1. Ind i v i d u a l F i na nc e R e p o r t
Prepared by: John Hunt
Student number: 12810977
Word Count: 2187
2. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................3
PROFITABILITY RATIOS...............................................................................................................................4
GROSS PROFIT MARGIN......................................................................................................................................4
NET PROFIT MARGIN ........................................................................................................................................4
RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED.....................................................................................................................5
LIQUIDITY RATIOS..........................................................................................................................................5
CURRENT RATIO .................................................................................................................................................5
ACID TEST (ALSO KNOWN AS QUICK RATIO)................................................................................................5
OPERATING CASH FLOW TO CURRENT LIABILITIES ......................................................................................6
EFFICIENCY RATIOS........................................................................................................................................6
TOTAL ASSET TURNOVER (TAT)...................................................................................................................6
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE TURNOVER (ART).................................................................................................7
PAYABLES TURNOVER (DAYS).........................................................................................................................7
FINANCIAL RISKRATIOS..............................................................................................................................7
CAPITAL GEARING RATIO .................................................................................................................................7
DEBT EQUITY RATIO .........................................................................................................................................8
RETURN TO INVESTORS RATIOS.............................................................................................................8
EARNINGS PER SHARE.......................................................................................................................................8
DIVIDENDS PER SHARE......................................................................................................................................8
DIVIDEND COVER RATIO....................................................................................................................................9
MACROECONOMIC COUNTRY ANALYSIS.............................................................................................9
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................................9
APPENDIX- RATIOS AND CALCULATIONS.......................................................................................11
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................16
3. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
3
Introduction
In this report I will assess Nokia’s corporate performance through the use of financial
analysis in accompany withmacroeconomic country analysis. Nokia Oyjcommonly
knownas just Nokia is a Finnish multinational communications and information
technology company headquartered in Espoo, Uusimaa, in the greater Helsinki
metropolitan area. Nokia’s shares are listed on the Helsinki and New Yorkstock
exchange, and its market cap is £22.5b (17th May 2014). For the year ending 31
December 2014 Nokia’s net sales was €12.7bn with a net loss of €237million.
Nokia’s main geographical markets in 2014 are Europe (30.5%) Middle East and Africa
(8.6%) Greater China (11.1%)Asia-Pacific (26.4%) North America (15.1%) Latin
America (8.3%).
0
10
20
30
40
50
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Net Sales (EURbn)
Net Sales (EURbn)
Figure 1: Nokia’s net sales 2014 by region. Source:
company.nokia.com
4. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
4
Profitability ratios
Profitability is such a key aspect when looking at the financial status of any company.
These ratios are often used in conjunctionwith competitor’s results as a comparison
tool. Ratios of this nature give a clear outline of change when compared to previous
years, this data can be of great significance to anyone looking to invest in a company.
Gross profit margin
Gross profitmargin is calculated by dividing gross profit by revenue and expressed as a
percentage. Gross profit margin outlines the amount of profit received after accounting
for the cost of sales. Companies strive to maximise this figure, as it’s a key indicator
towards a company’s success, howeversome industries tend to have a naturally higher
GPMthan others. As shown in the table below Nokia’s GPMtook a rather drastic dive
between the years of 2010 and 2012 falling from 30.2% in 2010 to 29.3%in 2011 then
further more to 27.8% in 2012 this is due to fall in gross profitand can be more
specifically allocated to the fall in gross profitreceived from devices and services.
Nokia’s GPM then jumped to 42.1% this is due to the fallin cost of sales compared to the
year before and the increase in gross profit margin as a YOY change percentage. Nokia’s
GPMcontinued to grow from 2013-2014 where it reached 44.3% this was achievedby
an increase in gross profit of 6% compared to the year 2013 and a decrease in costof
sales by 4%, the fallin cost of sales could be due to new technologies being released in
turn improving efficiency and lowering the cost of sales. Nokia’s gross profit margin
fluctuates around the industry average.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
average
GPM (%) 30.2 29.3 27.8 42.1 44.3 37.9
Net Profit Margin
Net ProfitMargin (NPM)is the net income divided by the revenue. NPMmeasures the
percentage of profit each unit of revenue the company is left with as wellas capital
growth and what ever is left overto be paid out to shareholders via dividends whichis
what most investors willbe interested in. As you can see from the table below Nokia
have been struggling to keep their NPM positive in recent years. Nokia’s NPMhas been
so low as of recent due to the huge amounts of money they reinvest into research and
development, overthe past 5 years Nokia has invested 19668 EURm often causing then
to make a net loss. Between the years of 2010 and 2012 Nokia’s NPM had dropped from
a positive 4.2% to negative 8.8%. once reaching their trough in 2012 Nokias NPM then
reached a positive 1.9% in 2013 before decreasing again in 2014. Nokia’s net profits
have been drastically affectedby increased competition and "strategic entry deals,
particularlyinChina"yetstillstayaroundtheindustryaverage.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
NPM (%) 4.2 -3.1 -8.8 1.9 -1.9 14.1
5. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
5
Return on capital employed
Return on capital employed indicates the amount of wealth generated compared to the
amount of wealth invested. It is calculated by dividing net profit by total assets minus
current liabilities. As ROCE is calculated using net profit weare going to see a similar
result to the NPM, as for the years 2011, 2012 and 2014 Nokia made a net loss therefore
there is going to be a negative return on any capital employed forthose years. For the
year 2010 Nokia made an 8.3% return on capital employed the followingyear it
dropped by almost 15% to minus 6.4% the reason forthe huge drop is due to that fact
that the amount of capital employed stays relatively stable around 2,000 EURmbut
there is a drastic fall in net profit from1786 EURm to negative 1198 EURm. Nokia’s
ROCE is well below the industry average
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
ROCE
(%)
8.3 -6.4 -17.3 1.5 -1.72 16.3
Liquidity Ratios
Liquidity ratios lookat how effectively companies can pay off their short-term debts. Bill
Rees (1995) once stated, “Theequity investor may concentrateon the long-run cash-
generating prospects of the firm but if short run cash flow difficultieswill put the firm
into a receivership the long run becomes rather irrelevant.”
Current ratio
The Current ratio is achieved by dividing current assets by current liabilities. It attempts
to measure the ability a company has at meeting its financial obligations throughout the
year using its short-term assets such as cash and inventory. Nokia’s current ratio in
2010 starts at 1.55 then falls to 1.46 in 2011 and further more in 2012 to 1.43 this is due
to the increased fall in current assets compared to current liabilities. After 2012 Nokia’s
current ratio start to increase reaching 1.54 in 2013 and 1.88 in 2014 which is above the
industry average. Due to the factNokia have above the industry average current ratio
results they should be able to obtain refinancing funds at competitive rates as they show
they are able to pay off all its short-term obligations.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Current
Ratio
1.55 1.46 1.43 1.54 1.88 1.64
Acid Test (also known as Quick Ratio)
This financial tool is very similar to the current ratio but instead uses current assets
minus inventories divided by current liabilities. The Acid Test doesn't take inventory
into account as most people fail to see it as a means to liquidate cash quickly. Nokia’s
Acid test results follow the same trend as their current ratio results; this is due to the
factthat Nokia’s inventories as a percentage of current assets stay relatively stable.
6. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
6
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Acid test 1.40 1.33 1.32 1.37 1.71 1.46
Operating cash flow to current liabilities
Operating cash flow to current liabilities is calculated by dividing cash flow from
operations by current liabilities. Operating cash flow to current liabilities measures how
well a company can coverits current liabilities using cash flow generated froma
company’s operations. A measure of how well current liabilities are coveredby the cash
flow generated from a company's operations. Using operating cash flow opposed to
income often provides a better indication of liquidity simply because bills are normally
paid via cash. As youcan see from the table below all of Nokia’s results between 2010
and 2014 are below 1 whichindicates that they are not able to liquidate its current
liabilities from operating cash flow;in other words Nokia willhave to sell assets, borrow
money or issue stocks to meet its short term debt obligations.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Operating
CF to
Current
Liabilities
0.272 0.065 -0.024 0.0076 0.075 0.68
Efficiency ratios
Efficiency ratiosmeasure how well companies utilize their assets to generate income.
According to (PeterAtrill,1997) ‘Efficiency ratiosexamine the waysin whichvarious
resources of the business are managed.’
Total Asset Turnover (TAT)
TAT is calculated by dividing total revenue by total assets, TAT gives an indication of
how efficiently a company uses their assets to generate income. Nokia’s TAT stay
relatively constant between the years of 2010, 2011 and 2012 before halving from1.01
to 0.51 in 2013. Nokia’s TAT decline can be attributed to the significant drop in sales
from 30176EURm to 12709EURm between 2012 and 2013.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Total
Asset
Turnover
1.08 1.07 1.01 0.51 0.59
7. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
7
Accounts receivable Turnover (ART)
ART is total revenue over accounts receivable, as ART indicates a company’s ability to
collectits receivables the higher the ratio the more efficient.Nokia’s ART starts at 5.46
in 2010 then drops to 5.24 then again to 4.74 and in 2013 it drops further to 3.01. Its not
until 2014 that Nokia’s ART rapidly grows to 12.25 this is due to their average accounts
receivable dropping from 4226 to 1039 whilst their revenue stayed almost the same.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Acct
receivable
Turnover
5.46 5.24 4.74 3.01 12.25
Payables Turnover (days)
Payables turnover measures the speed at which a company pays its suppliers. It is
calculated by dividing accounts payable by costof sales and multiplying by 365. Nokia’s
payables turnover is around the industry average of 70.98 days forthe years of 2010,
2011 and 2012 before increasing to 91.29 in 2013 then again to 119 in 2014 this shows
that Nokia are taking longer to pay their suppliers in recent years this is most likely
down to cash flow problems.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Payables
Turnover
75.16 73.85 73.6 91.29 119 70.98
Financial Risk Ratios
Capital Gearing Ratio
Dividing non-current liabilities by share capital, retained earnings and non-current
liabilities and presenting it as a percentage formulate gearing. Nokia’s gearing rose from
37.48 to 58% between 2011 and 2012 this was due to the fallin retained earnings from
7385EURm to 3995EURm. It then reached it peak in 2013 with 60.63% of its funding
coming from outside sources whichis nearly 3 times the industry average.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Gearing
Ratio (%)
33.25 37.48 58.00 60.63 50.75 22.1
8. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
8
Debt Equity Ratio
Non-current liabilities divided by share capital plus retained earnings minus treasury
shares. This ratio measures the percentage of total funds provided by creditors. Nokia’s
debt to equity starts around 60% whichis close to the industry average of 52.4% it then
increases to 160% in 2012 then again in 2013 to 195% due to the fallin retained
earnings. Nokia’s retained earnings and treasury shares increased resulting in the
decrease to 128.7%.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
average
Debt
Equity
(%)
53.1% 65.1% 162.1% 195.7% 128.7% 52.4
Return to Investors Ratios
Return to Investors ratios allow investors to calculatethe return they will receive from
shares they invest in.
Earnings Per Share
Profitattributable to equity holders divided by average number of shares. Nokia’s EPS is
0.49 in 2010 before falling negative forthe next 3 years as Nokia aren’t making any
profit attributable to equity holders. In 2014 it then becomes 0.94, whichis still well
below the industry average.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Earnings per
share (€)
0.49 -0.31 -0.84 -0.17 0.94 68.4
Dividends per Share
‘DPS shows the amount of gross dividend, in pence, allotted to each equity share’ (Mills
and Robertson, 1999). Nokia’s DPS is €0.41 for years 2010 and 2011 before dropping to
0.2 in 2012 then drastically in 2013 to 0.019, it has since risen to 0.38 in 2015. Nokia’s
dividends per share are well below the average for our industry meaning shareholders
in Nokia are receiving much lower dividends compared to Apple and Samsung
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Dividends
per share
(€)
0.41 0.41 0.20 0.019 0.38 4.77
9. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
9
Dividend cover ratio
‘Dividend coverratio shows the number of times dividend is coveredby earnings
attributable to shareholders’ (Mills and Robertson, 1999). It indicates to shareholders
how comfortably and company can pay their shareholders whilst retaining the funds to
reinvest in expansion. Nokia’s dividend cover is 1.20 in 2010 before falling negative for
the next three years as there is a loss attributable to shareholders. Nokia’s dividend
coverthen rises to 2.47 in 2014 due to the €0.45 increase in earnings per share that
year compared to 2010
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Industry
Average
Dividend
cover
ratio
1.20 -0.76 -4.2 -8.95 2.47 8.3
Macroeconomic Country Analysis
Nokia have already penetrated the markets, which are growing fastest such as
Asia, which look promising from an investor’s point of view. China’s rapid
economic growth, although slowing, is still higher than any other. With the
massive emerging middles classes demand for smart phones, Nokia’s sales in
China have increased by 17% in 2014 compared to 2013. Not only have the
number of Nokia sales in China been decreasing year on year since 2010 apart
from 2014 but Nokia have also moved many of their manufacturing plants out of
China and into Vietnam for the reduction in costs. In contrast to Asia, and other
countries such as China, the European telecommunications market makes up for
more than 30% of Nokia’s net sales in 2014, this however is a 1% decrease
compared to the year before. Considering recent events with the Euro and the
Economy as a whole its no surprise that since the recession hit in 2007 Nokia’s
share price has fallen upwards of 90% which has had drastic effects on Finnish
growth. At one point in time Nokia were paying as much as 23% of all Finnish
corporation tax and accounted for a fifth of Finland’s exports (The Economist,
2012). As of the 25th of April, 2014 Nokia completed the sale of all its Devices
and Services to Microsoft, Nokia also announced plans for a €5bn capital
structure optimization program to try and recommence dividend payments,
distribute excess capital and reduce interest bearing debt, this will be enticing to
new prospective investors and existing shareholders looking to receive
dividends.
Conclusion
As a whole, there are multiple factors for an investor to assess before investing
into Nokia. On the one hand it seems like a highly risky investment due to the
fact that its Return to investor ratios show that Nokia’s earnings per share and
Dividends per share are well below the industry average. It’s not only the return
to investor ratios that are below the industry average it's the same story with the
Financial risk ratios which show Nokia’s gearing level well above the industry
10. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
10
average at 50.75% in 2014 along with a Debt:Equity ratio of 128.7 more than
double the industry average. However, even though Nokia’s results seem very
poor compared to the industry its evident that Nokia understand and have begun
to start reacting to the changes in the market. Nokia have invested greatly into
research and development in recent years and we are starting to see a significant
improvement appear within all the results in 2014 compared to 2013 therefore
this may lead you to believe that Nokia are starting to stabilise and gives promise
for investors wanting to pick up shares in Nokia at a reduced price expecting
them to produce positive returns in the future.
11. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
11
Appendix- Ratios and Calculations
Gross profit Margin
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Revenues-cost of
sales=GP
GP/Revenues x 100
Revenues-cost of
sales=GP
GP/Revenues x 100
Revenues-cost of
sales=GP
GP/Revenues x 100
Revenues-cost of
sales=GP
GP/Revenues x
100
Revenues-cost of
sales=GP
GP/Revenues x 100
Workings 42446-29629=12817
12817/42446x100=30.2
38659-
27340=11319
11319/38659x100
=29.28
30176-21786=8390
8390/30176x100=27.8
12709-
7364=5345
5345/12709x100
=42.1
12732-7094=5638
5638/12732x100=44.3
Answer 30.2% 29..28% 27.8% 42.1% 44.3%
Net Profit
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Net profit margin=
NP/revenues x 100
Net profit margin=
NP/revenues x 100
Net profit margin=
NP/revenues x 100
Net profit margin=
NP/revenues x 100
Net profit margin=
NP/revenues x 100
Workings 1786/42446x100
=4.21
-1198/38659x100
=-3.10
-2644/30176x100
=-8.76
243/12709x100
=1.91
-237/12732x100
=-1.86
Answer 4.21% -3.10% -8.76% 1.91% -1.86%
ROCE
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Net profit before
interest + tax/total
assets – current
liabilities x 100
Net profit before
interest + tax/total
assets – current
liabilities x 100
Net profit before
interest + tax/total
assets – current
liabilities x 100
Net profit before
interest + tax/total
assets – current
liabilities x 100
Net profit before
interest + tax/total
assets – current
liabilities x 100
Workings 1786/(39123-17540)
x100= 8.28
-1198/(36205-
17444)x100= -6.39
-2644/(29949-
14646)x100= -17.28
243/(25191-
9450)x100=1.54
-237/(21063-
7288)x100=1.72
Answer 8.3% -6.4% -17.3% 1.5% 1.7%
12. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
12
Liquidity Calculations
Current Ratio
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Current Assets/
Current liabilities
Current Assets/ Current
liabilities
Current Assets/
Current liabilities
Current Assets/
Current liabilities
Current Assets/
Current liabilities
Workings 27145/17540=1.55 25455/17444=1.46 20878/14646=1.43 13796/9450=1.37 13724/7288=1.88
Answer 1.55 1.46 1.43 1.37 1.88
Acid Test (Quick Ratio)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Current assets-
inventories/current
liabilities
Current assets-
inventories/current
liabilities
Current assets-
inventories/current
liabilities
Current assets-
inventories/current
liabilities
Current assets-
inventories/current
liabilities
Workings 27415-
2523/17540=1.40
25455-
2330/1744=1.33
20878-
1538/14646=1.32
13796-
804/9450=1.37
13724-
1275/7288=1.71
Answer 1.4 1.33 1.32 1.37 1.71
Operating Cash Flow to Current Liabilities
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Net Cash flow from
operating
activities/Current
Liabilities
Net Cash flow from
operating
activities/Current
Liabilities
Net Cash flow from
operating
activities/Current
Liabilities
Net Cash flow from
operating
activities/Current
Liabilities
Net Cash flow from
operating
activities/Current
Liabilities
Workings 4774/17540
=0.272
1137/17444
=0.065
-354/14646
=-0.0241
72/9450
=0.0076
1275/7288
=0.1749
13. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
13
Answer 0.272 0.065 -0.024 0.0076 0.175
Efficiency Calculations
Total asset turnover
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Sales revenue/ Total
assets
Sales revenue/ Total
assets
Sales revenue/ Total
assets
Sales revenue/ Total
assets
Sales revenue/ Total
assets
Workings 42446/39123=1.08 38659/36205=1.07 30176/29949=1.01 12709/25191=0.51 12732/21663=0.59
Answer 1.08 1.07 1.01 0.51 0.59
Accounts receivable
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Sales revenue/
average accounts
receivable
Sales
revenue/ average
accounts receivable
Sales revenue/
average accounts
receivable
Sales revenue/
average accounts
receivable
Sales revenue/
average accounts
receivable
Workings 42446/
((7570+7981)/2)
=5.46
38659/
((7181+7570)/2)
=5.24
30176/
((5551+7181)/2)
=4.74
12709/
((2901+5551)/2)
=3.01
12732/
((1275+804)/2)
=12.25
Answer 5.46 5.24 4.74 3.01 12.25
Payables Turnover
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Accounts
payable/ cost of
sales x365
Accounts
payable/ cost of
sales x365
Accounts
payable/ cost of sales
x365
Accounts payable/
cost of sales x365
Accounts payable/
cost of sales x365
14. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
14
Workings 6101/29629
x365=75.158
5532/27340
x365=73.85
4394/21786
x365=73.6
1842/7364
x365=91.29
2313/7094
x365=119
Answer 75.16 73.85 73.6 91.29 119
Financial Risk Ratios
Gearing Ratio
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Non current
liabilities/ non
current liabilities
+ share capita +
retained earnings
Non current
liabilities/ non
current liabilities
+ share capita +
retained earnings
Non current
liabilities/ non
current liabilities
+ share capita +
retained earnings
Non current
liabilities/ non
current liabilities
+ share capita +
retained earnings
Non current
liabilities/ non
current liabilities
+ share capita +
retained earnings
Working
s
5352/246+10500
+5352
=33.25
4845/246+7836+
4845
=37.48
5856/246+3995+
5856
=57.99
4353/246+2581+
4353
=60.63
5106/246+4710+
5106
=50.75
Answer 33.3% 37.5% 58% 60.6% 50.75%
Debt to Equity
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Non current
liabilities/ share
capital +
retained
earnings –
treasury shares
Non current
liabilities/
share capital +
retained
earnings –
treasury shares
Non current
liabilities/
share capital +
retained
earnings –
treasury shares
Non current
liabilities/ share
capital + retained
earnings – treasury
shares
Non current
liabilities/ share
capital + retained
earnings – treasury
shares
Working
s
(5352/246+105
00-663) x100
=53.079
(4845/246+783
6-644) x100
=65.138
(5856/246+399
5-629) x100
=162.126
(4353/246+2581-
603) x100
=195.728
(5106/246+4710-
988) x100
=128.679
Answer 53.1% 65.1% 162.1% 195.7% 128.7%
Return to investor ratios
Earnings per share
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Profit attributable to
equity
holders/average no.
of shares
Profit attributable to
equity holders/average
no. of shares
Profit attributable to
equity
holders/average no.
of shares
Profit attributable to
equity
holders/average no.
of shares
Profit attributable to
equity
holders/average no.
of shares
15. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
15
Workings 1850000000/
3708816000
=0.49
-1164000000/
3709947000
=-0.31
-3106000000/
3710845000
=-0.84
-615000000/
3712079000
=-0.17
3462000000/
3698723000
=0.94
Answer €0.49 -€0.31 -€0.84 -€0.17 €0.94
Dividends Per Share
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Dividends/ number
of shares
Dividends/ number of
shares
Dividends/ number
of shares
Dividends/ number
of shares
Dividends/ number of
shares
Workings 1519000000/
3708816000
=0.41
1536000000/
3709947000
=0.41
755000000/
3710845000
=0.20
71000000/
3712427000
=0.019
1392000000/
3648143000
=0.3815
Answer €0.41 €0.41 €0.20 €0.02 €0.38
Dividend cover
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Equation Earnings per share/
dividends per share
Earnings per share/
dividends per share
Earnings per share/
dividends per share
Earnings per share/
dividends per share
Earnings per share/
dividends per share
Workings 0.49/0.41=1.195 -0.31/0.41=-0.756 -0.84/0.2=-4.2 -0.17/0.019=-8.947 0.94/0.38=2.473
Answer 1.2 -0.8 -4.2 -8.9 2.5
16. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
16
References
Bill Rees. (1995). Ratio Analysis: Methods and Issues. In: Prentice Hall Europe Financial
Analysis . 2nd ed. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe. 98.
Catherine Gowthrope (2005). Business Accounting and Finance for non-specialists . 2nd
ed. London: Patrick Bond. p 299
Oswald D. Bowlin, John D. Martin, David F. Scott (1991). Financial Analysis . 2nd ed.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Inc.,US; 2nd Revised edition edition. p29
Peter Atrill (1997). Financial Management For Decision Markers . 5th ed. Harlow:
Prentice Hall Europe. p 79.
Roger W. Mills and John Robertson (1999). Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting And
Finance . 4th ed. Great Britain: Redbooks LTD. p 127.
Roger W. Mills and John Robertson (1999). Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting And
Finance . 4th ed. Great Britain: Redbooks LTD. p 140.
Roger W. Mills and John Robertson (1999). Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting And
Finance . 4th ed. Great Britain: Redbooks LTD. p 148.
The Economist . (2012). The Nokia Effect . Available:
http://www.economist.com/node/21560867. Last accessed 15th May 2014.
17. 12810977 John Hunt 16/05/2014
17
Bibliography
Bill Rees. (1995). Ratio Analysis: Methods and Issues. In: Prentice Hall Europe Financial
Analysis . 2nd ed. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe. 98.
Catherine Gowthrope (2005). Business Accounting and Finance for non-specialists . 2nd
ed. London: Patrick Bond. p 299
Oswald D. Bowlin, John D. Martin, David F. Scott (1991). Financial Analysis . 2nd ed.
Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Inc.,US; 2nd Revised edition edition. p29
Peter Atrill (1997). Financial Management For Decision Markers . 5th ed. Harlow:
Prentice Hall Europe. p 79.
Roger W. Mills and John Robertson (1999). Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting And
Finance . 4th ed. Great Britain: Redbooks LTD. p 127.
Roger W. Mills and John Robertson (1999). Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting And
Finance . 4th ed. Great Britain: Redbooks LTD. p 140.
Roger W. Mills and John Robertson (1999). Fundamentals of Managerial Accounting And
Finance . 4th ed. Great Britain: Redbooks LTD. p 148.
The Economist . (2012). The Nokia Effect . Available:
http://www.economist.com/node/21560867. Last accessed 15th May 2014.
http://company.nokia.com
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/home/homepage.htm
http://www.ft.com/home/uk
