore
Chemicals &
7 Fertilizers Ltd. 27,116.3 645.5 2,237.0 6,075.3 1,185.2 4,270.4
GreenstarFertili
8 sersLtd. 25,382.1 466.1 320.2 3,727.6 289.4 2,175.8
Kanpur
Fertilizers &
9 Cement Ltd. 24,768.8 8.7 1,162.7 8,174.5 2,909.6 4,734.2
Kribhco
10 Fertilizers Ltd. 24,729.2 -276.2 2,869.1 8,704.2 8,000.6 -3,501.5
Southern
Petrochemical
Inds. Corpn.
11 Ltd. 21,110.3 569.4 - 3,518.3 2,036.4 1,968.9
ZuariAgro -
12 Chemicals Ltd. 20,126.3 1,890.1 2,885.5 4,893.5 420.6 749.7
Madras -
13 Fertilizers Ltd. 12,776.9 1,348.8 512.8 1,987.2 1,611.0 -7,930.3
Nagarjuna
Fertilizers & -
14 Chemicals Ltd. 4,611.5 4,723.5 304.3 23,983.4 598.1 538.9
Rama
15 Phosphates Ltd. 4,484.4 176.7 1.0 427.6 176.7 1,484.1

Source: CMIE‟s Prowess Database

Further, Table 14.5 shows a few financial ratios based on the above financial
indicators. This can also help in comparing the performance of the sample
firms. For example, although National Fertilizers Limited is the largest firm
370
in terms of Sales, it is not the most profitable firm. Fertilisers & Chemicals Comparative,
Common Size, and
Travancore Ltd is the most profitable firm in the sample with a Net Profit Trend Statement
Margin of 35%. This way, the performance of firms may be compared with
each other.

Table 14.5 Financial Ratios of Fertiliser Firms in India for the year 2020.

S.No. Company Name NPM D/E Sales/CE

1 National Fertilizers Ltd. -1.33% 0.31 5.08
2 Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 2.21% 0.19 2.48
3 Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 1.29% 0.01 1.11
4 Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. 4.63% 0.09 2.40
5 Smartchem Technologies Ltd. 0.30% 0.25 0.96
6 Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. 35.15% -1.84 6.70
7 Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. 2.38% 0.41 3.52
8 Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd. 1.84% 0.13 9.11
9 Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd. 0.04% 0.15 2.81
10 Kribhco Fertilizers Ltd. -1.12% 0.64 3.36
11 Southern Petrochemical Inds. Corpn. Ltd. 2.70% 0.00 5.27
12 ZuariAgro Chemicals Ltd. -9.39% 2.47 4.96
13 Madras Fertilizers Ltd. -10.56% -0.08 -2.20
14 Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. -102.43% 0.27 3.20
15 Rama Phosphates Ltd. 3.94% 0.00 2.70

Source: Calculated using data from CMIE‟s Prowess Database

14.6 DUPONT ANALYSIS

The most important aspect of a firm‟s operations is the rate of return the firm
is able to generate on the equity investment made by the shareholders. Equity
shareholders are the real owners of the firm and take all the risk. Hence, the
Return on Equity (ROE) needs to be analysed in greater depth. This is
achieved by the DuPont Analysis, which breaks down the ROE ratio into its
three important components. These three components of performance
measurement are Profit margin, Asset turnover, and Equity multiplier.

This can also be written as a product of the above three components as

follows:

371
Financial
Statement Analysis

Net Profit Margin Asset Turnover Equity Multiplier

Ratio

Net Profit margin indicates profitability; asset turnover ratio evaluates the
efficiency in the usage of the assets of the firms, while Equity Multiplier is a
proxy for financial leverage. Thus, the DuPont Analysis highlights that a firm
may increase its ROE by maintaining a high Net Profit Margin, efficient use
of total assets and optimum leverage. If the ROE falls, the firm must
investigate these three financial performance measures to identify the reasons
for such fall and take corrective steps.

14.7 USING FINANCIAL RATIOS TO PREDICT

BANKRUPTCY
Edward Altman (1968) investigated cases of business failures in the US. In
his study, he included a sample of 66 industrial companies, ÷ of which 33 were
bankrupt firms and 33 non-bankrupt firms for 20 years, from 1946 to 1965.
Based on the data provided by the annual reports of the companies, Altman
examined a total of 22 potential financial ratios out of which he retained five
ratios that had the highest significance based on statistical techniques that
were most important ratios in predicting business failures. Altman used the
Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) technique, which categorised firms
into those that are likely to fail and those that are not likely to fail. Based on
his study, Altman developed the following formula, which combines these -
five ratios and assigning weights to each of these ratios to arrive at one
composite score, which he called the Z-score:

Z-score = 1.2X1 + 1.4X2+ 3.3X3 + 0.6X4 + 1.0X5

Where,

X1 = Net Working Capital to Total Assets

X2= Retained Earnings to Total Assets

X3= Earnings before Interest & Taxes to Total Assets

X4= Market Value of Equity to Total Liabilities

X5= Sales to Total Assets.

X1 = Net Working Capital to Total Assets is a measure of the net liquid

assets of the firms relative to the total capitalisation. As discussed earlier, Net
working Capital is the difference between the current assets and current
liabilities. This ratio explicitly considers the liquidity and size of the firm.
372
Generally speaking, a company that is experiencing consistent operating Comparative,
Common Size, and
losses will have shrinking current assets in relation to its total assets. Trend Statement

X2 = Retained Earnings to Total Assets: Retained earnings are the

accumulated earnings/ profits of the firm. In this ratio, the age of a firm is
implicitly considered for a relatively old, well-established company will most
likely have a higher ratio than a relatively young firm, which are more
susceptible to fail in its initial years of existence.

X3 = Earnings Before Interest & Taxes to Total Assets: This ratio

measures the productivity of the firm‟s assets, independent of the effects of
leverage or tax. As the existence of a firm is based on the earning power of
its assets, this ratio is appropriate to study business failures.

X4 = Market Value of Equity to Total Liabilities: This ratio indicates how

much the firm‟s assets can decline in value relative to the market value of its
equity and become bankrupt.

X5 = Sales to Total Assets: This ratio (called the Capital Turnover ratio)
indicates the sales generating ability of the firm‟s assets.

According to the study by Altman, if the Z-score of a firm was greater than
2.99, then the firm is financially sound, while if the score is less than 1.81,
then the firm is financially not healthy and is most likely to go bankrupt.
Firms with Z-score between 1.81 and 2.99 fall in the grey zone wherein the
model could not predict business failure or otherwise.

The following illustration shows the calculation of the Z-score for two
hypothetical firms – Firm A and Firm B. Based on the financial statements,
the five ratios have been calculated as indicated below, and the Z-score for
each firm estimated. From the ratios, it appears that Firm A is a relatively
weak firm as compared to Firm B.

Weight Firm
Ratios Firm B
s A
10.50
Net Working Capital to Total Assets (X1) 1.2 45.50%
%
Retained Earnings to Total Assets (X2) 1.4 1.76% 31.50%
Earnings Before Interest & Taxes to Total
3.3 8.56% 34.50%
Assets (X3)
89.00 167.00
Market Value of Equity to Total Liabilities (X4) 0.6
% %
80.00 167.00
Sales to Total Assets (X5) 1.0
% %
Z-Score
1.77 4.80

The Z-score for Firm A works out to 1.77 while for Firm B is 4.80, which is
arrived at by multiplying the weights with the respective ratios. As the Z-

373
Financial score of Firm A is less than 1.81, it is most likely to go bankrupt, while for
Statement Analysis
Firm B, the Z-score is greater than 2.99; it is a financially strong company.

The above Altman‟s model was for manufacturing and listed firms.
Subsequently, he revised the model for unlisted firms and non-manufacturing
firms. The revised model is as follows:

Revised Z-score = 6.56X1 + 3.25X2+ 1.05 X3 + 6.72 X4

whereX1, X2, and X3have the same meaning as above, while X4 = Book
Value of Equity to Total Liabilities.

If the Revised Z-score is greater than 2.9, then the firm is considered
financially healthy and not likely to go bankrupt. If the Revised Z-score is
less than 1.23, the firm is considered financially weak and likely to go
bankrupt. Firms with Revised Z-score of greater than 1.23 and less than 2.9
fall in the grey zone.

Currently several advanced tools are used for predicting bankruptcy

including use of Artificial intelligence.

14.8 APPLICATIONS OF FINANCIAL RATIOS

Ratio analysis is an important technique of analysing the financial
performance of firms. Different stakeholders use financial ratios to evaluate
the firm‟s performance from their own perspective. The following are,
therefore, the applications of financial ratios.
1. Assessing the performance of firms: Ass stated above, different
stakeholders want to evaluate the financial performance of firms from
their perspective. Shareholders want to evaluate if the business enterprise
is profitable and financially strong or not. Short-term creditors and
suppliers of raw materials want to know if the company would be able to
repay the short-term credit which they have provided. Lenders of long-
term finance are interested in the long-term solvency and profitability of
the firm. Management is interested in the overall performance of the
firm. Thus, each stakeholder wants to examine and evaluate the financial
statements from their own perspective. Ratios are also used to rank
companies. For example, financial newspapers (like Economic Times,
Financial Express, and Business Standard), and websites (Like Money
Control, Yahoo) rank companies on an annual/ quarterly performance.
2. Credit Analysis: Ratios are used to judge the creditworthiness of
potential customers. Ratios like current ratio/Acid-test ratio, debt-equity
ratio, Interest coverage ratio are evaluated to decide whether credit
should be extended or not, or further loans should be sanctioned or not.
3. Forecasting Bankruptcy: As discussed above, Altman‟s Z-score is an
important technique to predict the chances of business failure.
4. Valuing Firms: Valuation of firms is an important aspect of the usage of
financial ratios. As the valuation of firms is dependent on the

374
 profitability and efficiency of a firm, the valuation ratios such as PE, EV- Comparative,
Common Size, and
EBITDA ratio, MV-to BV ratio are used extensively by analysts. Trend Statement
Issues in using Financial Ratios
Although ratio analysis is an important tool in the analysis and evaluation of
the performance of a firm, there are certain issues while using them. Some of
the issues in using the financial ratios are as follows:
1. The financial ratios are calculated based on the financial statements – the
Balance sheet, Income statement and Cash flow statement. These
statements, as we know, are historical in nature. They summarise the
financial transactions of the firm as they occurred in the past. Hence the
financial ratios based on these historical statements are backwards-
looking and are at best post-mortem of past events. An independent
(outside) analyst who does not have access to the future plans of the
firm, relying on the past data may not predict the future performance and
financial position of the firm.
2. No two companies are exactly similar in their asset profile, capital
structure, technology being used, markets, products etc. Further,
companies also change over a period of time. Hence, as the profile of
companies‟ changes, it becomes difficult to compare the ratios; the
comparison of ratios with other firms or over time periods might become
problematic.
3. Although the financial ratios have been defined as discussed in the
previous chapter, there exists a wide variation in the definition of certain
terms, which makes the comparison of ratios difficult. For example,
though the Debt-Equity ratio is well defined, what constitutes Equity is
subject to variation as some may include Preference capital in Equity
while others may not include it.Similarly, the term profits are also
subject to different interpretations.
4. Besides comparing the ratio over time, they are sometimes compared
with industry averages also. Such a database is maintained by the
Reserve Bank of India. “Prowess” database maintained by the Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) is another such database of Indian
firms. Such industry average ratio is based on all the firms that constitute
that industry which may vary in size. Some firms may be very large in
terms of sales and profits, while some firms may be very small. The
industry average would give equal attention to both these types of firms.
Comparing a firm‟s ratios with such an average ratio might be
misleading.

14.9 SUMMARY
In order to understand the financial statements of a firm and make conclusive
comments on the financial performance, we need to compare the ratios over
time and compare them with other similar companies. Techniques such as
Comparative Statements Analysis, Common size analysis, Trend Analysis,
and Inter-firm analysis are popularly used. DuPont Analysis decomposes the
performance measure of Return on Equity into its three important
375
Financial components that need to be investigated in depth for reasons for poor
Statement Analysis performance. Altman‟s Z-Score is used to predict the possibility of a firm
going bankrupt in the near future. Properly combined financial ratios are used
to assess corporate excellence, judge creditworthiness, predict bankruptcy,
value shares. Although financial ratios are a useful tool, there are certain
issues encountered; hence ratios should not be used blindly but with due
caution.

14.10 KEY WORDS

Comparative Statement Analysis, Common-size Analysis, Trend Analysis,
Inter-firm Analysis, DuPont Analysis, Altman‟s Z-score.

14.11 TEST YOUR UNDERSTANDING:

Long answer Questions
1. Discuss the difference between Comparative Statement Analysis and
Common Size Analysis.
2. Explain in detail the Du Pont Analysis.
3. Describe the Altman‟s Z-Score model for predicting the bankruptcy of a
firm.
4. Discuss the used and applications of ratio Analysis.
5. Discuss the problems and issues faced in analysing the financial
statements.

14.12 ADDITIONAL READINGS

Richard A. Brealey, Stewart C. Myers, Franklin Allen,
&PitabasMohanty, Principles of Corporate Finance, 12th Edition, McGraw
Hill, 2018.
Sheridan Titman, Arthur J. Keown, & John D. Martin, Financial
Management –Principles and Applications, 13th Edition, Pearson India, 2019.
Jonathan Berk, Peter Demarzo, &JarradHarford, Fundamentals of
Corporate Finance, 3rd Edition, Pearson, 2019.
Prasanna Chandra, Financial Management – Theory & Practice, 10th
Edition, McGraw Hill, 2019.
I.M. Pandey, Financial Management, 12th Edition, Pearson, 2021.
RaithathaBapat, Financial Accounting a Managerial Perspective, McGraw
Hill, 2017.

376