DOLLAR TREE Equity Valuation & Analysis
[June 02, 2007]
Arun Chauhan
arun.chauhan@ttu.edu
Jacob Caldwell
jacob.caldwell@ttu.edu
Maegan Farrris
maegan.farris@ttu.edu
Matt Ramirez
matt.ramirez@ttu.edu
Phillip Adcock
adcock.philip@gmail.com
-0-
Table of Content
Executive Summary
Industry Analysis
Accounting Analysis
Financial Analysis
Valuations
2
3
4
4
5
Business and Industry Analysis
Company Overview
Industry Overview
Five Forces Model
Rivalry Among Existing Firms
Threat of New Entrants
Threat of Substitute Products
Bargaining Power of Customers
Bargaining Power of Suppliers
Value Chain Analysis Competitive
Strategies
Firm Competitive Advantage Analysis
7
7
8
9
10
15
17
18
20
21
23
Accounting Analysis
Key Accounting Policies
Potential Accounting Flexibility
Actual Accounting Strategy
Quality of Disclosure
Qualitative
Quantitative (Screening Ratios)
Revenue Diagnostics
Expense Diagnostics
Potential Red Flags
Undo Accounting Distortions
25
25
28
29
32
32
32
33
34
39
39
-1-
Financial Analysis
Liquidity Ratios
Profitability Ratios
Capital Structure Ratios
Financial Statement Analysis
Income Statement
Balance Sheet
Cash Flow Statement
40
40
48
56
61
62
63
65
Analysis of Valuations
Weighted Average Cost of Capital
Method of Comparables
Intrinsic Valuations Methods
66
67
69
77
Appendices
89
References
118
Executive Summary
Investment Recommendation: Overvalued, Sell 6/1/07
DLTR – NasdaqGS(6/1/07) 52 week range:
$42.41
$26.22 - $42.21
Revenue: (1/31/2007)
Market Capitalization – (yahoo.finance)
Shares Outstanding
3-mth Avg Daily Trading Volume:
Percent Institutional Ownership:
Book Value per Share: (Equity/Shares)
ROE:
ROA:
Cost of Capital est.
3-Month
6-Month
2-Year
5-Year
10-Year
Kd
WACC
R2
.0013
.3520
.3563
.3543
.3574
.05425
Altman Z-Score
2002 2003
Initial
9.95
8.37
Revised 5.02
5.58
$3969.40
$4.36B
$99.66M
1,275,050
94%
$11.72
.16
.11
Beta
.097
1.7129
1.7187
1.7159
1.7209
Ke
.058
.1722
.1719
.0217
15.9%
2004
6.44
4.27
2005
6.11
4.01
2006
6.76
4.31
-2-
EPS Forecast
2007
2008
2009
2010 2011 Initial
2.29
2.57
2.88
3.22 3.61
2007
2008
2009
2010 2011 Revised
3.27
3.41
3.56
3.69 3.81
Ratio comparison DLTR DG
FDO NDN
Trailing P/E
38.5 54.54 22.46 95.76
Forward P/E
22.02 25.30 18.73 43.59
PEG
1.77
1.95
1.59
2.41
P/B
3.89
3.82
3.95
1.68
Valuations Estimates
Actual Price (6/1/07):
Ratio Based Valuations
Trailing P/E
Forward P/E
PEG
P/B
P/EBITDA
P/FCF
EV/EBITDA
Intrinsic Valuations
Free Cash Flows
Residual Income
LR ROE
AEG
$42.21
71.23
40.73
18.01
42.58
17.42
47.20
33.15
Initial
46.73
12.98
4.36
7.11
Revised
46.63
9.55
26.47
7.63
Recommendation – Overvalued Firm
Industry Analysis
“Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a customer-oriented, value driven variety store,
operating at a one dollar price point. The company’s mission will be consistent with
controlled and profitable growth” (Mission Statement, dollartree.com). They are
categorized in the Discount Variety Industry. Dollar Tree was established in Dalton, GA
in 1986. Currently, their headquarters is located in Chesapeake, VA. As of 2007, there
are 3,219 Dollar Stores in 48 states. This number has grown from 2,914 in just one
year.
Dollar Tree’s direct competitors discussed in this valuation paper are Family
Dollar, Dollar General, and 99 Cent Only store. In the discount variety industry, firms
compete on cost rather than on quality. The industry is currently growing at 2.38%.
Dollar Tree has 19% of the market share in terms of total revenue.
From the Five Forces Model we determined that rivalry among existing firms and
the threat of substitute products are very high in this particular industry. This is mainly
due to the low consumer loyalty that is associated with undifferentiated products.
Similar products also yield low switching costs which increases the threat of substitute
products. The threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of customers, and the
bargaining power of suppliers are all low in the discount variety industry. The low
threat of new entrants is due to the preexisting relationships that must exist with the
suppliers. The threat of bargaining power of customers and suppliers are low because
the products are undifferentiated. Also, because the prices are already so low, there is
no need to bargain for a lower price.
Dollar Tree’s key success factors are economies of scale, low cost distribution,
and tight cost control. Following these factors, Dollar Tree is trying to grow their
customer base and become more of a leading force in the Discount Variety Industry.
One way in which they are trying to achieve this is by acquiring other stores, opening
new stores, and be selling perishable items in their stores in order to make Dollar Tree
a one-stop venue for their customers.
-3-
Accounting Analysis
An accounting analysis analyzes a firm’s accounting practices and determines if
the employed accounting practices reflect the true or attainable transparent information
about the firm. The accounting analysis can help in valuing the firm and can help spot
potential “red flags”.
The key accounting policies should agree with the key success factors which
include: economies of scale, low-cost distribution, and tight cost control. Dealing with
economies of scale, Dollar Tree experienced a very notable increase in revenue with the
increase in their retail outlets. The disclosure of leases is another important aspect that
falls under key accounting policies. Most of Dollar Tree’s stores are under operating
leases. Dollar Tree expenses these as rent expense and does not report the future
obligation on their balance sheet.
The flexibility in GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, can lead to
distortions in the financial statements. However, Dollar Tree’s information is
transparent and they provide a fairly high amount of disclosure about their firm’s
position. Dollar Tree is aggressive in their accounting practices with their operating
leases. This has a significant effect on both their net income and to their Balance
Sheet.
In computing the ratio diagnostics, we did not identify any real “red flags”. One
thing that might need to be looked into as a potential “red flag” is Dollar Tree’s
operating leases. These leases are amortized on a straight line basis over the term of
the leases. As a result of Dollar Tree not capitalizing their leases, their liabilities were
understated by $920M as compared to their total reported liabilities in 2006 of $705.6M.
Financial Analysis, Forecast Financials and Cost of Capital Estimation
In the process of assessing the outlook of a firm, analysts make estimates
regarding the firm’s liquidity, profitability, and capital structure based on financial
statements, present and forecasted. By making these estimates, analysts can
-4-
benchmark the firm being analyzed against the other firms in the industry. These ratios
are then used to forecast a firm’s financial statements for the next ten years. Once a
Beta is calculated, analysts can use Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to estimate cost
of equity for the firm. Then, a cost of capital for the firm can be determined using the
weighted average cost of capital (WACC).
Dollar Tree is a fairly liquid company in relation to its competitors and the
industry average. Its Current Ratio and Quick Asset Ratio are above the industry
average, which says that it is able to pay off its current liabilities better than the
industry as a whole. Its Days Supply Inventory is higher than the industry average
which means that it takes them longer, on average, to move merchandise than the
competition. Its Inventory Turnover, and Working Capital Turnover are lower than the
industry average. As far as profitability goes, Dollar Tree is very profitable in
comparison with the industry. Operating Profit Margin, Net Profit Margin, Return on
Assets, and Return on Equity are all areas that Dollar Tree rises above the industry as a
whole. The only area of profitability that Dollar Tree lacks in is Asset Turnover. Dollar
Tree’s capital structure is about like the industry average, which says that they are able
to support their debt just about as well as the industry as a whole.
When forecasting, analysts make assumptions to determine the future years’
growth or decline. Dollar Tree’s Forecast for the years 2007 through 2016 were
computed using our financial analysis using ratios and average growth rates. As Dollar
Tree’s net income from each prior year was added back into the following year’s
retained earnings, Total Assets and total Equity increased exponentially. The huge
addition to Retained Earnings year by year had to be compensated for by sacrificing
Total Liabilities.
Valuations
According to our overall valuations, Dollar Tree’s stock price is overvalued. Many
people value a company based on stock price. Investors base their purchasing or
selling decision on the stock price. It is the analysts job to determine whether or not
the published price of the stock is overvalued, undervalued, or fairly valued. There are
-5-
two main methods used to determine whether the stock price is overvalued,
undervalued, or fairly valued. These Methods are Method of Comparables and the
Intrinsic Valuation Method.
The ratios that the Method of Comparables uses the Trailing & Forecast PriceEarnings, Price to Book, Dividend Yield, P.E.G., Price over EBITDA, Price over Free Cash
Flow per Share, and Enterprise Value over EBITDA. Each Ratio is then averaged for the
competitors. After taking the average, price for Dollar Tree is determined by setting
Dollar Tree’s ratios equal to the average and solving for price. The P.E.G, P/EBITDA,
and Enterprise Value/EBITDA, ratios show that this firm is overvalued. Trailing P/E,
forward P/E, and P/B ratio, supports Dollar Tree as being ‘fairly valued’ firm. Price/Free
Cash Flows ratio proves that Dollar Tree is slightly undervalued. Using the Method of
Comparables doesn’t really show us whether Dollar Tree is overvalued, undervalued, or
fairly valued.
The Intrinsic Valuation Method uses the Discounted Dividends models,
Discounted Free Cash flows model, The Residual Income Method, Residual Income
Perpetuity, and Abnormal Earnings Approach. From our model analysis we concluded
that Dollar Tree is overvalued. We felt that the only two of these models that are
accurate were the Residual Income and the Abnormal Earnings. The Residual Income
Model and the Abnormal Earnings Model showed that the price should be lower than
the published price, therefore being overvalued. The Free cash flow model was to
variable in the estimation of stock prices to determine whether it is over, under, or fairly
valued. The Discounted Dividends Model doesn’t apply to Dollar Tree since they don’t
pay dividends.
-6-
Business & Industry Analysis
Company Overview
Dollar Tree Stores Inc. (DLTR) which was established in Dalton, GA in 1986,
operates in the Discount Variety Stores Industry. While the corporate headquarters is
located at Chesapeake, VA, they have distribution centers in Georgia, Oklahoma, Utah,
Washington, Mississippi, Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania. “Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
is a customer-oriented, value driven variety store, operating at a one dollar price point.
It will operate profitably, empower its associates to share in its opportunities, rewards
and successes; and deal with others in an honest and considerate way. The company's
mission will be consistent with controlled and profitable growth” (Mission Statement
Dollartree.com). Dollar Tree also has stores registered under the names of Dollar Bills,
Deal$, and Dollar Express; most of them were brought in through acquisitions and
mergers. The corporation has approximately 3,219 stores in 48 states as of February 3,
2007 in comparison with just 2,914 in the prior year (Dollar Tree 10K 2006). Because
the company believes in effectively utilizing all available selling space, the future growth
strategy of the company includes the continuation of putting in new larger stores in
underrepresented markets. These underrepresented markets are stated in the Dollar
Tree 2007 10-K as the Midwest region of the US. It is Dollar Tree’s strategy to place
their retail locations in strip malls as to attract and share common customers with other
mall tenants. “We primarily focus on opening new stores in strip shopping centers
anchored by mass merchandisers, whose target customers we believe to be similar to
ours, and in neighborhood centers anchored by large grocery retailers” (Dollar Tree
2007 10-K). Dollar Tree’s products are lines of merchandise in consumable areas
including: basic foods, candy, health and beauty products, toys, house wares, greeting
cards, and apparel. Also, the stores carry different products seasonally for holidays such
as Easter, Christmas, and Halloween. A specific growth strategy is to start including
large freezers that will carry consumer refreshments to attract a wider customer base
-7-
(Dollar Tree 10-K 2006). This demonstrates that the company acknowledges the
importance of growth in their industry and is implementing new expansion plans.
Assets
Sales
Stock Price
Comparable Sales
Growth
2002
2003
$1,304.2390 $1,501.5190
$160.7890 $2,799.8720
$24.57
$30.07
17.20%
18.70%
2004
$1,792.6720
$3,126.0000
$28.77
2005
$1,798.4000
$3,393.9000
$23.94
2006
$1,873.3000
$3,969.4000
$30.10
11.60%
8.60%
16.90%
*assets and sales in thousands
http://moneycentral.msn.com
Industry Overview
The retail industry is large. Hence, it can be broken down into many subindustries which include: discount variety stores, specialty retail stores, and up-scale
retail stores. The sub industry in which Dollar Tree competes is that of Discount Variety
Stores. This sub-industry concentrates on providing retail based on cost rather than
quality. This discount variety store industry includes Dollar Tree and its competitors,
Dollar General Corp. (DG), 99 Cent Only Stores (NDN), and Family Dollar Stores Inc.
(FDO). It is important to note that the focus of the firms in this industry is to compete
-8-
on cost. Although Wal-Mart (WMT) and Target (TGT) are also listed as Discount Variety
competitors, they are indirect competitors to Dollar Tree because they carry a larger
variety of products, focus more on quality, and are more flexible in the price rage in
which they operate when compared with Dollar Tree. The discount variety store
industry can be defined partly by the ways in which the retailers obtain their products.
According to the 99 Cent Only 10-K, “Portions of purchases are acquired at prices
substantially below original wholesale cost through closeouts, manufacturer overruns,
and other special-situation merchandise transactions.” This results in the companies
using different supplier’s products at different times of the year. The direct competitors
previously stated compete on cost. As compared with the industry, Dollar Tree was
valued on the stock market as the least valuable from late 2002 to the middle of 2004.
Its value rose steadily from then on and its price is currently valued the second highest,
only behind Dollar General Corp.’s stock. Currently, Dollar Tree is third in Market Cap
with 4.17 Billion Dollars behind Family Dollar Stores Inc. and Dollar General Corp
(Yahoo Finance 2007). Dollar Tree currently ranks third in number of locations behind
Family Dollar Stores Inc. with 6,300 stores and Dollar General Corp. with 8,260. (Dollar
General & Family Dollar 10K’s 2006). Overall, the industry reached a peak in growth in
mid-2003 with an average growth of approximately 19.25% to a low in mid-2006 with
an inverse growth of approximately -37.5% (Per own calculations from the
moneycentral.msn.com graph). The industry grew at a rate of 2.38% over the past year
and Dollar Tree had a 19% share of the market in terms of total revenue in 2006
(Yahoo Finance 2007). It should be noted that industry numbers were only provided for
the year 2006.
Five Forces Model
The Five Forces Model is a tool which helps in analyzing the industry structure
and average profitability. With this model, a company can top their rival firms by
gaining a better understanding of their particular industry. This model aids in classifying
an industry. This allows us to determine industry value drivers. The five forces include:
-9-
rivalry among existing firms, threat of new entrants, threat of substitute products,
bargaining power of customers, and bargaining power of suppliers. The first three
forces analyze the competition within an industry. The last two provide information on
the relationship between the bargaining power of the buyers and the suppliers. Overall,
the Five Forces Model is a very informative, easy to understand business model that
analyzes where and how value of a particular industry can be created. If a company
knows where and how their value is created, they can put their time and money into
those activities and areas in order to experience more rapid growth within their
industry.
DISCOUNT VARIETY INDUSTRY
Rivalry Among Existing Firms
Very High
Threat of New Entrants
Low
Threat of Substitute Products
Very High
Bargaining Power of Customers
Low
Bargaining Power of Suppliers
Low
Rivalry Among Existing Firms
Rivalry within this industry tells us that to be successful a company must
compete on cost. Existing firms tend to have preexisting relationships with both buyers
and sellers. To overcome these relationships, a firm must be willing and able to have
the lowest prices since there is little product differentiation.
The discount variety store industry experiences a moderate level of concentration
and a very high level of rivalry amongst existing firms. The amount of concentration is
determined by the number of firms, or the saturation, in the industry. The rivalry
among all of the competing firms is aggressive because there is such a low amount of
consumer loyalty. Since the firms compete on price rather than quality, they all must
focus on keeping prices down by minimizing their costs. There is not a need for much
- 10 -
differentiation in this industry because they are competing on low cost and not
necessarily on quality and brand name.
Industry Growth Rate
For investors, this typically represents the compounded annualized rate of
growth of a company's revenues, earnings, dividends and even macro concepts - such
as the economy as a whole (http://www.investopedia.com). In short, historical growth
rates can be very helpful in forecasting a company’s or an industry’s future growth.
This growth rate also shows how their activities have lead to or hindered company
expansion. It also shows how well management decisions have translated into sales.
Sales Growth Rate
2002
Dollar Tree
Dollar General
Familiy Dollar
99 Cent Only
Mean:
12.75%
11.95%
21.38%
15.36%
2003
16.81%
11.23%
12.37%
18.66%
14.77%
2004
10.43%
10.30%
10.07%
12.21%
10.75%
2005
7.89%
10.74%
9.32%
9.32%
2006
14.50%
6.41%
8.91%
76.44%
26.56%
Industry Sales Growth past 5 years: 15.69%
Sales Growth
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
Dollar Tree
50.00%
Dollar General
40.00%
Familiy Dollar
99 Cent Only
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
2002
2003
2004
Year
- 11 -
2005
2006
Mean:
12.41%
10.28%
10.52%
32.17%
According to our calculations, the discount variety industry averaged a 15.69%
sales growth rate over the last 5 years. This is a relatively high sales growth rate. The
reason for this number is due to the large number of new and acquired stores within
each company in the industry. The missing values in years 2002 and 2005 are due to
incomplete financial statements. Dollar Tree and 99 Cent Only changed their filing
dates in these years.
Since there is a relatively high growth rate in an industry with undifferentiated
products, there is extreme competition for market share. Discount Variety Stores must
focus on taking competition away from other stores in order to grow. Obviously there
are an abundance of buyers willing to spend money in this industry. The companies
must come up with different ways to attract the buyers to their stores and to make the
buyers choose them over their competitors. In order for an individual firm to
continually gain market share from its rivals, they must focus on keeping their prices as
low as, if not lower, than their competitors’ prices. In this industry, the company with
the lowest prices usually has the most customers. More buyers also translates into a
greater chance for the company to grow. As long as a company is able to grow their
customer base, they can afford to acquire other stores and build new stores. This all
contributes to a company’s growth rate. To keep their prices low, Discount Variety
stores must minimize costs in order to have bargaining power in the market. We will
talk more about this in the coming paragraphs.
Concentration
Concentration is measured by the number of firms in an industry and their sizes
relative to the industry as a whole. The concentration ratio is a percentage of an
industry’s four largest firm’s market share. In an industry with a high concentration a
single company can control prices.
- 12 -
Market Share (# of Stores)
Year:
Dollar Tree
Family Dollar
Dollar General
99 Cent Only
2002
2263
NA
6113
NA
2003
2513
5066
6700
154
2004
2735
5481
7320
194
Dollar
General
47%
99 Cent
Only 1%
Dollar Tree
17%
Dollar
General
47%
Dollar Tree
17%
Family
Dollar 35%
Family
Dollar
35%
2005
99 Cent
Only 1%
2006
3217
6208
8229
232
2004
2003
99 Cent
Only
1%
2005
2914
5908
7929
225
2006
99 Cent
Only 1%
Dollar Tree
17%
Dollar Tree
18%
Dollar
General
46%
Dollar
General
47%
Family
Dollar 35%
Family
Dollar
35%
In the discount variety store industry there are many companies competing for
the same market share. The discount variety industry is an oligopoly with no collusion.
This means that the stores have the ability to work with each other when setting their
prices. Although they have this power, they will not do this due to the highly
competitive and low cost nature in this industry. This low level of concentration can
eventually lead to price wars (Palepu 2004). Currently, Dollar General holds the highest
percentage of market share in the industry with over 8000 stores. They have
consistently held more market share than any of Dollar Tree’s other direct competitors.
- 13 -
Over the past 5 years, they have steadily held 35% of the industry’s market share.
Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, & 99 Cent Only Store do not hold a huge market share
individually, but remain in the top competing companies in the industry.
Switching Costs and Differentiation
Whenever switching costs are low, the buyers have the ability to easily move
their business to another supplier. The more differentiated the products are, the more
likely the company is to experience high customer retention. In the discount variety
industry there is very little product differentiation and the switching costs are low. Low
switching costs also give way to high price competition between similar businesses.
Ratio of Fixed to Variable Costs
A fixed cost is one that does not change over the course time. An example of
this is a lease payment. A $1000 lease payment will not be any higher or any less than
$1000. A variable cost is subject to change in relation to economic fluctuations and
specific business activities. In this sector, the ratio of fixed to variable costs can have a
large effect on product prices. There are low fixed costs and high variable costs.
Their fixed costs are mostly made up by their lease payments. With over 3200
stores, there are a lot of these types of payments being made. In the Discount Variety
Industry, most retail locations are set up on five to seven year leases. Dollar General,
Family Dollar, and Dollar Tree all have distribution centers. These distribution centers
are all owned by their prospective companies.
Another fixed cost incurred in this sector is salaries expense. The employees will
receive a set wage regardless of economic fluctuations.
Like most other companies, those in the discount variety industry are affected by
varying fuel costs. They ship their products from their distribution centers to the
individual stores via truck. Trucks use a lot of fuel. When the fuel prices spike, the
store experience a higher variable cost.
- 14 -
Excess Capacity and Exit Barriers
Excess capacity is when the economic demand is less than what a company can
actually produce. From the consumer’s point of view, excess capacity could be a good
thing. When their demand is lower than supply, there tends to be little or no inflation.
On the other hand, “a company with sizable excess capacity can often lose a
considerable amount of money if it is not able to meet the high fixed costs that are
associated with producers” (www.investopedia.com).
When merchandise surplus occurs, operating efficiency slows, forcing firms to
slash prices. This is commonly referred to as excess capacity.
Exit barriers can prove to be very threatening in a period of economic or
industry decline. Different factors may force a company to continue operations during
period of low returns. These factors include “economic, strategic, & emotional factors”
(http://www.acad.poly.edu).
Dollar Tree avoids these exit barriers because of their non-specialized assets and
their short lease periods, which are typically five-seven years.
The competitive nature of the discount variety industry requires that these
businesses compete on price rather than on quality or differentiation. This industry
consists of a high level of concentration, low switching costs, low fixed to variable cost
ratio, and few exit barriers. All of these considerations yield extreme competition
between existing firms.
Threat of New Entrants
When entering into a new industry is made relatively easy, the existing firms
automatically experience price constraints. However, in differentiated industries, the
existing firms are not held to the same constraints. Most discount variety stores
operate off of huge discounts from their suppliers which they in turn pass on to their
customer. This industry is not easily accessible to new businesses because of the
preexisting relationships that must exist with the suppliers.
- 15 -
Economies of Scale
As a firm increases in size, its costs per unit decline. This is an example of
economies of scale. To achieve the economies of scale new entrants must come up
with large amounts of capital (Palepu 2004). Since the discount variety sector is
already saturated, the large amount of capital may not be easily attainable for new
entrants. This capital is required to start a viably competitive company that will be
eligible for bulk discount from suppliers.
Distribution Access and Supplier Relationships
Because there are only so many suppliers who offer these bulk discounts, only a
limited number of stores are allowed access to the discount. Good, pre-existing
relationships with suppliers are essential in this industry. It is not likely that new
entrants would have the ability develop a mutually benefiting relationship with the
suppliers like that of huge conglomerates like Family Dollar and Dollar Tree.
Firms like Big Lots, gain most, if not all, of their inventory from brand name close
outs. In order to get these branded items at close out prices, they must form some
type of contractual agreement with the supplier. Dollar General sells branded items like
Pepsi, Colgate, and Tide. Because Dollar Tree sells their products at a fixed price of
$1.00, they are not able to carry branded items. Also, most brands want to make sure
that their item will sell. This might hinder them from supplying new, unknown
businesses.
Legal Barriers to Entry
One legal barrier that the discount variety industry might face is that of foreign
importation. Because 40% of Dollar Tree’s products are imported from other countries,
an embargo placed on a certain foreign country’s goods could substantially affect their
supply chain. Other legal problems that could arise include raw material shortages,
labor strikes, shipment issues, and political unrest.
- 16 -
New firms looking to enter the discount variety industry face a plethora of
obstacles like preexisting relationships with suppliers, economies of scale, and the
possibility of legal barriers.
The Threat of Substitute Products
Substitute products are a huge threat in the discount variety industry. Most of
these vendors carry relatively the same products at a similar price. This leads to
nonexistent switching costs. Buyers of discount products tend to be very disloyal and
highly price sensitive. This threat of substitute products is typical of the highly
competitive nature in this type of industry.
Buyer’s Willingness to Switch
Due to the responsive demand relative to price, buyers show no particular
allegiance to any one store. Similar products found in directly competing stores allows
the buyer to pick and choose where they will buy from due to small price differences.
Increased prices or obsolete inventory may cause customers to shop elsewhere. Dollar
Tree’s one major advantage in that its customer can always count on the prices
remaining at $1.00.
Relative Price and Performance
Because the price point Dollar Tree is aiming for is so low, consumers are willing
to accept poor service in exchange for the low prices. Performance is not the same as
differentiated retail stores because the products are not substitutable. Dollar Tree is
the highest performing store charging a flat rate of $1.00 per item. Discount variety
stores must also continually reiterate to their customers that low price does not
necessarily mean low quality. This allows the companies in this sector to engage in
price wars in order to try and win over the competitor’s customers.
- 17 -
Bargaining Power of Buyers
The power relationship which exists between the buyers and company is known
in the five forces model as the bargaining power of buyers. This point of the model
deals with who holds the leverage to bargain or state their demands onto the other.
This relationship is important because it determines how the company must operate
and relate with its buyers. If the company holds the power, it can charge high prices for
its products. If the buyers hold the power, the company must compete on low cost.
This relationship also works when the company is the buyer of suppliers’ products,
which is when the company effectively becomes the customer.
Switching costs
The cost of switching from Dollar Tree to Dollar General or Family Dollar would
result in higher cost of certain products. The only other switching alternative would be
to switch to 99 Cents Only store which has fewer locations than Dollar Tree. The
overall cost of switching for the buyer is low, but can be higher depending on the
product. Switching cost is important because it tells the company how much power they
can have over the buyer. In this industry, since the switching costs are very low, the
buyer has most of the power. This means that the industry must be very competitive to
retain their customers.
Differentiation
The products offered at all of the direct competitors are basically the same as
Dollar Tree’s products. There is a small amount of differentiation in products offered
between the stores. There is a differentiation in the quantity offered. These small
differences in the product and quantity offered is why Dollar General and Family Dollar
charge more. Buyers are price sensitive when there is an undifferentiated product.
Because the stores essentially offer the same products, they must compete on pricing.
- 18 -
This causes the industry to be more competitive. Economics says the more competitive
a market is, the lower the prices are, and the better it is for the buyer.
Importance of Product for Costs and Quality
The cost of products are important because cost is what stores like 99 Cent Only
& Dollar Tree compete on. The cost of 99 Cent Only store and Dollar Tree’s products
are lower than that of Dollar General and Family Dollar. Quality is not as important
because they do not compete on quality. The quality offered at their stores are
comparable to the quality of the products offered at the other Discount Variety stores.
This in turn means that the industry can not compete on quality, but rather must
compete on cost. Quality must be considered somewhat, but only very little when
compared with cost.
Number of Buyers
The number of buyers is very important to Discount Variety stores. They are able
to sell everything at around dollar because of the costs for one, but the quantity that
they sell. The more buyers they have, the more quantity they sell. This means that the
companies in the market are all competing to have the most buyers. Family Dollar
generally sells to more than 2000 people each week. While this amount of traffic can
generate business for the surrounding stores, the surrounding stores can bring in
business for Family Dollar as well (www.familydollar.com). Real estate and store
location is an important factor to consider when thinking about the number of buyers.
The reason for this is that the better location you have as the buyer, the more likely the
shoppers are to choose your store. If products are offered at the same price, and we
presume buyers to be rational, then they will choose the store most convenient to
them. Because of this competition for the buyers, or the competition for market share,
the industry must be more competitive. This means that they must compete on low
cost.
- 19 -
Volume per Buyer
Volume per buyer is important because it determines how much income your
company is making. If a buyer comes to a store and makes a very small purchase, then
the company has not done a good job of providing more or what the customer needs or
wants. The goal of the company should be to provide all the products that the buyer
needs to purchase at that point in time. If this happens, then the volume per buyer will
increase which means an increase in overall sales. Within the total sales for the retailer,
the individual buyer makes up only a very small percent of the total. The buyer is
considered to be a very small volume buyer. Due to this, the buyer has very little power
over the retailer. If the buyer threatens to go somewhere else, unless the retailer meets
their demands, the retailer will simply let them switch. This is not to say that the buyers
desires are not important to the company, but the company is not going to take on a
loss just to meet a few customers demands.
Bargaining Power of the Suppliers
There are many suppliers that supply these Discount Variety stores with their
products. They consist of major brands such as Angel Soft bath tissue, Dole bananas,
2-liter Coke Classic, Kleenex, Imperial canned nuts, Reynolds wrap, Eveready batteries,
and candy such as Reese's, Butterfinger and Snickers. Many of the Discount Retail
stores, such as Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, and 99 Cents Only store,
share some of the same suppliers. Discount variety stores also carry their own private
labels. Some of Dollar Store’s brands include Cobblestone Corners, April Bath & Shower
spa line, Max Grey socks, Voila and Boutique in gift wrap, Victoria's Garden in garden
decor, Royal Norfolk in linens and Cooking Concepts in kitchen gadgets
(http://findarticles.com). Brand preference among customers helps to set Dollar Tree
apart from its competitors.
- 20 -
Consumer-products giants like Clorox, Dial, and Procter & Gamble have begun to
develop items especially for Dollar Tree. For example, when Dollar Tree wanted a new
line of cleaning supplies early last year, Dollar Tree worked closely with P&G designers
to produce 18-ounce bottles of Dawn dish soap to sell at $1. The bottles were smaller
than Dawn's standard 20-ounce size. Last fall, when a rival canceled an order for
Pringles potato chips, Dollar Tree bought 2 tons of the products at pennies on the dollar
and sold it all in a few weeks. Dollar Tree’s CEO, Sasser, says, "We take things off
manufacturers' hands, and everyone's happy” (www.cnn.com). These are examples of
how Dollar Tree gets brand name goods at a low cost. This allows them to sell these
quality goods at a lower price than other discount stores like Wal-Mart. This gives the
suppliers a lower amount of bargaining power since these Discount Retail stores are
selling such a high volume. The suppliers need these Discount Retail stores to sell
higher volumes of their products.
Value Chain Analysis Competitive Strategies
There are two primary scales on which firms compete. Those are cost leadership
and differentiation. The competitive strategy that is utilized by this Discount Variety
Industry is cost leadership. The reason for this is that most of the products sold in this
industry are considered commodities. The firms in this industry aim to “supply the
same product or service [as their competitors] at a lower cost” (Palepu, p. 2-8). The
way in which these firms implement the cost leadership strategy is through economies
of scale and scope, low-cost distribution, and tight cost control.
Economies of Scale
The Discount Variety industry strives to keep their costs as low as possible. One
contributing factor to this is by bulk purchasing. As the firms evolve, they begin to
build and maintain strong relationships with their suppliers. Both, supplier and buyer,
benefit from these relationships financially. These discount variety stores are signing
- 21 -
long-term contracts with their suppliers. These contracts negotiate future price
arrangements which can bare both negative and positive connotations. The negative
side is that being locked into these contracts might keep the discount stores from being
able to buy items from other suppliers. On the contrary, this legal relationship with a
supplier might allow the buyers to reap the benefits of special discounts that they would
not otherwise have access to. Since most of these companies experience such high
economies of scale when opening up new stores, they begin to expand too much and
this can defeat the purpose of these economies of scale. One firm, Dollar General, has
recently had to close over 400 stores throughout the country because they just can not
sustain themselves in their current markets (“Dollar Stores feel the pinch” 2006).
Low-Cost Distribution
In the past, left over inventories from seasonal merchandise and other similar
products have been stored until the next year. Most discount variety entities are now
selling those left-over items at clearance prices in order to avoid accumulating excess
inventory. Currently, Dollar General is working towards implementing a new inventory
management system.
Tight Cost Control
Discount Variety stores have always had tight cost control systems. Cost has
always been an important factor in being successful in this line of business. One way
that these stores are looking to control costs is by closing their underperforming stores
and by upgrading their existing stores. Also, they are looking to improve the customer
base of their already existing stores rather than opening new stores. Family Dollar, in
particular, has opened over 2000 new stores in the last three years
(www.familydollar.com). Another cost cutting measure discount variety stores are
taking advantage of is that of finding the lowest priced rental and lease locations. As
previously mentioned, Family Dollar has a Facilities and Energy Management
Department in place as part of a cost control effort (www.familydollar.com).
- 22 -
Little Brand Advertising
Discount Variety Stores are one of only a few markets in the economy that can
flourish with little or no advertising. Since these discount variety stores have become
such a huge staple of strip and outdoor shopping centers, they are easy for people to
recognize and shop at. Most thrive simply by repeat customers; therefore, it is not yet
beneficial to spend millions on advertising when people already know of the discounted
bargains awaiting them.
Firm Competitive Advantage Analysis
The Future of Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree is continually trying to maintain the same growth rate as the industry
as a whole. Because they are expecting to increase the selling per square footage, they
are adding actual square footage to their existing stores as well as opening new, larger
stores. Dollar Tree is trying to widen their customer base by carrying perishable items.
This will allow them to add the title of “grocery store” or “convenient store” to their
repertoire. (Dollar Tree 10-K 2006)
Economies of Scale
Since Dollar Tree has an established network of suppliers, the corporation is able
to benefit from economies of scale. They are able to achieve their low selling price of
$1.00 by buying their products in bulk from the supplier. They also buy wholesale
items. The relationships they have developed between Dollar tree and its suppliers are
only from their years of doing business together. Despite their history with their
suppliers, Dollar Tree refuses to make any long-term contractual agreements with the
suppliers (Dollar Tree 10K 2006). Dollar Tree is also benefiting from economies of scale
when it comes to building new stores. As Dollar Tree is able to network with builders
throughout the country to establish relationships, the time it takes to construct and
supply a new store is considerably lessened. It takes less time, from start to finish, to
- 23 -
open a new store than it used to because they benefit from these economies, and are
able to more efficiently duplicate a store that is already established.
Low Cost Distribution
One huge factor as to the means of Dollar Tree’s success is its low cost
distribution methods. The difference between profitability and no profitability for a firm,
can mean being able to efficiently distribute its products to its stores. Dollar Tree
implements the automatic replenishment system. This is a big factor in their keeping
their distribution costs at a minimum. The automatic replenishment system is utilized
among all of the 3,219 stores. It utilizes nine distribution centers throughout the United
States. Individual stores manage a computerized selection of inventory and as items are
sold they are in real-time added to the stores next shipment. All of these items are sent
to the distribution centers from across the globe and disbursed to the thousands of
stores by means of the automatic replenishment system. This efficient means of
distribution saves time and money and eliminates inventory surpluses and shortages
(Dollar Tree 10K 2006).
Tight Cost Control
Dollar Tree’s cost control strategy is attributed to their “successful purchasing
strategy, which includes: disciplined, targeted, merchandise margin goals by category.”
(Dollar Tree 10K 2006). Dollar Tree purchases only high quality merchandise. By doing
this they are able to cut back on avoid mark-downs and clearance items. In an effort to
control the cost of each item, Dollar Tree does not allow individual suppliers to have a
huge amount of pricing power over them by not purchasing more than 10% of their
total yearly inventory from any one company (Dollar Tree 10K 2006).
- 24 -
Accounting Analysis
An accounting analysis is performed to analyze a firm’s accounting practices and
to determine if the employed accounting practices reflect the true or attainable
transparent information about the firm. Firms often “window dress” their financial
statements to make them look more appealing to investors. Thus, after analyzing, the
analyst must decide if the reported financials are believable, or if they must be
rewritten to paint a better picture. During the accounting analysis, many ratios are
considered. These ratios aid in better valuing the firm and possibly help in spotting a
“potential red flag”. An improper accounting analysis may lead to a distorted value of a
firm in comparison to its competitors. Normally, financial analysts follow a set of steps
to perform an accounting analysis of a firm. These steps start with first identifying the
key accounting policies. Next, the analyst assesses the degree of potential accounting
flexibility. After that, they evaluate the actual accounting strategy used by the firm.
Then, the analyst evaluates the quality of disclosure, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, which shows the transparency of the firm’s financial statements. After the
analyst evaluates the quality of disclosure, they identify all potential “red flags” or
inconsistencies in the reporting. This leads the analyst to the final step, where they
undo any significant accounting distortions discovered during their analysis of the firm.
Key Accounting Policies
The key success factors are closely related to the key accounting policies
deployed by the firm. The key success factors are closely related and usually agree
with the key accounting policies. As stated earlier in the Five Forces Model, Dollar
Tree’s key success factors includes: economies of scale, low-cost distribution, and tight
cost control. Due to the nature of this industry, cost becomes the most important factor
- 25 -
for firms. If a competitor were to get a product at the lowest cost, this would have a
direct effect on the profit of the firms.
Net Sales v/s No. of Stores
$3,969.40
$3,393.90
$3,126.00
$2,799.87
$160.79
2002
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2003
2004
No. Of Stores
2263
2513
2735
2914
3219
2005
2006
Net Sales (in millions)
$
160.79
$
2,799.87
$
3,126.00
$
3,393.90
$
3,969.40
Economies of Scale e\affect discount retail industry in a different pattern than
that of a manufacturing industry. In the case of Dollar Tree, there is a notable increase
in revenue with the increase in their retail outlet. According to Dollar Tree’s 2007 10-K,
“From 2002 to 2006 net sales increased at a compounding annual growth rate of
14.3%.” This growth results from the opening of new stores, and mergers and
acquisitions. A $54.1 million acquisition of 138 Deal$ stores and its inventory was
completed in 2006. This shows that Dollar Tree is concerned about its growth and
market capitalization. Also, this proves that the firm has been successful in
implementing its strategies for growth, which has significantly increased their sales.
- 26 -
Disclosure of leases also comes under key accounting policies in this industry.
Leases can be disclosed in two forms: capital lease and operating lease. Capital leases
have the economic characteristics of an asset and affects the Balance Sheet directly. An
operating lease is usually expensed as rent expense in the Income Statement and the
future obligation is not reported to the Balance Sheet. In its acquisitions and mergers,
Dollar Tree has acquired 21 new leases due to bankruptcy proceedings of other
discount retailers and in 2006 and 2005, they acquired favorable lease rights for
operating leases for retail locations from third parties, including the acquired favorable
lease rights in its acquisition of 138 Deal$ stores (Dollar Tree 10-K). The leases will
expire in 2016, which makes these leases carry a future cash obligation. Dollar Tree
also carries some capital leases. According to Dollar Tree 10-K, they amortize their
leasehold improvements and to amortize the assets held under capital leases over the
estimated useful lives of the respective assets. Firms can also use intangible assets to
increase the reported assets. Dollar Tree also uses intangible assets called “Favorable
Lease Rights” and “Non-competition agreements” which affects their total reported
assets. While these two intangible assets are amortized over their useful life, Goodwill is
an intangible asset that is not amortized.
Dollar Tree experiences some risk in the area of foreign currency. Although this
risk accounts for less than 1% of purchases in euros, it is still subject to some risk.
As stated earlier in this section, key success factors are closely related and
usually agree with the key accounting policies. If they do not match, then an analyst
should see it as a “red flag”. Flexibility of GAAP can lead to distortion in the financial
statements. Overall, we noticed that Dollar Tree’s financial information is transparent
and they provided a fair amount of disclosures about the firm’s position. However, we
also noticed that the level of disclosure has decreased in recent years, but the notes to
the financial statements provide a good amount of information about the firm.
- 27 -
Potential Accounting Flexibility
SEC (Security & Exchange Commission) regulates the accounting practices of all
the firms in United States. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) are utilized
by the firms to report their financial statements. Since GAAP allows the firms to be
flexible in choosing the method of reporting, it becomes essential for an analyst to
analyze the firm’s flexibility in accounting choices to check for any intentional or
unintentional distortions. GAAP allows the firm flexibility so that management can
disclose the information in a way which provides a better understanding of the firm.
There is one more area of accounting flexibility in the case of inventory in this
industry. This flexibility deals with valuation of outdated, damaged, or unwanted
inventory. Dollar Tree has choices in disclosing these activities. They can either choose
to impair their inventory or keep the inventory without making any changes.
Impairment would reduce the inventory and increase the expense; thus, it would
provide a true understanding of the firm’s asset. On the other hand, if no changes are
made the company would be overstating the value of its inventory which would lead to
overstatement of their balance sheet.
The second flexibility deals with intangible assets. Dollar Tree reports Goodwill,
Non-Competition agreements, and Favorable lease rights as its intangible assets. Also,
they have implemented SFAS No. 144 to tackle with impairment and amortization issues
(Dollar Tree 10-K). Goodwill is usually impaired upon revaluation by the management at
the end of each fiscal year. It becomes the management option to determine the value
of impairment. Thus, an unjustified valuation can affect the assets in the balance sheet
and the expenses in the income statement. Since, Dollar Tree has a valuable amount of
mergers and acquisition, one must be very careful when analyzing the goodwill of the
firm, as distortions in goodwill can effect the firm’s total value.
Finally, the big area of flexibility which was noticed is accounting for leases.
Dollar Tree has the choice of booking their leases as an operating lease or a capital
lease. An operating lease is written off as a rent expense in the income statement. This
- 28 -
means that it does not show the true future cash obligation undertaken by the firm.
The second choice is recording the leases, as a capital lease. By capitalizing the leases,
the firm discloses the leases as an asset as well as a liability to show the future cash
obligation tied up with the lease. The firm can also depreciate the asset as well as
amortize any loan taken for the purchase of the lease. Dollar Tree chooses to report
these leases as an operating lease; hence, a detailed study is performed in the sections
below.
Dollar Tree has cushion when choosing their reporting methods. These choices
are all legal and are accepted by the GAAP. As stated earlier, the flexibility in accounting
is meant to allow the management to disclose financial statements in a way that the
true image of the business can be shown.
Actual Accounting Strategy
Accounting
Strategy
Policy
Significant Effect
Significant Effect
to Net Income?
to Balance Sheet?
Operating Leases
Aggressive
Yes
Yes
Intangible Assets
Aggressive
No
Yes
Dollar Tree does a fairly good job of disclosing many of its accounting policies
that they use for reporting their financial statements. As compared with the standard of
conservative accounting practices and the accounting practices of the industry, Dollar
Tree is mostly moderate with their accounting standards and with preparation of
financial statements. Dollar Tree mostly follows conservative accounting policies,
however, they also utilizes aggressive policies in the same areas as the rest of the
industry.
All of the companies in the industry use the straight line method of depreciation.
This is a standard way of allocating the depreciation expense of the assets over their
- 29 -
useful life. This results in a fair and transparent report for the expense account which
results in a fair amount for net income on the Income Statement. It should be noted
though, that in 2004 Dollar Tree re-estimated the useful life of their assets which
resulted in a 4 million dollar increase in net income (Dollar Tree 2006 10-K, Dollar Tree
2004 10-K, Dollar General 2006 10-K, Family Dollar 2006 10-K, 99 Cent Only 2006 10K).
Capitalization of Operating Leases using a 8% Discount Rate
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PMT
284.2
246
207.2
161.5
110.6
66.8
40.35
24.37
14.72
8.891
5.37
3.243
1.959
1.183
0.715
Beginning
Balance
927.74
717.76
529.18
364.32
231.96
139.92
84.31
50.71
30.39
18.11
10.66
6.15
3.40
1.71
0.66
Interest
Expense
74.22
57.42
42.33
29.15
18.56
11.19
6.74
4.06
2.43
1.45
0.85
0.49
0.27
0.14
0.05
Payment
284.20
246.00
207.20
161.50
110.60
66.80
40.35
24.37
14.72
8.89
5.37
3.24
1.96
1.18
0.71
PV
Factor
0.93
0.86
0.79
0.74
0.68
0.63
0.58
0.54
0.50
0.46
0.43
0.40
0.37
0.34
0.32
PV
Payment
263.15
210.91
164.48
118.71
75.27
42.10
23.54
13.17
7.36
4.12
2.30
1.29
0.72
0.40
0.23
Ending
Balance
717.76
529.18
364.32
231.96
139.92
84.31
50.71
30.39
18.11
10.66
6.15
3.40
1.71
0.66
0
* (Discount Rate calculated from www.pages.stern.nyu.edu)
This table shows our operating lease schedule. The Dollar Tree 10-K discloses
these lease payments up to the year 2012. From this year on it discloses that the
remaining value of the leases totals 167.5 million. For this value we decreased it back
by a percentage matching the decrease in payments from 2007 to 2011. The sum of
the payments of 2012 to 2021 equals the 167.5 million disclosed in the 10-K.
One area of accounting that Dollar Tree might be considered to have shown
aggressive practices is on the recording of their leases. Dollar Tree holds 3200 retail
stores; most of these are in the form of leases. These leases are an off-balance sheet
asset. These leases are defined as operating leases which means that no significant
disclosure is performed on the balance sheet. However, the lease payments are
- 30 -
expensed as rent expense, which does affect the balance sheet in the retained earnings
section. Since these leases are not reported on the Balance Sheet, both assets and
liabilities become understated. This accounting strategy allows Dollar Tree to avoid
showing $.92 billion in assets and liabilities on the Balance Sheet. This accounting
practice is commonly used by all of the other competitors in the industry as well. (Dollar
Tree 2006 10-K, Dollar General 2006 10-K, Family Dollar 2006 10-K, 99 Cent Only 2006
10-K).
Another area that Dollar Tree would be considered to have aggressive
accounting policies is its recording of intangible assets. Dollar Tree performs annual
tests to determine the value of its goodwill. This gives management of Dollar Tree a
direct power over the amount of Goodwill that they impair each year. This is important
because if they believe the net income to be lower one year, then they can choose not
to impair any goodwill to show a higher net income. Vice-versa, they can also choose to
impair the goodwill in the opposite case when they what to save on taxes. The way in
which the company records its non-competition agreements with former executives is
also aggressive. Instead of treating the agreements as a current asset, they should
treat the agreements as an expense because the agreements provide no direct, nor any
future benefits to the company. The agreements have already been paid for, and are
only an assumption of what would be a future asset. Therefore, it should be expensed.
These accounting procedures are definitely aggressive; however, they are not very
significant to affect any financial statements as they only represent 7.8% of the firm’s
total assets. In comparison with the industry, Dollar Tree does a good job in disclosing
its intangible assets, as many of its competitors only list their intangible assets on the
Balance Sheet and fail to disclose how they value them. (Dollar Tree 2006 10-K, Dollar
General 2006 10-K, Family Dollar 2006 10-K, 99 Cent Only 2006 10-K).
- 31 -
Quality of Disclosure
Qualitative
Dollar Tree has consistently done a good job of disclosing much of their
accounting information in their 10-K. They openly talk about their operating leases,
goodwill, inventory, and write offs of inventory. It should be noted though that the
transparency of their 10-K reporting has declined over the years. For example, they
used to list the intangible assets (Non-competition agreements, Favorable Lease Rights,
and Goodwill) individually on the balance sheet, but they are now only disclosed as
combined intangible assets. A possible reason that they would have gone to this form
of accounting policy is to follow the similar reporting procedures as of their competitors
in the industry. However, Dollar Tree does disclose most of this information in the notes
to the financial statements. A specific example of something being disclosed in the
notes is goodwill. Also, it should be noted that Dollar Tree’s managers do have some
incentive for altering their financial statements. Dollar Tree provides its managers with
stock options; so the better the financial statements look, the higher the stock price is
leading to more money money cashed in from these stock options. Also, Dollar Tree is
involved in a revolving credit facility where they have a huge credit balance with an
outside lender. They must keep certain financial ratios up in order to continue having
this credit balance to borrow from. These incentives may also be one of the reasons for
the declining amount of transparency in the financial statement because they need the
room to alter the statements in order to keep the ratios up.
Quantitative
Quantitative approaches in general vary greatly. Some act as “screening” ratios.
Others predict future stock returns. Quantitative approaches play a more important
role in security analysis today than they did a decade or two ago. (Palepu 9-5)
Quantitative accounting ratios are done in order to test the validity and believability of
- 32 -
the reported revenue and expenses. Quantitative analysis is a useful tool in predicting
or measuring different aspects reported in a company’s financial statements.
Revenue diagnostics
Revenue diagnostics include: net sales/cash from sales, net sales/net accounts
receivable, net sales/unearned revenues, net sales, warranty liabilities, net
sales/inventory. Notice that in each one of these ratios reported net sales is the
numerator. The reason for this is that these ratios determine whether or not the
varying denominator entries support the reported sales.
Net sales ratio: (net sales/inventory)
This revenue diagnostic ratio determines the extent to which net sales is
supported by inventory. A bigger ratio is better but companies want it to remain
constant. A large spike in the net sales ratio would be a red flag. This would indicate
that the inventory is not supported by the reported net sales.
Net Sales / Inventory
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Dollar Tree
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
This ratio is important in the discount variety industry because when dealing with
commodities it is essential to maintain the lowest inventory possible. This will prevent
working capital from being clogged up by inventory. Family Dollar, Dollar Tree, and
- 33 -
Dollar General had a steadily increasing ratio. However in 2005, Dollar Tree maintained
the highest position. This means that they led the industry in being more efficient with
their inventory. Dollar Tree has implemented an inventory management method which
allows them to keep an efficient level of inventory. The sudden spike in Dollar Tree’s
ratio was due to a sudden drop in sales from 2001 to 2002. In 2003, net sales went
back up to the normal range. They do not keep an excess of inventory which would
translate into extra warehousing inventory related expenses. 99 Cents Only Store has
experienced volatile net sales to inventory ratio. The sudden drop in net sales could be
justified due to a shortage of inventory.
Conclusion
The only revenue diagnostic ratio that applies to Dollar Tree is the net sales
ratio, because they do not have any accounts receivable, unearned revenue, or
warranty liabilities to speak of. Also most other companies in the discount variety
industry do not have the above mentioned accounts.
Expense diagnostic ratios
Much like the revenue diagnostic ratios, the purpose of expense diagnostic ratios
is to assess the believability of the numbers reported on the financial statements.
Expense diagnostic ratios include: Asset Turnover, Changes in CFFO/OI, Changes in
CFFO/NOA, Total accruals/Change in sales, Pension expense/SG&A, Other employment
expenses/SG&A. The expense ratios tell analysts and investors how well a company
manages its expenses.
Asset Turnover: (Net sales/Total Assets)
The asset turnover ratio is computed by dividing net sales by the average of the
total assets from the current year and the previous year. This ratio helps to determine
if the reported total assets support the reported net sales. A higher asset turnover
- 34 -
means that the firm is very efficient is using its assets. Also, a company with a very
high asset turnover tends to have a low profit margin.
(www.beginnersinvest.about.com)
Asset Turnover (Sales/Assets)
3.50
Dollar Tree
3.00
2.50
99 Cents Only
2.00
Family Dollar
1.50
Dollar General
1.00
0.50
Dollar Tree
Revised
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Discount variety stores normally operate under operating leases rather than
capital leases. A capital lease would normally appear as an asset in the balance sheet
when compared to operating leases which are expensed to rent expense in the income
statement. The asset turnover ratio tells us how well a company uses its assets to
increase its revenue. Dollar General operates more stores than any of its direct
competitors. This explains why their sales are more than the other stores. This tells us
that their assets contribute to increasing net sales. Also, it can be seen from this graph
that Dollar Tree is catching up with their competitors and one reason for this steady
growth in this ratio could be explained by the new mergers and acquisitions which
Dollar Tree had in the recent years. Upon revision to Dollar Tree’s books from Capital
Lease corrections, our asset turnover ratio declined. This can be attributed to an
increase in Total Assets.
Cash Flows From Operations (CFFO): CFFO/NOA
Cash flows from operations are the cash that is generated from operating
activities. This is calculated using revenues and expense from the balance sheet.
- 35 -
Expenses are subtracted from the revenues; this yields the number know as Operating
Cash flow on the statement of cash flows. Essentially this is the cash that pays a
company’s bills. (www.investopedia.com)
Operating assets include things in the line item Plant, Property, and Equipment
on the balance sheet. The ratio, CFFO/NOA, shows investors how well PPE are utilized
in relation to cash flows. As ratios increase, this indicates the firm is increasing the
utilization of its PPE.
CFFO/NOA
0.90
0.80
0.70
Dollar Tree
0.60
99 Cents Only
0.50
Family Dollar
0.40
Dollar General
0.30
Dollar Tree Revised
0.20
0.10
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change in CFFO/NOA
0.40
0.30
Dollar Tree
0.20
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
0.10
Dollar General
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Dollar Tree Revised
(0.10)
(0.20)
By looking at the graphs we can infer that both Dollar Tree and Dollar General
allocate their PPE to cash flows well. The steady increase in their CFFO is a reflection
- 36 -
of an increase in cash flow due to the acquisition of new buildings. Once Dollar Tree’s
books were revised the CFFO/NOA increased the ratio. The ratio reflects the change in
CFFO as a result from the change in Net Income.
Cash Flows From Operations/Operating Income: (CFFO/OI)
CFFO, once again, is the cash that is generated from operating activities and it is
found on the balance sheet. Operating income is also known as EBIT, earning before
interest and taxes. Operating income is found on the income statement. This can be
used to measure and firm’s profitability. CFFO/OI will tell investors if a firm’s reported
operating income matches up to their reported cash generated by operating activities.
Change in CFFO/OI
0.80
0.60
0.40
Dollar Tree
0.20
99 Cents Only
0.00
(0.20)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
(0.40)
Family Dollar
Dollar General
(0.60)
(0.80)
Dollar Tree
Revised
(1.00)
(1.20)
CFFO/OI
8.00
7.00
6.00
Dollar Tree
5.00
99 Cents Only
4.00
Family Dollar
3.00
Dollar General
2.00
Dollar Tree Revised
1.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
- 37 -
2005
2006
Throughout the past five years the discount variety sectors, CFFO divided by
operating income have been relatively steady. However in 2005, 99 Cent Only Stores
have experienced a rapid succession of increased CFFO. This could be the result of a
low operating income. Revisions to the Dollar Tree books yielded a increase in CFFO
from net income and inherently changed the ratio to a higher number.
Total Accruals/Change in Sales:
Accruals are expenses for which invoices have not been received at the end of
an accounting period (moneyterms.co). Accruals reported on the financial statements
include: accounts payable, accounts receivable, goodwill, future tax liability and future
interest expense, among others. Accrual based accounting provides a better, more
accurate view of a firm’s financial standing at a given point and time. It allows a
company to account for expenses which have not actually been paid and revenue that
has not yet been received. These accrued revenues and expenses will take place within
a year.
This ratio will help explain if a company does a lot of business in terms of credit.
Investors might view a higher number of accounts receivable and accounts payable as a
bad thing.
Total Accruals/Change in Sales
0.10
0.00
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
-0.10
-0.20
Family Dollar
-0.30
Dollar Tree
Dollar General
-0.40
99 Cent Only Store
-0.50
-0.60
-0.70
-0.80
- 38 -
Through the five year period Dollar Tree has had a decrease in accruals/change
in sales. This means that the firm is selling less to customers on credit and making
more sales in cash. As compared with the industry, Dollar Tree’s ratio is average. This is
a good thing because the nature of the industry requires that most purchases by
customers be made on a cash basis.
Potential “Red Flags”
Part of analyzing financial statements includes the daunting task identifying
detrimental information within the companies’ financial statements. The only significant
accounting item that can be classified as a “red flag” for Dollar Tree is that of operating
leases. According to the company’s 10K, the operating leases are amortized on a
straight line basis over the term of these leases. Other possible “red flags” are so
irrelevant that they need not be corrected. Intangibles, like goodwill, have increased by
$14.6M in the year 2006. However, this increase can be justified by the 138 Deal$
stores that were acquired during the year. This looks like a potential “red flag”, but it
can be justified.
Undo Accounting Distortions
As part of an investors accounting analysis one must be able to take an unbiased
and fair look at their financial statements. Unfortunately, for most investors, ulterior
motives begin to play a huge part in distorting the financial statements. Managers of
the firms sometimes have reasons to tweak these statements to make themselves and
their constituents look better, even though it is not the best for the firm. One of the
potential “red flags” was that they failed to capitalize their lease expense payments.
This resulted in liabilities being understated by $.92 billion on the balance sheet.
- 39 -
Financial Analysis
Performing a ratio analysis is very helpful in charting a company’s performance
over time. The analysis yields a benchmark which is a useful tool in comparing
different companies within the same industry. When looking at a set of financial
statements you have the power to “evaluate the financial condition of the company and
the results of its operations (Financial Statement Analysis handout). The ratios are
divided into three classifications: Liquidity Ratios, Profitability Ratios, and Capital
Structure Ratios. Different ratios pull information from different financial statements.
This allows for cross-examination of the statements.
Included in the final portion of a ratio analysis is the financial forecasting. A
forecast is a prediction of a company’s future performance based on their historical
performance. Financial forecasting is done by examining the companies past balance
sheets, income statements, and statement of cash flows.
Liquidity Ratios:
Liquidity ratios evaluate how quickly a company can turn their assets into cash in
order to meet their current debts. These ratios include: current ratio, quick asset ratio,
accounts receivable turnover, inventory turnover, and working capital turnover.
Current Ratio: (current assets/current liabilities)
The current ratio can be used by an investor to assess the ratio of current assets
to current liabilities. The presence of a high relation of current assets to current
liabilities would yield a higher ratio than one with a high amount of current liabilities in
relation to current assets.
- 40 -
Current Ratio
2001
2002
2003
2.79
3.47
2.73
2.79
3.47
2.73
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
2004
3.29
3.29
2005
3.19
3.19
2006
2.50
2.50
99 Cents Only
7.74
6.38
4.81
2.87
2.85
Family Dollar
2.07
1.99
1.94
1.72
1.51
1.44
Dollar General
Industry
1.37
1.99
2.22
2.10
1.89
2.09
2.82
Current Ratio
9.00
8.00
7.00
Dollar Tree
6.00
99 Cents Only
5.00
Family Dollar
4.00
Dollar General
3.00
Dollar Tree Revised
2.00
1.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
99 Cent Only Stores had the leading, highest, ratios until it plummeted in 2004
and fell to second place. Dollar Tree has had the highest consistent ratio as compared
to the two non-volatile ones, Dollar General and Family Dollar. The industry average is
at 2.82. Dollar Tree’s is slightly above average at 3.00. This demonstrates Dollar
Tree’s ability to pay off their current liabilities with their current assets. Family Dollar
and Dollar General are below industry average with a 1.78 and a 1.94, respectively.
Revision to the books resulted in the same value for the current ratio.
Quick Asset Ratio: (cash+securities+A/R) / (current liabilities)
The Quick Asset Ratio test shows marketable securities, plus accounts receivable,
and cash over current liabilities. The test shows a company’s quick assets in relation to
their liabilities. This can be a positive or a negative attribute to a company because too
- 41 -
low a number can mean that they have too many liabilities and an extremely high
number can mean they do not have enough.
Quick Asset Ratio (Acid-Test)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Dollar Tree
1.18
1.63
0.64
1.08
Dollar Tree Revised
1.18
1.63
0.64
1.08
2005 2006
1.15
0.80
1.15
0.80
99 Cents Only
5.25
4.11
2.59
0.97
1.15
Family Dollar
0.06
0.41
0.35
0.21
0.16
0.22
Dollar General
0.23
0.18
0.54
0.33
0.22
0.26
Industry
1.03
Quick Asset Ratio (Acid-Test)
6.00
5.00
Dollar Tree
4.00
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
3.00
Dollar General
2.00
Dollar Tree Revised
1.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
99 Cent Only stores have consistently had an extremely high ratio of quick assets
to liabilities. This has improved over the years back to the average of the industry.
Dollar Tree, however, has been somewhat volatile throughout the past six years. Dollar
Tree has been hugging the 1-to-1 ratio line, which is appreciated by investors and
financial institutions, and is high enough to yield the returns the company needs to
sustain itself. The industry average is 1.03. Dollar Tree is just above average at 1.08.
This lets analysts and potential investors know that Dollar Tree is able to pay its current
- 42 -
liabilities with assets. Family Dollar and Dollar General are at the bottom of the industry
with .23 and .30, respectively. Revisions in Dollar Tree’s books yielded the same ratio.
Accounts Receivable Turnover: (sales/accounts receivable)
The Accounts Receivables Turnover ratio is a measure of the total sales for a
company divided by its accounts receivables. The ratio provides a number which shows
their rate of return for credit extended to their buyers. For the Discount Variety Store
Industry most companies tend to not lend out credit to buyers, and therefore, do not
have accounts receivable. Dollar General is the only exception in that they do have
accounts receivables.
Dollar Tree
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Accounts Receivable Turnover
2001
2002
2003
2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
164.14 259.33 384.17 280.73
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2005 2006
N/A
N/A
320.57
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Days Supply of Receivables: (365/ AR Turnover)
The Days Supply of Receivables ratio is a way for an individual investor to
recognize how long it takes a company to get paid on credit extended. Since most of
these stores do not extend credit they do not have accounts receivable and therefore
do not have a Days supply of Receivables ratio.
Dollar Tree
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Days Supply of Receivables
2001
2002
2003
2004
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.22
N/A
N/A
1.41
N/A
N/A
- 43 -
0.95
N/A
N/A
1.30
N/A
N/A
2005 2006
N/A
N/A
1.14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Inventory Turnover: (cost of goods sold/inventory)
Inventory turnover ratio, receivables turnover, and working capital turnover are
all measures of operating efficiency. Inventory turnover is calculated by dividing cost of
goods sold by average inventory. This ratio is used to measure the number of times a
company turns it inventory over in each fiscal year. Inventory is stated at cost. In the
case of this particular ratio, “bigger is better.” A larger inventory turnover rate means
that products are selling quickly. The inventory turnover can be calculated as an
“inventory category or by individual product” (www.bizwiz.ca/inventory_turnover_ratio).
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
Inventory Turnover
2001
2002
2003
4.29
4.13
3.39
4.29
4.13
3.39
2004
3.27
3.27
2005 2006
3.85
4.32
3.85
4.32
99 Cents Only
5.27
5.14
4.81
3.80
4.58
Family Dollar
3.38
3.61
3.68
3.57
3.58
4.12
Dollar General
3.37
3.90
4.19
3.92
4.15
4.75
Inventory Turnover
6.00
5.00
Dollar Tree
4.00
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
3.00
Dollar General
2.00
Dollar Tree Revised
1.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Dollar Tree’s inventory turnover rate remained relatively steady at about four
percent over the past five years. 99 Cent Only, Dollar General, and Family Dollar also
- 44 -
remained in the four percent range. Dollar General had the highest inventory turnover
rate with 4.75%. This means that their products are selling at a faster rate than their
direct competitors. Family Dollar has developed an inventory system that allows them
to maintain a higher level of sales with a lower level of inventory. This should allow for
less inventory and warehousing costs than those of the other companies in the industry.
The industry average is 5.83. This shows that Dollar Tree is less than the industry
average with 3.87. This means that Dollar Tree does not turnover their inventory as
many times per year as other competitors in the industry. This is important for analysts
because they have to know how quickly a company can get rid of their inventory.
Revisions of the books yielded no change, once again, in the Inventory Turnover Ratio.
Days Supply of Inventory: (365/Inventory Turnover)
Day’s supply of inventory is used in conjunction with inventory turnover. This
ratio is computed by taking the 365 days in a year and dividing it by inventory turnover.
Unlike the inventory turnover ratio, in the case of the Day’s Supply of Inventory ratio, a
small number is desired. This ratio tells us how long a product is in the store before it
sells.
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
Days Supply of Inventory
2001
2002
2003
2004
85.12
88.37 107.70 111.57
85.12
88.37 107.70 111.57
2005
94.74
94.74
2006
84.54
84.54
99 Cents Only
69.30
71.04
75.88
95.99
79.77
Family Dollar
107.97
101.14
99.13
102.32
101.86
88.58
Dollar General
108.25
93.67
87.01
93.08
87.97
76.86
- 45 -
Days Supply of Inventory
120.00
100.00
Dollar Tree
80.00
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
60.00
Dollar General
40.00
Dollar Tree Revised
20.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Dollar General comes in ahead of the crowd in the Day’s Supply Inventory ratio.
Their ratio has been on the decline for the past five years. In 2006, their ratio was
76.86 days. This means that their products remained on the shelf for approximately 77
days before being sold. It is a good sign that this ratio has steadily declined. Dollar
General seems to be taking steps in their inventory management and marketing
departments in order to get their products off the shelves and out of their doors
quicker. The industry average is 91.82 days. Dollar Tree is a little bit above average
with 95.34 day average. This tells analysts that it takes Dollar Tree, on average, 95.34
days to sell merchandise. Revisions of the books had no effect on this ratio.
Working Capital Turnover: (sales/working capital)
Working Capital Turnover equals net sales revenue divided by working capital.
Working capital is computed by taking a company’s current assets and subtracting their
current liabilities. This ratio shows how well a company’s management is able to
generate revenue by using the working capital. Accounts Receivable Turnover and
Inventory Turnover are both related to Working Capital Turnover.
(www.chartfiller.com)
- 46 -
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
Working Capital Turnover
2001
2002
2003
2004
5.52
4.57
6.12
4.63
5.52
4.57
6.12
4.63
2005 2006
5.24
6.89
5.24
6.89
99 Cents Only
2.98
3.46
3.96
5.19
5.08
Family Dollar
8.79
7.93
8.46
10.32
12.66 14.78
Dollar General
12.60
9.25
7.56
8.46
10.35 10.08
Working Capital Turnover
16.00
14.00
12.00
Dollar Tree
10.00
99 Cents Only
8.00
Family Dollar
6.00
Dollar General
4.00
Dollar Tree Revised
2.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
In the Discount Variety industry, the working capital turnover varies from one
company to the next. Once again, Family Dollar and Dollar General excel in this area.
Family Dollar has excelled with a Working Capital Turnover of 14.78% in the year 2006.
This means that for ever $1.00 they have in working capital, they are able to generate
$14.78 in sales. Their closest competitor in Working Capital Turnover is Dollar General
with a Working Capital Turnover rate of 10.08% in 2006. Dollar General has had ups
and down in this area, but have steadily improved since 2003. The industry average is
7.60. Dollar Tree is just below average at 5.50. This lets analysts know that Dollar
Tree is not as good as the overall industry at generating revenue from working capital.
While they are not at the average, they still do a better job than 99 Cents Only store.
- 47 -
Upon correction of Dollar Tree’s financial statements, no change occurred in the
working Capital Turnover.
Overall Liquidity
Overall, Dollar Tree is a fairly liquid company. Its Current Ratio and Quick Asset
Ratio are above the industry average, which says that it is able to pay off its current
liabilities better than the industry as a whole. Its Inventory Turnover Ratio was a little
bit lower than the industry average, but it is still a respectable number. Its Days Supply
Inventory is higher than the industry average which means that it takes them longer,
on average, to move merchandise than the industry. The Working Capital Turnover is a
little bit less than the industry average, but it is still a pretty good number.
Profitability Ratios:
Profitability ratios evaluate “four critical factors related to profits”: operating
efficiency, asset productivity, rate of return on assets, and rate of return on equity.
(Financial Statement Analysis hand-out).
Gross Profit Margin: (gross profit/sales)
This chart and graph show the gross profit margin of Dollar Tree and its direct
competitors over six years. The numbers are based of a percentage of sales. This
number is a percentage representation of a company’s sales less its cost of goods sold.
As this number increases, it shows that companies are either reducing their cost of
goods sold or they are increasing their sales. Either way, a larger number is better.
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Gross Profit Margin
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.36
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.26
- 48 -
Gross Profit Margin
0.45
0.40
0.35
Dollar Tree
0.30
99 Cents Only
0.25
Family Dollar
0.20
Dollar General
0.15
Dollar Tree Revised
0.10
0.05
0.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
The industry’s ratio is slowly declining. 99 cents only store is the industry leader
with Dollar Tree right behind it.
respectively.
Following is Family Dollar and Dollar General,
The reason for the decrease in Dollar Tree’s Ratio is because of an
increase in cost of goods sold year by year. The same holds true for the competitors.
The industry average is 34%. Over the years, Dollar Tree has remained just above the
industry average at 36%. This shows that Dollar Tree has kept their cost of goods sold
down in relation to the industry. This number is relevant to a financial analysis because
it shows the operating efficiency of a company in relation to the industry and its
competitors. Dollar Tree’s revised books had no effect on their Gross Profit Margin
because the sales and the Cost of Sales were not affected by the Capitalization of
Leases.
Operating Profit Margin: (operating income/sales)
The Operating Profit ratio is found by dividing income from operations by sales.
This is another measurement of how efficient a company is at its operations. It
compares the quality of a company’s operations to its competitors. A business with a
higher operating margin than its industry’s average tends to have lower fixed costs and
a better gross margin. This gives management more flexibility in determining prices
(http://beginnersinvest.about.com). The bigger the number, the better it is for the
company.
- 49 -
Operating Profit Margin
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollar Tree
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
Dollar Tree Revised
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.13
99 Cents Only
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.04
0.01
Family Dollar
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.05
Dollar General
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.03
Operating Profit Margin
0.16
0.14
0.12
Dollar Tree
0.10
99 Cents Only
0.08
Family Dollar
0.06
Dollar General
0.04
Dollar Tree Revised
0.02
0.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
The industry average is 8%. Dollar Tree leads the competition with an average
over the past six years of 10%. They are doing the best job of keeping low operating
expenses in relation to their revenues. This shows that Dollar Tree is above the
industry average of keeping its operating expenses down in relation to the industry and
the competition. This ratio is important in a thorough financial analysis because it tells
analysts about the operating efficiency of a firm. More specifically, it provides an
explanation about how low or high they are keeping their operating expenses. Dollar
Tree’s revised books yielded a slight change due to the increase in depreciation and
reduction of Operating Lease expenses.
Net Profit Margin: (net income/sales)
Net Profit Margin is a ratio that is calculated by dividing net income by sales. It
measures the efficiency of a firm in relation to its competitors. This number is also
- 50 -
better if it is bigger. This is important to a financial analysis because it shows the
efficiency of the firm in relation to the industry and its competitors. More specifically it
shows how much they still profit after taking taxes and interest expense out of
operating income.
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Net Profit Margin
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
Net Profit Margin
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
Dollar Tree
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Dollar Tree Revised
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Overall, the industry has an average of 5%. Dollar Tree has an average of 6%,
which is slightly above the industry average. This shows that Dollar Tree is more
profitable, in relation to its sales, than its competitors. Some might say that in the
discount variety industry it is better to have a lower net profit margin because it shows
that you are keeping your prices to consumers low. Ultimately, this is what this industry
competes on. Upon revision to the books, Net Income and Interest Expense increased
enough to change the overall ratio.
- 51 -
Asset Turnover: (sales/total assets)
Asset turnover ratio is a ratio measuring the amount of sales of the company in
relation to total assets. Sales are, of course, the number one factor in a company being
profitable and succeeding in the industry. A company wants this number to be high
when calculated out. A high number would indicate that they are efficiently utilizing
their assets and turning them into sales.
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Asset Turnover
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2.31
2.16
1.91
1.89
2.16
1.60
1.59
1.45
1.38
1.53
1.80
1.74
1.69
1.67
2.64
2.54
2.54
2.55
2.59
2.50
2.76
2.79
2.94
3.04
Asset Turnover
3.50
3.00
Dollar Tree
2.50
99 Cents Only
2.00
Family Dollar
1.50
Dollar General
1.00
Dollar Tree Revised
0.50
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Dollar Tree’s Asset Turnover ratio went from 2.31 in 2002 to 2.16 in 2006. This
shows an overall decrease in asset turnover for the six year period, which is
unfavorable for the company. This means that in 2002 the company was generating
sales of $2.31 per asset dollar but that has slipped to sales of $2.16 in 2006 per asset
dollar. While this decrease is not overly alarming, it is still something the company
should be concerned about. As compared with the industry, Dollar Tree is third in asset
turnover behind Family Dollar and Dollar General for the six year span. Family Dollar
- 52 -
and Dollar General may either have more sales or less total assets to have achieved
these higher Asset Turnover ratios. Either way, they are making more sales per asset
dollar than is Dollar Tree. 99 Cent Only is last in the industry in Asset Turnover ratio. In
no one year did Dollar Tree have a higher Asset Turnover ratio than the industry
average. This is a concern because it shows that they are losing ground in the industry
in turning their total assets into sales. Since Dollar Tree’s Total Assets were increased
as a result of the revisions for Capital Leases.
Return on Assets: (net income/total assets)
Return on Assets is a ratio that measures a company’s amount of net income
returned from its total assets. It should be noted though that the net income number is
derived from the current year’s financial statements, where as the total assets come
from the previous year’s statements. This is because it is measuring the net income as
an investment of total assets and the investment needs time to manifest itself. The
company wants this number to be as high as possible. This indicates how well the
company is turning its total assets into net income over the span of a year.
Return On Assets (ROA)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollar Tree
0.17
0.16
0.12
0.10
0.11
Dollar Tree Revised
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.12
0.13
99 Cents Only
0.17
0.13
0.05
0.02
Family Dollar
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.08
Dollar General
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.05
- 53 -
Return On Assets (ROA)
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Dollar Tree
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Dollar Tree Revised
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollar Tree went from a 17% return in 2002 to an 11% return in 2006. This
means that for every dollar invested in total assets the previous year, it yielded $1.17 in
2002, then declined to a yield of $1.11 in 2006. This declining number should be of
some concern to the company. Dollar Tree was the industry leader for two years before
falling into the pack the last three years. Family Dollar is most competitive with Dollar
Tree in this ratio. Dollar Tree has beat the industry average every year in the six year
time span, but this could be due to the very low average of 99 Cent Only. The declining
number over last six years for Dollar Tree is still unfavorable and should be of some
concern to the company. Revision to Dollar Tree’s books produced a increase in the
ROA ratio because even though Net Income and Assets both increases, Net Income
increased more.
Return on Equity: (net income/equity)
Return on Equity is much like ROA in that it measures the return on an
investment from one year to the next. In this ratio, the return on equity is measured in
terms of net income from one year to the next. Again, the net income figures need a
year to manifest itself from the investment of the equity the year earlier. A company
wants this number to be high.
- 54 -
Return On Equity (ROE)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollar Tree
0.24
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.16
Dollar Tree Revised
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.25
0.27
99 Cents Only
0.18
0.14
0.06
0.02
Family Dollar
0.23
0.21
0.20
0.16
0.14
Dollar General
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.08
Return On Equity (ROE)
0.35
0.30
Dollar Tree
0.25
99 Cents Only
0.20
Family Dollar
0.15
Dollar General
0.10
Dollar Tree Revised
0.05
0.00
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Dollar Tree went from a 24% return in 2002 down to a 16% return in 2006. This
means that for every dollar invested into equity in the six year span, there was a return
of $1.24 in 2002, down to a $1.16 return in 2006. Dollar Tree beat the industry average
every year in ROE, but this may be due to 99 Cent Only’s low numbers for the time
span. Family Dollar and Dollar General were very competitive with Dollar Tree in ROE
over the time span. Still the ROE for Dollar General has steadily decreased over the last
six years, which is unfavorable for the company. Net Income increased more as a result
of Capital Lease restructuring than Equity did.
Overall Profitability
It turns out that Dollar Tree is a profitable company compared to the other in the
Discount Variety industry. They lead the industry in the areas of Operating Profit
Margin, Net Profit Margin, Return on Assets, and Return on Equity. Dollar Tree
- 55 -
struggles in their asset turnover. They were third in their industry at 2.16 times per
year. The industry average was 2.3 times per year, and the industry leader in 2006
was Dollar General with 3.04 inventory turns per year. Overall, investors should be
please with Dollar Tree’s results from their profitability analysis.
Capital Structure Ratios:
Capital structure of a company includes the different financing activities that
were undertaken to acquire assets. There are two things to consider with analyzing
capital structure: “the amount of debt relative to the owners’ equity and the ability to
service the principal and the interest requirements on debt” (Financial Statement
Analysis hand-out).
Debt to Equity Ratio: (total liabilities/owners’ equity)
The Debt to Equity Ratio is a valuable tool for assessing the percentage of Total
Liabilities divided by the Total Equity in a firm. The lower this number is, the more
fiscally responsible a company is. This infers that a company is mostly financed by
equity and not debt and can be a good sign to banks and stockholders because of
liquidity concerns.
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
Debt To Equity Ratio
2001
2002
2003
0.38
0.31
0.46
0.38
0.31
0.46
2004
0.54
0.54
2005
2006
0.53
0.60
0.53
0.60
99 Cents Only
0.10
0.11
0.13
0.23
0.25
Family Dollar
0.46
0.52
0.51
0.59
0.69
1.09
Dollar General
1.45
0.81
0.68
0.69
0.74
0.74
- 56 -
Debt To Equity Ratio
1.60
1.40
1.20
Dollar Tree
1.00
99 Cents Only
0.80
Family Dollar
0.60
Dollar General
0.40
Dollar Tree Revised
0.20
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
The four companies have had a pretty consistently low ratio spectrum. 99 Cent
Only Store has had a very consistently low ratio, since they are on average only 10%
debt financed by equity. Dollar Tree is in second place with an average of about 47%
debt financed by equity. Dollar Tree’s debt to equity did not change as a result of
revisions because they both increased simultaneously.
Times Interest Earned: (NIBIT/Interest Expense)
The Times Interest Earned ratio is the total operating income divided by the
interest expense. This ratio is best described as how well operating income covers the
interest charges. The bigger the number the more able the firm is to make their
interest payments.
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
99 Cents Only
Times Interest Earned
2001
2002
2003
28.37
42.40
39.18
38.96
57.81
54.64
2004
31.90
47.67
2005
2006
18.32 18.84
29.23 30.35
Family Dollar
Dollar General
24.23
8.16
10.72
- 57 -
16.23
19.34
21.42
7.11
Times Intrest Earned
70.00
60.00
Dollar Tree
50.00
99 Cents Only
40.00
Family Dollar
30.00
Dollar General
20.00
Dollar Tree Revised
10.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
According to this graph all of the firms are able to make their interest payments
well. This is important for a thorough financial analysis because it lets investors and
lenders know how well the company can pay their interest payments with operating
income. 99 Cent Only cannot be used in comparison to the other companies because
they are an outlier in this particular category. Times Interest Earned Ratio increased as
a result of revision to the books because NIBIT changed more than Interest.
Debt Service Margin: (operating cash flow/notes payable-current)
Debt Service Margin is equal to operating cash flow divided by notes payable
(current). It is used to measure “the adequacy of cash provided by operations to cover
required annual installment payments on the principal amount of long-term liabilities”
(Financial Statement Analysis hand-out).
Dollar Tree
Dollar Tree Revised
99 Cents Only
Family Dollar
Dollar General
Debt Service Margin
2001
2002
2003
7.15
8.28
9.37
8.97
10.34
12.38
0.67
26.78
- 58 -
31.11
2004
14.55
19.55
2005
2006
19.22 21.96
25.11 28.66
30.31
63.23 50.17
Debt Service Margin
70.00
60.00
Dollar Tree
50.00
99 Cents Only
40.00
Family Dollar
30.00
Dollar General
20.00
Dollar Tree Revised
10.00
0.00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Although a larger number is more desirable, 99 Cent Only cannot even be
compared to the others’ in its industry because it is an outlier. The industry average
that was computed is also not valid because of the outlier included in the computation.
Dollar General is very able to cover their installment payments with the amount of cash
that they generate each year. After the lease revisions, operating cash flow changed
with the change in net income. Therefore, it affected the Debt Service Margin.
Internal Growth Rate: (IGR = ROA(1-Div%))
The Internal Growth rate for a company explains how much the company is
growing its asset base through its retained earnings. That means that they do not use
any external funding to grow their total assets. This is important to show how the
company is growing without the use of debt in their capital structure. This equation is
found by multiplying a company’s return on assets by one minus its dividend payment.
The main driver for this model is the company’s return on its assets.
Year
2001
Internal Growth Rate
-
2002
0.17
2003
0.16
2004
0.12
2005
0.10
2006
0.11
Over the five year time span our company has had an overall declining IGR. This
shows that we have been less and less able, over the years, to grow our asset base
- 59 -
using our own funds. This is most likely due to the growth plan of our company to
expand itself and open new retail stores. This is less than desirable, as we want our IGR
to be as high as possible, but our current results are not a big concern.
Sustainable Growth Rate: (SGR = IGR(1+(D/E))
Sustainable Growth Rate measures how much a company can grow itself without
having to borrow outside debt. This equation is computed by IGR multiplied by one plus
dividends over equity. The main driving factor for this model is the company’s IGR. The
higher the company’s IGR, the higher the SGR will be. The theory behind this is that the
more a company grows its assets internally, the more it can grow itself without using
financial leverage.
Year
2001
Sustainable Growth Rate
-
2003
2002
0.22
0.23
2004
0.19
2005
0.15
2006
0.17
The overall trend for our company has been a decline in SGR. The reason for this
is because of the concurrent decline in IGR in the same years. This again is because of
the growth strategy of our company to open new retail locations. Although the numbers
are declining, they are not a big concern.
Cash to Cash Cycle: (Day’s Inventory Turnover * Day’s Accounts Receivables)
This model is a measure of how many days it takes a company to turn its
inventory into money. It takes into account two separate models; Day’s Inventory
Turnover and Days Accounts Receivables. The smaller the number of the Cash to Cash
Cycle the better, because it means that the company is being more efficient. The more
efficient a company is the less money it spends on operating expenses; this translates
into more net income.
Year
Cash to Cash
Cycle
2001
85.12
2002
88.37
2003
107.70
- 60 -
2004
111.57
2005
94.74
2006
84.54
Our company has a good cash to cash cycle. It showed an increase in three
years, but then recently decreased. Our company has a low Cash to Cash Cycle because
we have no accounts receivable, therefore it has a zero Day’s Account Receivable
collection period. This in turns leaves our cash to cash cycle to be our Day’s Inventory
Turnover. While that number may be a bit too high it still makes for a good Cash to
Cash Cycle day period
Overall Capital Structure
In relation to its competitors and the industry as a whole, Dollar Tree is only
mediocre in their capital structure. The Debt to Equity industry average was 53%.
Dollar Tree came in second behind 99 Cent Only. In the Times Interest Earned and
Debt Service Margins 99 Cent Only was an outlier. Therefore, we cannot compare the
other companies to 99 Cent Only. We now know that although Dollar Tree was better
able to make their interest payments than both Dollar General and Family Dollar, they
did not fair as well in generating enough cash to cover their installment payments.
Overall, Dollar Tree is in good standing when it comes to covering their debts.
Financial Statement Analysis
In this section, we will discuss the technique and method used for forecasting
Dollar Tree’s financial statements. The three financial statements forecasted are Income
Statement, Balance Sheet, and Cash Flow Statement. We forecasted these statements
for next ten years starting from 2007. Six years (2001 till 2006) of reported 10-Ks were
analyzed to determine trends, ratios, and any information disclosed regarding the future
of Dollar Tree. Similar information was gathered for Dollar General, Family Dollar
Stores, and 99 Cents Only Stores. Apart from 10-K’s, we also used 10-Q’s to verify and
adjust our assumptions. We also looked at Yahoo! Finance to compare our assumptions
with others analysts. Our forecast computation was made under the assumption that
- 61 -
Dollar Tree is a “going concern” firm and that it does not look to terminate its business
activities in the foreseeable future.
Income Statement:
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Forecasted Income Statement
(In millions, except per share data)
Net sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$ 1,987.27 $ 2,329.19 $ 2,799.87 $ 3,126.00 $ 3,393.90 $ 3,969.40
1,271.31 1,477.21 1,781.46 2,013.50 2,221.50 2,612.20
715.96
851.97 1,018.41 1,112.50 1,172.40 1,357.20
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
Operating income
Interest income
Interest expense
Income before income taxes
Provision for income taxes
Net income
Actual
2001
Average Assume
2007
2008
2009
2010
Forcasted
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
12% $ 4,445.73 $ 4,979.22 $ 5,576.72 $ 6,245.93 $ 6,995.44 $ 7,834.89 $ 8,775.08 $ 9,828.09 $ 11,007.46 $ 12,328.35
2,934.18 3,286.28 3,680.64 4,122.31 4,616.99 5,171.03 5,791.55 6,486.54
7,264.92
8,136.71
34% 1511.55 1692.93 1896.09 2123.62 2378.45 2663.86 2983.53 3341.55
3742.54
4191.64
512.09
598.05
724.82
819.00
888.50
1,046.40
26% $ 1,155.89 $ 1,294.60 $ 1,449.95 $ 1,623.94 $ 1,818.81 $ 2,037.07 $ 2,281.52 $ 2,555.30 $ 2,861.94 $ 3,205.37
203.87
253.92
293.60
293.50
283.90
310.80
8% $ 355.66 $ 398.34 $ 446.14 $ 499.67 $ 559.64 $ 626.79 $ 702.01 $ 786.25 $ 880.60 $ 986.27
3.57
(7.19)
3.53
(5.99)
2.65
(7.49)
3.90
(9.20)
6.80
(15.50)
8.60
(16.50)
200.25
251.46
288.75
288.20
275.20
302.90
77.17
96.81
111.17
107.90
101.30
110.90
$ 123.08 $ 154.65 $ 177.58 $ 180.30 $ 173.90 $ 192.00
7.84% $ 348.55 $ 390.37 $ 437.21 $ 489.68 $ 548.44 $ 614.26 $ 687.97 $ 770.52 $ 862.98 $ 966.54
5.50% $ 244.52 $ 273.86 $ 306.72 $ 343.53 $ 384.75 $ 430.92 $ 482.63 $ 540.54 $ 605.41 $ 678.06
In preparing our forecasts for Income Statement, we noticed a trend which
Dollar Tree’s Income Statements had followed from 2001 till 2006. We assumed that
sales for Dollar Tree would grow at 12% for next 10 years. This assumption is made by
looking at the past two year’s growth of 12.76%, as well as, keeping in mind the
Yahoo! Finance reported growth to be 10.3% for 2007. We chose 12% as we believe
that the net sales could go down however, the new acquisitions and business plan
adopted by Dollar Tree would help it to keep the growth around the 12% range. We
also verified our assumption with 10-Q for the first quarter of 2007. We also assumed
our Gross Profit to be 34% of net sales. Past 5 years trend shows that the average
Gross Profit was 36% of sales. However, Dollar Tree has managed to keep its Gross
Profit at the range of 33% to 36% of their Sales. 10-Q for the first quarter of 2007
shows that Gross Profit for Dollar Tree is 33% of their sales however, we also noticed
that Dollar Tree usually pulls its gross profit in the later quarters of the years. We also
have noticed a patter in the Interest section of the Dollar Tree’s Income Statement. We
computed Net Interest Income (Expense) divided by income before income taxes and
got the result around 2% each time. A similar pattern was shown in their 10-Q’s also.
- 62 -
Therefore, we assumed the net interest income (Expense) to be 2% of Income before
Income Tax. Apart from this, we mostly used the 6 years average to forecast Dollar
Tree’s Income Statement.
Income Statement with Capital Lease Corrections:
Income Statement with capital lease corrections was computed across the actual
and forecasted years. We were able to do this because future net income is not
dependent on the previous period’s net income. The corrections in the capital leases
resulted in the actual years’ net income being higher in the forecasted years. This is
because of the present value change in expenses of capital lease expense, interest
expense, and depreciation expense.
Balance Sheet:
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Forecasted Balance Sheet
(In millions, except per share data)
Actual
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Average Assume
2007
2008
2009
2010
Forcasted
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments
Merchandise inventories
Deferred tax assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Total current assets
236.65
0.00
296.47
8.88
18.78
560.78
292.19
43.78
357.67
10.41
12.09
716.14
168.69
0.00
525.64
11.72
16.53
722.57
106.53
211.28
615.48
8.07
28.53
969.89
65.80
274.00
576.60
10.80
16.50
943.70
85.00
221.80
605.00
10.70
36.50
959.00
51.70% $ 1,236.77 $ 1,385.19 $ 1,551.41 $ 1,737.58 $ 1,946.09 $ 2,179.62 $ 2,441.17 $ 2,734.11 $ 3,062.20 $ 3,429.67
Property, plant and equipment, net
Intangibles, net
Other assets, net
Total Non Current Assets
279.01
45.79
16.46
341.27
344.32
41.42
14.50
400.24
613.21
123.74
20.79
757.74
685.39
129.03
8.37
822.79
681.80
129.30
43.60
854.70
715.30
146.60
52.40
914.30
38.00%
7.80%
2.50%
48.30%
TOTAL ASSETS
$ 902.05 $ 1,116.38 $ 1,480.31 $ 1,792.67 $ 1,798.40 $ 1,873.30
11.90% $
4.09
284.67 $
717.40
$
909.04
$
186.59
$
59.81
$ 1,155.44
318.83 $
803.49
357.09 $
399.95 $
447.94 $
501.69 $
561.89 $
629.32 $
704.84 $
789.42
899.91
1,007.90
1,128.85
1,264.31
1,416.03
1,585.95
1,776.26
1,989.42
$ 1,018.12 $ 1,140.30
$
208.98 $
234.06
$
66.98 $
75.02
$ 1,294.09 $ 1,449.38
$ 1,277.14 $ 1,430.39
$
262.15 $
293.61
$
84.02 $
94.10
$ 1,623.31 $ 1,818.10
$ 1,602.04 $ 1,794.28
$
328.84 $
368.30
$
105.40 $
118.04
$ 2,036.28 $ 2,280.63
$ 2,009.60 $ 2,250.75
$
412.50 $
462.00
$
132.21 $
148.08
$ 2,554.30 $ 2,860.82
$ 2,520.84
$
517.44
$
165.84
$ 3,204.12
2.07 $ 2,392.21 $ 2,679.27 $ 3,000.79 $ 3,360.88 $ 3,764.19 $ 4,215.89 $ 4,721.80 $ 5,288.41 $ 5,923.02 $ 6,633.79
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt
Accounts payable
Other current liabilities
Income taxes payable
Total current liabilities
25.00
58.09
79.09
38.85
201.02
25.00
59.45
94.02
28.04
206.51
25.00
114.97
88.10
37.04
265.10
19.00
124.20
117.49
33.67
294.36
19.00
135.60
99.20
41.70
295.50
18.80
189.20
132.00
43.30
383.30
25.30% $
244.61 $
247.25 $
250.21 $
253.53 $
257.24 $
261.39 $
266.05 $
271.26 $
277.10 $
283.65
56.70% $
548.20 $
554.12 $
560.75 $
568.18 $
576.50 $
585.81 $
596.25 $
607.93 $
621.02 $
635.68
Long-term debt, excluding current portion
Deferred tax liabilities
Other liabilities
Total Non Current Liablities
12.00
0.00
37.28
49.28
6.00
9.90
38.56
54.46
142.57
29.72
28.39
200.68
250.00
42.08
42.03
334.11
250.00
23.50
57.10
330.60
250.00
1.50
70.80
322.30
43.30% $
418.64 $
423.16 $
428.23 $
433.90 $
440.25 $
447.37 $
455.33 $
464.26 $
474.25 $
485.45
465.78 $
628.46 $
626.10 $
705.60
$
966.84 $
977.28 $
988.98 $ 1,002.08 $ 1,016.75 $ 1,033.18 $ 1,051.58 $ 1,072.19 $ 1,095.28 $ 1,121.13
Total liabilities
$ 250.31 $
260.97 $
Shareholders' equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01. 300,000,000 shares
authorized, 99,663,580 and 106,552,054 shares
issued and outstanding at February 3, 2007
and January 28, 2006, respectively
Additional paid-in capital
Unearned Compensation
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Retained earnings
Total shareholders' equity
1.13
167.15
0.00
(0.38)
483.84
$ 651.74 $
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.10
1.00
217.27
208.87
177.68
11.40
0.00
(0.12)
0.06
0.10
0.00
0.00
(1.37)
(0.97)
(0.29)
0.10
0.10
638.49
805.54
985.79
1,159.70
1,166.60
855.40 $ 1,014.52 $ 1,164.21 $ 1,172.30 $ 1,167.70
Total Shareholders' Equity and Total Liablities
Error Check
$ 1,411.12 $ 1,684.97 $ 1,991.69 $ 2,335.22 $ 2,719.97 $ 3,150.89 $ 3,633.52 $ 4,174.06 $ 4,779.47 $ 5,457.53
99% $ 1,425.37 $ 1,701.99 $ 2,011.81 $ 2,358.81 $ 2,747.44 $ 3,182.71 $ 3,670.22 $ 4,216.22 $ 4,827.75 $ 5,512.66
$
(Also in Appendices)
2392.21
2679.27
3000.79
3360.88
3764.19
4215.89
4721.80
5288.41
5923.02
6633.79
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Balance sheet forecast was performed in much similar way as the Income
Statement. The only difference would be that we considered the pattern in which the
- 63 -
Industry was moving when constructing the forecasts for Dollar Tree’s Balance Sheet.
The industry average for asset turnover ratio was 2.49 for the past 5 years. However,
Dollar Tree’s highest asset turnover was 2.31. Therefore, we assumed that Dollar Tree
would maintain the Asset Turnover ratio of approximately 2.07 for the next 10 years.
We used the Asset Turnover ratio to compute total assets for Dollar Tree. We used the
ratio as shown below:
Asset Turnover = (Sales/Total Assets)
Therefore,
Total Assets = (Sales/Asset Turnover).
We similarly, used Inventory Turnover ratio to compute the inventory for next 10
years. Other items in the asset section were either forecasted using the ratios, or by
using the average of the past 5 years.
The liabilities and shareholders’ equity section was computed from the total asset
benchmark number we forecasted for 10 years. We worked backwards to compute the
numbers for this section. We also used ratios and trends to identify and justify our
choices. We skipped some areas where we could not make assumptions based on the
historical data provided. An example of this would be in the area of common stock and
APIC (Additional Paid in Capital) as these activities are influenced more by the stock
market than by the nature of the business.
Forecasted Balance Sheet with Capital Lease Corrections:
For the revised Balance Sheets, which is disclosed in the appendices, we had to
find the total present values of the lease schedules. These capital leases were equally
added into the assets and liabilities sections. As the forecasted years progressed, the
leases were being paid off so the asset and liability values of the leases were
decreasing.
- 64 -
Actual Years’ Balance Sheet with Capital Lease Corrections:
For the years 2001 to 2006 we went back and corrected the actual Balance
Sheet for capital lease corrections. This involved computing a present value lease chart
for each year. Once the value of these leases was computed they were added back
into the assets and liabilities for each individual year. We made a conscience decision
to separate this Balance Sheet from the forecasted Balance Sheet. The reason for this
being that it would have significantly distorted our previously forecasted retained
earnings.
Cash Flow Statement:
Actual
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Forcasted Cash Flow Statement
(In millions)
2002
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
Net income (loss)
Depreciation & amortization
(Gain) loss on disposal of property & equip
Cumulative effect of change in acctg princ
Change in lease loss
Chng in fair val of non-hedging int rate swap
Extraord (gain) loss early extinguish of debt
Provision of deferred income taxes
Tax benefit of stock option exercises
Stock based compensation expense
Other non-cash adjustments to net income
Merchandise inventories
Prepaid expenses & other current assets
Other assets
Accounts payable
Income taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Other liabilities
Total adjustments
Net cash flows from operating activities
123.08
154.65
177.58
180.25
173.92
192.00
53.76
71.62
101.50
129.29
140.72
159.00
1.73
1.60
4.02
2.80
3.32
1.72
1.47
(0.89)
(1.06)
(0.76)
(6.22)
16.44
21.06
15.58
(21.50)
(21.90)
2.35
10.70
5.62
2.14
1.18
6.70
1.32
0.31
0.59
2.11
5.53
5.10
(37.79)
(61.19)
(61.17)
(89.84)
38.94
(6.20)
(0.40)
10.59
6.71
(0.43)
(0.94)
(1.00)
(1.42)
0.93
(5.56)
(19.80)
(17.31)
1.36
(29.14)
9.22
11.36
53.70
15.40
(10.81)
16.91
(3.37)
8.03
1.60
28.31
13.02
0.80
15.32
(6.41)
31.80
2.72
2.01
(0.75)
13.50
16.39
10.80
$ 178.73 $ 206.88 $ 234.29 $ 276.49 $ 365.15 $ 412.80
Capital expenditures
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
Purchase of Greenbacks, Inc. net
Investment in Ollie's Holdings, Inc.
Purchase of short-term investments
Proceeds from sales of short-term investments
Purchase of Deal$ assets, net
Acquisition of favorable lease rights
Purchase of restricted investments
Proceeds from sale of property & equipment
Settlement of merger-related contingencies
Net cash flows from investing activities
(121.57)
(136.13)
(227.32)
(181.78)
(139.25)
(175.30)
(100.52)
(4.00)
(60.28)
(30.36)
(465.82)
(885.48)
(1,044.40)
16.50
93.89
339.04
822.81
1,096.60
(54.10)
(0.81)
(0.11)
(6.85)
(3.65)
(4.20)
(29.94)
(9.30)
0.10
0.22
0.04
6.69
1.02
$ (121.47) $ (173.82) $ (267.36) $ (315.41) $ (235.51) $ (190.70)
Distributions paid
Proceeds from long-term debt
Principal payments under long-term debt & cap
Proceeds from revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt
Net change in notes payable to bank
Repayments of revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt & facility fees
Principal payments under capital lease obligs
Principal payments on shareholder loans
Payments for share repurchases
Proceeds from senior notes
Repayment of credit facility fees
Proceeds from sale-leaseback transaction
Proceeds from stock issued pursuant to stockTax benefit of stock options exercised
Net cash flows from financing activities
82.00
(82.00)
(6.24)
(3.56)
(3.78)
11.81
(1.77) $
$
Net incr (decr) in cash & cash equivalents
Cash & cash equivs at beginning of year
Cash & cash equivalents at end of year
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capital
Cash paid for income taxes
55.49
$ 181.17
$ 236.65
5.14
65.69
Average Assume
2007
53% $ 244.52
$
55.41
$ 461.35
-41.00% $
Forcasted
2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
$ 273.86
$ 306.72
$ 343.53
$ 384.75
$ 430.92
$ 482.63
$
540.54
$
605.41
$
678.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14.03
$
15.71
$
17.60
247.25
$ 516.71
(189.15) $
249.96
$ 578.72
(211.85) $
8.91
$ 648.16
(237.27) $
9.98
$ 725.94
(265.75) $
11.18
$ 813.05
(297.64) $
2013
12.52
$ 910.62
(333.35) $
2014
$ 1,019.90
(373.35) $
2015
$ 1,142.28
(418.16) $
(Also in Appendices)
(68.62)
22.34
$ 237.30 $ 84.19
$ 168.69 $ 106.53
7.25
8.12
70.17
93.40
(40.70)
$ 106.53 $
$ 65.83 $
11.82
113.86
(524.54)
83.00% $ (227.90) $ (255.24) $ (285.87) $ (320.18) $ (358.60) $ (401.63) $ (449.83) $ (503.80) $ (564.26) $ (631.97)
19.20
65.80
85.00
14.90
125.50
Computation of Cash Flow Statement is one of the most difficult activities which
an analyst performs. We used our net sales to start up with CFFO (Cash Flows from
Operations) and moved forward to compute our Net Cash Flow from Operations. We
verified our forecasts using the ratios of CFFO/OI, as well as Net Cash Flow from
- 65 -
$ 1,279.36
(468.34) $
248.91
(0.60)
39.70
(148.57)
(39.70)
(6.03)
(11.67)
(3.97)
(7.99)
(5.57)
(0.60)
(48.61)
(38.05)
(180.40)
(248.20)
32.48
22.18
15.11
10.67
40.30
5.60
22.48 $ (35.54) $ 61.26 $ (170.33) $ (202.90)
55.54
$ 236.65
$ 292.19
3.69
82.42
2016
Operations/NI. Also, we noticed that accounts payable in the CFFO was directly
influenced by the Balance Sheet account payable item as the difference between the
current year and past year that were used to compute the number in the CFFO. Also,
we computed capital expenditure by using the negative 41% of Net Cash Flows from
Operations. This 41% was computed by dividing capital expenditure from Net Cash
Flow from Operating and taking the average of the past five years. Similarly, we also
noticed that Net Cash Flow from Investing Activities was directly influenced by the
capital expenditure and we noticed that when we divide capital expenditure from Net
Cash Flow from Investing Activities we were constantly getting results of around 85%.
This provided us the confidence to use 83% for computing our Net Cash Flows from
Investing Activities.
Analysis and Forecasting Conclusion:
Since we have forecasted the financials of Dollar Tree, we believe that they will
continue to grow for at least 12% every year. However, we also noticed that they have
been consistent in acquiring new businesses by mergers in recent years. Therefore, we
cannot determine if they stop these acquisition activities whether their growth would
decline or stabilize. Also, Dollar Tree is trying to reach more consumers by adding
refrigerators in their stores to carry grocery type products which could increase their
customer base as well as increase their future sales. These are some concerns which
we tried to overcome because they could adversely effect our forecasting.
Analysis of Valuations
A Valuation Analysis is crucial to an investor as it provides him/her with a better
understanding of the firm’s future. Assumptions as to whether the firm is undervalued,
fairly-valued, or overvalued, is made after the firm’s valuation is complete. There are
two valuations methods used in assessing the value (price) of Dollar Tree’s stock.
- 66 -
The first method of valuation is the method of comparables. This method
requires the use of various ratios such as: Trailing & Forecast Price-Earnings, Price to
Book, Dividend Yield, P.E.G., Price over EBITDA, Price over Free Cash Flow per Share,
and Enterprise Value over EBITDA. These ratios of competitive firms are calculated and
then averaged. After that, these ratios are used as a benchmark of the industry. The
price is computed for a given firm, in our case it is Dollar Tree. For this computation an
assumption is made that the given firm would follow the same trend and patterns that
its competitors are following.
The second method of valuation is the intrinsic valuation method. This method of
valuation requires the use of elaborated forecasts and prior years’ analysis. This method
helps in justifying if the firm is overvalued, undervalued, or fairly-valued. Discounted
Dividends, Discounted Free Cash Flows, The Residual Income Method, The Residual
Income Perpetuity, and the Abnormal Earnings approach, are some of the models which
are computed in this valuation. However, in the case of Dollar Tree, we managed to
skip Discounted Dividends model because they are a non dividend paying firm. They
have yet to pay any dividends from the time of its initial pubic offering.
Weighted Average Cost of Capital
For financially valuing a company it is important to make a structural model of
their financing activities. One useful model for this is to use the WACC. The WACC
effectively weights the company’s debts and equities and takes them by the rates of the
market. To find the input data for the model there is a process to derive the numbers.
The first step is to find the cost of equity, Ke.
CAPM Model
To find the value of Ke one must use the CAPM model. To use this model one
must have values for the risk free rate, beta, and the market risk premium. For our
input value of the risk free rate we used data collected from the St. Louis Federal
Reserve. We collected rates of Treasury Bills of 3 months, 6 months, 2 years, 5 years,
- 67 -
and 10 years. By putting this data into a regression analysis we found that the Beta
with the highest explanatory rate, R^2, was the 10 year T-Bill rate of 4.75%. The Beta
produced by this rate was 1.72 and had an R^2 of 35.74%. The 1.72 for Beta means
that our company has a high systematic risk when compared to the market. For our
market risk premium value we used 7%. We came to this value, because historically the
market returns for large firms on the S&P 500 have been somewhere between 7-10%.
Currently firms have been earning around 3-5%. We believe that the market will return
to its historical returns but we went with the low end of the spectrum taking into
account the current state or the market. By entering all of these values into the CAPM
model we arrived at a Ke of 16.79%.
CAPM- Ke= .0475+1.72(.07)
Now having our cost of equity, Ke, we put the rest of our values into the WACC
model. This included breaking down our liabilities into separate accounts and assigning
them the proper interest rate taken from our 10-K. After weighting and rating our debt
we calculated a cost of debt, Kd, of 5.47%. We then took the weight of debt divided by
the cost of debt and the weight of equity divided by the cost of equity. This gave us a
before tax WACC of 15.94%.
WACC bt= (705.6/1873.3)*.054+(1167.7/1873.3)*.167
Debt
Equity
Then we took our calculated WACC and weighted the debt portion by the tax
corporate tax rate of 35%. This resulted in an after tax WACC of 11.81%.
WACC at= ((705.6/1873.3)*.036)*.65+ (1167.7/1873.3)*.167
Debt
Tax
Equity
The cost of debt numbers are straight from the Dollar Tree 10K.
- 68 -
Dollar Tree
Current Liabilites
Value Weighted
Rate
Weight
Rate
18.8
0.0266
0.0540
0.144%
189.2
0.2681
0.0543
1.456%
Other Current liabilites
132
0.1871
0.0519
0.971%
Income Taxes Payable
Total Current Liabilites
43.3
383.3
0.0614
0.0519
0.318%
Long Term Debt, excluding current
portion
250
0.3543
0.0580
2.055%
Deffered tax liabilites
1.5
0.0021
0.0485
0.010%
70.8
705.6
0.1003
0.0519
Kd=
After Tax
Kd=
Ke=
0.521%
5.475%
Current Portion of Long Term Debt
Accounts Payable
Other Liabilites
Total Liabilites
Shareholdres Equity
Market Value of Equity
1167.7
4518.87261
WACC=
After Tax WACC=
3.559%
16.790%
15.94%
11.81%
Method of Comparables
The Method of Comparables uses a set of ratios that help a prospective or
current investor to analyze what a firm’s value is when compared with the value or ratio
of the industry. We used Dollar General, Family Dollar, and 99 Cents Only, to get an
industry ratio. Then, we worked backwards to compute the price of Dollar Tree’s stock
given these ratios. Since we noticed that 99 Cents only ratios were much different than
the other two businesses, we decided to mark 99 Cents Only as an ‘outlier’ and did not
include them when computing our averages.
- 69 -
Trailing Price to Earnings
Trailing Price to Earnings Ratio is calculated by taking the current share price and
dividing it by the past twelve month’s earnings per share.
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
(Outlier)
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
P/E (Trailing)
Price/Earning
54.5400
22.4600
95.7600
38.5000
42.4100
41.7756
We computed the same for all our competitors and then took an average of
Dollar General and Family Dollar to get an industry average. We then set this average
equal to the Dollar Tree Trailing Price to Earning Ratio and solved to get our price
based on this model. We got the result of $41.78, which when compared to its current
selling price shows that the firm is fairly valued (as the overvaluation is of around 60
cents) when compared with the industry average of this ratio.
Forecast Price to Earnings
Forecast Price to Earnings is a measure of the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) using
the forecasted earnings. It is calculated by dividing the Market Price per Share by the
Expected Earning per share.
- 70 -
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
P/E (Forecast)
Price/Earning
(Outlier)
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
25.3000
18.7300
43.5900
22.0150
42.4100
40.7278
Again, we calculated it for all our competitors and used that average as a
benchmark to get the Price for Dollar Tree’s share. The Industry average excluding
Dollar Tree and 99 Cents Only (because of outlier) is 22.015. We used this number and
our forecasted earnings for Dollar Tree to compute the price. Below is the description of
how we used the forecast Price to Earning Ratio to compute the price.
Dollar Tree’s Forecast P/E = Industry Average P/E
Therefore,
Dollar Tree’s ‘P’ = Industry Average P/B * Dollar Tree’s ‘E’
40.73 = 22.02 * 1.85
Dollar Tree’s current selling price is 42.41 per share. The price according to the
calculation of forward P/E ratio is 40.73 per share. According to this ratio, Dollar Tree
is fairly valued. The difference in the current selling price and the computed price from
the ratio is not enough of a difference to say that the stock price of Dollar Tree is
overvalued.
Price to Book Value
The Price to Book ratio is used to compare a stock's market value of a firm to its
book value. It is calculated by dividing the current closing price of the stock by the
latest quarter's book value per share.
- 71 -
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
(Outlier)
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
P/B
Price/Book Value
3.8200
3.9500
1.6800
3.8850
42.4100
42.5756
We computed this ratio and got an industry average of 3.885 without having 99
Cents Only in our computation. We used this ratio and set it equal to Dollar Tree’s Price
to Book Value ratio to solve for the price. This computation was done in a much similar
way shown below:
Dollar Tree’s P/B = Industry Average P/B
Therefore,
Dollar Tree’s ‘P’ = Industry Average P/B * Dollar Tree’s ‘B’
42.58 = 3.89 * (1167.7 / 116.552)
We got the Book Value of Dollar Tree from their latest (2007) published 10-K.
Dollar Tree’s current selling price is 42.41. The Price of Dollar Tree according to our
calculation using the P/B ratio is $42.58. Again, we found that the difference (which is
of around 17 cents) isn’t enough to say if the firm is undervalued; hence we concluded
that Dollar Tree is ‘fairly valued’ when using P/B ratio method of comparables.
Dividend Yield
The Dividend yield is a ratio that shows how much a company pays out in
dividends each year relative to its share price. In the absence of any capital gains, the
dividend yield is the return on investment for a stock. Dividend yield is a way to
- 72 -
measure how much cash flow you are getting for each dollar invested in an equity
position. This ratio is calculated by taking the Annual dividends per share and dividing
it by the price per share.
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
(Outlier)
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
D/P
Dividend/Price
0.0046
0.0034
0.0040
42.4100
N/A
We did similar for our competitors and got a ratio of about .004. This ratio could
be set and used to compute the price of Dollar Tree’s stock. However, Dollar Tree is a
non dividend paying firm; thus, we could not use this ratio for determining the price of
Dollar Tree’s stock.
P.E.G.
P.E.G. is a ratio used to determine a stock's value while taking into account the
earnings growth. It is calculated by taking the P/E Ratio and dividing it by the Annual
EPS growth.
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
- 73 -
(Outlier)
P.E.G.
(P/E)/(1-Year Growth Rate)
1.9500
1.5900
2.4100
1.7700
42.4100
18.0098
We computed the P.E.G. for the industry and averaged it to get a result of 1.77.
The industry P.E.G. ratio was then compared to Dollar Tree’s P.E.G. ratio to get a price
(P). This computation was performed in much similar way as shown below:
Dollar Tree’s P/ (E/G) = Industry Average P.E.G.
Therefore,
Dollar Tree’s ‘P’ = Industry Average P.E.G * Dollar Tree’s ‘E’ * ‘G’
18 = 1.77 * 1.85 * 5.5%
Dollar Tree’s current selling price is $42.41 per share. The price according to the
P.E.G ratio is $18.01 per share. According to this ratio Dollar Tree is overvalued
because the selling price is more than what the P.E.G. ratio estimates it to be.
P/EBITDA
This Ratio is used to calculate the estimated price per share of a firm. It is
calculated by dividing the Price by the Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation,
and Amortization (EBITDA).
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
- 74 -
(Outlier)
P/EDITDA
Price/EDITBA
0.0496
0.0625
(4.5338)
0.0560
42.4100
17.4192
We computed this ratio for the industry first and then used the average of the
Industry to benchmark to compute the price of the stock for Dollar Tree. Our
computation for this ratio is similar to the one as shown below:
Dollar Tree’s P/EBITDA = Industry Average P/EBITDA
Therefore, Dollar Tree’s ‘P’ = Industry Average P/EBITDA * Dollar Tree’s EBITDA
17.42 = 0.056 * 310.8
When we completed our computation the price we got for Dollar Tree is $17.42. This
price is extremely low when compared with the price at which Dollar Tree’s stocks are
currently traded. Hence, according to this ratio Dollar Tree is overvalued.
Price/Free Cash Flows
Price to Free Cash Flows is another ratio that is used to determine the estimated
price per share of the firm. It is calculated by taking the Price per Share and dividing it
by the Free Cash Flows.
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
(Outlier)
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
Free Cash Flows is calculated as:
FCF = CFFO +(-) CFFI
- 75 -
P/(FCF per share)
Price/Free Cash Flows
0.1753
0.0603
(4.5338)
0.1178
42.4100
47.1954
Once the calculation is performed for the industry we took the average of the
result and compared it to the Price to Earning ratio of Dollar Tree. Our computation to
get the price for Dollar Tree was done in the same pattern as shown below:
Dollar Tree’s P/FCF = Industry Average P/FCF
Therefore,
Dollar Tree’s ‘P’ = Industry Average P/FCF * Dollar Tree’s FCF
7.20 = .1178 * 400.6
Our result showed that the Dollar Tree’s price based on this valuation method
should be $47.20. This means that Dollar Tree is undervalued when compared to its
current selling price at the market.
Enterprise Value/ EBITDA
Enterprise Value to EBITA is one more ratio to estimate the price of a firm. It is
calculated by taking the Enterprise value (EV) and dividing it by the EBITDA. We
computed the Industry EV/EBITA and then averaged it to benchmark for our
computation of Dollar Tree’s stock price.
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
DLTR - Share Price
- 76 -
(Outlier)
(Enterprise value)
/(EBITDA)
15.8280
9.4610
18.2550
12.6445
42.4100
33.1491
Our calculation shows that Dollar Tree’s estimated price according to this ratio is
$33.20 and the actual selling price of their stock is $42.41. This concludes that Dollar
Tree is overvalued as the estimated price is less than the current selling price.
Overall Method of Comparables Valuation
The Trailing P/E, forward P/E, and P/B ratios, support Dollar Tree as being a
fairly valued firm. The P.E.G, P/EBITDA, and Enterprise Value/EBITDA, ratios show that
this firm is overvalued. The Price/Free Cash Flows ratio proves that Dollar Tree is
slightly undervalued. So, all these ratios do guide us in making some conclusions, yet, it
distorts our accuracy estimation when trying to determine whether the firm is
overvalued or fairly valued. Since both the overvalued and undervalued decision can be
backed up by three ratios, we could not come up with a clear result and would rely on
Intrinsic Valuation to provide us with a better understanding of the firm’s value.
Intrinsic Valuation Methods
The Intrinsic Valuation Method examines five methods for predicating a firm’s
adjusted share price. It takes into account past year’s earnings, dividends, and book
values for Dollar Tree and its competitors. There are five different models that analysts
use to value the firm. These are Discounted Dividends models, Discounted Free Cash
flows model, The Residual Income Method, Residual Income Perpetuity, and Abnormal
Earnings Approach.
Discounted Dividend Model
The discount dividend model values a company’s share price based on dividends
and future dividends paid out. To compute the DD model one needs for the company
forecasted financial statements of dividends and a calculated cost of equity. The DD
model does the poorest job of explaining the way which stock price is driven by the
company’s actions regarding dividends. Dollar Tree does not pay dividends; therefore, it
is not applicable to compute the DD model for Dollar Tree.
- 77 -
Free Cash Flow Model
The Free Cash Flow model is a valuation model that values a company based on
estimated future cash flows of the company. The model explains the value of the firm
by discounting back all future cash flows minus future liabilities. To calculate the FCF
model one needs forecasted cash flows from operations, forecasted cash flows from
investing, forecasted liabilities, a calculated WACC, and an observed share price. By
taking the forecasted CFFO and CFFI difference a FCF value is found. This can then be
valued at a present value. After these future liabilities are taken out, this market value
of equity is divided by the number of shares outstanding. This then gives you the
intrinsic value of price per share for the company according to FCF model. The biggest
factors affecting this model are how the future cash flows is forecasted out and how the
WACC is calculated out. Because of the degree of estimation in these forecasts and
calculations the explanation of the results of FCF is fairly small.
0.2
0.18
0.1594
0.14
0.12
0.08
16.19
20.95
28.35
39.94
63.62
0.1
17.92
2.99
34.44
54.02
113.67
Sensitivity Analysis
0.12
0.13
20.5
22.35
29.05
33.09
46.73
59.13
96.26
180.71
-
0.14
24.81
39.17
84.34
-
Observed Price-$42.41
The sensitivity graph above shows that within reasonable growth and Ke rates
that our firm is mostly either undervalued or overvalued. This sensitivity graph shows
how volatile that the FCF model is to changes in rates for Ke and growth. This is
because the FCF model explains little with accuracy about what happens between the
workings of a company and its share price.
- 78 -
Residual Income Model
The RI model is a financial model that values a company’s stock price. It is the
model with the highest degree of explanatory value of the intrinsic value. The model
values the company by the book value of equity plus the present value of value added
by residual income to the company. This means that the company is worth its physical
being plus any future value added over the cost of doing business. To use this model
one must have equity from projected financial statements, a calculated cost of equity,
and a current share price. By calculating these values into the model and weighing it in
a per share basis, it will result in a quantitative intrinsic value of the company. For our
company we took our forecasted net income and dividends to produce an annual book
value of net income. Then, using our calculated Ke of 16.79% we discounted the future
cash flows back into present values. From there we compared these numbers to the
benchmark values that the company must meet to either create or destroy value, which
was calculated using Ke. From our calculations of the RI model we found that our
company’s PV of RI is continually beating the benchmark, and therefore adding value.
The rate at which it is beating the benchmark though is decreasing. In a rational market
the cost of equity will converge with the rate at which our company is beating the
market, which will result in a long run RI of zero.
Ke
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0
7.70
8.98
10.69
12.35
14.57
-0.05
7.68
8.96
10.65
12.3
14.5
G
-0.1
7.67
8.94
10.63
12.27
14.45
-0.15
7.66
8.93
10.61
12.25
14.43
-0.2
7.66
8.92
10.6
12.23
14.41
Observed Price- $42.41
The graph above shows that according to the RI model our company is
overvalued. It shows not to be very price sensitive to changes in Ke or growth
estimations. This allows us to say with a high degree of confidence from the RI model
that our company is overvalued. From the RI model we can see that most of our
- 79 -
company’s value lies in its ability to produce RI. This means that our company
continually makes more money than it costs them to fund the business. Dollar Tree has
some value in initial value of equity, and very little in perpetuity. This is most likely
because our company does not pay dividends and since the RI will converge to zero,
there is not much value in future estimates.
Residual Income Perpetuity
The Residual Income Perpetuity is a model that values the company on the basis
of return on equity and the calculated Ke.
=BVEo+BVEo*((ROE-Ke)/(Ke-g))
This ratio measures the intrinsic value of the company stock price as driven by
the book value of equity. This model shows a fairly high level of significance in
explaining how the factors in the equation drive the intrinsic stock price.
Ke
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0.12
3.03
3.32
3.93
5.09
11.38
0.14
2.79
3.1
3.99
7.64
-3.79
Growth
0.16
2.34
2.58
4.36
0
1.26
0.18
1.3
4.68
3.51
2.55
2.28
0.2
-3.9
7.75
3.72
3.06
2.71
ROE
Ke
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.39
-0.65
-7.81
9.55
4.42
0.14
1.17
0.65
-2.94
5.73
3.16
- 80 -
0.16
1.95
1.94
1.92
1.91
1.9
0.18
2.73
3.23
6.79
-1.91
0.63
0.2
3.51
4.52
1.66
-5.73
-0.63
Growth
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.12
0
0.54
-7.81
11.45
6.71
0.14
2.72
1.92
-2.94
8.28
5.52
ROE
0.16
3.53
3.3
1.92
5.1
4.32
0.18
4.33
2.76
6.79
1.92
3.12
0.2
5.13
6.06
11.966
-1.26
1.92
From this model we calculated that our company is overvalued. This is because
Dollar Tree’s intrinsic value does not have the present value contributions of dividends.
The lack of a presence of dividends is contributing to the company being overvalued
because they do not have the present value of future dividends and the expected stock
price can not be accommodated for.
Abnormal Earnings Growth
The AEG model is a valuation model used to determine the intrinsic market price
of a share. The AEG valuation model is a representation of how DRIP income (Dividend
Reinvestment & Repurchase Plan) can affect Earnings, and the intrinsic price per share.
Ideally the AEG model will eventually converge to the P/E ratio. DRIP is computed by
Dividend in the Previous Year multiplied by Cost of Equity. Abnormal Earnings Growth
Model assumes dividends should be reinvested and should gain value as the years go
by. As a measure of consistency between financial statements and valuations, there
should be a linkage between annual AEG and the change in residual income.
g
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0.21
4.54
4.80
4.98
5.11
5.20
0.19
5.60
6.00
6.27
6.45
6.59
Ke
0.1679
7.11
7.77
8.19
8.48
8.68
0.15
8.65
9.68
10.30
10.71
11.01
0.13
10.74
12.53
13.53
14.17
14.62
Observed Price: $42.41
Annual AEG
-11.71
-13.12
-14.69
-16.45
-18.43
-20.64
-23.12
-25.89
-29.00
Change in RI
-11.71
-13.12
-14.69
-16.45
-18.43
-20.64
-23.12
-25.89
-29.00
- 81 -
Our company’s DRIP income is equal to zero because we do not issue dividends.
Also the growth rate is negative because they should move towards our Cost of Equity.
Dollar Tree’s investors benefit from appreciation of share price instead of dividends so
models implementing dividends don’t give a correct representation of the firms intrinsic
share price.
Altman Z-Score Analysis
The Altman Z-Score Analysis is a measure that uses a weighted combination of
five different financial ratios. The Z-Score is assessed upon where it lies on the Z-Score
plane.
Dollar Tree
Z-score
2001
10.80
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
9.95
8.37
6.44
6.11
6.76
1-3 Financial Uncertainty
>3 Good Financial Standing
The Z-Score is calculated by using the following formula:
1.2 (Working Capital/Total Assets) + 1.4 (Retained Earnings/ Total Assets) +
3.3 (EBIT/Total Assets) + .6 (Market Value of Equity/Total Liabilities) + 1.0
(Sales/ Total Assets)
The weights are assigned by importance of credit risk. The EBIT/Total Assets is
weighted with a 3.3 multiple. It’s a measure of Core Earnings for the company that are
assessed by the company’s total asset base. Dollar Tree’s latest Z-Score of 6.76 is a
representation of financial stability as perceived by creditors. That score demonstrates
Dollar Tree’s strength for overcoming bankruptcy. It tells creditors that dollar tree has a
extremely finite chance of bankruptcy since is surpasses average scores for other debt
financed companies. The Z-Score was created by bankers to be used by bankers. This
allows financial institutions to more thoroughly evaluate a company’s
- 82 -
Differences in RI and AEG
As seen from the sensitivity tables presented for RI and AEG there are
differences in the intrinsic share values. AEG equals the change in RI from year to year;
although the models should produce very similar intrinsic share values, they do not. The
spread of the AEG sensitivity table is greater than that of the RI sensitivity table. An
example of this spread is of the RI sensitivity table at a Ke of 16.79% and growth rate
of -10%, which resulted in an intrinsic share price of $12.29. The AEG model sensitivity
table with the same Ke of 16.79% and same growth rate of -10% results in an intrinsic
share price of $8.19. These results show a difference in the intrinsic share price of
$4.10. The Ke and growth rate used are the median values in the sensitivity tables for
RI and AEG; therefore, the $2.44 is a close to median difference in share prices
between the models. The reason for this is because of the nature of the perpetuities in
the models. In the RI model, the perpetuity will be a smaller fraction compared with
year by year value than the AEG model. This is because that RI converges to zero over
time but AEG is just the difference in how RI converges to zero by each year. So in the
perpetuity time, the RI reaches zero, but AEG perpetuity stays at a constant change
rate as if the RI perpetuity approaches a negative number. This is what causes the
differences in the intrinsic share price vales in the sensitivity tables.
Model Conclusions
From our model analysis we can conclude that our company is overvalued. The
reason for this is that the RI model states very confidently that Dollar Tree’s intrinsic
value stock price is much lower that the observed price. The FCF model is sensitive to
changes in rate estimations and goes from being overvalued, to fairly valued, to
undervalued. We know that the FCF model has a low degree of explanatory value and
we are not able to compute a DD model value. The AEG model implements dividends in
its calculation of DRIP income; thus, it produces an intrinsic share price not relevant to
valuations. Therefore it is logical to base our valuation on the results of the RI model,
which states that Dollar Tree is overvalued.
- 83 -
Revised Free Cash Flow Model
From our accounting analysis we found Dollar Tree to have understated their
liabilities and assets by $.92 billion. The total value of reported liabilities is $.705B. This
caused the forecasted earnings for the FCF model to initially be more than the
operating lease financial statements, but then, to be less in later years. For these
changes in earnings over the years, we ran a new FCF model for capital lease
adjustments. Using the same Ke and growth rates in the sensitivity tables, here are our
results:
Ke
0.2
0.18
0.1594
0.14
0.12
0.08
17.61
22.2
29.28
40.33
62.8
0.1
19.24
25.06
35.04
53.62
110.05
Growth
0.12
21.68
29.84
46.63
93.5
-
0.13
23.42
33.66
58.35
173.25
-
0.14
25.74
39.39
82.14
-
Observed Price- $42.41
From this revised FCF model sensitivity we see that our company is about fairly
priced from our initial Ke and growth rates. The sensitivity spread shows the intrinsic
share price to go from undervalued to overvalued, but overall we can say that out
company is fairly valued. This conclusion cannot be made with a high degree of
confidence though. This is because of the large spread of the share price in the
sensitivity table because of the volatility of the FCF model.
Revised Residual Income Model
From our accounting analysis we found that Dollar Tree’s use of capital leases
distorted the amounts on their financial statements. After accounting back for these
lease changes we forecasted new financial statements. This changed the values of
earnings computed in the RI model. The earnings were initially larger and then declined
- 84 -
to being less than the initial earnings. With these new earnings we computed the
intrinsic share price using the RI model and these are the sensitivity table results:
0
-0.05
Growth
-0.1
0.21
7.37
7.8
8.09
8.31
8.47
0.19
8.35
8.95
9.34
9.61
9.81
0.1679
9.55
10.41
10.96
11.33
11.59
0.15
10.58
11.77
12.49
12.97
13.31
0.13
11.7
13.47
14.48
15.12
15.57
Ke
-0.15
-0.2
Observed Price- $42.41
From the table we can see that our company is consistently overvalued using the
RI model. Using this model and results we can say that it is overvalued with a high
degree of confidence. This is because of the high explanatory power of the RI model.
Revised Residual Income Perpetuity
From our revised forecasted financial statements we computed a revised RI
Perpetuity. The changes in values for this model were the forecasted earnings. The
earnings were initially higher in the earlier years but declined to be less in the later
years. With these new earnings we computed new intrinsic share values using the RI
Perpetuity model. Here is the sensitivity table for these new share values:
0.12
0.14
Growth
0.16
0.18
0.21
18.45
16.94
14.23
7.91
0.19
20.19
18.84
15.7
0.1679
23.88
24.25
26.47
0.15
30.96
46.44
0.13
69.15
Ke
-
-
7.68
Observed Price- $42.41
- 85 -
0.2
47.1
21.34
22.6
15.48
18.57
13.83
16.46
ROE
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.2
0.12
11.68
16.56
21.44
26.21
31.2
0.14
3.31
11.68
20.06
29.13
36.81
Growth
0.16
-
-
11.68
-
70.84
0.18
69.62
50.31
31
17.48
0.2
40.8
33.52
26.24
20.39
11.68
Observed Price- $42.41
ROE
Ke
0.21
0.19
-
0.1679
-
0.12
0.14
0.16
2.37
7.11
11.86
3.93
11.78
47.1
27.48
11.68
22.6
70.84
-
0.17
0.2
-
21.34
0.15
58.05
34.83
11.61
18.57
-
0.13
26.89
34.7
11.52
16.46
-
Observed Price- $42.41
With the observations taken from these sensitivity tables we can say that our
company is overvalued. The spread on the tables show a range that goes from
overvalued to fairly valued to undervalued. The majority though shows our intrinsic
share values being low so our company being overvalued, including our all of our initial
Ke, ROE, and growth rates. We can say that the company is overvalued with a fair
degree of confidence.
Revised Abnormal Earnings Growth Model
After revising the financial statements to account back for the lease changes we
computed a revised AEG. The input values that changed due the revised financial
statements were earnings. Initially the earnings were larger than the original values and
then became less in the later years. Using these new earnings values we computed a
new sensitivity table showing the new intrinsic share values which are shown here:
- 86 -
Ke
0.12
0.14
0.1679
0.18
0.2
-0.16
15.45
11.55
7.96
6.84
5.38
-0.14
15.18
11.38
7.87
6.77
5.33
-0.12
14.87
11.18
7.76
6.68
5.27
-0.1
14.5
10.95
7.63
6.58
5.2
-0.08
14.06
10.68
7.48
6.47
5.13
Growth
Observed Price- $42.41
Observing these revised intrinsic share values we can say that our company is
overvalued. We can say this with a high degree of confidence because the AEG model is
closely related to the RI model which has a very high degree of explanatory power. Also
because the year by year change in RI is equal to the annual AEG we can show that our
AEG calculations are correct here:
Annual AEG
Change in RI
-44.19
-44.19
-44.69
-44.69
-49.66
-49.66
-53.05
-53.05
-47.56
-47.56
-35.35
-35.35
-29.13
-29.13
-26.63
-26.63
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
5.02
9.95
5.58
8.37
4.27
6.44
4.01
6.11
4.31
6.76
-26.57
-26.57
Revised Z-Score
Dollar Tree
Z-score revised
Z-score
2001
5.74
10.80
Overall, the revised z-score is lower than the actual z-score for the six year
period. The reason for this is that assets have increased due to the capitalization of the
leases. This affected all of the financial statements that were used to compute the
revised z-score. The revised z-score results show our company to be more at risk for
bankruptcy, but Dollar Tree is still in good standing with their z-score being greater
than 3.
- 87 -
Revised Valuation Model Conclusion
From our accounting analysis we found that our company’s financial statements
were distorted from the operating leases. After accounting back for these leases, we
revised financial statements that then affected our valuation models. Using these new
values in the valuation models, we computed revised intrinsic share prices. Observing
these revised intrinsic share prices we conclude Dollar Tree to be overvalued. The
Discounted Dividend Model still does not apply to Dollar Tree since our company doesn’t
pay dividends. The FCF model still has a poor explanatory power in explaining the
sensitivity table. That leaves us with the Residual Income Model and the Abnormal
Earnings Growth Model, which both have a high explanatory power. The intrinsic share
prices from these revised models both conclude that our company is overvalued.
- 88 -
Forecasted Balance Sheet Unrevised Based on Actual Balance Sheets
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Forecasted Balance Sheet
(In millions, except per share data)
Actual
2002
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
Average
Assume
2007
2008
2009
Forcasted
2011
2012
2010
2013
2014
2015
2016
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments
Merchandise inventories
Deferred tax assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Total current assets
236.65
0.00
296.47
8.88
18.78
560.78
292.19
43.78
357.67
10.41
12.09
716.14
168.69
0.00
525.64
11.72
16.53
722.57
106.53
211.28
615.48
8.07
28.53
969.89
65.80
274.00
576.60
10.80
16.50
943.70
85.00
221.80
605.00
10.70
36.50
959.00
51.70% $ 1,236.77
$ 1,385.19
$ 1,551.41
$ 1,737.58
$ 1,946.09
$ 2,179.62
$ 2,441.17
$ 2,734.11
$ 3,062.20
$ 3,429.67
Property, plant and equipment, net
Intangibles, net
Other assets, net
Total Non Current Assets
279.01
45.79
16.46
341.27
344.32
41.42
14.50
400.24
613.21
123.74
20.79
757.74
685.39
129.03
8.37
822.79
681.80
129.30
43.60
854.70
715.30
146.60
52.40
914.30
38.00%
7.80%
2.50%
48.30%
$
909.04
$
186.59
$
59.81
$ 1,155.44
$ 1,018.12
$
208.98
$
66.98
$ 1,294.09
$ 1,140.30
$
234.06
$
75.02
$ 1,449.38
$ 1,277.14
$
262.15
$
84.02
$ 1,623.31
$ 1,430.39
$
293.61
$
94.10
$ 1,818.10
$ 1,602.04
$
328.84
$
105.40
$ 2,036.28
$ 1,794.28
$
368.30
$
118.04
$ 2,280.63
$ 2,009.60
$
412.50
$
132.21
$ 2,554.30
$ 2,250.75
$
462.00
$
148.08
$ 2,860.82
$ 2,520.84
$
517.44
$
165.84
$ 3,204.12
$ 902.05
$ 1,116.38
$ 1,480.31
$ 1,792.67
$ 1,798.40
$ 1,873.30
2.07 $ 2,392.21
$ 2,679.27
$ 3,000.79
$ 3,360.88
$ 3,764.19
$ 4,215.89
$ 4,721.80
$ 5,288.41
$ 5,923.02
$ 6,633.79
25.00
58.09
79.09
38.85
201.02
25.00
59.45
94.02
28.04
206.51
25.00
114.97
88.10
37.04
265.10
19.00
124.20
117.49
33.67
294.36
19.00
135.60
99.20
41.70
295.50
18.80
189.20
132.00
43.30
383.30
25.30% $
244.61
$
247.25
$
250.21
$
253.53
$
257.24
$
261.39
$
266.05
$
271.26
$
277.10
$
283.65
56.70% $
548.20
$
554.12
$
560.75
$
568.18
$
576.50
$
585.81
$
596.25
$
607.93
$
621.02
$
635.68
12.00
0.00
37.28
49.28
6.00
9.90
38.56
54.46
142.57
29.72
28.39
200.68
250.00
42.08
42.03
334.11
250.00
23.50
57.10
330.60
250.00
1.50
70.80
322.30
43.30% $
418.64
$
423.16
$
428.23
$
433.90
$
440.25
$
447.37
$
455.33
$
464.26
$
474.25
$
485.45
705.60
$
966.84
$
977.28
$
988.98
$ 1,002.08
$ 1,016.75
$ 1,033.18
$ 1,051.58
$ 1,072.19
$ 1,095.28
$ 1,121.13
$ 1,991.69
$ 2,011.81
$ 2,335.22
$ 2,358.81
$ 2,719.97
$ 2,747.44
$ 3,150.89
$ 3,182.71
$ 3,633.52
$ 3,670.22
$ 4,174.06
$ 4,216.22
$ 4,779.47
$ 4,827.75
$ 5,457.53
$ 5,512.66
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt
Accounts payable
Other current liabilities
Income taxes payable
Total current liabilities
Long-term debt, excluding current portion
Deferred tax liabilities
Other liabilities
Total Non Current Liablities
Total liabilities
$ 250.31
$
Shareholders' equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01. 300,000,000 shares
authorized, 99,663,580 and 106,552,054 shares
issued and outstanding at February 3, 2007
and January 28, 2006, respectively
Additional paid-in capital
Unearned Compensation
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Retained earnings
Total shareholders' equity
1.13
167.15
0.00
(0.38)
483.84
$ 651.74 $
260.97
$
465.78
$
628.46
$
626.10
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.10
217.27
208.87
177.68
11.40
(0.12)
0.06
0.10
0.00
(1.37)
(0.97)
(0.29)
0.10
638.49
805.54
985.79
1,159.70
855.40 $ 1,014.52 $ 1,164.21 $ 1,172.30
Total Shareholders' Equity and Total Liablities
Error Check
$
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
1,166.60
$ 1,167.70
11.90% $
4.09
$ 1,411.12
99% $ 1,425.37
$
- 89 -
284.67
717.40
$
318.83
803.49
$ 1,684.97
$ 1,701.99
2392.21
$
$
2679.27
$
357.09
899.91
$
3000.79
$
399.95
1,007.90
$
3360.88
$
447.94
1,128.85
$
3764.19
$
501.69
1,264.31
$
4215.89
$
561.89
1,416.03
$
4721.80
$
629.32
1,585.95
$
5288.41
$
704.84
1,776.26
$
5923.02
$
789.42
1,989.42
6633.79
-
Dollar Tree Balance Sheet Forecast (Common Size)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments
Merchandise inventories
Deferred tax assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Total current assets
26.24%
0.00%
32.87%
0.98%
2.08%
62.17%
26.17%
3.92%
32.04%
0.93%
1.08%
64.15%
11.40%
0.00%
35.51%
0.79%
1.12%
48.81%
5.94%
11.79%
34.33%
0.45%
1.59%
54.10%
3.66%
15.24%
32.06%
0.60%
0.92%
52.47%
4.54%
11.84%
32.30%
0.57%
1.95%
51.19%
Property, plant and equipment, net
Intangibles, net
Other assets, net
Total Non Current Assets
30.93%
5.08%
1.83%
37.83%
30.84%
3.71%
1.30%
35.85%
41.42%
8.36%
1.40%
51.19%
38.23%
7.20%
0.47%
45.90%
37.91%
7.19%
2.42%
47.53%
38.18%
7.83%
2.80%
48.81%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt
Accounts payable
Other current liabilities
Income taxes payable
Total current liabilities
9.99%
23.21%
31.59%
15.52%
80.31%
9.58%
22.78%
36.03%
10.74%
79.13%
5.37%
24.68%
18.91%
7.95%
56.92%
3.02%
19.76%
18.70%
5.36%
46.84%
3.03%
21.66%
15.84%
6.66%
47.20%
2.66%
26.81%
18.71%
6.14%
54.32%
Long-term debt, excluding current portion
Deferred tax liabilities
Other liabilities
Total Long Term Liablities
4.79%
0.00%
14.90%
19.69%
2.30%
3.79%
14.78%
20.87%
30.61%
6.38%
6.10%
43.08%
39.78%
6.69%
6.69%
53.16%
39.93%
3.75%
9.12%
52.80%
35.43%
0.21%
10.03%
45.68%
Total liabilities
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Shareholders' equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01. 300,000,000 shares
authorized, 99,663,580 and 106,552,054 shares
issued and outstanding at February 3, 2007
and January 28, 2006, respectively
Additional paid-in capital
Unearned Compensation
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Retained earnings
Total shareholders' equity
0.17%
25.65%
0.00%
-0.06%
74.24%
100.00%
0.13%
25.40%
-0.01%
-0.16%
74.64%
100.00%
0.11%
20.59%
0.01%
-0.10%
79.40%
100.00%
0.10%
15.26%
0.01%
-0.03%
84.67%
100.00%
0.09%
0.97%
0.00%
0.01%
98.93%
100.00%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
99.91%
100.00%
TOTAL ASSETS
- 90 -
12.95%
55.48%
38.94%
7.40%
2.61%
47.41%
23.15%
60.79%
85.30%
Forecasted Balance Sheet with Capital Lease Corrections Based on actual Balance Sheets
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Balance Sheet Forcast with Capital Lease
(In millions, except per share data)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments
Merchandise inventories
Deferred tax assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Total current assets
Capital Lease Rights
Property, plant and equipment, net
Intangibles, net
Other assets, net
Total Non Current Assets
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt
Accounts payable
Other current liabilities
Income taxes payable
Total current liabilities
Capital Lease Obligation
Long-term debt, excluding current portion
Deferred tax liabilities
Other liabilities
Total Non Current Liablities
Actual
2002
2001
236.65
0.00
296.47
8.88
18.78
560.78
2003
292.19
43.78
357.67
10.41
12.09
716.14
2004
168.69
0.00
525.64
11.72
16.53
722.57
2005
106.53
211.28
615.48
8.07
28.53
969.89
2006
65.80
274.00
576.60
10.80
16.50
943.70
85.00
221.80
605.00
10.70
36.50
959.00
279.01
45.79
16.46
341.27
344.32
41.42
14.50
400.24
613.21
123.74
20.79
757.74
685.39
129.03
8.37
822.79
681.80
129.30
43.60
854.70
715.30
146.60
52.40
914.30
$ 902.05
$ 1,116.38
$ 1,480.31
$ 1,792.67
$ 1,798.40
$ 1,873.30
25.00
58.09
79.09
38.85
201.02
25.00
59.45
94.02
28.04
206.51
25.00
114.97
88.10
37.04
265.10
19.00
124.20
117.49
33.67
294.36
19.00
135.60
99.20
41.70
295.50
18.80
189.20
132.00
43.30
383.30
12.00
0.00
37.28
49.28
6.00
9.90
38.56
54.46
Total liabilities
$ 250.31
$
Shareholders' equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01. 300,000,000 shares
authorized, 99,663,580 and 106,552,054 shares
issued and outstanding at February 3, 2007
and January 28, 2006, respectively
Additional paid-in capital
Unearned Compensation
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Retained earnings
Total shareholders' equity
1.13
167.15
0.00
(0.38)
483.84
$ 651.74 $
260.97
142.57
29.72
28.39
200.68
$
465.78
250.00
42.08
42.03
334.11
$
628.46
250.00
23.50
57.10
330.60
$
626.10
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.10
217.27
208.87
177.68
11.40
(0.12)
0.06
0.10
0.00
(1.37)
(0.97)
(0.29)
0.10
638.49
805.54
985.79
1,159.70
855.40 $ 1,014.52 $ 1,164.21 $ 1,172.30
Total Shareholders' Equity and Total Liablities
Error Check
250.00
1.50
70.80
322.30
Average
Assume
2007
11.90% $
4.09
407.45
717.40
51.70% $ 1,770.20
38.00%
7.80%
2.50%
48.30%
$
$
$
$
927.74
1,301.11
267.07
85.60
1,653.78
2.07 $ 3,423.98
$
414.84
803.49
$ 1,802.29
$
$
$
$
717.76
1,324.70
271.91
87.15
1,683.76
2009
$
428.68
899.91
$ 1,862.42
$
$
$
$
529.18
1,368.90
280.98
90.06
1,739.94
Forcasted
2011
2012
2010
$
449.20
1,007.90
$ 1,951.56
$
$
$
$
364.32
1,434.42
294.43
94.37
1,823.22
$
478.08
1,128.85
$ 2,077.03
$
$
$
$
231.96
1,526.63
313.36
100.44
1,940.43
517.84
1,264.31
$ 2,249.76
$
$
$
$
139.92
1,653.60
339.42
108.79
2,101.81
$
569.59
1,416.03
$ 2,474.59
$
$
$
$
84.31
1,818.85
373.34
119.66
2,311.85
2014
$
631.91
1,585.95
$ 2,745.35
$
$
$
$
50.71
2,017.86
414.19
132.75
2,564.80
2015
$
704.34
1,776.26
$ 3,060.03
$
$
$
$
30.39
2,249.15
461.67
147.97
2,858.79
2016
$
787.06
1,989.42
$ 3,419.40
18.11
$ 2,513.29
$
515.89
$
165.35
$ 3,194.53
$ 3,486.06
$ 3,602.36
$ 3,774.79
$ 4,017.46
$ 4,351.57
$ 4,786.44
$ 5,310.15
$ 5,918.83
$ 6,613.93
$
220.44
$
200.69
$
185.56
$
176.67
$
175.45
$
181.23
$
191.50
$
204.76
$
220.14
244.34
56.70% $
547.60
$
494.03
$
449.77
$
415.87
$
395.95
$
393.21
$
406.16
$
429.16
$
458.88
$
493.36
$
927.74
$
717.76
$
529.18
$
364.32
$
231.96
$
139.92
$
84.31
$
50.71
$
30.39
$
18.11
302.37
698.32
930.28
$
$
$
300.28
693.49
833.41
$
$
$
310.17
716.33
800.64
$
$
$
327.74
756.90
807.61
$
$
$
350.43
809.31
839.70
$
$
$
376.77
870.13
888.24
705.60
43.30% $
418.19
$
965.79
$ 1,893.53
$
377.27
$
871.30
$ 1,589.06
$
343.48
$
793.25
$ 1,322.43
$
317.58
$
733.45
$ 1,097.77
$
$
$
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
1,166.60
$ 1,167.70
$ 1,515.14
99% $ 1,530.45
$ 1,878.02
$ 1,896.99
$ 2,257.13
$ 2,279.93
$ 2,650.24
$ 2,677.01
$ 3,056.30
$ 3,087.17
$
$
2013
25.30% $
3423.98
0.00
- 91 -
2008
3486.06
0.00
3602.36
(0.00)
3774.79
0.00
4017.46
0.00
$ 3,482.98
$ 3,518.16
4351.57
(0.00)
$ 3,945.94
$ 3,985.80
4786.44
0.00
$ 4,457.51
$ 4,502.54
5310.15
(0.00)
$ 5,028.33
$ 5,079.13
5918.83
0.00
$ 5,668.43
$ 5,725.69
6613.93
0.00
Actual Years Balance Sheet with Capital Lease Corrections
Actual
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Balance Sheet Forcast with Capital Lease
(In millions, except per share data)
2002
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments
Merchandise inventories
Deferred tax assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
Total current assets
236.65
0.00
296.47
8.88
18.78
560.78
292.19
43.78
357.67
10.41
12.09
716.14
168.69
0.00
525.64
11.72
16.53
722.57
106.53
211.28
615.48
8.07
28.53
969.89
65.80
274.00
576.60
10.80
16.50
943.70
85.00
221.80
605.00
10.70
36.50
959.00
Capital Lease Rights
Property, plant and equipment, net
Intangibles, net
Other assets, net
Total Non Current Assets
384.46
279.01
45.79
16.46
725.73
509.23
344.32
41.42
14.50
909.47
409.39
613.21
123.74
20.79
1,167.13
627.16
685.39
129.03
8.37
1,449.95
715.15
681.80
129.30
43.60
1,569.85
798.38
715.30
146.60
52.40
1,712.68
$ 1,286.51
$ 1,625.61
$ 1,889.70
$ 2,419.83
$ 2,513.55
$ 2,671.68
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Current portion of long-term debt
Accounts payable
Other current liabilities
Income taxes payable
Total current liabilities
25.00
58.09
79.09
38.85
201.02
25.00
59.45
94.02
28.04
206.51
25.00
114.97
88.10
37.04
265.10
19.00
124.20
117.49
33.67
294.36
19.00
135.60
99.20
41.70
295.50
18.80
189.20
132.00
43.30
383.30
Capital Lease Obligation
Long-term debt, excluding current portion
Deferred tax liabilities
Other liabilities
Total Non Current Liablities
384.46
12.00
0.00
37.28
433.74
509.23
6.00
9.90
38.56
563.69
409.39
142.57
29.72
28.39
610.07
627.16
250.00
42.08
42.03
961.27
715.15
250.00
23.50
57.10
1,045.75
798.38
250.00
1.50
70.80
1,120.68
875.17
$ 1,255.62
$ 1,341.25
$ 1,503.98
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.10
217.27
208.87
177.68
11.40
(0.12)
0.06
0.10
0.00
(1.37)
(0.97)
(0.29)
0.10
638.49
805.54
985.79
1,159.70
855.40 $ 1,014.65 $ 1,164.41 $ 1,172.30
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
1,166.60
$ 1,167.70
TOTAL ASSETS
Total liabilities
$
634.77
Shareholders' equity:
Common stock, par value $0.01. 300,000,000 shares
authorized, 99,663,580 and 106,552,054 shares
issued and outstanding at February 3, 2007
and January 28, 2006, respectively
Additional paid-in capital
Unearned Compensation
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
Retained earnings
Total shareholders' equity
$
1.13
167.15
0.00
(0.38)
483.84
651.74 $
Total Shareholders' Equity and Total Liablities
$ 1,286.50
- 92 -
$
770.20
$ 1,625.61
$
$ 1,889.70
$ 2,419.83
$ 2,513.55
$ 2,671.68
Forecasted Income Statement based on Actual Income Statement
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Forecasted Income Statement
(In millions, except per share data)
Net sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
Operating income
Interest income
Interest expense
Income before income taxes
Provision for income taxes
Net income
Actual
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$ 1,987.27
1,271.31
715.96
$ 2,329.19
1,477.21
851.97
$ 2,799.87
1,781.46
1,018.41
$ 3,126.00
2,013.50
1,112.50
$ 3,393.90
2,221.50
1,172.40
$ 3,969.40
2,612.20
1,357.20
512.09
598.05
724.82
819.00
888.50
1,046.40
26% $ 1,155.89
203.87
253.92
293.60
293.50
283.90
310.80
3.57
(7.19)
200.25
3.53
(5.99)
2.65
(7.49)
251.46
288.75
3.90
(9.20)
288.20
6.80
(15.50)
275.20
2007
2008
2009
2010
Forcasted
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
12% $ 4,445.73 $ 4,979.22 $ 5,576.72 $ 6,245.93 $ 6,995.44 $ 7,834.89 $ 8,775.08 $ 9,828.09 $ 11,007.46 $ 12,328.35
2,934.18
3,286.28
3,680.64
4,122.31
4,616.99
5,171.03
5,791.55
6,486.54
7,264.92
8,136.71
1511.55
1692.93
1896.09
2123.62
2378.45
2663.86
2983.53
3341.55
3742.54
4191.64
34%
$ 1,294.60 $ 1,449.95
$ 1,623.94
$ 1,818.81 $ 2,037.07
$ 2,281.52
$ 2,555.30
$
2,861.94
$
3,205.37
8% $ 355.66
$ 398.34
$ 446.14
$ 499.67
$ 559.64
$ 626.79
$ 702.01
$ 786.25
$
880.60
$
986.27
7.84% $ 348.55
$ 390.37
$ 437.21
$ 489.68
$ 548.44
$ 614.26
$ 687.97
$ 770.52
$
862.98
$
966.54
5.50% $ 244.52
$ 273.86
$ 306.72
$ 343.53
$ 384.75
$ 430.92
$ 482.63
$ 540.54
$
605.41
$
678.06
8.60
(16.50)
302.90
77.17
96.81
111.17
107.90
101.30
110.90
$ 123.08
$ 154.65
$ 177.58
$ 180.30
$ 173.90
$ 192.00
- 93 -
Average Assume
Forecasted Income Statement with Capital Lease Corrections
Actual
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
I.S. Forecast with Capital Lease Revision
(In millions, except per share data)
Net sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$ 1,987.27
1,271.31
715.96
$ 2,329.19
1,477.21
851.97
$ 2,799.87
1,781.46
1,018.41
$ 3,126.00
2,013.50
1,112.50
$ 3,393.90
2,221.50
1,172.40
$ 3,969.40
2,612.20
1,357.20
512.09
101.80
25.63
280.04
598.05
126.20
33.95
346.17
724.82
149.80
33.96
409.44
819.00
186.90
41.81
438.59
888.50
216.90
47.68
453.12
1,046.40
243.20
53.23
500.77
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
Adding Back Operating Lease Expense
Less Capital Lease Depreciation Expense Adjustment
Operating income
Capital Lease Interest Expense
Interest income
Interest expense
Net Interest Income (Expense) - Working Below
30.76
3.57
(7.19)
Income before income taxes
40.74
3.53
(5.99)
40.75
2.65
(7.49)
50.17
3.90
(9.20)
57.21
6.80
(15.50)
63.87
8.60
(16.50)
245.66
302.97
363.84
383.12
387.21
429.00
77.17
96.81
111.17
107.90
101.30
110.90
$ 168.49
$ 206.16
$ 252.67
$ 275.22
$ 285.91
$ 318.10
Net Income Under Operating Lease Treatment
$ 123.08
$ 154.65
$ 177.58
$ 180.30
$ 173.90
$ 192.00
Difference in Net Income due to Capitalization
$
Provision for income taxes
Net income With Leases Capitalized
(45.41) $
(51.51) $
- 94 -
(75.09) $
(94.92) $
(112.01) $
(126.10)
Average Assume
2007
2008
2009
Forcasted
2011
2012
2010
2013
2014
2015
2016
12% $ 4,445.73 $ 4,979.22 $ 5,576.72 $ 6,245.93 $ 6,995.44 $ 7,834.89 $ 8,775.08 $ 9,828.09 $ 11,007.46 $ 12,328.35
2,934.18
3,286.28
3,680.64
4,122.31
4,616.99
5,171.03
5,791.55
6,486.54
7,264.92
8,136.71
1511.55
1692.93
1896.09
2123.62
2378.45
2663.86
2983.53
3341.55
3742.54
4191.64
34%
26% $ 1,155.89
284.20
61.85
8% $ 578.01
$ 1,294.60
246.00
61.85
$ 582.49
$ 1,449.95
207.20
61.85
$ 591.49
$ 1,623.94
161.50
61.85
$ 599.32
$ 1,818.81
110.60
61.85
$ 608.39
$ 2,037.07
66.80
61.85
$ 631.74
$ 2,281.52
40.35
61.85
$ 680.51
$ 2,555.30
24.37
61.85
$ 748.77
$
$
2,861.94
14.72
61.85
833.47
$
$
3,205.37
8.89
61.85
933.31
$
74.22
$
57.42
$
42.33
$
29.15
$
18.56
$
11.19
$
6.74
$
4.06
$
2.43
$
1.45
$
7.11
$
7.97
$
8.92
$
9.99
$
11.19
$
12.54
$
14.04
$
15.72
$
17.61
$
19.73
7.84% $ 496.68
$ 517.10
$ 540.23
$ 560.18
$ 578.63
$ 608.02
$ 659.73
$ 728.98
$
813.42
$
912.13
5.50% $ 348.54
$ 362.88
$ 379.11
$ 393.11
$ 406.06
$ 426.68
$ 462.97
$ 511.57
$
570.82
$
640.09
$ 244.52
$ 273.86
$ 306.72
$ 343.53
$ 384.75
$ 430.92
$
(104.03) $
(89.02) $
(72.39) $
(49.58) $
(21.31) $
4.24
$ 482.63
$ 540.54
$
605.41
$
678.06
$
$
$
34.59
$
37.97
19.66
28.98
Income Statement (Common Size)
Sales Growth Percentage
Net sales
Cost of sales
Gross profit
100.0%
64.0%
36.0%
17.21%
100.0%
63.4%
36.6%
20.21%
100.0%
63.6%
36.4%
11.65%
100.0%
64.4%
35.6%
8.57%
100.0%
65.5%
34.5%
16.96%
100.0%
65.8%
34.2%
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
25.8%
25.7%
25.9%
26.2%
26.2%
26.4%
Operating income
10.3%
10.9%
10.5%
9.4%
8.4%
7.8%
Interest income
Interest expense
0.2%
-0.4%
0.2%
-0.3%
0.1%
-0.3%
0.1%
-0.3%
0.2%
-0.5%
0.2%
-0.4%
10.1%
10.8%
10.3%
9.2%
8.1%
7.6%
3.9%
4.2%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.8%
6.2%
6.6%
6.3%
5.8%
5.1%
4.8%
Income before income taxes
Provision for income taxes
Net income
- 95 -
Forecasted Statement of Cash Flows
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Forcasted Cash Flow Statement
(In millions)
Actual
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Net income (loss)
Depreciation & amortization
(Gain) loss on disposal of property & equip
Cumulative effect of change in acctg princ
Change in lease loss
Chng in fair val of non-hedging int rate swap
Extraord (gain) loss early extinguish of debt
Provision of deferred income taxes
Tax benefit of stock option exercises
Stock based compensation expense
Other non-cash adjustments to net income
Merchandise inventories
Prepaid expenses & other current assets
Other assets
Accounts payable
Income taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Other liabilities
Total adjustments
Net cash flows from operating activities
123.08
154.65
177.58
180.25
173.92
192.00
53.76
71.62
101.50
129.29
140.72
159.00
1.73
1.60
4.02
2.80
3.32
1.72
1.47
(0.89)
(1.06)
(0.76)
(6.22)
16.44
21.06
15.58
(21.50)
(21.90)
2.35
10.70
5.62
2.14
1.18
6.70
1.32
0.31
0.59
2.11
5.53
5.10
(37.79)
(61.19)
(61.17)
(89.84)
38.94
(6.20)
10.59
6.71
(0.43)
(0.40)
(0.94)
(1.00)
(1.42)
0.93
(5.56)
(19.80)
(17.31)
1.36
(29.14)
9.22
11.36
53.70
15.40
(10.81)
16.91
(3.37)
8.03
1.60
28.31
13.02
0.80
15.32
(6.41)
31.80
2.72
2.01
(0.75)
13.50
16.39
10.80
$ 178.73 $ 206.88 $ 234.29 $ 276.49 $ 365.15 $ 412.80
Capital expenditures
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
Purchase of Greenbacks, Inc. net
Investment in Ollie's Holdings, Inc.
Purchase of short-term investments
Proceeds from sales of short-term investments
Purchase of Deal$ assets, net
Acquisition of favorable lease rights
Purchase of restricted investments
Proceeds from sale of property & equipment
Settlement of merger-related contingencies
Net cash flows from investing activities
(121.57)
(136.13)
(227.32)
(181.78)
(139.25)
(175.30)
(100.52)
(4.00)
(60.28)
(30.36)
(465.82)
(885.48)
(1,044.40)
16.50
93.89
339.04
822.81
1,096.60
(54.10)
(0.81)
(0.11)
(6.85)
(3.65)
(4.20)
(29.94)
(9.30)
0.10
0.22
0.04
6.69
1.02
$ (121.47) $ (173.82) $ (267.36) $ (315.41) $ (235.51) $ (190.70)
- 96 -
Average Assume
2007
53% $ 244.52
$
55.41
$ 461.35
-41.00% $
Forcasted
2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
$ 273.86
$ 306.72
$ 343.53
$ 384.75
$ 430.92
$ 482.63
$
540.54
$
605.41
$
678.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14.03
$
15.71
$
17.60
247.25
$ 516.71
(189.15) $
249.96
$ 578.72
(211.85) $
8.91
$ 648.16
(237.27) $
9.98
$ 725.94
(265.75) $
11.18
$ 813.05
(297.64) $
2013
12.52
$ 910.62
(333.35) $
2014
$ 1,019.90
(373.35) $
2015
$ 1,142.28
(418.16) $
2016
$ 1,279.36
(468.34) $
(524.54)
83.00% $ (227.90) $ (255.24) $ (285.87) $ (320.18) $ (358.60) $ (401.63) $ (449.83) $ (503.80) $ (564.26) $ (631.97)
Forecasted Statement of Cash Flows with Capital Lease Corrections
Actual
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Cash Flow Statement with Capital Lease
(In millions)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Net income (loss)
Depreciation & amortization
(Gain) loss on disposal of property & equip
Cumulative effect of change in acctg princ
Change in lease loss
Chng in fair val of non-hedging int rate swap
Extraord (gain) loss early extinguish of debt
Provision of deferred income taxes
Tax benefit of stock option exercises
Stock based compensation expense
Other non-cash adjustments to net income
Merchandise inventories
Prepaid expenses & other current assets
Other assets
Accounts payable
Income taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Other liabilities
Total adjustments
Net cash flows from operating activities
123.08
154.65
177.58
180.25
173.92
192.00
53.76
71.62
101.50
129.29
140.72
159.00
1.73
1.60
4.02
2.80
3.32
1.72
1.47
(0.89)
(1.06)
(0.76)
(6.22)
16.44
21.06
15.58
(21.50)
(21.90)
2.35
10.70
5.62
2.14
1.18
6.70
1.32
0.31
0.59
2.11
5.53
5.10
(37.79)
(61.19)
(61.17)
(89.84)
38.94
(6.20)
10.59
6.71
(0.43)
(0.40)
(0.94)
(1.00)
(1.42)
0.93
(5.56)
(19.80)
(17.31)
1.36
(29.14)
9.22
11.36
53.70
15.40
(10.81)
16.91
(3.37)
8.03
1.60
28.31
13.02
0.80
15.32
(6.41)
31.80
2.72
2.01
(0.75)
13.50
16.39
10.80
$ 178.73 $ 206.88 $ 234.29 $ 276.49 $ 365.15 $ 412.80
Capital expenditures
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
Purchase of Greenbacks, Inc. net
Investment in Ollie's Holdings, Inc.
Purchase of short-term investments
Proceeds from sales of short-term investments
Purchase of Deal$ assets, net
Acquisition of favorable lease rights
Purchase of restricted investments
Proceeds from sale of property & equipment
Settlement of merger-related contingencies
Net cash flows from investing activities
(121.57)
(136.13)
(227.32)
(181.78)
(139.25)
(175.30)
(100.52)
(4.00)
(60.28)
(30.36)
(465.82)
(885.48)
(1,044.40)
16.50
93.89
339.04
822.81
1,096.60
(54.10)
(0.81)
(0.11)
(6.85)
(3.65)
(4.20)
(29.94)
(9.30)
0.10
0.22
0.04
6.69
1.02
$ (121.47) $ (173.82) $ (267.36) $ (315.41) $ (235.51) $ (190.70)
Distributions paid
Proceeds from long-term debt
Principal payments under long-term debt & cap
Proceeds from revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt
Net change in notes payable to bank
Repayments of revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt & facility fees
Principal payments under capital lease obligs
Principal payments on shareholder loans
Payments for share repurchases
Proceeds from senior notes
Repayment of credit facility fees
Proceeds from sale-leaseback transaction
Proceeds from stock issued pursuant to stockTax benefit of stock options exercised
Net cash flows from financing activities
82.00
(82.00)
(6.24)
(3.56)
(3.78)
11.81
(1.77) $
$
Net incr (decr) in cash & cash equivalents
Cash & cash equivs at beginning of year
Cash & cash equivalents at end of year
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capital
Cash paid for income taxes
55.49
$ 181.17
$ 236.65
5.14
65.69
248.91
(0.60)
39.70
(148.57)
(39.70)
(6.03)
(11.67)
(3.97)
(7.99)
(5.57)
(0.60)
(48.61)
(38.05)
(180.40)
(248.20)
32.48
22.18
15.11
10.67
40.30
5.60
22.48 $ (35.54) $ 61.26 $ (170.33) $ (202.90)
55.54
$ 236.65
$ 292.19
3.69
82.42
(68.62)
22.34
$ 237.30 $ 84.19
$ 168.69 $ 106.53
7.25
8.12
70.17
93.40
- 97 -
(40.70)
$ 106.53 $
$ 65.83 $
11.82
113.86
19.20
65.80
85.00
14.90
125.50
Average Assume
2007
53% $ 348.54
$
55.14
$ 657.63
-41.00% $
Forcasted
2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
$ 362.88
$ 379.11
$ 393.11
$ 406.06
$
(23.91) $
$ 684.67
(269.63) $
(19.75) $
$ 715.31
(280.72) $
(15.13) $
$ 741.72
(293.28) $
(8.89) $
$ 766.15
(304.10) $
$ 426.68
$ 462.97
2014
2015
2016
$
511.57
$
570.82
$
640.09
5.78
$
10.26
$
13.26
$
15.39
$ 873.52
$
965.22
(1.22) $
$ 805.05
(314.12) $
2013
(330.07) $
(358.14) $
$ 1,077.03
(395.74) $
$ 1,207.72
(441.58) $
(495.17)
83.00% $ (324.85) $ (338.21) $ (353.34) $ (366.39) $ (378.46) $ (397.68) $ (431.50) $ (476.80) $ (532.03) $ (596.59)
Statement of Cash Flows
Actual
Dollar Tree Stores Inc.
Cash Flow Statement with Capital Lease
(In millions)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Net income (loss)
Depreciation & amortization
(Gain) loss on disposal of property & equip
Cumulative effect of change in acctg princ
Change in lease loss
Chng in fair val of non-hedging int rate swap
Extraord (gain) loss early extinguish of debt
Provision of deferred income taxes
Tax benefit of stock option exercises
Stock based compensation expense
Other non-cash adjustments to net income
Merchandise inventories
Prepaid expenses & other current assets
Other assets
Accounts payable
Income taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Other liabilities
Total adjustments
Net cash flows from operating activities
123.08
154.65
177.58
180.25
173.92
192.00
168.49
206.16
252.67
275.22
285.91
318.10
53.76
71.62
101.50
129.29
140.72
159.00
1.73
1.60
4.02
2.80
3.32
1.72
1.47
(0.89)
(1.06)
(0.76)
(6.22)
16.44
21.06
15.58
(21.50)
(21.90)
2.35
10.70
5.62
2.14
1.18
6.70
1.32
0.31
0.59
2.11
5.53
5.10
(37.79)
(61.19)
(61.17)
(89.84)
38.94
(6.20)
10.59
6.71
(0.43)
(0.40)
(0.94)
(1.00)
(1.42)
0.93
(5.56)
(19.80)
(17.31)
1.36
(29.14)
9.22
11.36
53.70
15.40
(10.81)
16.91
(3.37)
8.03
1.60
28.31
13.02
0.80
15.32
(6.41)
31.80
2.72
2.01
(0.75)
13.50
16.39
10.80
$ 224.14 $ 258.39 $ 309.38 $ 371.46 $ 477.14 $ 538.90
Capital expenditures
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
Purchase of Greenbacks, Inc. net
Investment in Ollie's Holdings, Inc.
Purchase of short-term investments
Proceeds from sales of short-term investments
Purchase of Deal$ assets, net
Acquisition of favorable lease rights
Purchase of restricted investments
Proceeds from sale of property & equipment
Settlement of merger-related contingencies
Net cash flows from investing activities
(121.57)
(136.13)
(227.32)
(181.78)
(139.25)
(175.30)
(100.52)
(4.00)
(60.28)
(30.36)
(465.82)
(885.48)
(1,044.40)
16.50
93.89
339.04
822.81
1,096.60
(54.10)
(0.81)
(0.11)
(6.85)
(3.65)
(4.20)
(29.94)
(9.30)
0.10
0.22
0.04
6.69
1.02
$ (121.47) $ (173.82) $ (267.36) $ (315.41) $ (235.51) $ (190.70)
Distributions paid
Proceeds from long-term debt
Principal payments under long-term debt & cap
Proceeds from revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt
Net change in notes payable to bank
Repayments of revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt & facility fees
Principal payments under capital lease obligs
Principal payments on shareholder loans
Payments for share repurchases
Proceeds from senior notes
Repayment of credit facility fees
Proceeds from sale-leaseback transaction
Proceeds from stock issued pursuant to stockTax benefit of stock options exercised
Net cash flows from financing activities
$
Net incr (decr) in cash & cash equivalents
Cash & cash equivs at beginning of year
Cash & cash equivalents at end of year
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capital
Cash paid for income taxes
55.49
$ 181.17
$ 236.65
5.14
65.69
- 98 -
82.00
(82.00)
(6.24)
(3.56)
(3.78)
11.81
(1.77) $
248.91
(0.60)
39.70
(148.57)
(39.70)
(6.03)
(11.67)
(3.97)
(7.99)
(5.57)
(0.60)
(48.61)
(38.05)
(180.40)
(248.20)
32.48
22.18
15.11
10.67
40.30
5.60
22.48 $ (35.54) $ 61.26 $ (170.33) $ (202.90)
55.54
$ 236.65
$ 292.19
3.69
82.42
(68.62)
22.34
$ 237.30 $ 84.19
$ 168.69 $ 106.53
7.25
8.12
70.17
93.40
(40.70)
$ 106.53 $
$ 65.83 $
11.82
113.86
19.20
65.80
85.00
14.90
125.50
Dollar Tree Cash Flows (Common Size)
Net income (loss)
Depreciation & amortization
(Gain) loss on disposal of property & equip
Cumulative effect of change in acctg princ
Change in lease loss
Chng in fair val of non-hedging int rate swap
Extraord (gain) loss early extinguish of debt
Provision of deferred income taxes
Tax benefit of stock option exercises
Stock based compensation expense
Other non-cash adjustments to net income
Merchandise inventories
Prepaid expenses & other current assets
Other assets
Accounts payable
Income taxes payable
Other current liabilities
Other liabilities
Total adjustments
Net cash flows from operating activities
68.87%
30.08%
0.97%
0.00%
0.00%
0.96%
0.00%
-3.48%
1.31%
0.00%
0.74%
-21.14%
5.93%
-0.52%
-9.69%
8.62%
15.84%
1.52%
0.00%
100.00%
75%
35%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
8%
5%
0%
0%
-30%
3%
0%
1%
-5%
6%
1%
0%
100%
76%
43%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
2%
0%
0%
-26%
0%
-1%
-12%
7%
0%
0%
0%
100%
65%
47%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
1%
0%
1%
-32%
0%
0%
3%
-1%
6%
5%
0%
100%
48%
39%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-6%
0%
0%
2%
11%
0%
-2%
3%
2%
-2%
4%
0%
100%
47%
39%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-5%
0%
1623%
1%
-2%
0%
-5%
13%
0%
8%
3%
0%
100%
Capital expenditures
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
Purchase of Greenbacks, Inc. net
Investment in Ollie's Holdings, Inc.
Purchase of short-term investments
Proceeds from sales of short-term investments
Purchase of Deal$ assets, net
Acquisition of favorable lease rights
Purchase of restricted investments
Proceeds from sale of property & equipment
Settlement of merger-related contingencies
Net cash flows from investing activities
100.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-0.08%
0.00%
100.00%
78.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
34.68%
-9.49%
0.00%
0.47%
0.00%
-0.12%
-3.85%
100.00%
85.02%
0.00%
37.60%
1.50%
11.36%
-35.12%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
-0.01%
-0.38%
100.00%
57.63%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
147.69%
-107.49%
0.00%
2.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
59.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
375.98%
-349.37%
0.00%
1.55%
12.71%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
91.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
547.67%
-575.04%
28.37%
2.20%
4.88%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Distributions paid
Proceeds from long-term debt
Principal payments under long-term debt & cap
Proceeds from revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt
Net change in notes payable to bank
Repayments of revolving credit facilities
Repayment of long-term debt & facility fees
Principal payments under capital lease obligs
Principal payments on shareholder loans
Payments for share repurchases
Proceeds from senior notes
Repayment of credit facility fees
Proceeds from sale-leaseback transaction
Proceeds from stock issued pursuant to stockTax benefit of stock options exercised
Net cash flows from financing activities
$
Net incr (decr) in cash & cash equivalents
Cash & cash equivs at beginning of year
Cash & cash equivalents at end of year
Cash paid for interest, net of amount capital
Cash paid for income taxes
55.49
$ 181.17
$ 236.65
5.14
65.69
- 99 -
82.00
(82.00)
(6.24)
(3.56)
(3.78)
11.81
(1.77) $
248.91
(0.60)
39.70
(148.57)
(39.70)
(6.03)
(11.67)
(3.97)
(7.99)
(5.57)
(0.60)
(48.61)
(38.05)
(180.40)
(248.20)
32.48
22.18
15.11
10.67
40.30
5.60
22.48 $ (35.54) $ 61.26 $ (170.33) $ (202.90)
55.54
$ 236.65
$ 292.19
3.69
82.42
(68.62)
22.34
$ 237.30 $ 84.19
$ 168.69 $ 106.53
7.25
8.12
70.17
93.40
(40.70)
$ 106.53 $
$ 65.83 $
11.82
113.86
19.20
65.80
85.00
14.90
125.50
Method of Comparables
Remark
Dollar Tree (DLTR)
Dollar General (DG)
Family Dollar (FDO)
99 Cent Only (NDN)
(Outlier)
Industry Average without DLTR n NDN
Dollar Tree
Current Selling Price (Jun 1, 2007)
P/E (Traling)
P/E (Forecast)
P/B
D/P
P.E.G.
P/EDITDA
P/FCF
Enterprise Value/EBITDA
99 Cents Only
Free Cash Flow
Close Price (Jun 1, 2007)
EBITDA
Dollar General
Free Cash Flow
Close Price (Jun 1, 2007)
EBITDA
Divident (2006)
Family Dollar
Free Cash Flow
Close Price (Jun 1, 2007)
EBITDA
Divident (2006)
P/E (Trailing) P/E (Forecast)
P/B
Price/Earning
Price/Earning
Price/Bookvalue
54.5400
22.4600
95.7600
38.5000
25.3000
18.7300
43.5900
22.0150
3.8200
3.9500
1.6800
3.8850
D/P
Divident/Price
0.0046
0.0034
0.0040
42.4100
71.2250
40.7278
42.5756
N/A
18.0098
17.4192
47.1954
33.1491
2006
82508-85640
14.2
4.1 (million)
-3.132 (million)
2006
405357-281964
123.393 (million)
21.63
435.75 (million)
$0.10
2006
450993-293348
561.248 (million)
33.86
542.16 (million)
$0.115
- 100 -
FCF = CFFO+(-)CFFI
P/(FCF per share)
P.E.G.
P/EDITDA
(P/E)/(1-Year Growth Rate) Price/EDITBA Price/Free Cash Flows
1.9500
1.5900
2.4100
1.7700
0.0496
0.0625
(4.5338)
0.0560
0.1753
0.0603
(4.5338)
0.1178
(Enterprise
value)
/(EBITDA)
15.8280
9.4610
18.2550
12.6445
Intrinsic Valuation – Free Cash Flows
WACC(BT)
0
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
Cash From Operations
Cash Outflows from Investing Activities
Book Value of Debt and Preferred Stock
Annual Free Cash Flow
PV Factor
PV of Free Cash Flows
Total PV of Annual Free Cash Flows
Continuing (Terminal) Value Perpetuity
PV of Terminal Value Perpetuity
Value of Firm
Book Value of Liabilities
Estimated Market Value of Equity
Number of Shares
Estimated Price per Share (End of Fiscal Year)
Estimated Price per Share (June 1, 2007)
Observed Share Price
Initial WACC
Perpetuity Growth Rate (g)
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
1
2007
244.52
2
2008
273.86
3
2009
306.72
4
2010
343.53
5
2011
384.75
6
2012
430.92
7
2013
482.63
8
2014
540.54
9
2015
605.41
10
2016
678.0594633
461.35
227.90
516.71
255.24
578.72
285.87
648.16
320.18
725.94
358.60
813.05
401.63
910.62
449.83
1019.90
503.80
1142.28
564.26
1279.36
631.97
0.12
261.47
0.7695
201.19
0.12
292.84
0.6750
197.66
0.12
327.99
0.5921
194.19
0.12
367.34
0.5194
190.79
0.12
411.43
0.4556
187.44
0.12
460.80
0.3996
184.15
0.12
516.09
0.3506
180.92
0.12
578.02
0.3075
177.75
0.12
647.39
0.2697
174.63
0.2
0.18
0.1594
0.14
0.12
0.08
16.19
20.95
28.35
39.94
63.62
1167.7
705.60
1893.50475
17047.04717
$ 18,940.55
705.60
$18,234.95
106.552
$171.14
180.74
$42.41
0.14
0.13
- 101 -
233.45
0.8772
204.78
0.1000
0.9000
1.0000
$48.77
$36.05
Sensitivity Analysis
0.1
0.12
17.92
20.5
2.99
29.05
34.44
46.73
54.02
96.26
113.67 Undervalued
Fairly-Valued
Overvalued
63197.17662
0.13
22.35
33.09
59.13
180.71 -
0.14
24.81
39.17
84.34
2017
Intrinsic Valuation – Residual Income
WACC(BT)
0
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
Actual EPS
"Normal" (Benchmark) Earnings
Residual Income (Annual)
PV Factor
PV of Annual Residual Income
Total PV of Annual Residual Income
Continuing (Terminal) Value Perpetuity
PV of Terminal Value Perpetuity
Initial Book Value of Equity
Estimated Price per Share (end of 2006)
Implied Share Price at June 1, 2007
Observed Share Price
Initial Cost of Equity (You Derive)
Perpetuity Growth Rate (g)
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
192
1
2007
244.52
0.00
436.52
2
2008
273.86
0.00
710.37
3
2009
306.72
0.00
1017.09
4
2010
343.53
0.00
1360.62
5
2011
384.75
0.00
1745.37
6
2012
430.92
0.00
2176.29
7
2013
482.63
0.00
2658.92
8
2014
540.54
0.00
3199.46
9
2015
605.41
0.00
3804.87
10
2016
678.06
0.00
4482.93
273.86
56.75
217.11
0.7831
170.03
306.72
92.35
214.37
0.6931
148.57
343.53
132.22
211.30
0.6133
129.60
384.75
176.88
207.87
0.5428
112.82
430.92
226.90
204.02
0.4803
98.00
482.63
282.92
199.71
0.4251
84.89
540.54
345.66
194.89
0.3762
73.31
605.41
415.93
189.48
0.3329
63.08
678.06
494.63
183.43
0.2946
54.04
1128.62
244.52
24.96
219.56
0.8850
194.30
84.81%
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0
7.70
8.98
10.69
12.35
14.57
-0.05
7.68
8.96
10.65
12.3
14.5
-0.1
7.67
8.94
10.63
12.27
14.45
-0.15
7.66
8.93
10.61
12.25
14.43
-0.2
7.66
8.92
10.6
12.23
14.41
30.30
10.09
192.00
1330.71
14.41
42.41
0.13
-0.2
0.76%
14.43%
100.00%
- 102 -
Undervalued
Fairly-Valued
Overvalued
10.00
Intrinsic Valuation – Residual Income Perpetuity
Book Value of Equity
Long Run Return on Equity
Long Run Growth Rate in Equity
Cost of Equity
Estimated Price per Share (end of Fiscal Year)
Estimated Price per Share (June 1, 2007)
Observed Share Price
192
0.17
0.16
0.1679
0.17
0.16
0.1679
4
4.36
$42.41
WACC(BT)
0
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
192
ROE
BE % G
Average ROE
Average Growth in BVE
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
1
2007
244.52
0.00
436.52
2
2008
273.86
0.00
710.37
3
2009
306.72
0.00
1017.09
4
2010
343.53
0.00
1360.62
5
2011
384.75
0.00
1745.37
6
2012
430.92
0.00
2176.29
7
2013
482.63
0.00
2658.92
8
2014
540.54
0.00
3199.46
9
2015
605.41
0.00
3804.87
10
2016
678.06
0.00
4482.93
127%
127%
63%
63%
43%
43%
34%
34%
28%
28%
25%
25%
22%
22%
20%
20%
19%
19%
18%
18%
0.12
3.03
3.32
3.93
5.09
11.38
0.14
2.79
3.1
3.99
7.64
-3.79
0.16
2.34
2.58
4.36
0
1.26
0.18
1.3
4.68
3.51
2.55
2.28
0.2
-3.9
7.75
3.72
3.06
2.71
0.12
0
0.54
-7.81
11.45
6.71
0.14
2.72
1.92
-2.94
8.28
5.52
0.16
3.53
3.3
1.92
5.1
4.32
40%
40%
Growth
Ke
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
ROE
Ke
ROE
Growth
Overvalued
Fairly-Valued
Undervalued
- 103 -
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.18
4.33
2.76
6.79
1.92
3.12
0.2
5.13
6.06
11.966
-1.26
1.92
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.39
-0.65
-7.81
9.55
4.42
0.14
1.17
0.65
-2.94
5.73
3.16
0.16
1.95
1.94
1.92
1.91
1.9
0.18
2.73
3.23
6.79
-1.91
0.63
0.2
3.51
4.52
1.66
-5.73
-0.63
AEG Valuation
WACC(AT)
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
Cash From Operations
Cash Investments
Core Perpetuity Component
Forecast EPS
DRIP income
Cumulative Dividend Income
"Normal" Annual Income (Benchmark)
Annual AEG adjustment
PV Factor
PV of YBY AEG
Total PV YBY of AEG
Value of AEG PER
Present value of AEG perp added to core
Total adjusted t+1 Perp
Capitalization Rate (Ke)
Value of Equity
Estimated Value at 31 Jan. 2007
Growth
Obeserved Share Price at June 1, 2007
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
0
2007
244.52
0.00
1
2008
273.86
0.00
2
2009
306.72
0.00
3
2010
343.53
0.00
4
2011
384.75
0.00
5
2012
430.92
0.00
6
2013
482.63
0.00
7
2014
540.54
0.00
8
2015
605.41
0.00
9
2016
678.06
0.00
461.35
227.90
516.71
255.24
578.72
285.87
648.16
320.18
725.94
358.60
813.05
401.63
910.62
449.83
1019.90
503.80
1142.28
564.26
1279.36
631.97
1167
244.52
273.86
306.72
343.53
384.75
430.92
482.63
540.54
605.41
678.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
273.86
306.72
343.53
384.75
430.92
482.63
540.54
605.41
678.06
285.5691 319.8374 358.2179 401.204 449.3485 503.2704 563.6628 631.3023 707.0586
-11.71
-13.12
-14.69
-16.45
-18.43
-20.64
-23.12
-25.89
-29.00
0.856238 0.733143 0.627745 0.537499 0.460227 0.394063 0.337412 0.288905 0.247371
-10.02849 -9.617181 -9.222744 -8.844485 -8.481739 -8.13387 -7.80027 -7.480351 -7.173554
-76.7827
-196.0095
-48.4871
119.2453
0.1679
710.22
6.67
0%
7.11
$
$42.41
Ke
g
0.19
5.60
6.00
6.27
6.45
6.59
0.1679
7.11
7.77
8.19
8.48
8.68
-11.71
-13.12
-14.69
-16.45
-11.71
-13.12
-14.69
-16.45
200.566 187.4482 172.7564 156.3015
-18.43
-18.43
137.872
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0.21
4.54
4.80
4.98
5.11
5.20
0.15
8.65
9.68
10.30
10.71
11.01
0.13
10.74
12.53
13.53
14.17
14.62
Overvalued
Fairly-Valued
Undervalued
Annual AEG
Change in RI
Annual RI
10
212.27824
- 104 -
-20.64
-23.12
-25.89
-29.00
-20.64
-23.12
-25.89
-29.00
117.231 94.11301 68.22091 39.22176
-32.91
Free Cash Flows (Revised)
WACC(BT)
0
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
Cash From Operations
Cash Outflows from Investing Activities
Book Value of Debt and Preferred Stock
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
1
2007
348.54
2
2008
362.88
3
2009
379.11
4
2010
393.11
5
2011
406.06
6
2012
426.68
7
2013
462.97
657.63
324.85
684.67
338.21
715.31
353.34
741.72
366.39
766.15
378.46
805.05
397.68
873.52
431.50
0.04
346.46
0.7439
257.74
0.04
361.96
0.6417
232.25
0.04
375.33
0.5534
207.72
0.03
387.69
0.4773
185.06
0.05
407.38
0.4117
167.72
0.09
442.02
0.3551
156.97
0.2
0.18
0.1594
0.14
0.12
0.08
17.61
22.2
29.28
40.33
62.8
1167
705.60
Annual Free Cash Flow
PV Factor
PV of Free Cash Flows
Total PV of Annual Free Cash Flows
Continuing (Terminal) Value Perpetuity
PV of Terminal Value Perpetuity
Value of Firm
Book Value of Liabilities
Estimated Market Value of Equity
Number of Shares
Estimated Price per Share (End of Fiscal Year)
Estimated Price per Share (June 1, 2007)
Observed Share Price
Initial WACC
Perpetuity Growth Rate (g)
1927.327478
3450.201551
$ 5,377.53
705.60
$4,671.93
106.552
$43.85
46.63
$42.41
0.1594
0.12
- 105 -
332.78
0.8625
287.02
0.3584
0.6416
1.0000
$48.77
$36.05
Sensitivity Analysis
0.1
0.12
19.24
21.68
25.06
29.84
35.04
46.63
53.62
93.5
110.05 Undervalued
Fairly-Valued
Overvalued
0.13
23.42
33.66
58.35
173.25 -
0.14
25.74
39.39
82.14
Residual Income (Revised)
WACC(BT)
0.1594
1167
1
2007
348.54
0.00
1515.54
2
2008
362.88
0.00
1878.42
3
2009
379.11
0.00
2257.53
4
2010
393.11
0.00
2650.64
5
2011
406.06
0.00
3056.70
6
2012
426.68
0.00
3483.38
7
2013
462.97
0.00
3946.34
8
2014
511.57
0.00
4457.91
9
2015
570.82
0.00
5028.73
10
2016
640.094
0.00
5668.83
362.88
254.46
108.42
0.7331
79.49
379.11
315.39
63.73
0.6277
40.00
393.11
379.04
14.07
0.5375
7.56
406.06
445.04
-38.99
0.4602
-17.94
426.68
513.22
-86.54
0.3941
-34.10
462.97
584.86
-121.89
0.3374
-41.13
511.57
662.59
-151.02
0.2889
-43.63
570.82
748.48
-177.66
0.2474
-43.95
640.09
844.32
-204.23
0.2118
-43.26
33.71
348.54
195.94
152.60
0.8562
130.67
416.72%
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0
7.37
8.35
9.55
10.58
11.7
-0.05
7.8
8.95
10.41
11.77
13.47
-0.1
8.09
9.34
10.96
12.49
14.48
-0.15
8.31
9.61
11.33
12.97
15.12
-0.2
8.47
9.81
11.59
13.31
15.57
0
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
Actual EPS
"Normal" (Benchmark) Earnings
Residual Income (Annual)
PV Factor
PV of Annual Residual Income
Total PV of Annual Residual Income
Continuing (Terminal) Value Perpetuity
PV of Terminal Value Perpetuity
Initial Book Value of Equity
Estimated Price per Share (end of 2006)
Implied Share Price at June 1, 2007
Observed Share Price
Initial Cost of Equity (You Derive)
Perpetuity Growth Rate (g)
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
-1369.86
-338.86 -4189.48%
1167.00 14427.96%
8.09
100.00%
9.55
42.41
Undervalued
0.1679
Fairly-Valued
0
Overvalued
- 106 -
-230.00
Long Run ROE (Revised)
Book Value of Equity
Long Run Return on Equity
Long Run Growth Rate in Equity
Cost of Equity
Estimated Price per Share (end of Fiscal Year)
Estimated Price per Share (June 1, 2007)
Observed Share Price
1167
0.17
0.2
0.13
0.17
0.16
0.1679
16
16.46
$42.41
WACC(BT)
0
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
1167
ROE
BE % G
Average ROE
Average Growth in BVE
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
1
2007
348.54
0.00
1515.54
2
2008
362.88
0.00
1878.42
3
2009
379.11
0.00
2257.53
4
2010
393.11
0.00
2650.64
5
2011
406.06
0.00
3056.70
6
2012
426.68
0.00
3483.38
7
2013
462.97
0.00
3946.34
8
2014
511.57
0.00
4457.91
30%
30%
24%
24%
20%
20%
17%
17%
15%
15%
14%
14%
13%
13%
13%
13%
9
10
2015
2016
570.82 640.0939958
0.00
0.00
5028.73
5668.83
13%
13%
13%
13%
17%
17%
Ke
0.21
0.19
0.1679
0.15
0.13
0.12
18.45
20.19
23.88
30.96
69.15 -
Growth
0.14
0.16
16.94
14.23
18.84
15.7 24.25
26.47
46.44 7.68
ROE
0.18
7.91 -
0.2
Ke
0.21
0.19 0.1679 0.15
0.13
47.1
22.6
18.57
16.46
21.34
15.48
13.83
ROE
Growth
Overvalued
Fairly-Valued
Undervalued
- 107 -
0.12
0.14
0.16 0.18
0.2
0.12
11.68
3.31
0.14
16.56
11.68
-
69.62
40.8
50.31
33.52
0.16
21.44
20.06
11.68 31
26.24
0.17
26.21
29.13
17.48 20.39
0.2
31.2
36.81
70.84
11.68
0.12
2.37
0.14
7.11
3.93
-
58.05
26.89
34.83
34.7
0.16
11.86 11.78
11.68
11.61
11.52
0.17
47.1
22.6
18.57 16.46 -
0.2
21.34
27.48
70.84
AEG (REVISED)
WACC(AT)
2006
Earnings
Dividends
Book Value
Cash From Operations
Cash Investments
Core Perpetuity Component
Forecast Earnings
DRIP income
Cumulative Dividend Income
"Normal" Annual Income (Benchmark)
Annual AEG adjustment
PV Factor
PV of YBY AEG
Total PV YBY of AEG
Value of AEG PER
Present value of AEG perp added to core
Total adjusted t+1 Perp
Capitalization Rate (Ke)
Value of Equity
Estimated Value at 31 Jan. 2007
Growth
Obeserved Share Price at June 1, 2007
0.1594
Kd
0.05475
Ke
0.1679
0
2007
348.54
0.00
1
2008
362.88
0.00
2
2009
379.11
0.00
3
2010
393.11
0.00
4
2011
406.06
0.00
5
2012
426.68
0.00
6
2013
462.97
0.00
7
2014
511.57
0.00
8
2015
570.82
0.00
9
2016
640.094
0.00
657.63
324.85
684.67
338.21
715.31
353.34
741.72
366.39
766.15
378.46
805.05
397.68
873.52
431.50
965.22
476.80
1077.03
532.03
1207.72
596.59
10
1167
348.54
362.88
379.11
393.11
406.06
426.68
462.97
511.57
570.82
640.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
362.88
379.11
393.11
406.06
426.68
462.97
511.57
570.82
640.09
407.0644 423.8047 442.7652 459.1123 474.235 498.3167 540.6977 597.4584 666.6658
-44.19
-44.69
-49.66
-53.05
-47.56
-35.35
-29.13
-26.63
-26.57
0.856238 0.733143 0.627745 0.537499 0.460227 0.394063 0.337412 0.288905 0.247371
-37.83449 -32.76594 -31.17122 -28.51672 -21.88718 -13.93052 -9.829243 -7.694689 -6.573103
-190.2031
-196.0095
$
$42.41
Ke
-48.4871
109.8537
0.1679
654.28
6.14
0%
6.55
g
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
0.12
15.45
15.18
14.87
14.5
14.06
0.14
11.55
11.38
11.18
10.95
10.68
0.1679
7.96
7.87
7.76
7.63
7.48
0.18
6.84
6.77
6.68
6.58
6.47
0.2
5.38
5.33
5.27
5.2
5.13
-44.69
-44.69
63.73
-49.66
-49.66
14.07
-53.05
-53.05
-38.99
-47.56
-47.56
-86.54
-35.35
-35.35
-121.89
-29.13
-29.13
-151.02
Overvalued
Fairly-Valued
Undervalued
Annual AEG
Change in RI
Annual RI
152.60
- 108 -
-44.19
-44.19
108.42
-26.63
-26.63
-177.66
-26.57
-26.57
-204.23
-32.91
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
3 Month
Beta
0.0974
0.0315
-0.0449
-0.0677
-0.0038
R^2
0.0013
-0.0152
-0.0147
-0.0131
-0.0454
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
6 Months
Beta
1.6115
1.7129
1.1496
0.7694
0.5924
R^2
0.3159
0.3520
0.0796
0.0329
0.0013
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
2 Years
Beta
1.6082
1.7154
1.1674
0.7824
0.6028
R^2
0.3156
0.3543
0.0829
0.0355
0.0032
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
5 Year
Beta
1.6064
1.7187
1.1831
0.7905
0.6067
R^2
0.3156
0.3563
0.0855
0.0371
0.0038
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
10 Year
Beta
1.6077
1.7209
1.1921
0.7963
0.6096
R^2
0.3162
0.3574
0.0870
0.0382
0.0043
- 109 -
3 Month
Beta
0.0974
0.0315
-0.0449
-0.0677
-0.0038
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.123936311
R Square
0.015360209
Adjusted R Square
0.001293926
Standard Error
0.104050377
Observations
72
Published Beta:
R^2
0.0013
-0.0152
-0.0147
-0.0131
-0.0454
0.8
Rf
Rm
CAPM
CAPM
0.0487
0.0325
=.0487+.0974(.07)
0.0555
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
70
71
SS
0.011822385
0.757853662
0.769676047
Coefficients Standard Error
0.032774614
0.023147497
0.09739107
0.093198784
MS
F
Significance F
0.011822385 1.091987796
0.299626436
0.010826481
t Stat
P-value
1.415903162 0.161238138
1.044982199 0.299626436
Lower 95%
-0.013391612
-0.088488041
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.078940841 -0.013391612
0.283270181 -0.088488041
Upper 95.0%
0.078940841
0.283270181
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.059188016 -0.034565649
0.21677752 -0.153860624
Upper 95.0%
0.059188016
0.21677752
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.044052165 -0.043305972
0.114711542 -0.204524939
Upper 95.0%
0.044052165
0.114711542
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.052393477
-0.0642565
0.118407967 -0.253811542
Upper 95.0%
0.052393477
0.118407967
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.109339657 -0.064324102
0.235799497 -0.243496508
Upper 95.0%
0.109339657
0.235799497
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.04457323
R Square
0.001986773
Adjusted R Square
-0.015220352
Standard Error
0.099482023
Observations
60
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
58
59
SS
0.001142692
0.574007028
0.57514972
Coefficients Standard Error
0.012311183
0.023418306
0.031458448
0.092580034
MS
F
Significance F
0.001142692 0.115462219
0.735236632
0.009896673
t Stat
P-value
0.525707677 0.601095598
0.339797321 0.735236632
Lower 95%
-0.034565649
-0.153860624
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.083207465
R Square
0.006923482
Adjusted R Square
-0.014665138
Standard Error
0.077958134
Observations
48
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
46
47
SS
0.001949048
0.27956365
0.281512698
Coefficients Standard Error
0.000373097
0.02169962
-0.044906699
0.079297825
MS
0.001949048
0.006077471
F
Significance F
0.32070055
0.573939613
t Stat
P-value
0.017193689 0.986356457
-0.566304291 0.573939613
Lower 95%
-0.043305972
-0.204524939
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.125778016
R Square
0.015820109
Adjusted R Square
-0.013126358
Standard Error
0.065369011
Observations
36
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
34
35
SS
0.002335381
0.14528566
0.147621041
Coefficients Standard Error
-0.005931511
0.028699789
-0.067701788
0.091578427
MS
F
Significance F
0.002335381 0.546529882
0.464812748
0.004273108
t Stat
P-value
-0.206674389
0.8374969
-0.739276594 0.464812748
Lower 95%
-0.0642565
-0.253811542
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.007100325
R Square
5.04146E-05
Adjusted R Square
-0.045401839
Standard Error
0.054592402
Observations
24
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
22
23
SS
3.30572E-06
0.065567267
0.065570573
Coefficients Standard Error
0.022507778
0.041869428
-0.003848506
0.115555772
MS
F
Significance F
3.30572E-06 0.001109177
0.973732232
0.00298033
t Stat
P-value
0.537570693 0.596269878
-0.033304315 0.973732232
- 110 -
Lower 95%
-0.064324102
-0.243496508
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.570540884
R Square
0.3255169
Adjusted R Square
0.315881427
0.086117319
Standard Error
Observations
72
6 Months
Beta
R^2
1.6115
1.7129
1.1496
0.7694
0.5924
Published Beta:
0.3159
0.3520
0.0796
0.0329
0.0013
0.8
Rf
Rm
CAPM
CAPM
0.0498
0.0325
=.0498+1.7129(.07)
0.1697
ANOVA
df
SS
0.250542561
0.519133486
0.769676047
MS
0.250542561
0.007416193
F
33.7831786
Significance F
1.67423E-07
Coefficients Standard Error
0.010447322
0.010153808
1.611493255
0.277254266
t Stat
1.028906827
5.812329877
P-value
0.307065651
1.67423E-07
Lower 95%
-0.009803809
1.058527064
SS
0.208768952
0.366380768
0.57514972
MS
0.208768952
0.00631691
F
33.04922171
Significance F
3.52291E-07
Coefficients Standard Error
-0.001643532
0.010338983
1.712940375
0.297962513
t Stat
-0.158964567
5.748845251
P-value
0.874249033
3.52291E-07
Lower 95%
-0.022339254
1.116503609
SS
0.027908075
0.253604623
0.281512698
MS
0.027908075
0.005513144
F
5.062097994
Significance F
0.029281427
Coefficients Standard Error
0.002562109
0.011336945
1.149614163
0.510959915
t Stat
0.225996402
2.249910664
P-value
0.822205391
0.029281427
Lower 95%
-0.020257977
0.121105214
SS
0.008935764
0.138685277
0.147621041
MS
0.008935764
0.004078979
F
2.190686566
Significance F
0.148054838
Coefficients Standard Error
0.009358856
0.011040702
0.769421719
0.519845536
t Stat
0.84766857
1.48009681
P-value
0.402550548
0.148054838
Lower 95%
-0.01307855
-0.287031511
SS
0.002929921
0.062640652
0.065570573
MS
0.002929921
0.002847302
F
1.029016478
Significance F
0.321416864
Coefficients Standard Error
0.019846888
0.011585574
0.592443373
0.584030706
t Stat
1.713068949
1.014404494
P-value
0.100759292
0.321416864
Lower 95%
-0.004180123
-0.618762173
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
70
71
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.030698454 -0.009803809
2.164459446 1.058527064
Upper 95.0%
0.030698454
2.164459446
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.01905219 -0.022339254
2.309377141 1.116503609
Upper 95.0%
0.01905219
2.309377141
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.025382195 -0.020257977
2.178123111 0.121105214
Upper 95.0%
0.025382195
2.178123111
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.031796262 -0.01307855
1.82587495 -0.287031511
Upper 95.0%
0.031796262
1.82587495
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.043873898 -0.004180123
1.803648918 -0.618762173
Upper 95.0%
0.043873898
1.803648918
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.602479812
R Square
0.362981924
Adjusted R Square
0.351998854
Standard Error
0.07947899
Observations
60
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
58
59
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.31485888
R Square
0.099136115
Adjusted R Square
0.079552117
Standard Error
0.074250549
Observations
48
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
46
47
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.246032065
R Square
0.060531777
Adjusted R Square
0.032900359
Standard Error
0.063866883
Observations
36
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
34
35
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.211384661
R Square
0.044683475
Adjusted R Square
0.001259996
Standard Error
0.05336012
Observations
24
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
22
23
- 111 -
2 Years
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.570287193
R Square
0.325227483
Adjusted R Square
0.315587875
Standard Error
0.086135793
Observations
72
Beta
Published Beta:
0.8
R^2
1.6082
1.7154
1.1674
0.7824
0.6028
0.3156
0.3543
0.0829
0.0355
0.0032
Rf
Rm
CAPM
CAPM
0.0477
0.0325
=.0477+1.7154(.07)
0.1678
ANOVA
df
SS
0.250319803
0.519356244
0.769676047
MS
0.250319803
0.007419375
F
33.73866483
Significance F
1.70025E-07
Coefficients Standard Error
0.011047798
0.010153342
1.608163819
0.276863906
t Stat
1.088094799
5.808499361
P-value
0.280285472
1.70025E-07
Lower 95%
-0.009202403
1.055976178
SS
0.210053685
0.365096035
0.57514972
MS
0.210053685
0.006294759
F
33.36961392
Significance F
3.17275E-07
Coefficients Standard Error
-0.001157106
0.01031039
1.71542029
0.296957947
t Stat
-0.112227182
5.776643829
P-value
0.91103079
3.17275E-07
Lower 95%
-0.021795594
1.120994381
SS
0.028829953
0.252682745
0.281512698
MS
0.028829953
0.005493103
F
5.248390917
Significance F
0.026597791
Coefficients Standard Error
0.002725097
0.011274397
1.167424063
0.50958373
t Stat
0.241706646
2.29093669
P-value
0.810081764
0.026597791
Lower 95%
-0.019969087
0.141685232
SS
0.009301869
0.138319173
0.147621041
MS
0.009301869
0.004068211
F
2.28647644
Significance F
0.139746061
Coefficients Standard Error
0.009382688
0.011006718
0.782444432
0.517452082
t Stat
0.852450966
1.51210993
P-value
0.399928992
0.139746061
Lower 95%
-0.012985655
-0.269144715
SS
0.003048943
0.06252163
0.065570573
MS
0.003048943
0.002841892
F
1.072856503
Significance F
0.311552913
Coefficients Standard Error
0.019727975
0.01158724
0.602849783
0.582020511
t Stat
1.702560333
1.035787866
P-value
0.102739857
0.311552913
Lower 95%
-0.00430249
-0.604186874
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
70
71
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.031298 -0.009202403
2.160351461 1.055976178
Upper 95.0%
0.031298
2.160351461
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.019481382 -0.021795594
2.309846199 1.120994381
Upper 95.0%
0.019481382
2.309846199
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.02541928 -0.019969087
2.193162894 0.141685232
Upper 95.0%
0.02541928
2.193162894
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.03175103 -0.012985655
1.834033578 -0.269144715
Upper 95.0%
0.03175103
1.834033578
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.043758441 -0.00430249
1.80988644 -0.604186874
Upper 95.0%
0.043758441
1.80988644
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.604330754
R Square
0.365215661
Adjusted R Square
0.354271103
Standard Error
0.079339519
Observations
60
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
58
59
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.320016942
R Square
0.102410843
Adjusted R Square
0.082898035
Standard Error
0.074115472
Observations
48
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
46
47
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.251021526
R Square
0.063011807
Adjusted R Square
0.03545333
Standard Error
0.063782529
Observations
36
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
34
35
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.215635439
R Square
0.046498642
Adjusted R Square
0.003157672
Standard Error
0.053309402
Observations
24
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
22
23
- 112 -
5 Year
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.570269555
R Square
0.325207365
Adjusted R Square
0.31556747
Standard Error
0.086137077
Observations
72
Beta
Published Beta:
0.8
R^2
1.6064
1.7187
1.1831
0.7905
0.6067
0.3156
0.3563
0.0855
0.0371
0.0038
MRP
Rf
CAPM
CAPM
0.0700
0.0467
=.0467+1.7187(.07)
0.1670
ANOVA
df
SS
0.250304319
0.519371728
0.769676047
MS
0.250304319
0.007419596
F
33.73557206
Significance F
1.70208E-07
Coefficients Standard Error
0.011985828
0.010151461
1.60636345
0.276566628
t Stat
1.180699795
5.808233127
P-value
0.241718387
1.70208E-07
Lower 95%
-0.008260622
1.054768711
SS
0.211209848
0.363939872
0.57514972
MS
0.211209848
0.006274825
F
33.65987671
Significance F
2.88664E-07
Coefficients Standard Error
-0.00028127
0.010277553
1.71872472
0.296244341
t Stat
-0.027367383
5.801713256
P-value
0.978260661
2.88664E-07
Lower 95%
-0.020854027
1.125727248
SS
0.029547321
0.251965377
0.281512698
MS
0.029547321
0.005477508
F
5.394299637
Significance F
0.024681095
Coefficients Standard Error
0.003090564
0.011196609
1.18311722
0.509401527
t Stat
0.276026739
2.322563161
P-value
0.783763864
0.024681095
Lower 95%
-0.019447042
0.157745145
SS
0.00953256
0.138088481
0.147621041
MS
0.00953256
0.004061426
F
2.34709694
Significance F
0.134769442
Coefficients Standard Error
0.009466472
0.0109747
0.790512641
0.515992401
t Stat
0.862572303
1.532023805
P-value
0.394416264
0.134769442
Lower 95%
-0.012836801
-0.258110076
SS
0.003092237
0.062478336
0.065570573
MS
0.003092237
0.002839924
F
1.088844933
Significance F
0.308058527
Coefficients Standard Error
0.019682465
0.011588616
0.606669726
0.581392341
t Stat
1.69843104
1.043477327
P-value
0.103527125
0.308058527
Lower 95%
-0.004350853
-0.599064186
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
70
71
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.032232278 -0.008260622
2.15795819 1.054768711
Upper 95.0%
0.032232278
2.15795819
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.020291487 -0.020854027
2.311722192 1.125727248
Upper 95.0%
0.020291487
2.311722192
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.025628169 -0.019447042
2.208489295 0.157745145
Upper 95.0%
0.025628169
2.208489295
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.031769745 -0.012836801
1.839135359 -0.258110076
Upper 95.0%
0.031769745
1.839135359
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.043715782 -0.004350853
1.812403638 -0.599064186
Upper 95.0%
0.043715782
1.812403638
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.605991631
R Square
0.367225856
Adjusted R Square
0.356315957
Standard Error
0.079213795
Observations
60
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
58
59
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.323973925
R Square
0.104959104
Adjusted R Square
0.085501693
Standard Error
0.07401019
Observations
48
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
46
47
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.254115203
R Square
0.064574537
Adjusted R Square
0.037062023
Standard Error
0.063729317
Observations
36
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
34
35
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.21716104
R Square
0.047158917
Adjusted R Square
0.003847959
Standard Error
0.053290941
Observations
24
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
22
23
- 113 -
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.570774424
R Square
0.325783444
Adjusted R Square
0.316151779
Standard Error
0.086100301
Observations
72
Months
72 months
60 months
48 months
36 months
24 months
10 Year
Beta
R^2
1.6077
1.7209
1.1921
0.7963
0.6096
Published Beta:
0.3162
0.3574
0.0870
0.0382
0.0043
0.8
MRP
Rf
CAPM
CAPM
0.0700
0.0475
=.0475+1.720(.07)
0.1679
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
70
71
SS
MS
0.250747713 0.250747713
0.518928334 0.007413262
0.769676047
Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0.012730279
0.010147342 1.254543262
1.607702619
0.276434282 5.815858322
F
Significance F
33.82420802
1.6506E-07
P-value
0.213817413
1.6506E-07
Lower 95%
-0.007507955
1.056371836
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.032968513 -0.007507955
2.159033403 1.056371836
Upper 95.0%
0.032968513
2.159033403
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.02102799 -0.020031109
2.313278701
1.12857829
Upper 95.0%
0.02102799
2.313278701
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.025883315 -0.018936612
2.217453129 0.166791356
Upper 95.0%
0.025883315
2.217453129
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.031836737 -0.012634219
1.843441709 -0.250789491
Upper 95.0%
0.031836737
1.843441709
Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
0.043702474 -0.004297612
1.81500316 -0.595770513
Upper 95.0%
0.043702474
1.81500316
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.606901655
R Square
0.368329619
Adjusted R Square
0.35743875
Standard Error
0.079144678
Observations
60
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
58
59
SS
MS
0.211844677 0.211844677
0.363305043 0.00626388
0.57514972
Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0.000498441
0.010255968 0.048600072
1.720928496
0.295920985 5.81550002
F
Significance F
33.82004048
2.74034E-07
P-value
0.961404984
2.74034E-07
Lower 95%
-0.020031109
1.12857829
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.326190024
R Square
0.106399932
Adjusted R Square
0.086973844
Standard Error
0.073950595
Observations
48
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
46
47
SS
MS
0.029952932 0.029952932
0.251559766 0.005468691
0.281512698
Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0.003473351
0.011133197 0.311981488
1.192122242
0.509381064 2.340334821
F
Significance F
5.477167076
0.023659147
P-value
0.756464367
0.023659147
Lower 95%
-0.018936612
0.166791356
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.256206162
R Square
0.065641598
Adjusted R Square
0.038160468
Standard Error
0.063692958
Observations
36
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
34
35
SS
MS
0.009690081 0.009690081
0.13793096 0.004056793
0.147621041
Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0.009601259
0.01094134 0.877521325
0.796326109
0.515250798 1.545511646
F
Significance F
2.388606247
0.13148073
P-value
0.3863624
0.13148073
Lower 95%
-0.012634219
-0.250789491
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.218225533
R Square
0.047622383
Adjusted R Square
0.004332491
Standard Error
0.053277979
Observations
24
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
X Variable 1
1
22
23
SS
MS
0.003122627 0.003122627
0.062447946 0.002838543
0.065570573
Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0.019702431
0.011572571 1.702511188
0.609616324
0.581224985 1.048847417
F
Significance F
1.100080903
0.305634652
P-value
0.102749197
0.305634652
- 114 -
Lower 95%
-0.004297612
-0.595770513
2001 Lease Schedule
2001
i
0.08 Avg.
Year
2007 on
t
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1.08 Avg.
Sum
Check
Rate
167.5
PMT Beginning Balance Interest Expense Payment
PV Factor PV Payment Ending Balance
384.46
101.8
30.76
101.85
0.93
94.30
313.37
93.43
313.37
25.07
93.43
0.86
80.10
245.01
80.26
245.01
19.60
80.26
0.79
63.72
184.34
64.2
184.34
14.75
64.20
0.74
47.19
134.90
85.93
134.90
10.79
85.93
0.68
58.48
59.75
38.07
59.75
4.78
38.07
0.63
23.99
26.47
16.86
26.47
2.12
16.86
0.58
9.84
11.72
7.471
11.72
0.94
7.47
0.54
4.04
5.19
3.31
5.19
0.41
3.31
0.50
1.66
2.29
1.466
2.29
0.18
1.47
0.46
0.68
1.01
0.65
1.01
0.08
0.65
0.43
0.28
0.44
0.288
0.44
0.04
0.29
0.40
0.11
0.19
0.127
0.19
0.01
0.13
0.37
0.05
0.07
0.056
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.34
0.02
0.02
0.025
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.32
0.01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
1675
493.9933814
68.32538
68.318
0.443
int
dep
109.54
384.46
493.99
Total
384.46
493.99
2002 Lease Schedule
2002
i
0.08 Avg.
Year
t
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
i
2007 on
1675
PMT Beginning Balance Interest Expense Payment
PV Factor PV Payment
509.23
126.2
40.74
126.21
0.93
116.86
118.1
423.76
33.90
118.08
0.86
101.24
104
339.58
27.17
103.97
0.79
82.54
82.84
262.77
21.02
82.84
0.74
60.89
141.1
200.96
16.08
141.05
0.68
96.00
53.33
75.98
6.08
53.33
0.63
33.61
20.17
28.73
2.30
20.17
0.58
11.77
7.625
10.86
0.87
7.62
0.54
4.12
2.883
4.10
0.33
2.88
0.50
1.44
1.09
1.55
0.12
1.09
0.46
0.50
0.412
0.58
0.05
0.41
0.43
0.18
0.156
0.22
0.02
0.16
0.40
0.06
0.059
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.37
0.02
0.022
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.34
0.01
0.008
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.32
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.08 Avg.
Sum
Check
Rate
85.75348
85.75
0.37811
657.9004774
int
dep
148.67
509.23
657.90
- 115 -
657.90
Total
509.23
2003 Lease Schedule
2003
i
0.08 Avg.
Year
t
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
1675
1.08 Avg.
Sum
Check
Rate
167.5
PMT Beginning Balance Interest Expense Payment
PV Factor PV Payment Ending Balance
149.8
40.75
149.80
0.93
138.70
400.34
509.39
138.8
400.34
32.03
138.82
0.86
119.02
293.54
117.2
293.54
23.48
117.25
0.79
93.07
199.78
87.83
199.78
15.98
87.83
0.74
64.55
127.93
58.6
127.93
10.23
58.60
0.68
39.88
79.57
36.51
79.57
6.37
36.51
0.63
23.01
49.42
22.75
49.42
3.95
22.75
0.58
13.27
30.63
14.17
30.63
2.45
14.17
0.54
7.66
18.91
8.828
18.91
1.51
8.83
0.50
4.42
11.59
5.5
11.59
0.93
5.50
0.46
2.55
7.02
3.427
7.02
0.56
3.43
0.43
1.47
4.15
2.135
4.15
0.33
2.13
0.40
0.85
2.35
1.33
2.35
0.19
1.33
0.37
0.49
1.21
0.829
1.21
0.10
0.83
0.34
0.28
0.48
0.516
0.48
0.04
0.52
0.32
0.16
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
2007 on
95.99127
95.994
0.623
648.2892653
int
dep
138.90
509.39
648.29
Total
509.39
648.29
2004 Lease Schedule
2004
i
0.08 Avg.
Year
t
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
i
2007 on
1675
PMT Beginning Balance Interest Expense Payment
PV Factor PV Payment Ending Balance
186.9
50.17
186.86
0.93
173.02
490.47
627.16
169.7
490.47
39.24
169.72
0.86
145.50
359.99
138.7
359.99
28.80
138.66
0.79
110.07
250.13
107.1
250.13
20.01
107.11
0.74
78.73
163.03
71.56
163.03
13.04
71.56
0.68
48.70
104.51
45.98
104.51
8.36
45.98
0.63
28.97
66.90
29.54
66.90
5.35
29.54
0.58
17.24
42.71
18.98
42.71
3.42
18.98
0.54
10.26
27.14
12.2
27.14
2.17
12.20
0.50
6.10
17.12
7.836
17.12
1.37
7.84
0.46
3.63
10.65
5.035
10.65
0.85
5.04
0.43
2.16
6.47
3.235
6.47
0.52
3.24
0.40
1.28
3.75
2.079
3.75
0.30
2.08
0.37
0.76
1.97
1.336
1.97
0.16
1.34
0.34
0.45
0.79
0.858
0.79
0.06
0.86
0.32
0.27
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.08 Avg.
Sum
Check
Rate
167.5
127.0749
127.076
0.64253
800.9839099
int
dep
173.82
627.16
800.98
- 116 -
800.98
Total
627.16
2005 Lease Schedule
2005
i
0.08 Avg.
Year
t
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
1675
1.08 Avg.
Sum
Check
Rate
167.5
PMT Beginning Balance Interest Expense Payment
PV Factor PV Payment Ending Balance
216.9
57.21
216.87
0.93
200.81
555.49
715.15
188.6
555.49
44.44
188.64
0.86
161.73
411.29
156.3
411.29
32.90
156.28
0.79
124.06
287.91
119.2
287.91
23.03
119.19
0.74
87.61
191.76
83.56
191.76
15.34
83.56
0.68
56.87
123.54
53.96
123.54
9.88
53.96
0.63
34.00
79.47
34.85
79.47
6.36
34.85
0.58
20.33
50.98
22.5
50.98
4.08
22.50
0.54
12.16
32.55
14.53
32.55
2.60
14.53
0.50
7.27
20.63
9.385
20.63
1.65
9.38
0.46
4.35
12.89
6.061
12.89
1.03
6.06
0.43
2.60
7.86
3.914
7.86
0.63
3.91
0.40
1.55
4.58
2.528
4.58
0.37
2.53
0.37
0.93
2.42
1.632
2.42
0.19
1.63
0.34
0.56
0.98
1.054
0.98
0.08
1.05
0.32
0.33
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
2007 on
150.4143
150.413
0.64579
914.950303
int
dep
199.80
715.15
914.95
Total
715.15
914.95
2006 Lease Schedule
2006
i
Year
0.08 Avg.
t
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
i
2007 on
1675
PMT Beginning Balance Interest Expense Payment
PV Factor PV Payment Ending Balance
243.2
63.87
243.17
0.93
225.16
619.08
798.38
212.9
619.08
49.53
212.91
0.86
182.54
455.69
174.5
455.69
36.46
174.53
0.79
138.55
317.62
138.5
317.62
25.41
138.51
0.74
101.81
204.52
96.23
204.52
16.36
96.23
0.68
65.49
124.66
58.74
124.66
9.97
58.74
0.63
37.01
75.90
35.85
75.90
6.07
35.85
0.58
20.92
46.12
21.88
46.12
3.69
21.88
0.54
11.82
27.92
13.36
27.92
2.23
13.36
0.50
6.68
16.80
8.154
16.80
1.34
8.15
0.46
3.78
9.99
4.977
9.99
0.80
4.98
0.43
2.13
5.81
3.038
5.81
0.46
3.04
0.40
1.21
3.24
1.854
3.24
0.26
1.85
0.37
0.68
1.64
1.132
1.64
0.13
1.13
0.34
0.39
0.64
0.691
0.64
0.05
0.69
0.32
0.22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.08 Avg.
Sum
Check
Rate
167.5
149.6766
149.72
0.6104
1015.019584
int
dep
216.64
798.38
1015.02
- 117 -
1015.02
Total
798.38
References:
1. Dollar Tree Stores Inc. 10-K – 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2000
2. missionstatement.dollartree.com
3. 99 Cents Only 10-K - 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003
4. Dollar General Corp 10-K 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003
5. Family Dollar Stores 10-K 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003
6. www.acad.poly.edu
7. Money Central (http://moneycentral.msn.com)
8. Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com
9. www.familydollar.com
10. cnn (http://www.cnn.com)
11. Find Articles (http://wwww.findarticles.com)
12. Business Analysis & Valuation - Third Edition by Palepu, Healy, and
Bernard.
13. Dollar Stores Feel the Pinch (wsj.com) Cindy Perman Dec 12, 2006
14. www.bizwiz.ca/inventory_inventory_ratio
15. http://beginnersinvest.about.com
16. Financial Statement Analysis handout
17. Dollar General, Family Dollar, 99 Cent Only, Dollar Tree 10-Q’s
18. www.investopedia.com
19. www.moneyterms.co
20. www.pages.stern.nyu.edu
- 118 -