Financial performance efficiency of select cement companies in tamil nadu

791 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
791
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Financial performance efficiency of select cement companies in tamil nadu

  1. 1. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH (Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEME IN MANAGEMENT (IJARM)ISSN 0976 - 6324 (Print)ISSN 0976 - 6332 (Online) IJARMVolume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013, pp. 34-44© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijarm.asp ©IAEMEJournal Impact Factor (2012): 2.8021 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.com FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE EFFICIENCY OF SELECT CEMENT COMPANIES IN TAMIL NADU Dr.V.Sarangarajan1 Dr.A.Ananth2 Dr.S.A.Lourthuraj 3 1 Director, Christhuraj Institute of Management, Panjappur, Trichy- 620 012 2 HOD,Dept.of Management Studies, C.K.College of Engg. & Technology, Cuddalore – 03 3 Asst. Professor, Jamal Institute of Management, Jamal Mohammed College, Trichy – 20 ABSTRACT In this research the authors make use of cement industry in Tamil Nadu to find out the overall financial performance efficiency. Ten years data has been employed in this study from 1996-97 to 2005-2006. To find out the overall financial performance efficiency the authors employed Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with the support of KonSI DEA Analysis for Benchmarking Software Professional Version. The authors found that the cement industry performance was good in Tamil Nadu during 1997, 1998 and 2004, rest of the years the industry should improve their financial performance. The authors conclude that the Cement companies in Tamil Nadu have to consolidate in order to become strong, vibrant and also they have to concentrate on export market besides maintaining a good Supply Chain Management (SCM) strategy. The company has adopted strategic policy of keeping the debt obligation at lower levels to reduce the cost of finance. KEY WORDS:DEA, Financial Performance, Cement Industry, Shareholder’s Wealth, and Strategic finance I INTRODUCTION Although India is the second largest cement producer in the world, it is way behind China, where the capacity is more than five times larger. The industry provides direct employment to 70000 people and has the capability to create huge indirect employment downstream. It has a high rate of excise duty and accounts for 5% of total excise collection. The industry has been modernizing and some units can now boast of having the state-of-art technology plants with energy consumption comparable with the best in the world. Achievement of growth and targets for the cement industry is crucially dependent on various inputs such as limestone, coal, power, and transportation of limestone. Coal continues to be 34
  2. 2. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEMEthe main fuel for the cement industry and will remain so in the near future. At present, 60%of coal requirement of the cement industry is met through linkages and fuel supplyagreements, while the remaining requirement is met from open-market purchases, import, anduse of petroleum coke. The production of cement is a continuous process requiringuninterrupted power supply. Since the availability and quality of grid power supply continueto be a problem, the use of captive power has been increasing. Most of the cement units haveinstalled captive power generation to the extent of 60% to 100% of their requirement. Cementis a low-value and high-volume commodity mainly concentrated near limestone depositsavailable in a few States. The main input coal is also available in a few States. In view of this,long leads of movement both for inputs and outputs are required and the railways remain theonly economical mode for such transportation (Source Eleventh Five year Plan 2007-2012).In this research paper the authors make use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to measurethe financial performance of select cement companies in Tamilnadu.II REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) (1978) attempted toexamine the financial structure to evaluate its capabilities to generate funds needed for undertaking the desired expansion during eighties. The study has shown that the poor profitabilityand low rate of dividend declaration place a serious limitation on its capacity to raise funds.The declining profits are due to cost escalation. Goel V.K. and Nair N.K (1978) have observed that the rate of growth of capital hasbeen alarmingly low during the period under analysis. The profitability has registered adeclining trend. Over the years, the role of external sources of finance has beenassuming significance indicative of continuous depletion of internal sources. Kaura, M.N and Bala Subramanian (1979) examine ten cement units during 1972to 1977 shows that the financial strength of the units evidenced by liquidity,profitability and financial structure ratios has declined. The non availability of funds hasaffected the modernization of plants and periodic rehabilitation of the kilns. Besides, thebottlenecks in supply of raw materials and power and non remunerative prices have reducedthe capacity utilization, profits and cash flows. The profitability and liquidity position inmany units have been affected adversely because of the inadequate supply of raw materials,railway wagons and power. Nagarajrao B.S and Chandar K (1980) assessed the financial efficiency of cementcompanies over the period 1970-71 to 1977-78. The profitability of select companies hasbeen found to have declined from 1970-71 to 1974-75 on account of inflation, ever risingmanufacturing cost of cement, continuous fall in capacity utilization due to shortage of coal,oil, wagons and drastic power cut. Kumar B. Das (1987) has made an assessment of the financial efficiency of the cementIndustry. He has observed that net fixed assets as a percentage of total assets decreasedfrom 53.5 percent in 1970-71 to 44.04 percent in 1977-78. Current liabilities haveincreased faster than the current assets. Liquidity Ratio which is the index of functionalstrength has made a decline during the study period. The Debt Asset ratio has decreased overthe period. But the Debt Equity ratio has slightly increased while net worth operating capitalratio has decreased over the years. 35
  3. 3. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEMECanagavally.R (2000) examined the measures of the performance in terms of size, growth,profitability and risk of the companies before and after merger. That dissertation alsoinvestigated the share prices of sample companies in response to the announcement ofmerger. Surjit Kaur (2002) examined the M & A activity in India during the postliberalization period. The study tested the usefulness of selected financial ratios to predictcorporate takeovers in India. Manandhar and Tang (2002) incorporated intangible aspects, e.g. the internal servicequality, into DEA. They considered internal service quality, operating efficiency andprofitability as dimensions of performance. Alovsat Muslumov (2005) concluded that the privatization was associated with adeclining value added and shareholders’ profitability in Turkish cement industry. A declinein the value added and shareholders’ profitability were mainly caused by the decrease inreturn on assets. The decline in the return on asset was traced to declining asset productivity.These results are not consistent with previous cross-sectional privatization studies and anumber of country studies. Jayant Sathaye (2005) the study revealed that, the Indian cement industry has grownrapidly over the past few decades and there have been significant investments in new cementkilns and associated production equipment. This has led to a situation where India’s cementindustry in made up of both some of the world’s most energy-inefficient plants as well assome of the world’s best practice facilities. The challenge for the Indian cement industry isto modernize or phase out the older, inefficient plants while acquiring the best possiblecement production technology as production inevitably expands in the coming decades. Hiral Shah and Heinz Telser(2006) revealed that the Indian cement plants, which aretechnical, advanced, manned by skilled personnel, and supported by an increasingconsumption, are operating at close to the maximum rated capacities. Furthermore, theannual growth figures of seven to eight percent are expected to prevail in the coming years.In view of the enormous growth potential for domestic consumption, India will be a strategictarget for international cement companies. Indira Hirway and Amita shah (2006) concludedthattheissuetheindustrialpolicyinIndiapresentsonemoreexampleoftheconstraintsofthemarketandtheneedforthestateinterventions.Thoughonecannotrejecttheroleofthemarket(asanefficientallocatorofresources),privateenterprise(forcompetitiveefficiencyandincentives)andtheefficientmanagementofthemacroeconomyinpromotingdevelopment,onecannotalsounderminetheroleofthestate in directing thepath of (industrial) development. Kulansizoglu (2007) concluded that the cement industry has gradually become morecompetitive over time since the sign of parameter of time trend in their supply equation isnegative and the parameter itself, although small in absolute value, is statistically significant.The competition Authority dummy turned out to be statistically in-significant even when theyassume that it might have a logged impact. These results are contrary to apriority 36
  4. 4. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEMEexpectations and show that the introduction of competition policy has not made the cementindustry more competitive despite all the investigations and monetary penalties. C.T.Samluther (2007) has concluded that themanagementofriskhasalwaysbeenanintegralpartofanybusinessandithasgainedmomentuminrecentyearsduetoglobalizationandliberalization.This paper highlights howthe company has achieved adequate liquidity, risk minimization andprofitmaximization. Portela and Thanassoulis (2007) analyzed the three dimensions of branch performance:Usage of new transaction channels, efficiency in increasing sales and customer base andgenerating profits. Relations between operational and profit efficiencies and alsotransactional and operational efficiencies were identified. Comparison of differentdimensions allows us to see superior and inferior branches. They found positive linksbetween operational and profit efficiency and also between transactional and operationalefficiency. Service quality is positively related with operational and profit efficiency. Zubairi (2007) found a significant negative correlation between size and the usage ofcertain methods in a survey based study on “capital budgeting practices” Giokas (2008) also studied the efficiency of 44 branches in Greece by searching threeperspectives: Efficiency in managing the economic record of the branches (productionefficiency), efficiency in meeting the demand for transactions with customers (transactionefficiency) and efficiency in generating profits (profit efficiency). All models indicated thatthere is a scope for substantial efficiency improvements and again all models identifiedessentially the same worst performing branches. Gaganis et al. (2009), in first stage, examined the profit efficiency, the effect of riskfactor (loan loss provisions) on profit efficiency and the Total Factor Productivity (TFP)change. In the second stage they analyzed the impact of some internal and externalparameters, such as personnel, income per capita, loans to total assets ratio, loans to depositratio, return on assets, on efficiency. Mathuva (2009) examined the influence of working capital management components oncorporate profitability by using a sample of 30 firms listed on the Nairobi Stock Exchange(NSE) for the periods 1993 to 2008. He used Pearson and Spearman’s correlations, thepooled ordinary least square (OLS), and the fixed effects regression models to conduct dataanalysis. The key findings of his study were that: i) there exists a highly significant negativerelationship between the time it takes for firms to collect cash from their customers (accountscollection period) and profitability, ii) there exists a highly significant positive relationshipbetween the period taken to convert inventories into sales (the inventory conversion period)and profitability, and iii) there exists a highly significant positive relationship between thetime it takes the firm to pay its creditors (average payment period) and profitability. Mazhar and Nasr (2010) examined the capital structure decisions among the firmsregistered on Islamabad Stock Exchange and concluded that all determinants: tangibility,size, growth rate, tax provision, and profitability are significantly related with the leveragewhether positively or negatively. Moreover, government owned and private companies ofPakistan use different patterns of financing, and that government owned companies employhigher levels of debt as compared to private companies. 37
  5. 5. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEME S. Chandrakumarmangalam and P. Govindasamy (2010) investigate the relationshipbetween the leverage (financial leverage, operating leverage and combined leverage) and theearning per share, and this study also explains the relationship between the Debt equity ratioand Earning per Share and how effectively the firm be able debt financing, the results suggestthat the leverage and profitability and growth are related and the leverage is having impact onthe profitability of the firm. Chakraborty (2010) employed two performance measures, including ratio of profitbefore interest, tax and depreciation to total assets and ratio of cash flows to total assets andtwo leverage measures, including ratio of total borrowing to assets and ratio of liability andequity, and reported a negative relation between these ones. Mistry Dharmendra S (2011) found that Liquidity is closely related with theprofitability of the Indian Cement Industry as compared to the Total Assets, InventoryTurnover Ratio, Debt-Equity Ratio and Operating Expenses Ratio. Hajihassani (2012) presented A Comparison of Financial Performance in CementSector in Iran. This study presents comparison of financial performance for the period 2006–2009 by using financial ratios and measures of cement companies working in Iran. Financialratios are divided into three main categories and measures including two indicators. Thiswork concludes that the performance of cement companies on the basis of profitability ratiois different than on the basis of liquidity ratio, leverage financial.III METHODOLOGY Hence, pooled data collection is used to assess the impact of regulation on financialperformance of cement companies in Tamil Nadu over the time horizon viz., 1996-97 to2005-06. The design of the study is based on financial data, which are published. Thesecondary data is considered as the most appropriate research design to the measure thedimensional effects of the performance of the cement industry in Tamil Nadu.Thestudy,toconductempiricalanalysis,collectedsecondarydataintheformofpublisheddocumentfromvarioussourcesviz.;companiespublishedannual reportsandotherjournals. Due to non- accessibility of sensitive company data, the effect of windowdressing could not be ascertained. However ,Data was accepted as these werefrequentlyinspected bySEBI and Institute of Charted Accountants of India. The study, it wasfelt, will be useful if the random sample drawn from the population of cement industry in thestate of Tamil Nadu. In thisstudy the authors have chosen four cement companies forevaluating the financial performance which are India Cements Limited (ICL), DalmiaCement (Bharat) Limited (DCL), Madras Cements Limited (MCL) and Chettinadu CementCorporation Limited (CCCL). Data analyzed and experimented using non - parametriceconometric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) programming approach for Scale efficiency.IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION DEA measures efficiency of a Decision Making Unit (DMU) by maximizing the ratioof weighted outputs over weighted inputs. This ratio is normalized according to best practicalpeers and efficiency is calculated to be between 0 and 1, as 1 representing efficient unit.Table I and Figure I reveal the efficiency score of ICL. The authors found that the efficient 38
  6. 6. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEMEyears (1996, 2000, 2004 and 2005) have scores one. The value 0.4499 is the inefficient scoreof the year 2002 means that its output can simultaneously be increased by a factor of122.22%. From the Data Envelopment Analysis the conclusion drawn that the ICL hasefficiently utilized their Total Cost, Total Sales, Total Debt, Total Asset, Non BusinessIncome, and profit to maximize shareholders fund except during the years 1997-1999 and2001-2003. Table I: Financial Performance Efficiency Score of India Cements Limited (ICL) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (DCL), Madras Cements Limited (MCL), Chettinadu Cement Corporation Limited (CCCL) and Sample Total of cement industry in Tamil Nadu. Efficiency Scores Year/ India Dalmia Madras Chettinadu Sample Company Cements Cements Cements Cements Industry 1996 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.3083 0.7714 1997 0.9375 0.8670 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1998 0.6614 0.8993 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1999 0.5778 0.9283 1.0000 0.2528 0.5855 2000 1.0000 0.9259 1.0000 0.2884 0.6451 2001 0.6120 0.9434 0.9853 0.2899 0.6296 2002 0.4499 1.0000 0.7248 1.0000 0.6111 2003 0.9968 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.6640 2004 1.0000 1.0000 0.6602 1.0000 1.0000 2005 1.0000 0.8941 0.6856 0.9181 0.7497 Inputs: Total Cost, Total Sales, Total Debt, Total Assets, Income, profit before tax Output: shareholders fund Model : Output oriented model Scale : Constant returns- to- ScaleSource: Published Annual Reports of the companies and KonSI DEA Analysis forBenchmarking Software Professional Version.Table I and Figure II reveal the efficiency score of DCL. The efficient years (1996, 2002,2003 and 2004) have scores one. The value 0.8670 is the inefficient score of the year 1997means that its output can simultaneously be increased by a factor of 15.30%. From the DataEnvelopment Analysis the conclusion drawn that the DCL has efficiently utilized their TotalCost, Total Sales, Total Debt, Total Asset, Non Business Income, and profit to maximizeshareholders fund except during the years 1997-2001 and 2005. 39
  7. 7. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEME Figure I: Financial Performance efficiency score of India Cements Limited Efficiency Scores 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -9 -9 -9 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 UnitsSource: Published Annual Reports of the companies, KonSI DEA Analysis forBenchmarking Software Professional Version. Figure II: Financial Performance efficiency score of Dalmia Cements Bharat Limited Efficiency Scores 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -9 -9 -9 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 UnitsSource: Published Annual Reports of the companies, KonSI DEA Analysis forBenchmarking Software Professional Version. Table I and Figure III reveal the efficiency score of MCL. The efficient years (1996 –2000 and 2003) have scores one. The value 0.6602 is the inefficient score of the year 2004means that its output can simultaneously be increased by a factor of 51.46%. From the Data 40
  8. 8. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEMEEnvelopment Analysis the conclusion drawn that the MCL has efficiently utilized their TotalCost, Total Sales, Total Debt, Total Asset, Non Business Income, and profit to maximizeshareholders fund except during the years 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005.Figure III: Financial Performance efficiency score of Madras Cements Limited Efficiency Scores 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -9 -9 -9 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 UnitsSource: Published Annual Reports of the companies, KonSI DEA Analysis forBenchmarking Software Professional Version. Table I and figure IV reveal the overall efficiency score of CCCL. The efficient years(1997, 1998 and 2002-2004) have scores one. The value 0.2528 is the inefficient score of theyear 1999means that its output can simultaneously be increased by a factor of i.e. 295.57%.From the Data Envelopment Analysis the conclusion drawn that the CCCL has efficientlyutilized their Total Cost, Total Sales, Total Debt, Total Asset, Non Business Income, andprofit to maximize shareholders fund except during the years 1996, 1999-2001 and 2005. Figure IV: Financial Performance efficiency score of Chettinadu Cement Corporation Limited 41
  9. 9. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEME Efficiency Scores 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 UnitsSource: Published Annual Reports of the companies, KonSI DEA Analysis forBenchmarking Software Professional Version. Figure V: Financial Performance efficiency score select cement companies in Tamil Nadu Efficiency Scores 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 7 8 99 0 01 2 3 4 5 06 -9 -9 8- -0 0- -0 -0 -0 -0 5- 96 97 9 99 0 01 02 03 04 0 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 UnitsSource: Published Annual Reports of the companies, KonSI DEA Analysis forBenchmarking Software Professional Version. Table I and figure V reveal the overall financial performance efficiency score of sampletotal of cement industry in Tamil Nadu. The efficient years (1997, 1998 and 2004) havescores one. The value 0.5855is the inefficient score of the year 1999 means that its output cansimultaneously be increased by a factor of i.e. 70.79%. Overall financial performance of the 42
  10. 10. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEMEcement industry in Tamil Nadu is far from satisfactory except in the years 1996, 1999 – 2003and 2005.V CONCLUSION At the individual firm level Madras Cement is the most efficient firm as far as overallperformance through maximization of shareholder wealth is concerned. The authors foundthat the cement industry performance was good in Tamil Nadu during 1997, 1998 and 2004rest of the years the industry should improve their financial performance. The authorsconclude that the Cement companies in Tamil Nadu have to consolidate in order to becomestrong, vibrant and also they have to concentrate on export market besides maintaining agood Supply Chain Management (SCM) strategy.REFERENCES1. Alovsat Muslumov (2005) “The financial and operating performance of privatized companies in the Turkish cement industry”METU Studies in Development, 32 (June), 2005, 59-1012. Canagavally,R.(2000)“AnEvaluationofMergersandAcquisitions” ,Dissertation (Unpublished),PondicherryUniversity,Pondicherry, India.3. Chakraborty, I., 2010. “Capital structure in an emerging stock market: The case of India”, Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 24, pp. 295-314.4. Chandrakumarmangalam .S and P. Govindasamy (2010). “Leverage” – An Analysis and its Impact on Profitability with Reference to Selected Cement Companies in India, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Issue 27, Pp. 53- 66.5. C.T.Samluther(2007) “liquidity, profitability and risk analysis” ,The Management Accountant, The Institute of cost and works accountants of India, volume 42 no10,october 20076. Gaganis C, Liadaki A, Doumpos M, Zopounidis C (2009). Estimating and analyzing the efficiency and productivity of bank branches: Evidence from Greece. Manag. Financ., 35(2):202-2187. Giokas DI (2008). Assessing the Efficiency in Operations of a Large Greek Bank Branch Network Adopting Different Economic Behaviors. Econ. Model. 25(3):559–574.8. Goel V.K and Nair N.K “Productivity trends in cement Industryin India,National ProductivityCouncil ,New Delhi ,1978.9. Hajihassani, V. 2012. A Comparison of Financial Performance in Cement Sector in Iran. Inventi Rapid: Microfinance & Banking, 4:1-8.10. Hiral Shah and Heinz Telser; India’s Booming Cement Industry The journal of refractory innovations ,RHI Bulletin, RHI Technology, Leoben, Austria January 2006.11. Indira Hirway and amita shah(2006); industrial growth and linkages: A study of Cement Industry in Coastal, Saurashtra, gujarat, centre for development alternatives working paper, Ahamadabad, India, october 2006. 43
  11. 11. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), ISSN 0976 – 6324(Print), ISSN 0976–6332 (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January- April 2013 © IAEME12. Jayant Sathaye (2005) Assessment of Energy Use and Energy Savings Potential in Selected Industrial Sectors in India U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the U.S. Department of Energy.13. KauraM.NandBalasubramaniam,“InterFirmComparisonofFinancialPerformance of Cement Companies of India” , ASCIJournal of Management ,Vol .19/1,Hyerabad, Sept.1979.14. Kulaksizoglu,(2007) “Measuring the Effectiveness of Competition Policy: Evidence from the Turkish Cement Industry” ,MPRA Paper No. 35715. KumarB.Das(1987),“CementIndustry ofIndia” Ashish PublishingHouse,8/81, New Delhi16. Manandhar R, Tang JCS (2002). The evaluation of bank branch performance using data envelopment analysis a framework. J. High Technol. Manage. Res., 13(1):1–17.17. Mathuva D, 2009. The influence of working capital management components on corporate profitability: a survey on Kenyan listed firms. Research Journal of Business Management, 3: 1-11.18. Mistry Dharmendra S (2011). Determinants of Profitability of Indian Cement Industry, the Journal of Sri Krishna Research & Educational Consortium ASIA Pacific Journal of Research in Business Management, Volume 2, Issue 3.19. Mazhar, Ayesha and Nasr, M. (2010). Determinants of Capital Structure Decisions: Case of Pakistani Government Owned and Private Firms, International Review of Business Research Papers, 6 (1) February 2010, 40-4620. Nagaraja Rao B.S and Kamlesh Chandar , “A studyof the cement industryin India” ,RBIOccasional Paper,Vol .1,No2 ,Dec.1980.21. NCAER, ”Under utilization of Industrial capacity”, National Council of Applied EconomicResearch,Delhi,197822. Portela MCAS, Thanassoulis, E (2007). Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Portuguese Bank Branches. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 177(2): 275 -1288.23. Surjit, Kaur.(2002) “A Studyof CorporateTakeoversinIndia”, Ph.D Dissertation,UniversityofDelhi,NewDelhi.24. Zubairi H.J. (2007) Capital Budgeting-Decision Making Practices in Pakistan, Pakistan Business Review. Vol. 10, No 4, PP. 18-2725. Dr.V.Sarangarajan And Dr.S.A.Lourthuraj, “Asset Management Efficiency Of Selected Cement Companies In Tamil Nadu” International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue1, 2013, pp. 175 - 182, Published by IAEME26. Dr.V.Sarangarajan, Dr.S.A.Lourthuraj And Dr.A.Ananth, “Capital Structure Efficiency Of Cement Industry In Tamil Nadu” International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue1, 2013, pp. 190 - 196, Published by IAEME27. Arunkumar O. N and T. Radharamanan, “Working Capital Management And Profitability: An Empirical Analysis Of Indian Manufacturing Firms” International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue1, 2013, pp. 121 - 129, Published by IAEME 44

×