Dabur India Limited is the fourth largest FMCG company in India with over Rs 6,146 crore in revenues. The company operates in key consumer product categories like hair care, oral care, health care, skin care, home care, and foods. This document analyzes various profitability, liquidity, turnover, and solvency ratios of Dabur India Limited from 2009-2013. The analysis shows that Dabur has good profitability and liquidity positions. Some ratios like inventory and debtors turnover were better in 2009-2010. The company's capital structure was inadequate as the long-term debt equity ratio did not meet standards.

2. DABUR INDIA LIMITED
Made by:
 Ruchi lakhote
 Madhu bala
 Som prakash das
 Sunay patil

3. ABOUT THE COMPANY:
 Dabur India Limited is the fourth largest FMCG
Company in India with Revenues of over Rs
6,146 Crore & Market Capitalisation of US $5
Billion. Building on a legacy of quality and
experience of over 127 years, Dabur operates in
key consumer products categories like Hair
Care, Oral Care, Health Care, Skin Care, Home
Care & Foods.
 DABUR the name is derived from DAKTAR
BURMAN , was founded by Dr. S.K Burman.

4. PROFITABILITY RATIO:
1.
• GROSS PROFIT RATIO
2.
• NET PROFIT RATIO
3.
• OPERATING RATIO
4.
• RETURN ON INVESTMENT RATIO
5.
• RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED RATIO
6.
• EARNING PER SHARE

5. GROSS PROFITRATIO
 2009-2010: GP remains none or less same as there
were individual increase in inventory, debtors but there
was no overall change.
 2010-2011: There is a 8.49 increase in 2011 because of
increase in inventory and stock.
 But the same trend could not be followed in 2012-13
where it declined by 3.63 because of increase in current
liabilities.
46.79 46.05
49.68
41.19 41.19
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
GROSS PROFIT
GROSS PROFIT

6. NET PROFIT RATIO:
13.59 12.33 14.12 19.11 17.99
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
NET PROFIT RATIO
•In 2009-10 the indirect expenses were less
as compared to 2011-2013 because of that
the net profit ratio is higher in the year 2009-
2010.

7. OPERATING COST
31.55 30.70 32.31
25.26 23.20
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
OPERATING COST
•From 2011 onwards the company incurred more
indirect expenses as compared to previous years
so the ratio from 2011 increased as comapred to in
2009-2010.
•In 2010-2011 there is increase in finance cost,
depreciation, and other expenses due to which the
ratio increased by 6.95.

8. 38.12 39.49 38.84 47.70 50.44
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
cost of material
consumed
6.47 6.48 6.62
7.37
6.90
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
employee cost ratio
0.42
0.38 0.37
0.19
0.55
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
finance cost ratio
1.68 1.75
2.07
1.11 1.13
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
depriciation ratio

9. OTHEREXPENSES:
22.98
22.09
23.25
12.30
14.62
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
other expense ratio
other expense ratio

10. RETURN ON INVESTEMENT RATIO:
20.90 18.90 19.58
43.19 44.01
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
ROI ratio
•In 2009 ROI ratio was highest as compared to
other years because from 2009 onwards the total
increase in assests was more as comapred to total
increase in profits, so the ratio decreased after
2010

11. RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED RATIO
37.04 35.51
19.58
43.19 44.01
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
ROCE ratio
•From 2009-2013 there was constant increase in Net
profit except in 2012 where it dropped a little, but the
capital employed by the company is highest in the
year 2011 and decreased suddenly by 1,10,350 Rs
in 2012.so the ratio decreased in 2011 and
increased suddenly in 2012.

12. EARNING PER SHARE:
3.39
2.66 2.71
4.98
4.31
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
EPS
•It can be derived from the graph that the
amount earned by the company for the share
holders is highest in 2010.

13. PROFITABILITY RATIO ANALYSIS:
 By looking at all the profitability ratio’s we can
conclude that DABUR limited has good profitability
position as the gross profit and net profit ratio’s are
showing an increasing trend.
 In 2009-2010, the company is earned exceptionally
well on its investment which was reflected by its
ROI ratio.
 Even the ROCE ratio, was overall good except in
2011.

14. LIQUIDITYRATIO
1.
• CURRENT RATIO
2.
• ACID TEST RATIO
3.
• CASH RATIO
4.
• DEFENSIVE INTERVAL RATIO

15. CURRENT RATIO:
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
1.50 1.48 1.51
0.54 0.56
CURRENT RATIO
•The company could not achieve the standard
current ratio i.e 1.33:1 in 2009-2010 but from 2011
onwards it improved on its current ratio.
•There was increase in inventories and short term
advances from 2011.
•Even the cash position of the company was
better after 2011.

16. ACID TEST RATIO:
1.07 0.99 1.01
0.32 0.43
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
acid test ratio
acid test ratio
•Except in 2009-2010, company was able to maintain
Standard acid test ratio of 1:1.
•In 2009-2010 it was less because the value of current
assests i.e cash and debtors was less, so after deducting
inventory from current assests the ratio further decreased.
•From 2011 onwards company made some short term
investments, which was not made in 2010,2009 so the
acid test ratio increased from 2011.

17. CASH RATIO:
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
CASH RATIO 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.13 0.22
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
AxisTitle
CASH RATIO
•In all the years from 2009-2013 the company could
not achieve the standard cash ratio of .5:1.
•In 2010 the current liabilities were more as
compared to the cash available with the company.
•From 2010 onwards the ratio started increasing
because the cash available with the company
increased.

18. DEFENSIVE INTERVAL RATIO:
125.02 124.70 129.38
73.77
52.42
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
DEFENSIVE INTERVAL RATIO
•Overall it is good for the company that its defensive
interval ratio is increasing from 2009 onwards.
•It was highest in the year 2011 because liquid
assets were good in terms of its projected daily cash
requirement.
•In 2009-2010, as per the daily cash requirements,
liquid assets were not sufficient to meet them.

19. LIQUIDITY RATIO ANALYSIS:
 Overall we can say that the liquidity position of the
company was satisfactory.
 Only in 20011-2013, the current ratio and acid test
ratio achieved the standard rate.
 But cash ratio didn’t achieved the standard rate in
any of the years.
 The defensive interval ratio is increasing over the
years.
 The company started making short term
investments from 2011 which is good for the
liquidity position of the company.

20. TURNOVERRATIOS:
1.
• INVENTORY TURNOVER RATIO
2.
• DEBTORS TURNOVER RATIO
3.
• CREDITORS TURNOVER RATIO
4.
• ASSESTS TURNOVER RATIO
5.
• CAPITAL TURNOVER RATIO
6.
• CURRENT ASSESTS TURNOVER RATIO
7
• INVENTORY HOLDING PEROID
8.
• DEBTORS CREDIT PEROID
9.
• CREDITORS CREDIT PEROID

21. INVENTORYTURNOVERRATIO
8.70
7.11 7.12
9.65 9.26
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
INVENTORY TURNOVER RATIO
•In 2010 it is highest as the value of stock was
less as compared to sales.
•In 2011-2012 the ratio declined because there
was increase in inventory.
•And in 2013 it again increased because the
inventories came down.

22. DEBTORS TURNOVER RATIO
17.04 16.76 16.20
25.64 21.57
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Debtors turnover ratio
•From the profit and loss account it is clear that
sales is increasing every year, even debtors are
also increasing so there is not much fluctuation in
debtors turnover ratio except in 2009-2010.
•In 2009-2010, the value of debtors was
significantly less.

23. CREDITORS TURNOVER RATIO
3.79 4.00 3.49 3.18 3.69
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
creditors turnover ratio
•From the graph it is clear that from 2009-2013
there was no major fluctuation in creditors turnover
ratio.
•As over the years both sales and creditors
increased in the same proportion.

24. ASSESTS TURNOVER RATIO
1.54 1.53 1.36
2.36 2.49
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
•In 2009-2010 the assets turnover ratio is highest
which is better for the company, as assets were
efficiently utilised.
•After 2011, it declined as the assets and revenue
were not in proportion to each other.

25. CAPITAL TURNOVER RATIO
2.73 2.88 2.96 3.78 3.26
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
capital turnover ratio
•In 2009-2010, it is higher as company had less
share capital and reserves.
•After 2010, share capital and reseves increased so
the ratio declined.
•In 2009-2010 it also shows that the available funds
are efficiently utilised.

26. CURRENT ASSETS TURNOVER RATIO
2.50 2.36 2.35
4.38 4.46
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Current assests turnover ratio
•It is higher in 200-2010 and it shows that current
assets of the company are moving fast in these two
years.
•From 2011-2013, it decreased because the value
of current assets increased up to great extent.

27. INVENTORY HOLDING PERIOD (IN DAYS):
41.94 51.34 51.25
33.16 39.41
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
inventory holding period
•Inventory holding period is minimum in 2010 i.e 33
days, it is better for the company.
•From 2011-2012, it increased to 51 days as
inventory of the company increased.
•In 2013, the value of inventory came down so as
the inventory holding period.

28. DEBTORS COLLECTION PERIOD(IN DAYS)
21.43 21.78 22.53
16.53 16.92
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
debtors collection period
•In 2011, debtors collection period was highest
i.e 23 days, which is not good for the company.
•In 2009-2010 it is 17 days as the average
debtors were less as compared to other years,
and thus it is good for the company.

29. CREDITORS PAYMENT PERIOD(IN DAYS)
96.36 91.36
104.47
87.99
98.89
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
creditors payment period
•Except in 2010, the payment period was higher from
other years as creditors of the company was
minimum in 2010 as compared to other years.
•It is highest in 2011, as credit purchase increases
and so as the creditors payment period.

30. TURNOVER RATIO ANALYSIS:
 Inventory turnover ratio and debtors turnover ratio
were better in 2009-2010.
 Creditors turnover ratio was more or less the same
from 2009-2013.
 Assests turnover ratio,capital turnover ratio were
highest in 2009-2010 because rate of increase in
assetes and capital employed was less in 2009-
2010.
 Inventory, credit and debtors holding period were
unsatisfactory.

31. SOLVENCY RATIO
1.
• LONG TERM DEBT EQUITY RATIO
2.
• TOTAL DEBT EQUITY RATIO
3.
• PROPRIETORY RATIO
4.
• FINANCIAL LEVERAGE
5.
• DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
6.
• INTEREST COVERAGE RATIO
7.
• PREFERENCE DIVIDEND COVERAGE RATIO

32. LONG TERM EQUITY DEBT
0.0005 0.0009
0.0050
0.0166
0.0062
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
long term equity debt
• As we can see from the graph that in all the years,
company didn’t achieved the standard ratio i.e 2:1.
•It shows that capital structure of the company is
inadequate.

33. TOTAL DEBT EQUITY RATIO
0.15
0.21 0.23
0.15
0.29
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
total debt equity ratio
•overall we can say that company had fair mix
of short and long term loan and equity.
•It is highest in 2009, it shows that comapany
is not relying only on equity or loans.

34. PROPRIETORY RATIO
0.56 0.53 0.46
0.61
0.76
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
proprietory ratio
•Except in 2009-2010 the ratio was more or less
same.
•In 2009, it is highest because funds and current
assets have been invested appropriately.

35. FINANCIAL LEVERAGE
1.02
1.10
1.02 1.01 1.03
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
financial leverage
•There is not much increase and decrease in
financial leverage because interest over the years
is not increasing much.
•It is lowest in 2010 so it was better for the
company.

36. DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO
12.73 13.66 14.64 12.04 11.06
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Debt service coverage ratio
•from the garph it is clear that debt service coverage
ratio from 2009-2013 did not change much.
•It shows that company was in a position to repay its
loan in all the years.

37. INTEREST COVERAGE RATIO
37.10 38.53 45.94
83.88
32.15
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Interest coverage ratio
•It is highest in 2010 because the amount of
interest paid is minimum.
•Interest coverage ratio shows drastic
fluctuations from 2009-2010,as interset paid in
2010 was less in as compared to 2009.
•After 2011, it declined as the amount of
interest paid rises.

38. PREFERENCE DIVIDEND COVERAGE RATIO
 As company didn’t had any preference share
capital so no dividend in books of accounts.

39. SOLVENCY RATIO ANALYSIS
 Long debt equity ratio was unsatisfactory as it
couldn’t achieve the standard rate in any of the
years.
 Long term debt equity ratio and proprietary ratio
was good.
 Financial leverage and debt service coverage ratio
was stable over the years.
 Interest coverage ratio showed major fluctuations.
 The company didn’t have fair mix of equity and
debt.

40. OVERALL ANLAYSIS OF DABUR INDIA LTD..
 Company had strong financial position to pay off its
current liabilities.
 After comparing balance sheet and profit and loss
account of Dabur India ltd. From 2009-2013 we can
say that 2009-2010 were the most profitable years
for the company.
 Major fluctuation were seen in 2011 as company
made many changes in its operations like short
term investments and increase in other operating
expense.

41.  Company didn’t had adequate capital structure i.e it
relied only on equity share capital rather than debts,
a company should have fair mix of debt and equity
both.
 Assets of the company were less in 2009-2010 but
still were most profitable for the company.