Southern Gothic Literature And Deranged Characters Essay

Southern Gothic Literature and Deranged Characters â€Å"Southern Gothic Literature is a genre that focuses on grotesque themes that involve troubled and deranged main characters, while sometimes including elements found from the supernatural† (study.com P1). The following short stories had authors that played a tremendous role in the southern gothic literature genre, and inspired many authors to follow their style. From necrophilia to serial killers, southern gothic literature is a genre that is to be studied with an open mind, and also having good grasp on studying context clues comes in handy. The author who had one of the biggest impacts on the southern gothic community was William Faulkner. A Rose for Emily suggests dark themes with hidden meanings beneath the text with blatant clues that lead up to the death of her lover, and the sick things she does to him. Emily started out as a beautiful young girl who had hopes of marrying the best man, but by the end of the story she was a large, widowed woman with no hopes of finding a new love. Southern gothic literature focuses deep on troubled characters. The main character, Emily Grierson, suffered from an unimaginable mental illness. All the way deep down her family line creeped dark and eerie, disgusting and unpleasant, or disrespectful and weird fantasies. Emily suffered from depression which caused her obsession with necrophilia. Emily’s father abused Emily psychologically, and pushed her to the point of killing him. Emily’sShow MoreRelatedCharacteristics Of Southern Gothic Literature1694 Words   |  7 PagesJordan Cole English 1102 Professor Myszkowski 1 December 2017 Southern Gothic Literature Throughout the course of history, literature has gone through considerable changes. Dating back to its humble beginnings in folklore, fables, and storytelling all the way up to the scientific books and dramatic novels of today. Literature is arguably the centerpiece of all mankind. It is useful for record keeping, education, and bringing cultures and societies together. It has allowed us to expand our mindsRead MoreGothic Literature : The Southern Gothic Fiction1476 Words   |  6 PagesAuthors use morbidly dark and eccentric characters combined with southern charm and the ever-present gender divide to tell stories that represent a writing style known as southern gothic literature. â€Å"Southern Gothic is a subgenre of Gothic fiction unique to American literature that takes place exclusively in the American South. Elements of a Gothic treatment of the South were apparent in the 19th century, ante- and post-bellum, in the grotesques of Henry Clay Lewis and the de-idealized visions ofRead MoreAnalysis of Southern Gothic Literature Essay examples2890 Words   |  12 PagesAnalysis of Southern Gothic Literature Southern Gothic literature, which is a sub-genre of the Gothic writing style, is unique to the American South. Southern Gothic literature has many of the same aspects as Gothic literature; it focuses on topics such as death, madness, and the super natural as well has having many mystical, bizarre, violent, and grotesque aspects. These tools are used to explore social issues and reveal the cultural character of the American South (Wikipedia). The authorsRead More An Analysis of Edgar Allan Poes Psychological Thriller Essay3707 Words   |  15 PagesPoe 1. 1. Allan Poes Life 2. 2. Allan Poes Works and Literary Achievement III. Adgar Allan Poe -- A Post-Gothic Writer 1. 1. Gothic Introduction 2. 2. Analysis of Two Horror 1) 1) The Fall of the House of Usher a) a) Setting b) b) Characters c) c) Point of View 2) 2) The Masque of the Red Death a) a) Setting b) b) Characters c) c) Point of View IV. The Symbolism in Allan Poes Works 1. Symbolism Introduction 2. Analysis

Financial Statement Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Pakistan Free Essays

string(117) " project is always needed to have impartial analysis that encourages financier to invest in more profitable venture\." Final Project Profitability Ratios’ Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in same industry for FY 2008-10 Sanofi-Aventis Ferozsons Abbott A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY OF PAKISTAN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted By Mc080402262 Sheikh Khurum Akram Department of Management Sciences, Virtual University of Pakistan Acknowledgement In the name of ALLAH, the most Gracious, the most Merciful Firstly I am thankful to ALLAH ALMIGHTY, WHO is sprinkling HIS blessings upon me and my family. HE has bestowed me with sound health and determination to perform this task. I really acknowledge guidelines from my course tutor who taught me the techniques of research. We will write a custom essay sample on Financial Statement Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Pakistan or any similar topic only for you Order Now This project is my own effort. Executive Summary I will evaluate three leading pharmaceuticals of Pakistan for profitability ratio analysis of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. I will assess them on the basis of facts and figures provided in their financial statements. My objective is to figure out their flaws and potencies. Outcomes of profitability analysis are worthy for management in making effective decisions. My findings will make easy for all related parties to have impartial analysis. This project will also make available a snapshot of pharmaceuticals’ capability in managing their resource for yielding profits. The main purpose behind this analysis is to conduct a quantitative study of raw data. Outcomes of my project will assist the title-holders and decision-makers to keep an eye on improvement in their businesses. I will perform profitability ratio analysis of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. I will cite my sources each time if exact quote is copied of an author or paraphrasing of the same is drafted in my own words. I will provide reference if I copy a table, chart, diagram, or graph wholly or partly. Microsoft word and excel will be used to evaluate ratio analysis. APA style of referencing will be used. Ferozsons and Abbott have yielded sufficient net profits to recover all operating, non-operating expenses and taxation charges and to build up reserves after paying all fixed interest charges and dividends. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low net profit despite reasonable sales volume due to escalating cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating charges. Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons are efficiently managing its assets to generate profit. Sanofi-Aventis is not utilizing its assets properly to generate profit. Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons have higher generating rate of their wealth. Sanofi-Aventis has lower generating rate of its wealth. Ferozsons has better pricing approach and operating competence. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has flaws in pricing tactic. Abbott has shown adequate operating profits to meet its fixed cost. Sanofi-Aventis has shown its efficiency at its best in managing significant assets like Property, Plant Equipment, Stock in Trade and Cash with bank balances. Ferozsons has utilized its revenue producing assets exceptionally well. Abbott has produced bulk sales volume with a relatively small amount of fixed assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown effective job by producing better sales volume turnover with minute amount of property, plant and equipment. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient returns to satisfy its investors. Ferozsons has generated sufficient gross profit volumes to face unfavorable financial circumstances such as low demanding and price competition. Ferozsons and Abbott need to keep scheming in the same way for curtailing cost of goods sold, operating and on-operating expenses. They need to retain effective management policies by utilizing more assets for the generation of higher profits in future. They need to keep strengthening better pricing approach and operating competence. They need to utilize operating assets more effectively to improve their turnover as per sales volume. Ferozsons needs to downsize overinvested in fixe d assets. Abbott and Sanofi-Aventis should improve their turnover of fixed assets in terms of sales volume. They can increase gross profits by implementing more effective management policies. Sanofi-Aventis really needs to look its profit yielding capacity. It should review and improve its products range. Furthermore effective management policies can produce the desirable results. It requires implementing improved pricing tactic to attain better operating proficiency. It needs to watch over its policies for better return on owner’s equity to retain its investor confidence. It has shown better operating assets turnover, it should keep utilizing them in the same manner. It needs to improve its selling and marketing strategies to improve profit margins. Table of contents Acknowledgement Executive Summary Section IPage # 1. Chapter 1) Introduction8 Financial Period Under-Consideration for Analysis:10 Objectives10 Significance11 2. Chapter 2) Data Processing and Analysis 11 * Data Collection Sources:12 * Data Processing and Analysis Tools: 12 3. Chapter 3) Data Analysis12 Profitability Ratio Analysis Project12 †¢ Net Profit Margin 12 †¢ Return on Assets 14 †¢ DuPont Return on Assets 17 †¢ Operating Income Margin 20 †¢ Operating Assets Turnover 23 †¢ Return on Operating Assets 26 †¢ Sales to Fixed Assets 29 Return on Total Equity 31 †¢ Gross Profit Margin 34 4. Chapter 4) Summary, Conclusion, Recommendations Limitations: 5. 2 Conclusion36 5. 3 Recommendations38 Section II a) Introduction of the student39 b) Bibliography39 Section I Chapter 1) Introduction to the Project: My project is about the financial standings and performance interpretations of three leading pharmaceuticals of Pakistan. I am willing to conduct this project to analyze the potentials and flaws of the same sort of business. My findings will facilitate all related parties to have impartial analysis. This project will also provide a snapshot of pharmaceuticals’ competence in handling their resource for generating profits. Profitability ratio analysis helps to conduct a quantitative scrutiny of raw data. It assists the title-holders and decision-makers to monitor improvement in their businesses and endow with qualified analysis. It also helps to analyze and interpret for future prospects. My project will help all the stakeholders to have impartial comparative performance analysis. Reliable analysis of financial statements has got enormous importance in the current economic scenario. Investors, debtors, creditors and customers demand concrete, credible and result-oriented approach on which they can rely. This sort of project is always needed to have impartial analysis that encourages financier to invest in more profitable venture. You read "Financial Statement Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Pakistan" in category "Papers" It will also help the relevant pharmaceuticals to overcome their loopholes. The pharmaceutical concerns have shown high sales in the current era. It is justifiable to call it the most developed technological segment in the country’s financial system. This business is presently experiencing a phase of considerable transformation in under developed countries. Well-established pharmaceuticals can allow investments in more R ; D that expand their potential drugs range. Abbott Laboratories: They are a global, broad-based health care company devoted to discovering new medicines, new technologies and new ways to manage health. Their products span the continuum of care, from nutritional products and laboratory diagnostics through medical devices and pharmaceutical therapies. Their comprehensive line of products encircles life itself – addressing important health needs from infancy to the golden years. They have over 70,000 employees worldwide and a global presence in more than 130 countries, Abbott Pakistan is part of the global healthcare corporation of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA. Abbott started operations in Pakistan as a marketing affiliate in 1948; the company has steadily expanded to comprise a work force of over 1500 employees. Currently two manufacturing facilities located at Landhi and Korangi in Karachi continue to use innovative technology to produce top quality pharmaceutical products. Abbott Pakistan has leadership in the field of Pain Management, Anesthesia * Medical Nutrition * Anti-Infective Ferozsons Laboratories Limited: It is one of the leading pharmaceuticals in Pakistan. It was incorporated as a Private Limited Company in 1954; Ferozsons Laboratories Limited became Pakistan’s first local pharmaceutical company to be listed on the country’s stock exchanges (1960). Commencing production in 1956, they made their beginnings primarily as manufac turers of fine chemicals and galenicals, and as toll-manufacturers for multinational pharmaceutical corporations today, heir core strength lies in their own range of branded generics, which cover products in the following segments:   * Anti-infective * Gastrointestinal * Cardiovascular * Dermatology Their marketing force consists of over 230 representatives and managers covering the territories of Pakistan. They have a  consistent prescription growth rate of over 20% per annum  in their promoted products; they provide a solid platform for creating and establishing brands in the Pakistani market. Sanofi-Aventis: Sanofi-Aventis is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies serving the cause of improving health and wellbeing. It is present in more than  100 countries, with around  11,000 scientists. They have around 100, 000 employees  working to improve health and wellbeing. Their Global headquarters are in Paris, France. Sanofi-Aventis focuses its activities on 7 major therapeutic areas: * Cardiovascular * Thrombosis * Oncology * Central Nervous System * Metabolic Disorders * Internal Medicine * Vaccines I have selected this project to have broad based comparative analysis between pharmaceuticals operating in Pakistan with different origins. It is desirable for me to know how these pharmaceuticals utilizing their resources to yield high profits effectively. 1. 1 Financial Period Under-Consideration for Analysis: Financial years under consideration for analysis are 2008 to 2010 of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. 1. 2 Objectives: The core objectives of the project will be to observe the operations of pharmaceuticals, their financial emergence and potencies along with flaws. To analyze the ability of selected pharmaceuticals to earn profit over a period of time * To analyze the selected pharmaceuticals efficiency in managing their resource for generating profit * To find out the reasons for generating profit over the years for selected pharmaceuticals * To find out that how effectively selected pharmaceuticals are maximizing their profits by controlling their costs/expenses * Tren d Analysis will help to study the financial history of pharmaceuticals for comparison. * I would justify my findings about the financial capability of the pharmaceuticals to satisfy the stakeholders. . 3 Significance of the Project: Profitability ratio analysis would provide thorough information about the credibility and current standings of pharmaceuticals. My project will help creditors to know the liquidity position of pharmaceuticals, its relation with profitability and help to settle their priorities. Liquidity determines a company’s capability to meet up its obligations. If a company is facing troubles in meeting its urgent monetary commitments, it can affect its business functions and profitability. Concisely a pharmaceutical with better profitability will be enjoying improved liquidity position. It can help debtors to assess how pharmaceuticals are extending credits, effectiveness of collecting debts and its impact on profit. I want to carry out this type of project to help the investors for settling their decisions in making investments in such a pharmaceutical that would best value their wealth. It will assist the customers to select such pharmaceutical that is yielding better profits and more reliable. It would help the management to have an independent analysis in identifying their loopholes. Profitability Ratio Analysis, Trend analysis and comparisons of results with other type of data will be judged against the pharmaceuticals within the industry. In short my analysis will help all stakeholders to have relevant and reliable information to ease their decision making process. Chapter 2) Data Processing and analysis: I will disclose and acknowledge all references for all materials that are used from all sources. I will cite my sources each time if exact quote is copied of an author or paraphrasing of the same is drafted in my own words. I will provide reference if I copy a table, chart, diagram, or graph wholly or partly. APA style of referencing will be used. 2. 1 Data Collection Sources may be: Primary Sources: This first hand data will be the contents I am investigating through financial statements of my relevant pharmaceuticals. Study of current data is my primary source. Secondary Sources may be: It will be collected through financial statements of my selected pharmaceuticals and internet. 2. 2 Data Processing and Analysis Tools: Microsoft word and excel will be used to evaluate ratio analysis. Chapter 3) Data Analysis Profitability Ratio Analysis Project I have taken into consideration three recent Financial Years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for analysis of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. 1- Net profit margin Introduction: The net profit margin formula reveals that how much of a company’s revenues are reserved as net income. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with sales revenue for a given year. Formula: Net profit margin= Net Profit / Sales Revenue * 100 Net profit margin= (Answer) %age Calculation: Net profit margin| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| =343,980/7,089,163=4. 5%| =609,072/8,450,118=7. 21%| =1,176,944/10,995,701=10. 70% | Ferozsons| =217,023. 829/932,297. 994=23. 28%| =182,757. 453/1,085,393. 578=16. 84%| =317,542. 675/1,273,374. 822=24. 94%| Sanofi-Aventis | =38,269/4,346,528=0. 88%| =167,371/6,725,708=2. 49%| =224,024/6,158,295=3. 64%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide br eakup of net profit (numerator) and sales revenue (denominator) as these figures are mentioned in Profit and loss account. Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison Ferozsons has yielded highest net profit ratio (24. 4% in 2010) whereas Abbott laboratory has the maximum sales volume with compare to other two. Ferozsons and Abbott have yielded sufficient net profits to recover all operating, non-operating expenses and taxation charges. They have the tendency to build up reserves after paying all fixed interest charges and dividends. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low net profit (0. 88% in 2008) despite reasonable sales volume. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 by producing the highest sales volume and by curtailing cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating expenses. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to the increase in cost of goods sold. It has revived in FY 2010 by yielding the highest net profit percentage by controlling its cost of goods sold. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but insufficient net profit to keep any reserves. It has shown the lowest profit percentage in FY 2008 due to very high cost of goods sold and operating expenses along with finance charges. Abbott has changed its financial year from November to December in 2010 (13 months) that has also given it edge in producing better sales volume. Ferozsons has been leading and surpassed other pharmaceuticals with high profit margins by curtailing its cost of goods sold and operating expenses as compared to others. On the other hand Abbott has shown the highest volume of sales as compared to others but profit yielding capacity has seemed to be been on the way out. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low profits due to escalating cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating charges. 2- Return on Assets Introduction: Return on average total assets is a profitability gauge of a company with relation to its total assets. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with average total assets for a given year. Formula: Return on Assets= Net Profit / Average Total Assets * 100 Return on Assets = (Answer) %age Calculation: Return on Assets= Net Profit / Average Total Assets * 100| | Return on Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 343980/4865539*100=7. 07%| 609072/5007143*100=12. 16%| 1176944/5377499*100=21. 89%| Ferozsons| 217023. 829/1349994. 951*100=16. 08%| 182757. 453/1530769. 165*100=11. 94%| 317542. 675/1724423. 948*100=18. 41%| | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | 38269/2706204*100=1. 1%| 167371/3211724*100=5. 21%| 224024/3393760*100=6. 60%| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of net profit (numerator) as it is mentioned in profit loss account. | Total Assets| | | | Total Assets| Year 2007| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 4681368| 5049710| 4964576| 5790421| Ferozsons| 1218361. 366| 1481 628. 536| 1579909. 793| 1868938. 102| | | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | 2428053| 2984355| 3439093| 3348427| | | | | | | Average Total Assets=(Current Year + Preceding Year)/2| | Average Total Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| (4681368+5049710)/2=4865539| (5049710+4964576)/2=5007143| (4964576+5790421)/2=5377499| Ferozsons| (1218361. 366+1481628. 536)/2=1349994. 951| (1481628. 536+1579909. 793)/2=1530769. 165| (1579909. 793+1868938. 102)/2=1724423. 948| | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | (2428053+2984355)/2=2706204| (2984355+3439093)/2=3211724| (3439093+3348427)/2=3393760| | | | | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott Laboratory has yielded better percentage of return on assets due to reasonable net profit. The better ratio of Abbott laboratory depict that the pharmaceutical is able to manage its assets efficiently to generate profit. Ferozsons has also reasonable percentage of ROA that depicts its effective management of assets to generate profit. Sanofi-Aventis has low volumes of net profit with higher size of average total assets that depicts its inability in utilizing its assets properly to generate profit. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to better profit margin as compared to previous years. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to decline in net rofit volume. It has also revived in FY 2010 by yielding the higher net profit against average total assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but inadequate net profit to utilize total assets effectively. It has shown the lowest ROA in FY 2008 due to very low net profit. Ferozsons has the highest ROA on the whole. It has outclassed other pharmaceuticals. In contrast Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of net profits but considerable magnitude of average total assets that depict inefficient management policies to utilize total assets. Abbott has shown considerably well managed performance in utilizing total assets for producing profit. 3- Dupont Return on Assets Introduction: Dupont return on total assets is used to evaluate how productively assets are used. It measures the mutual effects of profit margins and asset turnover. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by multiplying net profit margin and total asset turnover for a given year. Formula: DuPont Return on Assets= (Net income / Sales) x (Sales / Total Assets) DuPont Return on Assets = Net profit margin x Total asset turnover DuPont Return on Assets = (Answer) %age Calculation: Dupont return on Assets = net profit margin x total asset turnover Dupont return on Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 4. 85%*1. 41=6. 84%| 7. 22%*1. 70=12. 27%| 10. 70%*1. 90=20. 33%| Ferozsons| 23. 28%*0. 63=14. 65%| 16. 84%*0. 69=11. 57%| 24. 94%*0. 68=16. 99%| Sanofi-Aventis | 0. 88%*1. 46=1. 28%| 2. 49%*1. 96=4. 87%| 3. 64%*1. 84=6. 69%| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: Net profit margin= (Net income / Sales)*100 | Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| =343980/7089163*100=4. 85%| =609,072/8,431,080*100=7. 22%| =1,176,944/10,995,701*100=10. 0% | Ferozsons| =217,023. 829/932,297. 994*100=23. 28%| =182,757. 453/1,085,393. 578*100=16. 84%| =317,542. 675/1,273,374. 822*100=24. 94%| Sanofi-Aventis | =38,269/4,346,528*100=0. 88%| =167,371/6,725,708*100=2. 49%| =224,024/6,158,295*100=3. 64%| Total assets Turnover= (Sales / Total Assets) Abbott| 7089163/5049710=1. 41 Times| =8450118/4964576=1. 70 Times| =10995701/579 0421=1. 90 Times| Ferozsons| =932297. 994/1481628. 536=0. 63 Times| =1085393. 578/1579909. 793=0. 69 Times| =1273374. 822/1868938. 102=0. 68 Times| Sanofi-Aventis | =4346528/2984355=1. 46 Times| =6725708/3439093=1. 6 Times| =6158295/3348427=1. 84 Times|   | Dupont Return on Assets|   | | Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Average| Abbott| 6. 84%| 12. 27%| 20. 33%| 13. 15%| Ferozsons| 14. 65%| 11. 57%| 16. 99%| 14. 40%| Sanofi-Aventis | 1. 28%| 4. 87%| 6. 69%| 4. 30%| Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: We can analyze the sales comparisons with net income and assets of Abbott laboratory; it has yielded better volume of profits along with an increase in its total assets and sales volume over the years. Its higher ratio depicts the higher generating rate of its wealth. Ferozsons has yielded higher profit margins by controlling its cost of goods sold but lower total assets turnover rate due to less sales volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has very low net profit margins but reasonably well total assets turnover rate that depicts lower generating rate of its wealth. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to better net profit margin and sales volumes. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to comparatively low profit margin. It has also revived in FY 2010 by yielding higher profit margins, increase in total assets and sales volume. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but insufficient net profit margins has overlooked better total assets turnover rate. Ferozsons has the highest Dupont return on assets. It outshines other pharmaceuticals in better performance on the basis of relevant FY’s average. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of Dupont return on assets but reasonable magnitude of total assets and sales volume. Abbott has shown fair performance in utilizing total assets with sales spectrum. Its average is near to Ferozsons’. 4- Operating income margin Introduction: This ratio is used to compute the price policies and operational competence. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing operating profit with net sales for a given year. Formula: Operating income margin = Operating Profit / Net Sales*100 Operating income margin = (Answer) %age Calculation: Operating income margin| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 547526/7089163*100=7. 72%| 878503/8450118*100=10. 42%| 1744787/10995701*100=15. 87%| Ferozsons| 280330. 464/932297. 994*100=30. 07%| 238019. 515/1085393. 578*100=21. 93%| 330518. 449/1273374. 822*100=25. 6%| Sanofi-Aventis | 171478/4346528*100=3. 95%| 384071/6725708*100=5. 71%| 531682/6158295*100=8. 63%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: Operating Profit (Numerator) = Gross Profit + Other Operating Income – Admin Expenses – Selling Distribution Expenses – Other Charges Operating Income Break-up GP+OTHER OPERATING INCOME-ADMIN EXP-SELLING DISTRIBUTION EXP-OTHER CHARGES|   | 2008| | Abbott| 2097653+105545-255737-1334884-65051=547526| | | | | Ferozsons| 540738. 562+20809. 63-60719. 276-199424. 66-21073. 792=280330. 464| | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 1055823+52809-122627-757135-57392=171478| | | GP+OTHER OPERATING INCOME-ADMIN EXP-SELLING DISTRIBUTION EXP-OTHER CHARGES|   | 2009| 2010| | Abbott| 2321131+141890-201943-1252810-129765=878503| 3687038+109079-267915-1601101-182314=1744787| | | | | | Ferozsons| 584211. 298+23954. 076-80995. 604-261185. 939-27964. 316=238019. 515| 633242. 518+43434. 507-83262. 197-234076. 533-28819. 846=330518. 449| | | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 1626599+101126-152707-1048283-142664=384071| 1753544+102220-175580-1094063-54439=531682| | | | | No need to provide breakup of Net Sales (denominator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory has yielded comparatively low operating income margins as compared to Ferozsons due to an increase in business cost and its expenses. Abbott has lower volume of operating profit in 2008 with increased net sales. Ferozsons has optimum capacity to pay for its fixed cost. Sanofi-Aventis has low operating income margin that depicts its poor pricing strategy and operating efficiency. It has minimal operating profits over the years but reasonable net sales volumes. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010. The pharmaceutical should manage its expenses to reduce this decline. It has done better in FY 2010 by producing highest operating profit. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to comparatively low operating profit with comparatively better sales volume. It has also revived in FY 2010 by yielding higher operating profit. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but insufficient operating profit margins has caused inadequate margins to meet its fixed costs. The aforementioned ratio provides an insight to determine the quality of a company. Ferozsons has the highest operating income margins. It has left behind other pharmaceuticals by yielding sufficient operating income that depicts better pricing approach and operating competence. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of operating profit margins that shows its flaws in pricing tactic. Abbott has shown adequate operating profits to meets its fixed costs but comparatively low as compared with Ferozsons. 5- Operating Assets Turnover Introduction: This is a financial ratio that indicates the effectiveness with which a firm’s management uses its operating assets to generate sales. It is generally expressed in times. It is calculated by dividing net sales with average operating assets for a given year. Formula: Operating Assets Turnover= Net sales/ Operating assets Operating Assets Turnover = (Answer) Times Calculation: Operating Assets Turnover| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 7089163/5168443=1. 37 Times| 8431080/4684635=1. 80 Times| 10995701/4740615= 2. 32 Times| | | | | Ferozsons| 932297. 994/1055296. 397=0. 88 Times| 1085393. 578/652061. 759=1. 66 Times| 1273374. 822/865565= 1. 47 Times| | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 4346528/33338090= 0. 13 Times| 6725708/2785713= 2. 1 Times| 6158295/2399541= 2. 57 Times| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Sales (numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Operating Assets = Total Assets – (Intangible Assets + Capital work in progress+ Loans and Advances + Investments + other assets) Break-up of operat ing Assets Operating Assets Turnover| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 5790421-(0+392954+170071+2801+56152)=5168443 | 4964576-(0+159886+73056+4393+42606)=4684635 | 5049710-(0+202480+23580+44896+4393+33746)=4740615 | Ferozsons| 1868938. 02-(0+141831. 157 +223867. 236+438228. 405+9714. 907)=1055296. 397 | 1579909. 793-(0+171010. 120+215775. 559+205992. 988+35069. 367)=952061. 759 | 1481628. 536-(0+0204216. 826+217372. 560+194474. 564)=865565 | Sanofi- Aventis | 33484287-(339+ 119,808+21381+4669)=33338090 | 3439093-(114+ 618,974+29683+4609)=2785713 | 2984535-(729+550391+30549+3325)=2399541 | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Operating assets turnover of Abbott laboratory has improved over the years as operating assets are slightly decreasing with respect to better net sales. Ferozsons has comparatively improved turnover due to substantial increase in net sales with respect to operating assets. Sanofi-Aventis has reasonably well sales volume but operating assets haven’t grown in proportion. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to improved sales volume and minor change in operating assets. Ferozsons has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to comparatively decrease in operating assets as compared to net sales. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to better sales with respect to operating assets. Sanofi-Aventis has represented its efficiency at its best in managing significant assets like Property, Plant ; Equipment, Stock in Trade and Cash with bank balances. It has surpassed others during FY 2009-10. On the other hand Ferozsons has shown comparatively low operating Assets Turnover with respect to other two. Abbott has shown rather better performance on the whole. 6- Return on Operating Assets Introduction: This is a financial ratio that gives an idea  as how efficient  management is  at using its assets to generate earnings. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with average operating assets for a given year. Formula: Return on operating Assets = Net profit / Operating assets*100 Return on operating Assets = (Answer) %age Calculation: Return on operating Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 343980/5168443=6. 66%| 609072/4684635=13%| 1176944/4740615=24. 83%| | | | | Ferozsons| 217023. 829/1055296. 397=20. 57%| 182757. 453/952061. 759=19. 20%| 317542. 675/865565=36. 69%| | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | 38269/33338090=0. 11%| 167371/2785713=6. 01%| 224024/2399541=9. 34%| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Profit (Numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Operating Assets = Total Assets – (Intangible Assets + Capital work in progress+ Loans and Advances + Investments + other assets) Break-up of operating Assets Operating Assets Turnover| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 5790421-(0+392954+170071+2801+56152)=5168443 | 4964576-(0+159886+73056+4393+42606)=4684635 | 5049710-(0+202480+23580+44896+4393+33746)=4740615 | Ferozsons| 1868938. 102-(0+141831. 157 +223867. 36+438228. 405+9714. 907)=1055296. 397 | 1579909. 793-(0+171010. 120+215775. 559+205992. 988+35069. 367)=952061. 759 | 1481628. 536-(0+0204216. 826+217372. 560+194474. 564)=865565 | Sanofi- Aventis | 33484287-(339+ 119,808+21381+4669)=33338090 | 3439093-(114+ 618,974+29683+4609)=2785713 | 2984535-(729+550391+30549+3325)=2399541 | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Int erpretation and Comparison: Percentages of return on assets actively used to create profit of Abbott laboratory have been reasonable. Net profit has declined during 2008 that has caused comparatively low ratio. Ferozsons has also utilized its assets actually required to run the business. Its operating assets have improved over the years with reasonable net profit volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has not utilized it’s actively used assets efficiently to create revenue, consequently very low returns. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to comparatively high net profit. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to decline in net profit and increased volume of operating assets. It has the highest percentage of 36. 69% in FY 2010 due to rapid increase in net profit. Sanofi-Aventis has shown increasing trend over the years due to substantial increase in the volumes of net profit but these percentages have been below average. It needs to improve its net profit. Ferozsons has utilized its revenue producing assets exceptionally well. It has been leading other two. On the other hand Sanofi-Aventis has shown very low percentages of return on operating assets and it has been unable to actively use its assets to create revenue. Abbott has shown noticeably improved performance but has not performed better than Sanofi-Aventis. 7- Sales to Fixed Assets Introduction: The fixed-asset turnover ratio measures a company’s ability to generate net sales from fixed-asset investments –  specifically property, plant and equipment (PPE) – net  of depreciation. It is generally expressed in times. It is calculated by dividing net sales with fixed assets for a given year. Formula: Sales to fixed Assets = Net sales / Fixed assets Sales to fixed Assets = (Answer) Times Calculation: Sales to fixed Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 7089163/1560835= 4. 54 Times| 8450118/1662785=5. 07 Times| 10995701/1877596= 5. 6 Times| Ferozsons| 932297. 994/610987. 413=1. 53 Times| 1085393. 578/735614. 952=1. 48 Times| 1273374. 822/742280. 446=1. 72 Times| Sanofi-Aventis | 4346528/1195978= 3. 63 Times| 6725708/1393461=4. 83 Times| 6158295/1409260=4. 37 Times| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Sales (Numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respec tive pharmaceutical. Fixed assets breakup (Denominator) = Property, Plant and Equipment-net  of depreciation, the said figure has been given in the balance Sheet. Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory’s performance is better as it is generating almost more than 5 times (on average) sales turnover as compared to its small amount of property, plant and equipment. Ferozsons seems to be lenient in producing sales as per the volume of Property, plant and equipment. It has overinvested in fixed assets. It needs to revive its sales by introducing new product’s range. Sanofi-Aventis has also done reasonably well to generate sufficient sales volume as compared to its small amounts of fixed assets. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to increased sales volume and comparatively small amount of fixed assets. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to overinvestment in property, plant and equipment. It has improved its ratio in FY 2010 by sufficient increase in sales volume. Sanofi-Aventis has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to adequate increase in sales volume. It has declined in FY 2010 due to decrease in sales. Abbott has surpassed others by producing bulk sales volume with a relatively small mount of fixed assets. On the other hand Ferozsons has shown very low turnover that means it has overinvested in fixed assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown effective job by producing better sales volume with minute amount of property, plant and equipment.. 8- Return on total equity Introduction: Return on equity  measures a corporation’s profitability  by revealing how much  profit a company generates  with the  money   shareholders have invested. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with share holder’s equity for a given year. Formula: Return on total equity = Net profit / Share holder’s equity*100 Return on total equity = (Answer) %age Calculation: Return on total equity| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Average| Abbott| 343980/3568512*100=9. 64%| 609072/3238460*100 =18. 81%| 1176944/3912539*100 =30. 08%| 19. 51%| Ferozsons| 217023. 829/826236. 891*100 =26. 27%| 182757. 453/970129. 401*100 =18. 84%| 317542. 675/1275765. 058*100 =24. 89%| 23. 33%| Sanofi- Aventis | 38269/1116612*100=3. 43%| 167371/1292449*100=12. 95%| 224024/1461403*100=15. 33%| 10. 57%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Profit (Numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Share holder’s Equity breakup (Denominator) = Issued, subscribed ; paid-up capital + Reserves – capital + Reserves – revenue Issued, subscribed ; paid-up capital + (Capital Reserves + Revenue Reserves)|   | 2008| 2009| | Abbott| 979003+154777+2434732=3568512| 979003+173853+2085604=3238460| | | | | | Ferozsons| 144672. 768+321. 843+681242. 280=826236. 891| 173607. 322+321. 843+796200. 236=970129. 401| | | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 96448+1020164=1116612| 96448+1196001=1292449| | | | Issued, subscribed ; paid-up capital + Reserves – capital + Reserves – revenue|   | 2010| | Abbott| 979003+197167+2736369=3912539| | | | | Ferozsons| 208328. 786+321. 843+1067114. 429=1275765. 058| | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 96448+1364955=1461403| | | | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory has yielded better profits on owner’s equity that is a positive sign for investors and lenders. Its return on owner’s equity falls in FY 2008 due to decline in net profit. Ferozsons has also done considerably better by yielding sufficient returns. It has also decline in returns during FY 2009 due to rapid decrease in net profit. Its owner’s equity has also improved over the years. Sanofi-Aventis has also slightly improved over the years as it has yielded nominal returns on investment in FY 2009 and 2010. It has very low returns in FY 2008 that should be a matter of concern for the management. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to increase in net profit volume over the years. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to substantial decrease in net profit. It has improved its ratio in FY 2010 by sufficient increase in net profit. Sanofi-Aventis has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to slightly noticeable increase in net profit volumes but these are not attractive from investors’ point of view. Ferozsons has surpassed others by producing overall better average return that is 23. 33%. It has generated sufficient net profit volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient returns to satisfy its investors. It needs to watch over its policies for better performance. Abbott has also produced reasonable returns on owner’s equity. 9- Gross Profit Margin Introduction: It is used to assess  a firm’s financial health by revealing the  proportion of money left over from revenues after accounting for the cost of goods sold. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing gross profit with net sales for a given year. Formula: Gross profit Margin = Gross profit / Net sales*100 Gross profit Margin = (Answer) %age Calculation: Gross profit Margin| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 2097653/7089163*100= 29. 6%| 2321131/8450118*100=27. 53%| 3687038/10995701*100=33. 53%| Ferozsons| 540738. 562/932297. 994*100=58%| 584211. 298/1085393. 578*100=53. 82%| 633242. 518/1273374. 22*100=49. 73%| Sanofi- Aventis | 1055823/4346528*100=24. 29%| 1626599/6725708*100=24. 18%| 1753544/6158295*100=28. 47%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Gross Profit (Numerator) and Net Sales (Denominator) as these figures are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceu tical. Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory has reasonable overall gross profit margins. That’s why it has yielded sufficient returns on equity. Its net sale has increased over the years. It has a decline in gross profit in FY 2009. Ferozsons has also done exceptionally well by yielding the highest gross profit margins. It has the tendency to face adverse economic condition such as low demanding and price competition. Sanofi-Aventis has undermined overall gross profit margins. Its gross profit margins are not sufficiently enough to bear operating and non-operating expenses. Abbott has shown decreasing trend from 2008 to 2009 due to decrease in gross profit. It has revived in FY 2010 by yielding higher gross profit. Ferozsons has also shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to significant decrease in gross profit. It has decreased further in FY 2010 due to bulk net sales volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has shown almost same trend in FY 2008 and 2009 but an increase in FY 2010 due to higher gross profit. Ferozsons has left behind others by producing overall excellent gross profit margins. It has generated sufficient gross profit volumes to face unfavorable financial circumstances such as low demanding and price competition. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient gross profit returns to satisfy any stakeholder. Abbott has produced adequate gross profit margins to absorb operating and non-operating expenses. Chapter 4) Summary, Conclusion, Recommendations Limitations: 4. 2) Conclusions * Ferozsons and Abbott have yielded sufficient net profits to recover all operating, non-operating expenses and taxation charges. They have the tendency to build up reserves after paying all fixed interest charges and dividends. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low net profit despite reasonable sales volume due to escalating cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating charges. * Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons are efficiently managing its assets to generate profit. Sanofi-Aventis has low volumes of net profit with higher size of total assets that depicts its not utilizing its assets properly to generate profit. * Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons have yielded greater volume of profits along with an increase in its total assets and sales volume over the years. Its higher ratio depicts the higher generating rate of its wealth. Sanofi-Aventis has very low net profit margins but reasonably well total assets turnover rate that depicts lower generating rate of its wealth. * Ferozsons has the highest operating income margins that depict better pricing approach and operating competence. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of operating profit margins that shows its flaws in pricing tactic. Abbott has shown adequate operating profits to meets its fixed costs. * Sanofi-Aventis has shown its efficiency at its best in managing significant assets like Property, Plant Equipment, Stock in Trade and Cash with bank balances. On the other hand Ferozsons and Abbott have shown comparatively low Operating Assets Turnover in utilizing operating assets for generating sales. * Ferozsons has utilized its revenue producing assets exceptionally well. On the other hand Sanofi-Aventis has shown very low percentages of return on operating assets. Abbott has shown noticeably improved performance on the whole. * Abbott has produced bulk sales volume with a relatively small amount of fixed assets. Ferozsons has shown very low turnover that means it has overinvested in fixed assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown effective job by producing better sales volume turnover with minute amount of property, plant and equipment. * Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient returns to satisfy its investors. Ferozsons has produced enough returns on owner’s equity whereas Abbott has also yielded reasonable returns. It is a good sign for prospect investors. * Ferozsons has generated sufficient gross profit volumes to face unfavorable financial circumstances such as low demanding and price competition. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient gross profit returns to satisfy any stakeholder. Abbott has produced adequate gross profit margins to absorb operating and non-operating expenses. 4. 3) Recommendations * Ferozsons and Abbott need to keep scheming in the same way to keep curtailing cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating expenses. Sanofi-Aventis really need to look its profit yielding capacity. It should review and improve its product range. Furthermore effective management policies can produce the required results. * Ferozsons and Abbott need to retain effective management policies by utilizing more assets for the generation of higher profits in future. Sanofi-Aventis can yield better profit by utilizing its assets proficiently through effective management role. * Ferozsons and Abbott have reasonable Dupont return on Assets with sales spectrum. Sanofi-Aventis needs to improve it by curtailing its cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating expenses. Better profits always enhance investors’ confidence and it matters in the end. Ferozsons and Abbott have reasonable operating income margin and they need to keep strengthening better pricing approach and operating competence. Sanofi-Aventis requires implementing improved pricing tactic to attain better operating proficiency. * Abbott and Ferozsons need to utilize operating assets more effectively to improve their tur nover as per sales volume. Sanofi-Aventis has unexpectedly better turnover, it should keep utilizing operating assets in the same manner. * Sanofi-Aventis needs to utilize its revenue producing assets in a better way. Abbott and Ferozsons should retain their current line of action. Ferozsons needs to downsize overinvested in fixed assets. Abbott and Sanofi-Aventis should keep their approach towards utilizing its fixed assets in terms of sales volume. * Sanofi-Aventis needs to watch over its policies for better return on owner’s equity to retain its investor confidence. Ferozsons and Abbott have to retain their pace in retaining current returns on owner’s equity. * Sanofi-Aventis needs to improve their selling strategies to improve profit margins. Abbott and Ferozsons can increase gross profits by implementing more effective management policies. Section II a) Introduction of the student Last degree Obtained: B. Com Organization’s Name: Wisdomhouse School Designation: Owner/Principal Experience: 7 Years b) Bibliography †¢Vu hand Outs †¢Internet sources †¢www. investopedia. com †¢http://www. accountingtools. com/fixed-asset-turnover-ratio †¢http://www. abbott. com. pk/11_Financial. htm †¢http://www. pakistaneconomist. com/database2/pdffiles/Pharmaceutical/Abbot/Year%202008/ALAnnual-%20Y08. pdf †¢http://www. ferozsons-labs. com/investor. htm †¢http://www. sanofi-aventis. com. pk/l/pk/en/layout. jsp? scat=59A5026C-701D-4C54-B1EC-E7788EA00832 †¢Ross, S. A. , R. W. Westerfield and B. D. Jordan. Essentials of Corporate Finance (1999), 2nd Edition, Irwin/McGraw-Hill. How to cite Financial Statement Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Pakistan, Papers

Strategic Planning and Marketing of Wood Products

Question: Discuss about theStrategic Planning and Marketing of Wood Products. Answer: Introduction to Wood Products Manufacturing Process Overview In the current scenario, the use of laminated beams or glulam is increasing day-by-day in New Zealand. Glulam or laminated beam is a kind of engineered wood that includes several layers (Kazeroon, Ahmad Bkhari, 2016). Currently, in several countries, glulam is being used for different purposes like, in swimming poor, joinery, and sports hall roof and for other reasons. However, glulam is made by following some steps. In the very beginning, the sawn timber is placed in the tipping machine. At this step, the lengths of the timber are released at slow motion (Lestari et al., 2015). After this, when the timber is released on the roller table or the driven roller, the fluorescent crayon starts making the defects in it. After making the defects, the timbers are passed by the chopsaw in order to shop the defects that are previously marked (Ismail, Ibrahim Ahmad, 2016). The next step after chopping the defects, the remaining timbers are passed to the finger joint cutter, which cuts the timbers in the zigzag way. After that, those cut pieces are passed to the finger joint press, which applies the glue at the end points of the timber pieces and then joins the timbers (Soriano, Pellis Mascia, 2016). This particular step transforms the pieces of timbers in to the continuous piece. After this, these continuous pieces of timbers are placed on the automated stacking table to cut down the continuous pieces as per the specified lengths. Then again the cut pieces are transferred to glue line for producing the beam and forklift (Lu et al., 2016). After this step, the end of the glue line of the timber is passed to the clamps to manufacture the straight beams. There, these straight beams are cured at 250C for 8 hours and then finally the laminated beams or glulam is produced. Characteristics and Advantages Characteristics: Laminated timber is long wooden construction material that includes several layers with same width. Glulam has mechanical properties, which are of high quality than the general wooden materials (Lahr et al., 2015). The thickness of glulam is maximum 40mm and this can be straight or constant or cross-sectioned. Advantages: Presently, glulam is easily available and much sustainable product. As the quality of the timber is high, glulam can be used for various purposes. The appearance of glulam or laminated beams is much better and so, people can use glulam as the substitute of concrete or steel (Daud, Ahmad Hassan, 2015). The durability of glulam is generally high. However, it depends on the specifications like, type of glue, quality of timber and the application procedure. Domestic Production Volumes and Trends Previously in New Zealand, the glulam was generally imported. During 1999, the quantity of glulam that was imported by New Zealand was 11417 m3. However, gradually the country started to produce glulam or laminated beams. Currently, in New Zealand, the average quantity of glulam production is near about 50000 m3 (Hadi et al., 2016). The production of laminated beams is in increasing trend in New Zealand. In the year 2011, the production percentage of glulam in New Zealand was 41000 m3, which increased to 44000 m3 in the year 2013 and in 2015, it increased to 57000 m3 (Hadi et al., 2016). Main New Zealand Suppliers There are several suppliers of glulam or laminated beams in New Zealand. Some of the suppliers of laminated beams in New Zealand are Techlam, Timberlab, Laminated Beams Limited and Mcintosh Timber Laminates. All of these glulam manufacturing companies or suppliers of glulam produce and supply the higher quality glulam to the people in New Zealand. Evaluation and Critique of the Domestic Market Marketing Mix being used The glulam manufacturing companies in New Zealand has focused on the 4Ps of marketing mix. The first element of 4Ps is product. The suppliers in New Zealand always try to maintain the quality of the products. At the same time, they also maintain the specifications provided by the customers. In case of prices of the glulam or laminated beams, the suppliers in New Zealand have set the price level bit higher than the suppliers in the other countries. Lu et al. (2016) stated that the cost of manufacturing glulam is high in New Zealand. High quality of technology is required to produce the laminated beams. Due to this, the prices of the glulam or laminated beams in New Zealand are high. In New Zealand, glulam is demanded by the people in urban as well as in rural areas (Laurent et al., 2016). The people, who are fond of living at well-designed houses, prefer to use glulam for manufacturing the floors of their houses. The glulam manufacturing companies in this country mainly focused on the urban market than that of the rural market. However, they have not completely ignored the rural market of the country (Thorhallsson, Hinriksson Snbjrnsson, 2016). In order to promote the glulam or laminated beams, the companies in New Zealand have mainly used the advertisement as the promotional tool. Different types of newspaper and television advertisements are used by the companies (Hadi et al., 2016). At the same time, the companies sometimes use the sales promotion strategies like, discounts or offers to promote their products in the competitive market. Key Marketing Strategies There are several strategies taken by the glulam manufacturing companies in New Zealand. The strategies are as follows: In order to promote the products, the glulam manufacturing companies in New Zealand has mainly focused on mass marketing. This is a style of marketing, in which the companies in New Zealand conduct single program for marketing to target a large number of customers (Lahr et al., 2015). The companies have also concentrated on the proper market segmentation. Generally the companies have segmented the market on the basis of the demographic factors and geographic factor. Proper market segmentation has helped the companies to target the market in a better way. The companies have also concentrated on the communication with the customers. The companies try to build a strong relationship with its customers by providing personalized services (Kazeroon, Ahmad Bkhari, 2016). The companies has also emphasized on the advertisements. They always try to come up with attractive advertisement tag line to attract the customers easily. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Domestic Market Strengths The primary strength of the domestic market of Glulam manufacturing industry in New Zealand is the high demand. The demand for the glulam or laminated beam is high in the urban as well as the rural areas in the country. Moreover, the demand in the country for glulam is increasing day-by-day (Daud, Ahmad Hassan, 2015). There are advanced technology available in the market for manufacturing the glulam or laminated beams. The companies, who are associated with glulam manufacturing, can easily produce their products through these advanced technologies. Weaknesses The number bulk-purchasing customer is less in the glulam market in New Zealand. As the price level is high, most of the business deals take place on credit. Therefore, the percentage of debt is high in this market (Lestari et al., 2015). Evaluation and Critique of the Global Market Global Production Volumes and Trends If the analysis is made on the global glulam market, then it can be found out that the glulam is more famous in the market of North America. The demand is also high in Europe. Laurent et al. (2016) stated that the demand for the glulam in the global market is in increasing trend because of the cost-effective characteristics of the product. In several surveys, it has been identified that till 2020, the CAGR of the global glulam industry will increase by 26%. Kazeroon, Ahmad and Bkhari (2016) noted that the advanced technology and machineries have made the glulam manufacturing procedure easier. In case of Europe, the average yearly production of glulam is 500000 m3. In case of North America, it is near about 700000 m3 per year. The Asia-Pacific region has also taken a major part in the global glulam industry. Since, 2005, the glulam manufacturing in Asia-Pacific region has increased by 25% (Thorhallsson, Hinriksson Snbjrnsson, 2016). Therefore, it can be said that the global glulam in dustry is in increasing and stable trend. Examples of key International Competitors The key international competitors in the glulam industry are Rosboro in North America, Buckland Timber in United Kingdom, Unalam in Northe America, Glulam Ltd in United Kingdom, GLTA (Glued Laminated Timber Association) in United Kingdom, JK Holdings Co. Ltd in Japan, Vicbeam in Australia, Hyne Timber in Australia, Stratalam in New Zealand and Techlam in New Zealand. Opportunities for the New Zealand Market The major opportunities for the Glulam market in New Zealand are as follows: The foreign investment in the glulam market in New Zealand is increasing. Due to the increase of foreign investment, the growth opportunity is also increasing (Soriano, Pellis Mascia, 2016). Skilled and knowledgeable work force is easily available in the glulam market in New Zealand. Threats to the New Zealand Market There are also some threats to the glulam market in New Zealand and these threats are as follows: The price level for the glulam in the markets of other countries is much low than in New Zealand. Due to this, many customers prefer the companies in foreign market (Thorhallsson, Hinriksson Snbjrnsson, 2016). The cost structure for producing one standard sized laminated beam is much high in the New Zealand market, which is a major threat for the companies. Reference List: Daud, A. F. M., Ahmad, Z., Hassan, R. (2015). Charring Rate of Glued Laminated Timber (Glulam) Made from Selected Malaysian Tropical Timber. InInCIEC 2014(pp. 1107-1116). Springer Singapore. Hadi, Y. S., Efendi, M., Massijaya, M. Y., Arinana, A., Pari, G. (2016). Technical Note: Subterranean Termite Resistance Of Smoked Glued Laminated Lumber Made From Fast Growing Tree Species In Indonesia.Wood and Fiber Science,48(3), 211-216. Hadi, Y. S., Santoso, A., Pizzi, A., Lagel, M. C. (2016). Characterization of Merbau Wood Extract Used as an Adhesive in Glued Laminated Lumber.Forest Products Journal. Ismail, S., Ibrahim, A., Ahmad, Z. (2016). A Review on Structural Response of Hybrid Glulam-Cold-Formed Steel Roof Trusses. InInCIEC 2015(pp. 833-846). Springer Singapore. Kazeroon, R. A., Ahmad, Z., Bkhari, N. M. (2016). The Effect of Span Lengths on the Bending Strength Properties of Glued Laminated Timber Beam. InInCIEC 2015(pp. 861-869). Springer Singapore. Lahr, F. A. R., Christoforo, A. L., da Campos, C. I., Morales, E. A. M., Barbosa, J. C., Panzera, T. H. (2015). Evaluation of the Moisture Content in Stiffness Properties of Structural Glulam Beams.Advanced Materials Research,1088, 676. Laurent, A. B., Menard, J. F., Lesage, P., Beauregard, R. (2016). Cradle-to-Gate Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of the Portfolio of an Innovative Forest Products Manufacturing Unit.BioResources,11(4), 8981-9001. Lestari, A. S. R. D., Hadi, Y. S., Hermawan, D., Santoso, A. (2015). Glulam properties of fast-growing species using mahogany tannin adhesive.BioResources,10(4), 7419-7433. Lu, W., Ling, Z., Geng, Q., Liu, W., Yang, H., Yue, K. (2015). Study on flexural behaviour of glulam beams reinforced by Near Surface Mounted (NSM) CFRP laminates.Construction and Building Materials,91, 23-31. Lu, W., Wang, L., Wu, J., Liu, W., Yang, H., Yue, K., ... Deng, Z. (2016). Behavior of Glulam Columns Reinforced by Near-Surface-Mounted CFRP Laminates under Eccentric Compression Loading.Journal of Structural Engineering,142(11), 04016109. Soriano, J., Pellis, B. P., Mascia, N. T. (2016). Mechanical performance of glued-laminated timber beams symmetrically reinforced with steel bars.Composite Structures,150, 200-207. Thorhallsson, E. R., Hinriksson, G. I., Snbjrnsson, J. T. (2016). Strength and stiffness of glulam beams reinforced with glass and basalt fibres.Composites Part B: Engineering.