Fin430 (apollo & brahim)

CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1
1.1. BRAHIM’S HOLDING BERHAD COMPANY..........................................................................................1
1.1.1 Background of The Company...............................................................................................................1
1.1.2 Core Activities.....................................................................................................................................1
1.1.3 Strength and Weaknesses .....................................................................................................................2
1.2 APOLLO FOOD HOLDINGS COMPANY.................................................................................................3
1.2.1 Background of The Company...............................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Core Activities.....................................................................................................................................3
2. TREND ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................4
2.1 BRAHIM’S HOLDINGS BERHAD COMPANY........................................................................................4
2.2 APOLLO FOOD HOLDINGS BERHAD COMPANY ..............................................................................11
3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN APOLLO FOOD HOLDING BHD AND BRAHIM’S
HOLDING BHD .....................................................................................................................................................15
3.1 LIQUIDITY RATIO..................................................................................................................................15
3.3 EFFICIENCY RATIO ...............................................................................................................................22
3.4 LEVERAGE RATIO.................................................................................................................................25
3.5 MARKET RATIO.....................................................................................................................................28
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................29
5. REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................30
6. APPENDIX......................................................................................................................................................32

1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1.BRAHIM’S HOLDING BERHAD COMPANY
1.1.1 Background of The Company
The manufacturer of Brahim’s products, Dewina Food Industries Sdn Bhd (DFI) was
founded in 1986 by the Managing Director, Datuk Haji Ibrahim bin Haji Ahmad Badawi, a former university
lecturer and specialist in food and agricultural consultancy and research, together with Mr. Tatsunobu Abe, a
Japanese Entrepreneur.
In its initial years of operation, DFI was better known as a supplier of military rations to regional armies
and the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces, due primarily to the unique features of its retort pouch products.
Brahim’s gradually gained steady commercial market presence and strong brand awareness within Malaysian and
regional markets. Production capacity was increased to meet growing demands.
Brahim’s is well known for delicious, convenient, ready-to-eat meals and has become a household name
in Malaysia. These products can be found on supermarket shelves all over the world including United Kingdom,
United States, Singapore, Brunei, Japan and currently in Australia.
Brahim’s range of Asian simmer sauces, cooking sauces and ready-to-eat meals enable cooking of classic
authentic Malaysian and Asian dishes effortlessly at home. Quality and premium ingredients are present within
every product to create the most authentic asian meal at home. All Brahim’s products are MSG Free, Preservative
Free and Free from Food Colouring. Brahim products are all Halal Certified (Brahim’s. n.d).
1.1.2 Core Activities.
Brahim’s Holdings Berhad’s Group is the country’s leading halal inflight catering company through its
51% equity interest in Brahim’s SATS Investment Holdings Sdn Bhd (BSIH) which in turn owns 70% of
Brahim’s SATS Food Services Sdn Bhd (BSFS). BSIH has benefitted from working closely with SATS
Investment Pte Ltd (SIPL) and its related corporations currently operating in 43 airports across 11 countries, to
explore opportunities for its halal inflight kitchen catering capabilities.
Besides, BSIH also is tapping into the experience and know-how of SIPL and its related corporations in
the non-airline catering business to further strengthen its business performance. The Group in 2011 completed the
acquisition of 51% equity interests in Dewina Host Sdn Bhd (DHost), a major operator of restaurants and cafes in
KLIA and KLIA2. One outlet is located in KLIA Satellite Building, which accommodates international flights
whilst a larger unit is located at the Arrival section Main Terminal Building. DHost operates Kopitime, Café
Barbera and Food Paradise in KLIA Main Terminal.

2
1.1.3 Strength and Weaknesses
Each company must have its strength and weaknesses to carry on its business every day until successes
and well know. Brahim’s strength is certified halal by JAKIM and Veterinary Health Mark by the Ministry of
Agriculture Malaysia.
Other than that, one of its strengths is their products has a long expiry date which is up to 2 years if the
products are unopened. The products can also be differentiated based on the color of the packaging. Brahim’s
products also do not contain any monosodium glutamate (MSG), artificial coloring and preservative. Apart from
that, Brahim’s is an established brand for its Meals-Ready-to-Eat in Malaysia as well as some Asian countries
such as Brunei and Japan. Another strength of Brahim’s product is its packaging, which the company uses a
retort sterilization process that can protect the content from UV harmful and light oxidation. The packaging is
also compact in a square box and pouch compared to other brands in which the packaging of the products, it is
easier for travelers to bring the products whenever they are traveling to another country. Brahim’s products are
stagnant where the sales are growing at a slow rate. Brahim’s products can be bought at their manufacturer
company located at Bangi with cheaper prices as the customers buy directly from the warehouse (Dewina Food
Industries Sdn Bhd. n.d).
Brahmi’s company also has its weaknesses with their products. Brahim’s products, it has a lack of
promotions being done by the company to promote its products. There is no TV advertisement or radio
advertisement. The company only use low budget promotion tools such as newspaper or magazines to promote
Brahim’s products. This has caused people to be unaware of the existence of the brand in the market. Other than
that, the website of the company is not up to date with the latest news about the company or the products for the
customers to keep updated. The color of the packaging of the products is said to bedim and the packaging is not
reusable and re-closable so the customers find it is hard to take care of the products after they had opened the
products. The price of the products is also slightly higher compared to other brands in the market. The
distribution of the product is also limited as it can only be found at big hypermarkets such as Tesco, Aeon,
Econsave (Dewina Food Industries Sdn Bhd. n.d).

3
1.2 APOLLO FOOD HOLDINGS COMPANY
1.2.1 Background of The Company
Apollo Food Holdings Berhad is a manufacturer and supplier of confectioneries. It was incorporated on
5th
March 1994 and situated in Johor Bharu, Malaysia. It subsequently converted into a public company on 8th
September 1994 and changed its name to present It operates in two segments which are investment holding and
manufacturing, marketing and distribution, which consist of compound chocolates, chocolate confectionery
products and cakes. It offers food products in several categories which are chocolate wafer products, layer cake,
chocolate layer cake and Swiss roll products. It distributes its products in Malaysia and other overseas markets,
including Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, India, Middle
East, Mauritius and Maldives. Its subsidiaries include Apollo Food Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd., and Hap Huat Food
Industries Sdn. Bhd., which is an investment holding company. Its ultimate holding company is Keynote Capital
Sdn. Bhd (Apollo Food Industries, n.d).
1.2.2 Core Activities
Apollo Food Industries Sdn Bhd was the company that manufactured compound chocolate confectionery
products and layer cakes based in Malaysia. Apollo’s product mainly divided into two main categories, which are
Chocolate Wafer products, Layer cake, Chocolate Layer Cake and Swiss roll products. Apollo company always
implements and maintains the quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness. They
produce products with the top quality of raw & packaging materials to maintain their quality. They also using
world-class wafer and layer cake-manufacturing machinery from Europe and constantly upgrade and improve to
remain competitively. They enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements and recognize the
customers’ needs by introducing independent packaging. Lastly, they ensure the quality assurance procedures, the
company had accredited with the HALAL certificate. The aim of Apollo’s company is to always fulfill the
customer needs and requirement by using the latest equipment and technology (Apollo Food Industries, n.d).

4
2. TREND ANALYSIS
2.1 BRAHIM’S HOLDINGS BERHAD COMPANY
2.1.1 Liquidity Ratio
Liquidity ratio is referred to as the ability of a concern to meet its current obligations as and when they become due.
The short-term obligations are met by reaching amounts from current, floating or circulating assets. Common liquidity
ratios include the current ratio, quick ratio and net working capital.
Table 1: Liquidity Ratio for Brahim’s Holding BHD from the year 2014 until 2018.
The current ratio, Brahim’s Holding BHD faced fluctuations from the year 2014 to the year 2018. In the year 2014,
the current ratio is 1.13 times then the ratio becomes decreased in the year 2015 at 0.88 times (Annual Report
Brahim’s Holding Berhad. 2014 compared Annual Report Brahim’s Holding Berhad. 2015). But in 2016 the current
ratio increased to 1.66 times and in 2017 the current ratio decreased to 1.65 times (Annual Report Brahim’s Holding
Berhad. 2016 compared Annual Report Brahim’s Holding Berhad. 2014). The current assets have decreased from the
previous year but the current liabilities experienced a greater increase as against the current assets. So, the impact on
the current ratio was negative. Now in 2018, Brahim’s current ratio is 0.61 times which more decreases compared to
the year 2017 (Annual Report Brahim’s Holding Berhad. 2014). In conclusion, it was in 2016 that Brahim’s almost
reached the ideal current ratio and now in 2018, Brahim’s in a not satisfactory current ratio which is regarded as
inappropriate for a healthy business. It also shows that the firm is less able to pay its short-term debt every year
because it is less than 1.0 times.
Years/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Current Ratio 126,933,672
112,664,797
=1.13 times
91,215,000
146,461,000
=0.88 times
103,387,000
62,378,000
=1.66 times
98,028,000
59,232,000
=1.65 times
89,849,000
146,461,000
=0.61 times
Quick Ratio
126,933,672 –
7,525,302
112,664,797
=1.06 times
91,215 – 7,067
103110
=0.82 times
103,387 – 6,126
62,378
=1.56 times
98,028 – 6,259
59,232
=1.55 times
89,849 – 7,451
146,461
=0.56 times
Net Working
Capital (RM)
126,933,672 –
112,664,797
=14,268,875
91,215,000 –
103,110,000
=(11,895,000)
103,387,000 –
62,378,000
=41,009,000
98,028,000 –
59,232,000
=38,796,000
89,849,000 –
126,461,000
=(35,612,000)

5
Next, the quick ratio for Brahim’s for the year 2014 to the year 2018, it faced fluctuations. In the year 2014, the ratio
is 1.06 times which has sufficient cash and other liquid assets to meet the short-term obligations, but it did not manage
by the year 2015 by 0.82 times. Next, in 2016 quick ratio become increases to 1.56 times. Later on, in 2017 the quick
ratio becomes decrease for only 0.01 difference compared to 2016 and in the year 2018, the quick ratio becomes
drastically fall into 0.56 times which is the higher increase in current liability. It can show that Brahim’s are not able
to pay their liabilities and expenses using their inventory and cash. On the other hand, it also means the company may
keep a huge amount of cash on hand or had a problem in inventory management or account receivable management.
Therefore, we can say that although Brahim’s our inability to meet the current liabilities was below the standard level,
they did not successfully manage to overcome their shortcoming and the statistics suggest since they are now in a bad
position to cover current liabilities with their current assets. The company is also unable to make short term from the
supplier.
Besides, net working capital ratio for Brahim’s Holding Bhd also faced fluctuation in the year 2014 to the year 2018.
The net working capital ratio was RM 14,268,875.00 in the year 2014 but in the year 2015, the net working capital
ratio was fall and have a negative amount which is -RM 11,895,000. However, in 2016 the net working capital ratio
increased to RM 41,009,000 and in the year 2017, the ratio has decreased to RM 38,796,000. Now in 2018, Brahim’s
net working capital is -RM 36,612,000 which decreases and has a negative amount compared to the year 2017. In
conclusion, it was in 2016 that Brahim’s almost reached the highest amount in net working capital ratio and now in
2018, Brahim’s in a not satisfactory and unable to pay off its current liability using current assets which means it may
need additional funds.

6
2.1.2 Profitability Ratios
Profitability is an indication of the efficiency with which the operations of the business are carried on. The primary
objective of a business undertaking is to earn profits. Profit earning is considered essential for the survival of the
business. They are four types of profitability ratios which are gross profit margin ratio, net profit margin ratio, return
on assets ratio and return on equity ratio.
Years/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Gross Profit
Margin
200,348,613 x 100
353,925,132
=56.62%
119,064 x 100
281,295
=42.32%
120,431 x 100
266,364
=45.21%
132,096 x 100
291,563
=45.31%
118,915 x 100
274,271
=43.36%
Net Profit
Margin
(33,831,827) x 100
353,925,132
=(9.56%)
(15,418) x 100
281,295
=(5.48%)
(122,422) x 100
266,364
=(45.96%)
(2,168) x 100
291,563
=(0.74%)
(115,993) x 100
274,271
=(42.29%)
Return on
Assets
(33,831,827) x 100
517,827,567
=(6.53%)
(15,418) x 100
477,403
=(3.23%)
(122,422) x 100
382,087
=(32.04%)
(2,168) x 100
371,309
=(0.58%)
(115,993) x 100
281,585
=(41.19%)
Return on
Equity
(33,831,827) x 100
273,360,865
=(12.38)
(15,418) x 100
257,944
=(5.98%)
(122,422) x 100
245,522
=(49.86%)
(2,168) x 100
243,354
=(0.89%)
(115,993) x 100
124,715
=(93.01%)
Table 2: Profitability Ratio for Brahim’s Holding BHD from the year 2014 until 2018.
Gross profit is very important for any business. This explains how much profit the product is making without
overhead considerations. A higher ratio is better. Here, we see that the gross profit margin of Brahim’s is face
fluctuations from the year 2014 to the year 2018. The ratio becomes decreased from the year 2014 to the year 2015
which is at 56.62% to 43.32%. Then, it increased in 2016 and 2017 by 45.21% to 45.31%. In the year 2018, the ratio
decreased to 43.36%. In conclusion, as the ratios are fluctuating from year to year, it indicates that the profit for the
company is fluctuating too. It also means that the company is inefficient in the manufacturing and distribution
processes year to year. The products priced are not proper for the company. So according to this ratio the company is
in a bad position.
The net profit percentage is the ratio of after-tax profits to net sales. This ratio is very useful to the company because
it measures the overall profitability. Higher the ratio is better because it specifies the company’s capacity to face
adverse economic conditions. Here, we see that the net profit percentage of Brahim’s Holding Bhd fluctuated from
2014 to 2018. In the year 2014, the percentage is negative 9.56% however in 2015 the net profit percentage decreased
and still negative by -5.48%. After that in 2016, it increases highly from -5.48% to -45.96%. Then in the year 2017, it
decreases to -0.71% and in the year 2018 it increased to -41.19%. From the ratios, we can see that there is a

7
fluctuation trend from year to year. Brahim’s Holding Berhad is inefficient at converting sales into actual profit
because every year it has a negative percentage. It also shows that the company is unable to control low operating
expenses and good pricing strategies.
The return on asset ratio shows that there is a fluctuating trend from 2014 to 2018. From 2014 to 2015 it decreased
from -6.53% to -3.23% with a negative amount. However, in 2016 it increased, and the Return on asset ratio was
-32.04%. In 2017 it again decreased, and the value is -0.58%. After that, the ratio in the year 2018 increased
drastically to -41.19%. From the ratios, we can see that there was an inefficient use of sales during the year because
the ratio shows the negative percentage.
The return on equity ratio suggests show profitable accompany is in comparison to the net income with the
shareholders 'equity. This ratio is one of the most important ratios used in the overall efficiency of the firm. This ratio
is of great importance to the present and prospective shareholders as well as the management of the company. As this
ratio reveals how well the resources of the firm are being used, the higher the ratio, the better are the results. Here,
from the above table, we see that return on equity of Brahim’s Holding Berhad decreased from -12.38% in 2014 to
-5.98% in 2015 and then increased to -49.86% in the year 2016. After that, it decreased to -0.89% in the year 2017
and become increase back in 2018 with return on equity by -93.01%. From the ratios above we can see the return on
equity is bad for Brahim’s because it has a lower return on equity and a negative amount. This indicates that the
earning power of the shareholder's equity is decreasing and have a negative amount.

8
2.1.3 Efficiency Ratios
The efficiency ratio is a ratio that typically applies to banks, in simple terms is defined as expenses as a percentage of
revenue with a few variations. Efficiency ratios also measure how effectively the company utilizes these assets, as
well as how well it manages its liabilities. It also has three types of it which are average collection period ratio,
inventory turnover ratio, and total asset turnover ratio.
Years/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average
Collection
Period
82,472,185 x 360
353,925,132
=84 days
57,403 x 360
281,295
=74 days
55,660 x 360
266,364
=75 days
61,835 x 360
291,563
=76 days
56,687 x 360
274,271
=74 days
Inventory
Turnover
153,576,519
7,525,302
=20.41 times
162,231
7,067
=22.96 times
145,933
6,126
=23.82 times
159,467
6,259
=25.48 times
155,356
7,451
=20.85 times
Total Asset
Turnover
353,925,132
517,827,567
=0.68 times
281,295
477,403
=0.59 times
266,364
328,087
=0.81 times
291,563
371,309
=0.79 times
274,271
281,585
=0.97 times
Table 3: Efficiency Ratio for Brahim’s Holding BHD from the year 2014 until 2018.
The average collection period ratio, Brahim’s Holding BHD faced fluctuations from the year 2014 to the year 2018. In
the year 2014, the average collection period takes 84 days but in 2015, the average becomes lower to 74 days. Then,
in the year 2016, the average collection period was increased by 75 days and increased also in 2017 by 76 days. After
that in the year 2018, the average collection period becomes lower to 74 days. In conclusion, a lower average
collection period is generally more favorable than a higher average collection period because the lower average
collection period indicates the company collection payments faster.
Next, the Brahim’s Holding Berhad inventory turnover ratio was increased from the year 2014 until 2017 then in 2018
it becomes decreases. The ratio indicates the effectiveness of the inventory so in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018
their inventory was turned into receivable by 20.41, 22.96, 23.82, 25.48 and 20.85 times. There Inventory Turnover
Ratio was increasing from 2014 until 2017, which means during that year Brahim’s sold huge inventories to convert it
to cash quickly, and it indicates strong sales and better liquidity. In 2018 there was a slight decrease in inventory
turnover ratio from the previous year and it is a signal of inefficiency. That indicates faster production, possible
overstocking, and obsolescence. From the above ratio, we can state that the inventory turnover ratio for Brahim’s has
decreased in 2018 compared to previous years, which is not a good sign. Though there were huge sales during the
year, there was neither a poor sale. So that indicates Brahim’s is holding larger inventory in these years that means
poor inventory management. But it may also reflect a planned inventory buildup in the case of material shortages or
anticipation of rapidly rising prices. There is scope for improvement.

9
After that, for the total asset turnover ratio, Brahim’s Holding BHD faced fluctuations from the year 2014 to the year
2018. In the year 2014, the total asset turnover ratio is 0.68 times then the ratio becomes decreased in the year 2015
by 0.59 times. After that, in the year 2016, the ratio increase by 0.81 times and decrease back in the year 2017 by 0.79
times. However, in the year 2018, the total asset turnover ratio is increasing by 0.97 times. It can show that the total
asset turnover is higher in the year 2018 which means the company is efficient in generating revenue from its assets.
2.1.4 Leverage Ratios
The leverage ratio is the proportion of debts that a bank has compared to its equity/capital. It has three types of
leverage ratios such as debt ratio, debt-equity ratio, and equity ratio.
Years/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Debt Ratios 244,466,702 x 100
517,827,567
=47.21%
219,459 x 100
477,403
=45.97%
136,565 x 100
383,087
=35.65%
127,955 x 100
371,309
=34.46%
156,870 x 100
281,585
=55.71%
Debt Equity
Ratios
244,466,702 x 100
273,360,865
=89.43%
219,459 x 100
257,944
=85.08%
136,565 x 100
245,522
=55.62%
127,955 x 100
243,354
=52.58%
156,870 x 100
124,715
=125.78%
Equity Ratios 273,360,865
517,827,567
=52%
257,944
477,403
=54%
245,522
383,087
=64%
243,354
371,309
=65%
124,715
281,585
=44%
Table 4: Leverage Ratio for Brahim’s Holding BHD from the year 2014 until 2018.
For the debt ratio, Brahim’s Holding BHD was decreased from the year 2014 until 2017 and become increased in
2018. In the year 2014 until 2017, the debt ratios decrease by year to year which are 47.21%, 45.97%, 35.65% and
34.46%. We can see that the ratio of that year is greater. However, in 2018, the ratio increases by 55.71%. It shows
the Brahim’s putting itself in financial risk.
The Brahim’s Holding Berhad debt equity ratio was decreased from the year 2014 until 2017 then in 2018 it becomes
increases. The debt equity ratios from the year 2014 until 2017 are 89.43%, 85.08%, 55.62%, 52.58%. The debt
equity ratio was decreasing from 2014 until 2017, which means during that year Brahim’s leverage ratios tend to
indicate a company or stock with lower risk to shareholders. In 2018 there was a slight increase in debt equity ratio
from the previous year and it is a signal of risk to the company. So, Brahim’s did not rely more on long-term creditor
supplier funds.
Next, the total equity ratio for Brahim’s Holding BHD was increased from the year 2014 until 2017 then in 2018 it
becomes decreases. The equity ratios from the year 2014 until 2017 are 0.52 times, 0.54 times, 0.64 times, 0.65 times.

10
The equity ratio was increasing from 2014 until 2017, which means during that year Brahim’s effectively funded its
asset requirements with a minimal amount of debt. However, in 2018 there was a slight increase in equity ratio from
the previous year and it is a signal of risk to the company. So, Brahim’s used debt to acquire assets, which is widely
viewed as an indication of greater financial risk.
2.1.5 Market Value Ratio
Market value ratios are used to evaluate the current share price of a publicly held company's stock. These ratios are
employed by current and potential investors to determine whether a company's shares are overpriced or underpriced
Years/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Earning Per
Shares (RM)
31,962
236,256
=(13.64)
15,680
236,256
=(6.64)
74,957
236,256
=(31.72)
6,937
236,256
=(2.94)
104,999
236,256
=(44.44)
Table 5: Market Value Ratio for Brahim’s Holding BHD from the year 2014 until 2018.
Brahim’s Holding BHD earning per share are faced with fluctuations and has a negative amount from the year 2014 to
the year 2018. In the year 2014, the earning per share is -RM 13.64 but in 2015, the earning per share becomes
decrease to -RM 6.64. Then, in the year 2016, the earning per share was increased by -RM 31.72 and decreased in
2017 by -RM 2.94. After that in the year 2018, the earning per share becomes higher to -RM 44.44. In conclusion,
Brahims’s EPS in 2018 is losses and not enough to pay out more money to its shareholders. It is because the company
has a negative amount of EPS.

11
2.2 APOLLO FOOD HOLDINGS BERHAD COMPANY
2.2.1 Liquidity Ratio
Year/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Current Ratio 135 431 569
9 884 329
=13.7 times
144 619 971
11 527 039
=12.55 times
162 364 323
11 977 532
=13.56 times
159 304 907
10 219 036
=15.59 times
149 915 465
8 003 356
=17.86 times
Quick
Ratio
135 431 569 –
18 790 244
9 884 329
=11.8 times
144 619 971 –
19 362 334
11 527 039
=10.87 times
162 364 323 –
18 148 402
11 977 532
=12.04 times
159 304 907 –
15 847 951
10 219 036
=13.04 times
149 915 465 –
14 902 914
8 003 356
=16.87 times
Net Working
Capital (RM)
135 431 569 –
9 884 329
=125 547 240
144 619 971 –
11 527 039
=133 092 932
162 364 323 –
11 977 532
=150 386 791
159 304 907 –
10 219 036
=149 085 871
149 915 465 –
8 003 356
=134 912 109
Table 6: Liquidity Ratios for Apollo Food Holding Bhd from the year 2014 until 2018.
There are three types of ratios under Liquidity Ratios which are current ratio, quick ratio and net working capital ratio.
For the current ratio, it increases from 13.7% in the year 2014 to 7.86 times in 2018. It shows that the firm can pay its
short-term debt every year. Besides, for quick ratio, it faced fluctuations from 2014 until 2018. In the year 2014 until
the year 2015, the ratio decreased by 11.8 times to 10.87 times (Annual Report Apollo Food Holdings Berhad. 2014
compared Annual Report Apollo Food Holdings Berhad. 2015). However, in the year 2016 until 2018, the quick ratio
was increased with 12.04 times, 12.04 times and 16.87 times. (Annual Report Apollo Food Holdings Berhad. 2016
compared Annual Report Apollo Food Holdings Berhad. 2017 compared also with Annual Report Apollo Food
Holdings Berhad. 2018). It can show that in the year 2018, Apollo can maintain to make a short-term loan from the
supplier. Next, for net working capital, it also faced fluctuations during these five years which is an increase from the
year 2014 until 2016 and becomes a decrease in the year 2017 to 2018. It shows that how much short-term resources
Apollo company would have in continuing its operations if it had to settle all of its current liabilities.

12
2.2.2 Profitability Ratios
Year/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Gross Profit
Margin
135 431 569
9 884 329
= 13.7 %
56 310 598
212 626 773
= 26.48 %
57 031 641
208 185 792
= 27.40 %
42 503 002
208 918 294
= 20.34 %
40 255 355
190 818 447
= 21.10 %
Net Profit
Margin
33 470 740
220 713 333
= 15.16 %
25 293 936
212 626 773
= 11.90 %
29 742 425
208 185 792
= 14.29 %
17 833 017
208 918 294
= 8.54 %
11 071 841
190 818 447
= 5.80 %
Return on
Assets
33 470 740
269 784 563
= 12.41 %
25 293 939
274 292 370
= 9.22 %
29 742 425
283 136 909
= 10.5 %
17 833 017
276 657 841
= 6.45 %
11 071 841
263 534 358
= 4.20 %
Return on
Equity
33 470 740
243 674 425
= 13.74 %
25 293 939
248 432 331
= 10.18 %
29 742 425
257 560 582
= 11.55 %
17 833 017
253 250 424
= 7.04 %
11 071 841
243 615 822
= 4.54 %
Table 7: Profitability Ratios for Apollo Food Holding Bhd from the year 2014 until 2018.
There are four types of ratio under Profitability Ratio which are gross profit margin, net profit margin, return on asset
and return on equity. For the gross profit margin, it faced fluctuations during these five years. It shows that Apollo’s is
inefficient in controlling its cost of goods sales. Besides that, for its net profit margin, it decreases from 15.16% in
2014 to 5.80% in 2018. It shows that the firm is unable to control low operating expenses and good pricing strategies.
Besides, for return on assets, it decreases from 12.41% in the year 2014 to 4.20% in the year 2018. It shows that the
company is inefficient in its asset utilization. Lastly, for return on equity, it also decreases from 13.74% in 2014 to
4.54% in 2018. It shows that Apollo company is worse in investment.

13
2.2.3 Efficiency Ratios
Year/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average
Collection
Period
34777229 x 360
220 713 333
= 57 days
35931082 x 360
212 626 773
= 61 days
36836248 x 360
208 185 792
= 64 days
37934506 x 360
208 918 294
= 65 days
29553782 x 360
190 818 447
= 56 days
Inventory
Turnover
156 567 077
18 790 244
= 8.33 times
156 316 175
19 362 334
= 8.07 times
151 154 151
18 148 402
= 8.33 times
166 415 292
15 847 951
= 11 times
150 563 092
14 902 914
= 10.10 times
Total Asset
Turnover
220 713 333
269 784 563
= 0.82 times
212 626 773
274 292 370
= 0.78 times
208 185 792
283 136 909
= 0.74 times
208 918 294
276 657 841
= 0.76 times
190 818 447
263 534 358
= 0.72 times
Table 8: Efficiency Ratio for Apollo Food Holding from the year 2014 until 2018.
There are three types of Efficiency Ratio which are average collection period, inventory turnover and total asset
turnover. For the average collection period, it is good in collecting debts from account receivable in 2018 compared to
the previous year. It shows that Apollo company has improved in its average collection period. Besides, for inventory
turnover, it increased from 8.33 times in 2014 to 10.10 times in 2018. It shows that Apollo company is efficient
maintains little inventory and leads to frequent stock-outs. Next, the total asset turnover. It decreased from 0.82 times
in 2014 to 0.72 times in 2018. It shows that the company’s assets help to promote sales revenue.

14
2.2.4 Leverage Ratio
Year/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Debt Ratio 26 110 138
269 784 563
= 9.68 %
25 860 039
274 292 370
= 9.43 %
25 576 327
283 136 909
= 9.03 %
23 407 417
276 657 841
= 8.46 %
19 918 536
263 534 358
= 7.56 %
Debt Equity
Ratio
26 110 138
243 674 425
= 10.72 %
25 860 039
248 432 331
= 10.41 %
25 576 327
257 560 582
= 9.93 %
23 407 417
253 250 424
= 9.24 %
19 918 536
243 615 822
= 8.18 %
Equity Ratio 243 674 425
269 784 563
= 90.32%
248 432 331
274 292 370
= 90.57%
257 560 582
283 136 909
= 90.97%
253 250 424
276 657 841
= 91.54%
243 615 822
263 534 358
= 92.44%
Table 9: Leverage Ratio for Apollo Food Holding Bhd from the year 2014 until 2018.
There are three types of Leverage Ratio which are debt ratio, debt equity ratio and equity ratio. For the debt ratio, it
decreased during these five years which shows a good sign for Apollo company in its debt ratio. The lower the ratio is
better as it shows the company has a lower risk of bankruptcy. Besides, debt equity ratio. It also decreased during
these five years which shows that the company does not rely more on the long term creditors' supplies funds. Lastly,
the equity ratio shows that it increased from 90.32% in 2014 to 92.44% in 2018. Equity ratio determines the portion of
total assets provided by equity such as owner’s contributions and the company’s accumulated profits.
2.2.5 Market Ratio
Years/Ratios 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Earnings per
share (RM) = 13.84 = 22.29 = 37.18 = 31.62 = 41.84
Table 10: Market Ratio for Apollo Food Holding Bhd from the year 2014 until 2018.
The market ratio is reflected by the firm’s operation with a consideration of market (external) factors. One of the
market ratios is earning per share (EPS). EPS for Apollo company has mostly increased during these five years. It
shows that the company has more portion of the company’s profit allocated to each outstanding share of common
stock.

15
3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN APOLLO FOOD HOLDING BHD AND BRAHIM’S HOLDING
BHD
3.1 LIQUIDITY RATIO
3.1.1 Current Ratio
Table 11: Current Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 1: Current Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: Brahim’s Holding BHD’s current ratio shows that it has a slight decrease in the year 2015,
but then it increases in the year 2016. However, the chart has a very slight decrease in the year 2017 and continues to
decrease in the year 2018.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Apollo’s chart generally shows an improving pattern throughout the year 2014 to 2018.
It did however decrease in the year 2015. That was not a problem for the company as it increases significantly up to
the year 2018.
Conclusion: In conclusion, it can be seen that Apollo Food Holding BHD is performing much better than Brahim’s
Holding BHD. It shows that Apollo has a lot of current assets compared to its current liabilities. This means Apollo
would not have any problem in paying its short-term liabilities with its current asset.
Company/Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s 1.13 times 0.88 times 1.66 times 1.65 times 0.61 times
Apollo 13.7 times 12.55 times 13.56 times 15.59 times 17.86 times
0
5
10
15
20
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Times
Years
CURRENT RATIO
Brahim Apollo

16
3.1.2 Quick Ratio
Company/Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Apollo 11.8 times 10.87 times 12.04 times 13.04 times 16 times
Table 12: Quick Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 2: Quick Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: The quick ratio for this company is very unstable. From the year 2014 to 2015 it decreases
slightly, it then increases in the year 2016. In 2017 and 2018, it decreases and hit the lowest point out of the five years
at 0.56 times.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Apollo Food Holding BHD on the other hand shows almost one time decrease from the
year 2014 to 2015. It however gradually increasing from the year 2015 to the year 2018.
Conclusion: Chart 2 clearly showed that Apollo Food Holding BHD is much better in this category than Brahim’s
Holding BHD. Compared to Brahim’s Holding BHD who cannot reach one in any year, Apollo Food Holding BHD
manages to pay its short-term liabilities every year using their current asset.
0
5
10
15
20
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Times
Years
QUICK RATIO
Brahim Apollo

17
3.1.3 Net Working Capital Ratio
Company/Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s 14,268,875 –11,895,000 41,009,000 38,796,000 –36,612,000
Apollo 125,547,240 133,092,932 150,386,791 149,085,871 134,912,109
Table 13: Net Working Capital Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 3: Net Working Capital Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: This company's net working capital is unsteady. From the year 2014 to 2015, chart 3 shows
it decreases a lot and becomes a negative number which means it cannot meet its current liabilities with the current
asset the company has. Brahim’s then perform better in the year 2016 and 2017. However, the number becomes
negative again in the year 2018.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Apollo Food Holding BHD is performing great on its net working capital. It increases
gradually and reaches its peak in the year 2016. After that, in chart 3 shows it become decreases up to the year 2018.
It still shows the company can meet its current liabilities. But the company needs to take a cautious step to ensure that
the number would not keep on decreasing.
Conclusion: From the chart 3 above, Apollo Food Holding BHD is performing better in net working capital. This
company never reaches a negative number and it also always above Brahim’s number. Apollo needs to take a cautious
step while Brahim’s need to figure out a better way in managing its current asset and current liabilities.
-50000000
0
50000000
100000000
150000000
200000000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
RM
Years
NET WORKING CAPITAL RATIO
Brahim Apollo

18
3.2 Profitability Ratio
3.2.1 Gross Profit Margin Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim's 56.62% 42.32% 45.21% 45.31% 43.36%
Apollo 13.70% 26.48% 27.40% 20.34% 21.10%
Table 14: Gross Profit Margin Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 4: Gross Profit Margin Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: In the year 2014, Brahim’s Holding BHD is making RM 56.62 of gross profit for every RM
1 of the sale made. It has decreased to RM 43.36 in the next 4 years which is 2018. Thus, the gross profit margin of
Brahim’s Holding BHD shows a negative signal for the company as the percentage is in a decreasing trend where the
company generates a lower gross profit margin in the five years.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: As for Apollo Food Holding BHD, the company shows a good signal from 2014 to 2016
for their gross profit margin as the percentage is increasing every year. But, in 2017, their percentage becomes lower
where this is a not good signal for the company. But, in 2018 the percentage is rising from 20.34% in 2017 to 21.10%
where the company generates a little bit higher of gross profit margin from a year before.
Comparison/Conclusion: In conclusion, the trend of gross profit margin pattern for Brahim’s Holding BHD and
Apollo Food Holding BHD is the same but the figures are different. The Brahim company is better compared to
Apollo in the gross profit margin as their percentage is higher than the Apollo. The higher the percentage is better as
the company generates higher gross profit for every RM 1 of the sale made.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

19
3.2.2 Net Profit Margin Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim's –9.56% –5.48% –45.96% –0.74% –42.29%
Apollo 15.16% 11.90% 14.29% 8.54% 5.80%
Table 15: Net Profit Margin Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 5: Net Profit Margin Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: Throughout the year 2014 until 2018, the net profit margin of Brahim’s Holding BHD is
not in a good condition as the company bears a loss out of each ringgit of sales after taking all expenses and income
tax. It makes the company worse as the percentage is higher from -9.56% in 2014 to -42.29% in 2018. It shows that
the loss that the company bear is increasing every year.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Net profit margin for Apollo Food Holding BHD shows a decreasing trend from 15.16%
in 2014 to 11.90% in 2015. The decreasing percentage indicates a negative signal for the company as they are unable
to control low operating expenses and not good at pricing strategies. In 2016, the percentage starts to increase where it
is good for the company. But, in the next 2 years, the percentage becomes lower back.
Comparison/Conclusion: In conclusion, the net profit margin for Apollo Food Holdings BHD is much better
compared to the Brahim’s Holding BHD as they never experienced losses out of each ringgit of sales after taking all
expenses and income tax during the five year period which is 2014 until 2018.
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
NET PROFIT MARGIN RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

20
3.2.3 Return on Asset Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim's –6.53% –3.23% –32.04% –0.58% –41.19%
Apollo 12.41% 9.22% 10.50% 6.45% 4.20%
Table 16: Return on Asset Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 6: Return on Asset Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: During the five year period which is from 2014 until 2018, the return on asset for the
Brahim’s Holding BHD shows the worse condition for the company as the percentage is all in a negative figure. This
shows that the company bears a loss that it generates from investment in total assets. What makes the worse is that the
percentage is in the highest position in 2018 where the percentage is -41.19%
Apollo Food Holding BHD: As for Apollo Food Holding BHD, their return on assets indicates a decreasing trend in
the five years. Even though it a decreasing trend, but the figure is still positive which means that company can make a
profit using its available asset.
Comparison/Conclusion: As a conclusion, in the year 2014 until 2018, the return of asset for Apollo Food Holding
BHD shows a better condition for the company as compared to Brahim’s Holding BHD because all the percentage are
in positive where the company never have been experienced losses from its investment in the total asset. The higher
the ratio is good as the company is efficient in its asset utilization.
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
RETURN ON ASSET RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

21
3.2.4 Return on Equity Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim's –12.38% –5.98% –49.86% –0.89% –93.01%
Apollo 13.74% 10.18% 11.55% 7.04% 4.54%
Table 16: Return on Equity Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 6: Return on Equity Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: The return on equity for Brahim’s Holding BHD indicates that the company is in poor
condition as all the percentages in five year period are negative. What’s worse is the company recorded the highest
negative percentage during 2018 which is -93.01% where it almost 100%. This is a not good signal as the company
bears a loss from its investment.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: In the year 2014, the shareholders can get 13.74% of the profit from their investment
with Apollo Food Holding BHD. It has decreased to 10.18% in 2015 but increased in 2016 to 11.55%. In the next 2
years, the return on equity for the company shows a decreasing trend. Overall, the management should change this
position to increase its return to the shareholders.
Comparison/Conclusion: In conclusion, the Apollo Food Holding BHD is better in return on equity than the
Brahim’s Holding BHD. This is because their percentage is all in a positive figure which means that the company
does not bear any losses throughout the year 2014 until 2018. The higher the ratio is good as the company acceptance
strong investment.
-100.00%
-50.00%
0.00%
50.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
RETURN ON EQUITY RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

22
3.3 EFFICIENCY RATIO
3.3.1 Average Collection Period Ratio
Company/Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s 84 days 58 days 75 days 76 days 74 days
Apollo 57 days 61 days 64 days 65 days 56 days
Table 17: Average Collection Period Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 7: Average Collection Period Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: The average collection period in chart 7 shows that the company is not efficient in
collecting its debt in the year 2014. This however changes in the year 2015 as it hits the lowest point out of the five
years from the year 2014 to 2018. It then increases throughout the year 2016 and 2017 which then reduces slightly in
the year 2018.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Apollo’s average collection period in the year 2014 is 57 days, which then increases
throughout the year 2015 to 2017. After that, it hit the lowest point in the year 2018 at 56 days.
Conclusion: In conclusion, Apollo Food Holding BHD has a lesser day in collecting debts compared to Brahim’s
Holding BHD. Which means that Apollo is better in collecting their debt. This can reflect on their ability to ensure
that their debt is paid within time compared to Brahim’s which are slower.
0
20
40
60
80
100
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Days
Years
AVERAGE COLLECTION PERIOD RATIO
Brahim Apollo

23
3.3.2 Inventory Turnover Ratio
Company/Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Apollo 8.33 times 8.07 times 8.33 times 11 times 10.10 times
Table 18: Inventory Turnover Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 8: Inventory Turnover Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: Brahim’s Holding BHD shows a varied pattern from the year 2014 until 2018. It shows an
increase in the year 2015 until 2017. However, it becomes decreases in the year 2018 as shown in chart 7. This might
be happening because the company has a varied response to their products which affect their ability in replacing the
inventories.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: This company also has an unstable graph. It was stable for the first three years, an
increase in 2017 and a slight decrease in 2018. This might be beneficial for the company because the graph shows
improvement even though with a slight decrease in the year 2018.
Conclusion: Both of the company have an unstable graph. This shows that the ability of the companies to replace
their inventories each year is different. This might be because of the different amounts of demand each year or the
excess number of inventories from the year before. Even though the number for Apollo Food Holding BHD is more
stable, the number for Brahim’s Holding BHD is higher every year as compared to Apollo’s. This shows that
Brahim’s Holding BHD is better in turning their inventories compared to Apollo Food Holding BHD.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Times
Years
INVENTORY TURNOVER RATIO
Brahim Apollo

24
3.3.3 Total Asset Turnover Ratio
Company/Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Apollo 0.82 times 0.78 times 0.74 times 0.76 times 0.72 times
Table 19: Total Asset Turnover Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 8: Total Asset Turnover Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: Brahim’s Holding BHD total asset turnover ratio is showing improvement as the years
passed by. Even though it decreases slightly in the year 2015, overall, the graph shows an increase.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Apollo Food Holding BHD on the other hand, has been decreasing throughout the year
2014 to 2018. The graph increases slightly in the year 2017, however, the next year it decreases again.
Conclusion: In conclusion, Brahim’s Holding BHD has a better total asset turnover ratio especially in the year 2018
when it higher by 0.25. However, both companies are unable to achieve one as their total asset turnover. All of the
data is below one, which indicates that these companies are not efficient in using their assets to generate sales. Both
companies might be using other components to generate their sales.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Times
Years
TOTALASSET TURNOVER RATIO
Brahim Apollo

25
3.4 LEVERAGE RATIO
3.4.1 Debt Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s 47.21% 45.97% 35.65% 34.46% 55.71%
Apollo 9.68% 9.43% 9.03% 8.46% 7.56%
Table 19: Debt Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 9: Debt Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: From 2014 until 2017, the Brahim’s Holding BHD’s debt ratio is in good condition as it
shows a decreased trend from 47.21% to 34.46%. But in 2018, the debt ratio increases to 55.71% which this higher
ratio shows that it is bad as it shows the company is subjected to higher bankruptcy.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: The debt ratio of Apollo Food Holding BHD shows a decreasing trend for the five years
from 2014 to 2018 when it decreases from 9.68% to 7.56%. This shows that the company is subjected to a lower risk
of bankruptcy.
Comparison/Conclusion: In conclusion, the debt ratio of Apollo Food Holding BHD is much better as compared to
Brahim’s Holding BHD as the lower the percentage is good as it is shown that the company is subjected to lower risk
of bankruptcy.
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
DEBT RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

26
3.4.2 Debt-Equity Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s 89.43% 85.08% 55.62% 52.58% 51.32%
Apollo 10.72% 10.41% 9.93% 9.24% 8.18%
Table 20: Debt-Equity Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 10: Debt-Equity Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: The debt-equity of Brahim’s Holding BHD shows a decreasing trend throughout the year
2014 until 2018 which is a negative signal for the company as they rely on owners funds than long term creditors to
supplies fund.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: Apollo Food Holding BHD has also a decreasing trend in five year period from 2014 to
2018 where the debt-equity ratio shows a decreasing trend from 10.72% to 8.18%, which is also a negative signal as
the company relies owner’s fund than on their long-term creditors to supplies fund.
Comparison/Conclusion: In conclusion, the debt-equity ratio of Brahim’s Holding BHD is larger than the Apollo
Food Holding BHD which indicate of good leverage condition for Brahim’s Holding BHD as the company relies on
long term creditors supplies fund than the owner’s fund.
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
DEBT-EQUITY RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

27
3.4.3 Equity Ratio
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s 52.79% 54.03% 64.27% 65.54% 44.29%
Apollo 90.32% 90.57% 90.97% 91.54% 92.44%
Table 21: Equity Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 11: Equity Ratio for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: From 2014 until 2017, Brahim’s Holding BHD’s equity ratio shows an increase from 52.79%
to 65.54% which shows that the company known as conservative companies. A conservative company’s equity ratio is
higher than its debt ratio which means that the business makes use of more equity and less debt in its funding. While in
2018, the ratio decreases to 44.29% which shows that the company is known as leveraged companies. Leveraged
companies are considered as higher risk compared to conservative companies.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: The equity ratio of Apollo Food Holding BHD shows an increase from 90.32% to 92.44%
throughout the year from 2014 to 2018. This ratio shows that the company is known as a conservative company as their
ratio is more than 50%. It indicates that the company makes use of more equity and less debt in its funding.
Comparison/Conclusion: In conclusion, the equity ratio of Apollo Food Holding BHD is much better compared to
Brahim’s Holding BHD as the ratio is higher than the Apollo Food Holding BHD’s equity ratio. The higher the ratio is
good as the business makes use of more equity and less debt in its funding.
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Percentage
Years
EQUITY RATIO
Brahim's Apollo

28
3.5 MARKET RATIO
3.5.1 Earnings Per Share (RM)
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Brahim’s –RM13.64 –RM6.64 –RM31.72 –RM2.94 –RM44.44
Apollo RM13.84 RM22.29 RM37.18 RM31.62 RM41.84
Table 22: Earnings Per Share for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Chart 12: Earnings Per Share for Brahim’s and Apollo’s from 2014 to 2018
Brahim’s Holding BHD: From the year 2014 until 2018, the earnings per share in RM for Brahim’s Holding BHD
indicates a worse condition for the company as the figure shows in a negative amount. It means that the company is losing
money as they can’t generate profit for its shareholders.
Apollo Food Holding BHD: As for Apollo Food Holding BHD, their earnings per share in RM shows a good condition
for the company as the figure indicates an increasing trend throughout the five years. This proves that the company
capable to generate profit for its shareholders.
Comparison/Conclusion: Based on the earnings per share for both companies, Apollo Food Holding BHD is much better
as compared to Brahim’s Holding BHD as the company is capable to generate income for the shareholders while Brahim
is unable to do so, in fact, they are losing money. Thus, the investors will choose Apollo as they can gain profit from the
company.
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
RM
Years
EARNING PER SHARE (RM)
Brahim's Apollo

29
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, some companies will face liquidity risk and operational risk especially in the study of the food and
beverage company. Based on the research findings of the Apollo’s and Brahim’s Company, we found out that Company
Apollo had a better performance compared to Brahim’s Company since they are well known for market segmentation
from kids till baby boomers. Apollo Company is a financially healthy and safe company to give credit based on the above
data as well as the company’s financial ratios and statements. The liquidity and operational performance annually show
this company is not having a problem settling the obligation and operates efficiently that could gain more profit.
Brahim’s Company shows that they are not able to maintain healthy and good financial performance because of lack of
promotion, Brahim’s product is not well known especially to the teenagers and kids.
We would like to recommend a few ideas for both companies that might improve their financial performance to
gain profits and success in the future. For Brahim’s Company, they need to promote their product all around the world by
using many platforms such as TV or radio advertisements and social media such as Instagram, Facebook and Twitter to
expand their market. They also need to create a great and creative advertisement so that they can attract customers to buy
their products. People usually will compare two products as they find something that cheaper, as we know Brahim’s are a
bit pricy so customers will choose other products that are cheaper than Brahim ‘s, so they need to promote to attract more
customers. Brahim also needs to distribute the product at all places that can easy to be found, as it can only be found at
big hypermarkets such as Tesco, Aeon, Econsave.
For Apollo Company, they need to keep on promoting their products by using social media and TV or radio
advertisements since they aren’t active like before and kids nowadays are not aware of the products. They need to
improve in their packaging such as the colors or new designs so customers will buy their products. Apollo needs to do a
promotion or discounting and do some gift with a minimum purchase, for example, buy 10 packs of Chocolate Layer
Cake and customers will get a 5% discount or an extra pack of Chocolate Layer Cake.
Both companies will increase and constantly grow if they make an improvement in their business management
and will be expanded to other countries hence it will be customer’s favorites all the time.

30
5. REFERENCES
Annual Report Apollo Food Holdings Berhad. (2014). Apollo Food Holdings Berhad (29147-M) (Incorporated in
Malaysia). Retrieved from https://www.klsescreener.com/v2/announcements/view/887380
Malaysia). Retrieved from
http://disclosure.bursamalaysia.com/FileAccess/apbursaweb/download?id=171765&name=EA_DS_ATTACHME
NTS
NTS
NTS
NTS
Annual Report Brahim’s Holding Berhad. (2014). Financial Statement. For The Financial Year Ended 31 December
2014. Retrieved from http://brahimsgroup.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AnnualReport2014-Part-3.pdf
Annual Report Brahim’s Holding Berhad. (2015). Brahim’s Holdings Berhad (82731-A) (Incorporated in Malaysia).
Retrieved from http://brahimsgroup.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BHB_AR2015.pdf
Retrieved from http://brahimsgroup.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/BHB_AR2016_Bursa.pdf

31
Apollo Food Industries. (n.d). Retrieved June 15, 2020 from http://www.apollofood.com.my/about_us.php
Brahim’s. (n.d). About us. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from http://brahims.com.au/about-us/
Dewina Food Industries Sdn Bhd. (n.d). Strengths Dewina Food Industries Sdn Bhds Product. Course Hero. Retrieved
June 15, 2020 from https://www.coursehero.com/file/p9bfo8/STRENGTHS-Dewina-Food-Industries-Sdn-Bhds-
product-Brahims-is-certified-halal-by/

32
6. APPENDIX
Figure 1: Founder of Brahim’s
Figure 2: Brahim’s product

33
Figure 3: Brahim’s factory
Figure 4: Founder of Apollo

34
Figure 5: Apollo’s product
Figure 6 Apollo’s warehouse

35
Financial Report 2014 compared 2015

38

40

Fin430 (apollo & brahim)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Fin430 (apollo & brahim)

Similar to Fin430 (apollo & brahim) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Fin430 (apollo & brahim)