Procter & Gamble

Equity Valuation & Analysis As of November 1, 2007

Raider Investments Group

Brian Hooper Tyler Yenzer Nathan Yosten Dustin Bradford Brian.D.Hooper@ttu.edu Phillip.T.Yenzer@ttu.edu Nathan.Yosten@ttu.edu Dustin.Bradford@ttu.edu

Table of Contents
Executive Summary Business & Industry Analysis Company Overview Industry Overview Five Forces Model Rivalry Among Existing Firms Threat of New Entrants Threat of Substitute Products Bargaining Power of Buyers Bargaining Power of Suppliers Key Success Factors Firm Competitive Advantage Analysis Future Competitive Analysis Accounting Analysis Key Accounting Policies Potential Accounting Flexibility Actual Accounting Strategy Quality of Disclosure Qualitative Analysis of Disclosure 36 31 33 35 10 11 13 13 18 20 22 24 24 28 30 5

Quantitative Analysis of Disclosure Sales Manipulation Diagnostics Expense Manipulation Diagnostics Potential Red Flags Undo Accounting Distortions Financial Analysis Liquidity Analysis Profitability Analysis Capital Structure Analysis IGR/SGR Analysis Financial Statement Forecasting Cost of Equity Estimation Valuation Analysis Multiples Valuation Discounted Free Cash Flow Model Discounted Dividends Model Residual Income Model Long-Run Return on Equity Residual Income Model Abnormal Earnings Growth Model Credit Analysis

40 41 44 49 49

50 63 72 76 79 83

86 95 96 98 100 103 106

Analyst Recommendation Appendix Regression Analysis Income Statement Balance Sheet Statement of Cash Flows Cost of Equity/WACC Multiples Valuation Discounted Dividends Model Discounted Free Cash Flows Model Residual Income Model Long-Run Return on Equity Residual Income Model Abnormal Earnings Growth Model Altman Z-Score References

107

109 121 122 124 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

Executive Summary
Share data Observed NYSE:PG share price as of 11/1/2007 52-week range Shares Outstanding Market Capitalization Percent owned by insiders Percent owned by institutions Book value per share Key 2007 financial data: Revenue Net Earnings Return on Equity Return on Assets Valuation estimates $68.59 $61.03-$71.83 3,159 m $216.7 b 3.83% Multiples valuation Trailing P/E Forward P/E P/B D/P PEG 58.7% P/EBITDA $21.13 P/FCF EV/EBITDA Intrinsic Valuations Discounted Dividend Discounted FCF Residual Income LR ROE AEG Altmans Z-Score Ke 11.15% 11.20% 11.08% 11.03% 11.10% 11.24 2003 4.6 2004 3.76 2005 3.44 2006 2.67 2007 2.89 $69.01 $56.47 $307.10 $37.55 $89.49 $469.93 $69.39 $65.79 $126.83 N/A $41.87 $33.11 $118.34

$76,476 m $10,340 m 15% 7%

Cost of Capital Estimation r2 Beta 3-month 0.2862 0.9358 1-year 0.2854 0.9337 2-year 0.2847 0.9313 5-year 0.2839 0.9305 7-year 0.2838 0.9306 10-year 0.2839 0.931 Published beta 0.92 Kd 6.26 8.61% WACCbt

Industry Analysis
Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) started from humble beginnings as a small soap and candle company in 1837, and has since grown into a multinational corporation with hundreds of product lines. The company is the largest firm in the personal products industry of the consumer goods sector. Top competitors for Procter & Gamble include Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), Kimberly-Clark Corp. (NYSE: KMB), Colgate-Palmolive Co. (NYSE: CL), Avon Products, Inc. (NYSE: AVP), and Unilever (LSE: ULVER.L). The personal products industry is highly competitive. Top companies must rely on brand recognition and product innovation to gain market share. The industry is analyzed thoroughly using the five factor model. The first factor in the model evaluates rivalry of existing firms. The collective result is that rivalry is high. The next factor looks at the threat of new entrants, and reveals that substantial barriers exist which keep the threat of new entrants low. Next is threat of substitute products, which shows that brand recognition will keep customers loyal, but readily available comparable products make the threat moderate. Analysis of the bargaining power of buyers reveals that buyers have moderate power because retailers need to carry certain products at certain prices to draw customers, in other words, the buyers (retailers) and suppliers (personal products firms) are equally reliant on each other. Bargaining power of suppliers reveals that suppliers have less power the bigger the buying firm is. Certain key success factors must be present to be successful in creating value in the personal products industry. While these factors vary from firm to firm, none of the top companies rely on a pure cost leadership or pure differentiation strategy. Prevalent cost leadership strategies include economies of scale and lowering the costs of inputs. Differentiation strategies include superior product variety, brand building, innovation, and superior customer service. Analysis of Procter & Gambles ability to achieve a competitive advantage reveals that they have been very successful and can

remain successful if they stay on top of research and development and maintains good relationships with buyers.

Accounting Analysis
Procter & Gamble has six parts that sums up their companies accounting analysis. These six parts are: key accounting policies, accounting flexibility, accounting strategy, disclosure, potential red flags, and accounting distortions. Its main job is to help an investor see if its company is doing well or if there is a potential problem in the near future. Most of the accounting information came from Procter & Gamble as well as other competitors in the industrys 10Ks. Procter & Gamble is considered a flexible company because of the amount of judgment decisions they allow their management to make. One of the main reasons they are flexible is because they allow their companies management to make their decisions on goodwill. This is a potential red flag area because goodwill is a huge part of P&Gs company every since the Gillette acquisition. They are keeping it constant instead of over or understating it so there was no manipulation. They are also a company who is very transparent. This means they disclose more information than most public companies. In their 10ks they have a detailed analysis of each section of their company. This means they have a break up of different categories (cash & credit sales), and segmented reporting (Baby care, Beauty, Household, etc.) for investors or auditors to see. Due to their high disclosure, their flexibility through GAAP would be obvious if there was a red flag. There were three ratios in the analysis that were a concern when analyzing for potential red flags. However each of the three were examined carefully, and it was determined there was no manipulation in the companies accounting analysis.

Valuations
After all of the analysis of the industry, the firm, its accounting policies, and financials, we can now do a valuation of Procter & Gamble. Several different valuations
7

will be used to compute the per share price of the company. This per share price compared to the actual per share price will advocate if the company is fairly valued, overvalued, or undervalued. The earnings multiples valuation is the quickest and easiest way to value a company. Eight different ratios were used to determine the value. There was no dominant valuation in this model to tell if it was fairly valued, overvalued, or undervalued. There was a big variance in the per share prices, which made this method of valuation very inaccurate and shows that it should not be the only form of valuation for a firm. Several different valuations were used to value Procter & Gamble. The discounted free cash flow model uses expected future free cash flow models to arrive at a per share price of -$274.17. Since this number is negative it is invalid and cannot be used to value the company. The discount dividend model calculates the price per share as the sum of each of the next ten years expected dividends discounted back to the present value, added to the terminal value of the perpetuity. This method gives us an undervalued per share price of $126.83. The residual income valuation model discounts residual earnings, which are earnings in excess of normal earnings. The estimated share price of this model was $41.87, overvalued. The abnormal earnings growth model values a firm using forecasted earnings, dividends, dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP), core earnings and normal earnings. Tying these numbers together gives us a per share price of $118.34, which suggests that Procter & Gamble is undervalued.

Financial Analysis, Forecast Financials, and Cost of Capital Estimation

Liquidity, profitability, and capital structure ratios are all tools used by analysts when looking at a firm. A firms performance can be assessed when the ratios are compared against ratios from previous years and ratios of other firms in the industry. Then, analysts will utilize the ratios in forecasted the firms future financial performance. Regressions are used to estimate a Beta for the firm which is then used to find a cost of equity using the capital asset pricing (CAPM) model. The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is then used to determine an appropriate cost of capital for the firm. Procter & Gamble is a fairly liquid company. All of their liquidity ratios, except the current ratio, quick ratio, and working capital turnover, are in line with or above the industry average. They actually lead the industry in accounts receivable days. They have good profitability as well despite being below the industry average. All profitability analysis shows either steady or growing profitability. Although they are below the industry average, Procter & Gamble is gaining on their competition year by year. However, capital structure analysis shows that Procter & Gambles ability to pay debt is has declined. Their debt service margin has experienced a downward trend in recent years. As a matter of fact, there were not enough cash flows last year to support the current portion of debt due. Financial forecasts were then developed for the next ten years using a basic assumption of a ten percent growth rate in sales per year. The assumption was also made that past ratios would be a good indicator of future ratios. The ratios discussed above were utilized in this process to develop a reasonable estimate of Procter & Gambles future performance.

Company Overview
In 1837, Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) was started as a soap and candle company out of Cincinnati, OH. Procter & Gamble has since grown to become the largest consumer goods product company in the world, with $68 billion in sales worldwide for fiscal year 2006. Corporate headquarters are still in Cincinnati, and they maintain 39 manufacturing facilities in 23 states, as well as 105 manufacturing facilities in 41 other countries (P&G 2007 10-K). Procter & Gamble manufacturing facilities produce personal health care products, house and home care products, health and wellness products, baby and family care products, and pet care and nutrition products. These products have made Procter & Gamble a recognized global leader in the development, manufacture and marketing of some of the worlds most trusted, quality, leadership brands including Pampers, Tide, Ariel, Always, Whisper, Pantene, Mach3, Bounty, Dawn, Pringles, Folgers, Charmin, Downy, Lenor, Iams, Crest, Oral-B, Actonel, Duracell, Olay, Head & Shoulders, Wella, Gillette, and Braun (www.pg.com). Procter & Gamble boasts over 300 brands being sold in as many as 160 countries (P&G 2007 10-K). Procter & Gamble acquired many of these brands because of a preexisting solid consumer base. With global operations employing 138,000 worldwide, it has been necessary for Procter & Gamble to develop two training schools for senior managers (P&G 2007 10K). One is an advanced leadership school for senior managers. It targets the 135 general managers from different branches of the Procter & Gamble global division. The other is an executive leadership program aimed at the highest-level managers in the company. Procter & Gamble strives to provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the worlds consumers (www.pg.com). This commitment would not be possible without progressive breakthroughs in research and development. Each year, Procter & Gamble increases funding on research and development, currently around $2 billion total expenditure for fiscal year 2007. The
10

company employs more than 7,500 scientists and holds more than 24,000 active patents worldwide (P&G 2007 10-K). This focus on innovation and technology has put Procter & Gamble as an industry leader. Procter & Gambles vast customer base spans drug stores, high-frequency stores, membership stores, grocery stores, and mass merchandisers. Because of the broad array of products through a wide customer base, Procter & Gamble benefits with being industry leader in sales and market capitalization. Figure 1 shows total assets grew significantly, helped especially by the Gillette merger in 2005. Net sales received a bump also, but adjusted sales growth shows no significant gains from the acquisition.
Fig. 1: Total Assets, Net Sales, Sales Growth, and Stock Prices (*In Millions)

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Total Assets* $43,706 $57,048 $61,527 $135,695 $138,014 Net Sales* Sales Growth $43,377 $51,407 $56,741 6% 6% 6%

$68,222 6%

$76,476 5%

Procter & Gamble is categorized in the household and personal products industry of the consumer goods sector. Procter & Gambles major competitors, also in the personal products industry, include Kimberly-Clark Corp., Colgate-Palmolive Co., Avon Products, Inc, and Unilever. Another major competitor, although not primarily in the personal products industry, is Johnson & Johnson .

Industry Overview
The household and personal products industry is a highly competitive industry. Most companies in competition with Procter & Gamble are focused to only one or two different sub-industries of the personal products industry. Procter & Gambles major
11

competitors, such as Kimberly-Clark Corp, Colgate-Palmolive Co., Johnson & Johnson, Avon Products Co., and Unilever, are also diversified into many sub-sectors. Most of these sub-sectors of the personal products industry are largely made up of manufacturing through chemical processing or paper processing. Suppliers of the chemicals are numerous, although price fluctuation may occur if availability is limited. According to Procter & Gambles 10K filing, we may or may not pass on the change, depending on the magnitude and expected duration of the change. The companies in the personal products industry rely on brand recognition and product innovation to build their customer base. Product innovation is a key step to the corporate strategy for long-term growth of Procter & Gamble. This core philosophy is what has caused Procter & Gambles stock climbing 65 percent higher today than it was five years ago (See Fig. 2). The top competitors stock prices have only gained between 14 and 60 percent. Not shown in the chart is Unilever, with a 17 percent gain over the same period.
Fig. 2: Stock prices for P&G and top competitors over the last 5 years

Moneycentral.msn.com

12

The Five Forces Model

In every industry, there is a model that can be used to identify the strategy, profitability, and power of particular companies. This model is called the five forces model. This gives an analysis of companies for competing and personal uses. The five forces model consists of two major parts. The first part of the model consists of rivalry among existing firms, threat of new entrants, and threat of substitute products. This part measures how much actual and potential competition there is. The second major part is between the bargaining power of buyers and the bargaining power of suppliers. These two measure the power a company has or does not have over the buyers and suppliers. In using this model, we will be able to identify these valuable parts of Procter & Gamble. Personal Products Industry Rivalry Among Existing Firms Threat of New Entrants Threat of Substitute Products Bargaining Power of Buyers Bargaining Power of Suppliers High Low Moderate Moderate Low

Rivalry Among Existing Firms

Industry Growth
The growth in this industry has been moving up on a yearly average. Every year, the industry seems to steadily increase its annual sales revenue (see figure 3). Given this information, price wars are expected to happen. To be able to survive, these companies have to manage decisions by getting rid of every expense that is not needed. In 2005, the industry grew 8.14 percent. In 2006, the industry grew 11.87 percent. That is a 3.73 percent change in industry growth from 2005 to 2006. A major portion of that was from Procter & Gambles purchase of Gillette. Because of Procter &
13

Gambles purchase of Gillette in 2006 sales grew by 20.23 percent. This is a 9.85 percent increase from the 2005 sales growth of 10.37 percent. A companys historical growth rate can be used when trying to forecast future sales. The industrys growth is due to the rise in demand over the last five years. There has been a demand and will always be a demand for these types of products. The consumers have to use these products because they are a part of everyday life, which leads to the reason for the sales growth.
Figure 3: Sales Growth Over the Past Five Years

Source: PG, JNJ, KMB, CL, and AVP 10k's; Unilever financials

Concentration
There is a high amount of concentration in this industry. All of the companies in the personal products industry have to compete on price. Since most of these goods are not commodities, it allows them to compete less on the price. This industry has some specific goods people are willing to pay for, and other goods that they are only willing to pay for the cheaper product. It is in these companies best interest to focus on the specialty products by putting as much quality in them as possible. Companies

14

also need to focus less on quality and more on price reduction when looking at nonbrand specific products.

Differentiation and Switching Costs

Many of the products offered in the personal products industry are of the same quality and price, meaning that switching costs are relatively low. A switching cost is the cost that the consumer encounters while changing from one product to another. Many consumers will buy similar products based on which one is the cheapest, giving them a low switching cost. For a company to be successful, it must differentiate its products from its competitors products. A company can do this by creating brand names and slogans that consumers will become familiar with, much like Procter & Gamble has done with Duracell, Crest, and many of its other brand name products (www.pg.com).

Scale/ Learning Economies

Fig. 4: Total Assets over the Last Five Years

In order for a company to be competitive and profitable, it must be a giant in the personal products industry. The size of a firm can determine how successful it is going to be. Having a large firm allows a company to attract more customers than a small
15

firm would by name recognition and perceived value. In addition, large companies have the ability to reduce costs and bring down prices, making it difficult for new entrants to compete. To facilitate, figure 4 shows Procter & Gamble (PG) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) have the largest number of assets, making them the biggest companies in the consumer goods market. Therefore, these companies are also the leaders in this market.

Ratio of Fixed to Variable Costs

Analysis of the ratio of fixed to variable costs gives insight into how well a company is utilizing its facilities. A firm with a high ratio of fixed to variable costs is either not making efficient use of its existing capacities, or is having trouble selling product. A firm with a low ratio of fixed to variable costs is making more efficient use of its existing capacities. Different industries have different normal fixed-variable costs ratios, so a ratio close to 1:1 may not be desirable or even achievable. In order to calculate the ratio, fixed costs, which are general, selling, and administrative expenses, are divided by variable costs, which are the costs of products sold. 2002 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Products Unilever Industry Average
Fig. 5: Ratios of Fixed to Variable Costs over the Past Five Years.

2003 0.60 1.16 0.25 0.74 1.20 0.70

2004 0.66 1.20 0.25 0.76 1.22 0.60

2005 0.66 1.23 0.25 0.76 1.23 0.63

2006 0.66 1.16 0.25 0.79 1.33 0.64

Avg. 0.64 1.18 0.25 0.75 1.23 0.67 0.79

0.60 1.17 0.26 0.72 1.17 0.75

Figure 5 shows the average ratio of fixed to variable costs for Procter & Gamble over 5 years is 0.64. Johnson & Johnsons ratio over the same period averages 1.18, while Kimberly-Clarks is only 0.25. Colgate-Palmolive averaged 0.75. The industry average
16

is 0.79, but since historical figures do not vary much suggests that firms either find it difficult to change or it is not financially detrimental to keep the current state. Objective interpretation of the averages would suggest Kimberly-Clark is making the most efficient use of its resources, while Avon is making the least efficient use.

Excess Capacity
Excess capacity occurs when a firm is not producing as much as it could be producing. This results in wasted money due to fixed costs. In this situation, a firm would decrease price to spark demand. This effectively solves the problem of excess capacity by increasing production. Figure 5 also allows for the interpretation of excess capacity. Without investigating into alternate causes for the high ratio, Avon would be a candidate for decreasing price to increase demand. Procter & Gamble and ColgatePalmolive would probably be considered to be at an acceptable capacity. KimberlyClark may be considered to be at a very efficient capacity.

Exit Barriers
When a firms operating costs exceed revenue for a long enough period, the firm may go out of business. In certain industries, barriers may make exiting the market difficult and often they are forced to stay in business. Contract cancellation costs with suppliers, asset write-off expenses, or regulations that must be followed are all costly exit barriers. One large potential barrier to exit for the personal products industry is the expense of writing-off assets. Much of the equipment is highly specialized chemical processing equipment which may be difficult to sell or remove. The costs associated may be more than the company wants to put on its balance sheet.

Conclusion
With a high industry concentration, relatively low switching costs, large economies of scale benefits, and possible high exit costs, rivalry among existing firms in the personal products industry tends to be high.

17

Threat of New Entrants The personal products market is a relatively difficult market to penetrate due to the high degree of concentration. A highly concentrated market makes it difficult for new entrants to succeed because there are only a few major companies in the industry that are very competitive. Large companies in the personal products industry have a huge competitive advantage over new entrants because of their size and experience. The first companies entered the personal products industry as early as the 1830s, giving them many years of experience and knowledge to be able to create barriers that a new entrant would have to overcome to be successful. These barriers include economies of scale, distribution access, and legal issues.

Economies of Scale and First Mover Advantage

A firms economy of scale can also give them a competitive advantage over new entrants. The ability to increase production can drive down input costs, giving you economies of scale. Increasing production is something that can only be done if your firm is large enough to do so. A firm must have large amounts of assets to be able to produce goods on a larger scale, making it hard for new entrants to compete with production costs and price. For example, Procter & Gamble (PG) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) have to highest amount of total assets in the industry with amounts of $138 Billion and $75 Billion (PG and JNJ 10-K). This allows these two companies to dominate the consumer goods market, giving new entrants a disadvantage at competing on cost, quantity produced, and price. Large firms in the consumer goods market also have the first mover advantage. The first mover advantage lets the first companies in the industry create different standards and agreements. The first ones in the industry can regulate it; make it extremely difficult for a firm to enter their market. For example, a first mover in the personal products industry would have an advantage because they would be able to register patents, develop market share, get over the learning curve, and gain reputation over companies that would enter the industry later.

18

Distribution Access and Relationships

Access to existing distribution channels can be a substantial barrier that new entrants would have to face in order to enter the industry. Supermarkets and other retail stores have a limited amount of shelf space available for consumer goods. This shelf space is usually used up by the big firms that have existing relationships with the customer, making it difficult for new entrants to obtain the required room for their products. A preexisting relationship is important in the personal products industry because it allows the producer to negotiate pricing and discounts with the buyer. Brand recognition is also a factor. If a company does not have brand recognition, they will not be able to get their product distributed as well as a large company would. Without distributor relationships and brand recognition, a new company will not have much success upon entering the consumer goods market.

Legal Barriers
Legal barriers can also make it hard to enter the personal products industry. A new entrant has many regulations, laws, patents, and copyrights that they have to abide by when they are entering into an industry. The personal products industry is Firm Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever
Fig. 6: Intangible Assets for 2006

Intangible Assets (in millions) (2006)

$33,626 $15,412 $821 $0 $80.4 $6,312.21(Converted from Euros)

Source: PG, JNJ, KMB, CL, ULVR, & AVP Balance Sheets

very research-intensive. This produces many patented products that cannot be copied by newcomers. For example, as figure 6 shows, market leaders Procter & Gamble (PG) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) have $33.6 billion and $15.4 billion in intangible assets,
19

which includes copyrights, patents, trademarks, and goodwill (PG and JNJ balance sheets). This much money invested in intangible assets shows that these two industry leaders have many innovative ideas that they are protecting from being used by any other company that wants to enter their market.

Conclusion
There are many different barriers in the personal products industry that a new entrant would have to overcome to enter. The large companies have a huge competitive advantage over new entrants that leave new entrants with little success in gaining any market share. With established economies of scale, access to distribution, relationships, and legal barriers in the favor of existing firms in the industry, a new entrant would little success in competing. This almost eliminates the threat of a new entrant in the personal products industry. Threat of Substitute Products The threat of substitute products is the customers (retail stores) willingness to switch to a different product that is similar to yours. In the personal products market, the threat of substitute products is always present. There are always substitutes available for every different kind of product in the personal products industry, creating a mild threat of substitute products. However, there are some factors in considering a product to be a substitute. The relative price and performance of the substitute product must be close to the original product to be considered as a substitute. In addition, customers willingness to switch is a factor in considering a substitute for a product.

Relative Price and Performance

In the personal products industry, price is usually perceived as value. Many of the name brand items, like Tide laundry detergent, Crest toothpaste, and Bounty paper towels are often at a higher price than a generic brand of the same items would be. This is because customers believe these name brands have more value than a lesserknown brand, allowing them to pay a premium on these items. Often, the brand names
20

also have a higher performance than a generic or lesser-known brand would, due to research and design on brand name products. Many hours are spent on research and design in big companies so that they can make their products even better for the customer. This usually results in an increase in performance so that the customer will benefit more from buying their product. Therefore, the threat of substitute products depends on the customers wants and needs. If they want better performance at a little higher price, they can buy the brand names; or, if a customer is willing to give up a little performance for a lesser price, generic and lesser known brands are what they choose.

Buyers Willingness to Switch

Buyers willingness to switch is a critical part of the threat of substitute products. In the personal products market, the buyers willingness to switch is usually low. A buyer (retail store) of personal products usually has good relationships with their suppliers, making them partial to their products. For example, Wal-Mart sells all of the products from companies in the personal products industry, which means that they have a good buyer/seller relationship. This relationship developed by the popular and well-known brand names that come out of the companies in the industry. If a company in this industry did not have familiar names, they would not have much shelf space, if any, in retail stores like Wal-Mart. Since the buyers (retail stores) have good relationships with the well-known companies in the personal products industry, they are unlikely to switch to a different product offered by someone else trying to compete in this industry.

Conclusion
Substitute products in the personal products industry are readily available by much smaller and different firms, but due to brand name recognition and developed relationships, it is not likely that a buyer will switch products. The added benefit, due to the higher price, is usually enough to keep customers happy with the brand name

21

products. Therefore, the threat of substitute products in the personal products market is low, due to the high concentration of the industry. Bargaining power of Buyers Bargaining power is the ability to influence the setting of prices (http://www.photopla.net/wwp0503/buyer.php). It is based on the relationship between the firm and the buyer. The main question in this part of the five factor model is who has the power over whom? In this case, the retailers are the buyers and Procter & Gamble is the firm. Obviously, the source with the most power will be able to control the other. If the company has the most power then they will be able to raise prices and most likely be the only source around. If the buyer has the most power then the company will have to lower its costs and add a lot more expenses to its list.

Switching costs
The cost of these customers switching from Procter & Gamble to Johnson & Johnson would be low in certain products. This is because most of these products on the shelf are close to the same price. However, the quality they would receive would be less in most cases. Johnson & Johnson would have similar quality to Procter & Gamble, but the other smaller competitors could not compete with the price and quality. This is not an industry to get started in if you are small because these huge companies already have a major head start on you. A large company in this industry could switch to another large company if it was the last resort.

Differentiation
There is a lot of differentiation when comparing Procter & Gamble products and the products of other competitors in the industry. According to their 10k, Procter & Gamble has narrowed their range to three different subjects; these subjects are beauty, household care, and health and well-being. All of these areas have been differentiated accordingly. Procter & Gamble has some of the best product names and quality in retailer stores and pharmacies around the world. With new ideas coming up every
22

year, it gives them an advantage when dealing with retailers. Recently, they had a breakthrough with Crest toothpaste. The new product was called Crest Pro Health and was a huge success. It had more than $100 million in sales in the first year. Most of Procter & Gambles brands have different product lines to offer, much like this one. This product differentiation gives them more power when dealing with retailers. Johnson & Johnson is very similar in the way that they have a lot of brand power and quality in their products.

Price Sensitivity
Procter & Gamble is very differentiated, and because of this, it has to be less price sensitive. In this industry, like most, the best option is to sell at the price desired. If companies can do this then they have power when dealing with buyers (retailers). Some of these retailers are Wal-Mart, HEB, Walgreen, etc. Buyers want the best products on their shelves. These large retailers are forced to keep their own costs down. Compromising with them more will help to put more products on the shelf. The companys brand image can also help your business in a competitive industry. With the advertising and high quality expected in Procter & Gambles brands, retailers will be convinced that these products will create profits for them. If the product is a small part of the buyers costs, they are less likely to look elsewhere for a better price.

Importance of Product for Costs and Quality

In the personal products industry, it is very important to have brand power and quality. If one is lacking it will be very difficult to start a new company and compete with others. All of the top companies in the personal products industry are greatly helped by already having the best brand names. These companies have more bargaining power with customers because their superior products demand a premium price.

23

Bargaining Power of Suppliers Our suppliers are valued partners in the success of our business. Our relationships with them must be characterized by honesty and fairness. Suppliers are selected on a competitive basis based on total value, which includes quality, service, technology, and price (Sustainability guidelines for Supplier Relations, 2007 P&G 10-K). Bargaining power of suppliers involves the relationship between the firm and the suppliers. When there are fewer companies, the supplier is able to have more control over a firm in this industry. Procter & Gamble has many sustainability guidelines that must be followed in order to be involved with their suppliers. Some of these guidelines are legal compliance, human rights, employment practices, forced labor, and child labor. Most of the companies in this industry have guidelines like these because they are ethical companies who want to do the right thing. Supplier diversity is a fundamental business strategy at P&G (www.pg.com). Since Procter & Gamble has this option, this allows them to be more diversified. This also allows them to have some power over their suppliers. If one of the suppliers is trying to raise prices, they can just go to another. A great portion of a companys success in this industry depends on brand name. These suppliers know this, which leaves them with some power. Suppliers have to provide good materials for people to see the quality. There are a few companies in this industry that can manage and compromise with suppliers like Procter & Gamble. Because of their large size and name, these companies are not only able to get whom they want, but they can also control prices. This is a big plus for these companies in this industry.

Key Success Factors for Value Creation

In order to be successful in the personal products industry, a company must employ a mix between differentiation and cost leadership strategies. Customers in the industry have come to expect high quality products at relatively low prices; therefore, a company will not survive in the industry with a straight cost leadership or a strait differentiation approach. According to Procter & Gamble, there are five areas that are
24

critical to winning in consumer products (www.pg.com). These five areas are consumer understanding, brand building, innovation, go-to-market capability, and scale. Colgate-Palmolive Co., one of Procter & Gambles major competitors, also cites strength of brand, innovation, and cost control as factors for success in the personal products industry (www.colgate.com). Neither strategy outlined here is true differentiation or cost-leadership; however, more emphasis is placed on the differentiation strategies.

Cost Leadership Elements

The personal products industry has high rivalry among existing firms and a low threat of new entrants. Therefore, companies in the personal products industry must be able to utilize economies of scale in order to be successful. The manufacturing process incurs high fixed costs that need to spread out over as many units as possible. By driving down per unit costs, the final products can be sold at lower prices in the market enabling firms to compete on price. Beating competitors on price is a common tool in gaining market share against the existing firms. In addition, having such a large-scale production process makes it difficult for new entrants to succeed. In order to compete effectively in the industry on price, a new firm would have to jump straight in with a huge capital investment that would allow them to mass-produce. This is difficult for new firms to do; therefore, a new firms costs tend to be higher than an old firms costs. This will result in higher selling prices making it less attractive to consumers. If a firm is not large enough to increase production to a level that will facilitate low per unit costs, it simply will not survive. Firms must also be able to lower their input costs. Colgate-Palmolive Co. expressed concern over rising input costs in their 2006 10-K. Increases in the prices of their raw material commodities can have an adverse affect on their profit margins especially when they are unable to pass these expenses on to consumers by increasing prices (www.colgate.com). If a company were to try to pass these expenses on to consumers through price increases, customers would simply switch to a competitors product. There is a good degree of brand loyalty in the personal products industry;
25

however, even consumers who prefer one brand to another can only tolerate small price increases. Therefore, effective management of input costs will allow a company to maintain low prices and a good competitive advantage in the personal products industry.

Differentiation Elements
Despite using a mix of cost-leadership and differentiation methods, the personal products industry does lean more heavily towards differentiation. Firms spend a lot of time and money trying to make their products stand out from the rest. Consumer understanding is key in order to differentiate a product. The first thing a firm must do is figure out exactly what it is that the consumer wants. Firms do this through the utilization of market research and tests. The results of these tests will let firms know where demand lies. They will then gear their research and development to satisfy these consumer demands. Personal products companies must also provide a superior product variety. Firms in this industry have numerous products and product lines. The main reason for this is that different consumers want different results out of the same product. For example, some toothpastes are aimed at cavity protection while others are targeted for whitening. Most personal products have different varieties in order to satisfy different needs. If a firm cannot match a product with a customers need, the customer will turn to a competing firms product that does address their need. Brand building in the personal products industry plays a big role in a companys success. Brand building seeks to increase the product's perceived value to the customer and thereby increase brand franchise and brand equity (www.wikipedia.com). When a company is able to deliver a consistent product for an extended period, they begin to develop a trust with consumers. At this point, a companys brand itself will increase in value allowing a premium to be charged for its brand. This increases margins that eventually lead to higher profits.

26

Innovation is the single most important strategy in the personal products industry. Personal products companies are constantly announcing new products and improvements, and consumers have come to expect them. When these new products are released, older products may be rendered obsolete. If a company cannot innovate and keep up with competitors, their own products will quickly become outdated. Demand for such products will drop until they eventually become extinct. An example of product evolution can be seen with razors. Razors were originally single blade instruments. Now they have evolved into instruments with upwards of four blades. There are also electric razors. Razors are just one example of a personal product that has changed through innovation. Successful personal products companies must have the innovative capabilities to improve upon all their existing products. Figure 7 shows an overall increase in research and development spending over the last two years by the four major players in the personal products industry.
Figure 7: Research and development expenses

Research and Development Expenses

12000 10000 8000 Millions of 6000 Dollars 4000 2000 0 2004 2005
Year
Figures, in millions of dollars, obtained from 2006 financial statements for each company.

Johnson & Johnson Proctor and Gamble Colgate-Palmolive Kimberly Clark Avon Unilever Industry

2006

Competitors in the personal products industry must also be successful at getting their product to market. They must effectively manage their products supply chains and distribution channels. In order to accomplish this, they need to have some power over buyers. This gives them the ability to distribute their products to wherever they see fit at the price they see fit. If a retail store has the power to dictate which of a
27

firms products will ultimately get shelf space and at what price, the firm is not able to manage the exposure of its own products. In such a case, the retail store is not acting in the best interests of the firm. Therefore, companies in the personal products industry need to have some bargaining power over buyers in order to move their products through the supply chain at a profitable price. The final element of the differentiation strategy that companies in the personal products industry must utilize is superior customer service. Products provided in this industry are indeed personal. Therefore, companies must make every effort to maximize the satisfaction of their customers. People use these products everyday, and in doing so, develop an attachment to them. A trust is then formed between the manufacturer and the consumer. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to maintain that trust. If firms do not effectively manage relationships with consumers, consumers will then turn to another firm. At this point, it is very difficult to regain the trust of a consumer.

Conclusion
Creating the right mix between cost-leadership and differentiation strategies is essential to last in the personal products industry and to create value for the firm. Most firms will favor differentiation; however, cost-leadership must be addressed as well. Consumers in this industry do desire a certain quality of products, but they will switch to a lower cost provider if prices are too high. The personal products industry is very research intensive; therefore, constant innovation is necessary in order to survive. Finally, firms in the industry must offer a good variety of products while building a good brand image and maintaining good customer service.

Competitive Advantage Analysis

The personal products industry, as stated above, contains many entrance, exit, and legal barriers. This allows established firms to look forward into the future instead of constantly worrying about new entrants into the industry. This has also allowed them
28

to be more efficient in the research and development aspect of the firm. It has been shown that in the personal products industry it is necessary to perform intense research and development in order to stay ahead of the competitors. For example, Procter & Gamble steadily increased their research and development investment from year to year. In addition, they have also made many acquisitions, such as The Gillette Company in 2005, in order to provide a global advantage in the personal grooming sector of the personal products industry. Research and development is extremely important in the personal grooming sector. This can be seen when thinking how just ten years ago there was no such thing as the Gillette Mach 4, or such high performance shaving gels and creams as the ones being produced today by Procter & Gamble. The personal products industry is technologically advanced; therefore, major players in the industry have had to become extremely efficient and competitive while keeping the prices low and new entrants virtually non-existent. In addition, Procter & Gamble has been able to rely heavily on feedback from their consumers, in order to provide them with functional, yet aesthetically pleasing products. Providing better customer service is just one way Procter & Gamble has implemented and succeeded with their differentiation strategies in the industry. Through maintaining strong relationships with their retailers, Procter & Gamble has also been able to hold on to vital shelf space, and prime brand recognition. These intangible assets are extremely important, and if lost, could be detrimental to the firm. In the personal products industry, it is often noted that the brand sells itself. For example, consumers often times will automatically buy a certain brand due to history and satisfaction with that particular brand or product. This is the case only if the product is reasonably priced. This is where solid relationships with buyers come in to play. In the personal products industry, the connection between the consumer and manufacturer is the retailer whom sells the product. Therefore, as long as Procter & Gamble can maintain their firm relationships with its buyers, they can continue to dominate the market share in the personal products industry by producing quality, differentiated products at a reasonably low price.
29

Future Competitive Advantage

Procter & Gamble has long been known for their expansion and global research. In fact, P & G now sells its products in more than 13,000 cities and towns in China alone, and that number is sure to grow even larger in the years to come (CNN.Money.com). Procter & Gamble was even recently named the #10 most admired company in the world by Fortune Magazine, as well as being placed in the top ten in total sales from the time period of 1999 2007. Although corporate segment net sales decreased $235 million in 2007, this can be attributed to high transaction costs from the acquisition of The Gillette Company, and higher interest expenses (P&G.com). Yet, Procter & Gamble recorded an increase of 18% in their operating cash flows in 2007 and this can be attributed to higher net earnings as well as the acquisition of The Gillette Company (P&G.com). Since Procter & Gamble acquired Gillette, it has seen an increase in their Razors and Blades net sales by 49%. This is shown in figure 8 below.
Figure 8: Sales growth of Procter & Gamble by segment

Beauty Net Sales Growth

Health Care

Fabric & Homecare

Family Care

Razors & Blades

9%

14%

11%

6%

49%

Overall, in the future you can look for Procter & Gamble to make huge strides. Due to their enormous size and ability to turn profits (12% increase in 2007), it is almost a given that Procter & Gamble will do well in this industry for years to come (Fortune.com). Also, the constant dedication to research and development continues to be a high priority for Procter & Gamble. Though many of these activities and costs will not be realized in the coming year, Procter & Gamble believe this to be a demonstration of their commitment to the future and the satisfaction of its consumers. With their long history of achievements and dedication to the factors presented above, success is sure to come for Procter & Gamble.

30

Identification of Key Accounting Policies

Analysis of a companys formal accounting practices starts with identifying key accounting policies. These key accounting policies are those that help achieve a companys key success factors discussed previously. The degree of success a company enjoys directly relates to their ability to successfully implement certain key accounting policies. Procter & Gamble cites its key success factors as being consumer understanding, brand building, innovation, go-to-market capability, and scale (2007 P&G 10-K). Analysis of key accounting policies involves assessing the amount of disclosure the company is willing to give about how they achieve their key success factors. Five years ago, Procter & Gamble reportedly owned 12 brands earnings over a billion dollars in revenue each (2002 P&G 10-K). This number has grown to 23 billiondollar brands, with 18 expected to hit the billion-dollar mark in revenue within the next few years (2007 P&G 10-K). Nearly doubling the amount of billion-dollar brands owned was not accomplished just by building these brands from the ground-up, many were acquired through the Gillette, Wella, and Hutchison acquisisions. Focus on brand building through acquisitions may result in increases to the Goodwill line item on the balance sheet. Purchased goodwill is the difference between the fair market value of the net tangible and identifiable intangible assets and the purchase price of the acquired business (Kieso, Weygandt, &Warfield, 2007). Procter & Gambles purchase of Gillette resulted in $35.3 billion in goodwill recorded on the balance sheet. As stated in their 2007 10-K filing, Procter & Gamble does not amortize goodwill, management assesses it yearly and records impairment if they feel it is necessary. Procter & Gamble invests an increasing amount of money every year in innovation through research and development. Both the 10-K and the annual report to shareholders liberally emphasize the amount of research and development required to keep the firm growing. All research and development expenses are charged to Research and Development Expense on the income statement as part of selling,
31

general, and administrative expenses. Expensing research and development (instead of debiting an asset account) is a requirement of GAAP because of the uncertainty of the results of the research and development (Kieso, Weygandt, & Warfield, 2007). When research and development results in a useful product and is patented, the legal fees associated are debited to intangible assets and amortized for the useful life. This is the procedure Procter & Gamble uses, and states so in their 2007 10-K filing. With products sold in over 180 countries, 18 of which generated over a billion dollars in sales last year, Procter & Gamble must be concerned with the risks involved (2007 P&G 10-K). Procter & Gamble claims to use direct netting to get rid of settlement risk, risk involving the exchange of currency (2007 P&G 10-K) (http://www.riskglossary.com/link/netting.htm). Interest rate exposure is lessened through hedging the interest rates of certain debts in foreign interest rates to reduce volatility in currency exchange rates. Procter & Gamble uses forward contracts and options with less than 18-month maturities to curb short-term changes in currency exchange rates. Since Procter & Gamble also manufactures products in countries around the world, commodity prices can fluctuate due to economic, political, or environmental factors. Fixed-price contracts, as well as swaps, options and futures contracts, are used to reduce exposure to these issues. Another key accounting policies refers to the disclosure associated with pension plans and other post-employment benefit plans. Procter & Gamble claims that contractual commitments associated with pension funding is not currently determinable (2007 P&G 10-K). They do, however, project near-future expense variables based on many different assumptions: discount rate; expected salary increases; certain employee-related factors, such as turnover, retirement age and mortality; expected return on assets and health care cost trend rates (2007 P&G 10-K). U.S. GAAP policies are followed in expensing the costs, including a recent addition to policy, disclosure of under/over funded status.

32

Accounting flexibility
A firms accounting flexibility is based on how a company allows their managers to make decisions in accordance with GAAP. Procter & Gamble considers three items to be important. These items are employee benefits, goodwill, and revenue recognition. Both show how Procter & Gamble illustrates a large or small amount of their flexibility in its accounting policies. The least flexible is revenue recognition because of the strict GAAP standards and the required amount of accounting. The other two show a lot of flexibility by using judgment calls and estimations in their accounting policies.

Goodwill
In 2005, Procter & Gamble purchased Gillette to take their company to the next level. After they purchased Gillette the companys goodwill skyrocketed from 19.816 billion to 55.306 billion. In 2007, it remained steady at an amount of 56.552 billion. Of the amount of goodwill in 2007, 35.3 billion were from the purchase of Gillette. The overall amount of goodwill is expected to remain steady unless there is another huge purchase or sell. Procter & Gamble does not amortize their goodwill, but they do test it annually for impairment. They also treat other intangible assets in a similar manner as they do their goodwill. The reason they are a flexible company is that they allow the management of their company to make judgment decisions when they are evaluating economic and operating changes. This is putting a lot of trust in your management by letting them make decisions outside of what is required. When impairing their goodwill they use forecasts in growth rates and cost of equity. This causes even more judgment calls by managers. Other companies in this industry such as Johnson & Johnson and Kimberly-Clark use similar techniques. Kimberly-Clark recorded goodwill in 2006 of 2860.5 million. That is around 16.7 percent of its total assets. In 2006, Johnson & Johnson reported goodwill as 18.9 percent. In the previous year, they reported goodwill at 10.2 percent. Overall Procter & Gamble and other companies in the industry show that they are flexible through the amount of decisions they allow their management to make.
33

Employee Benefits
Procter & Gamble has a lot of benefits, most being post-employment. These benefits are pensions, specific benefit plans, and other post employment benefit plans. These Other benefit plans are mainly health care and life insurance based. As far as their accounting decisions, they are very flexible because you have to be able to estimate expected salary raises, discount rates, and employee related factors. These factors are all different because not every employee has the same health. Some employees are obviously going to cost more to insure than others are. There are many factors that play into employee benefits. All these factors increase a companys flexibility because it enables them to make independent decisions aside from what is required. They also comply with GAAP through certain ways. They defer the difference between the actual results and their own assumptions up to 10%. Anything over 10% is expensed in the next year. It is evident that Procter & Gambles employee benefits are flexible because of the assumptions the company allows management to make.

Revenue Recognition
Of these three, revenue recognition is the least flexible and uses more required accounting than judgment calls. The reason they do this is that there is not much judgment needed. Everyone follows a basic strategy. Procter & Gamble recognizes its revenue when the title has been passed to new owner. This is standard procedure for all companies in this industry. Another procedure that is involved with revenue recognition is how they deal with product discounts and returns. They use another standard industry norm of reducing sales in the time the product is purchased. As said before there is little if any room for flexibility in revenue recognition. It is standard to follow the industry norm and record at the time of acquisition.

Conclusion
Although Procter & Gamble is reasonably flexible, they also give a lot of disclosure through their 10k and annual reports. The reason they are reasonably
34

flexible is because of their high flexibility in goodwill and employee benefits and their low flexibility in revenue recognition. Again, in this industry there is a lot of flexibility given to the managers. The reason is that their KAPS allow them to make more judgment calls rather than follow straight out of the book. So not only do they follow GAAP requirements but also make adjustments when needed.

Accounting Strategy
Companies generally have to follow the GAAP Guidelines while disclosing financial information in their annual reports. However, it is much better if some information about results, trends, and insight used by the management could be provided to the investors. This not only builds trust for the company but also enables investors to make sound investment decisions. Procter & Gamble uses the Managers Discussion and Analysis section in the annual report to discuss the financial results which include several non GAAP financial measures used by them. Along with this, they have also provided the comparable GAAP measures in their discussion. It is quite clear that Procter & Gamble is an aggressive company because of excessive amount of information they provide. By doing this, they are signaling to investors that they are a high disclosure company that not only show what GAAP requires but they stretch the limits. For example, Procter & Gamble segment reporting consists of three global business units which are beauty and health, household care, and Gillette. In each of these three global business units, Procter & Gamble categorizes their seven reportable segments under U.S. GAAP. Those are beauty, healthcare, fabric and home care, pet health, snacks and coffee, baby and family care, blades and razors, and finally Duracell and Braun. An example of disaggregating is the companys choice to split credit sales and cash sales. This also allows investors to see a more detailed part of their company. When compared to a low disclosure firm the roles are completely reversed. A low disclosure firm on the other hand only provides to investors what GAAP requires of them. They do not provide any additional information. Procter & Gamble is considered a very aggressive company not only because of their high disclosure, but also because they always show an increase in reported earnings. Each year as shown in figure 9,
35

their reported earnings have grown. They are also proud to show that they give a lot of dividends and pensions. Their companys motto is Procter & Gamble is designed to grow (P&G Annual Report). Their transparency is just another factor that shows their aggressiveness. Either Procter & Gamble can manipulate reported earnings to show a high income, or they can reduce it to pay a smaller amount of taxes. In 2006, they overstated their assets to possibly make the company look better. However, they will have to pay a lot more for taxes. As shown this accounting strategy is very aggressive.
Sustaining Growth (FIGURE 9)

P&Gs performance in fiscal 2006 continues the consistent growth we have delivered in the first half of the decade. Since 2001: Net sales have increased 12% per year. Organic sales have increased 6% per year. Total sales have grown from $39 billion to $68 billion. Earnings per share have grown an average of 12% per year. Free cash flow has grown to nearly $9 billion per year, totaling more than $35 billion over the past five years.

Procter & Gamble is a company which goes to great lengths to disclose its companys information. Through their disclosure comes their aggressive strategy. After researching their financial statements and annual reports it was determined their industrys competitors disclose large amounts of information. It was also determined that according to their key accounting policies they are considered an aggressive company. Nevertheless, this leads a potential investor to think that they can be trusted because of their high transparency.

Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis is a useful tool in determining the overall transparency and decision usefulness of the reported financial statements. In order to allow outsiders to
36

get a good picture of a companys performance, the company must release adequate information. However, disclosure must also be at a level that does not harm a firms competitive advantage. Incentives are always present that tempt managers to bias company reports; therefore, an in-depth look at those reports must be taken in order to ensure the accuracy of reported information. The first area that needs to be evaluated is the companys overall level of disclosure. Procter & Gamble does a good job disclosing financial information. The notes to their financial statements give a good explanation for everything put into the financial statements. They dont leave analysts guessing where the numbers came from. If anything seems out of the ordinary, it is addressed either in the notes to the financial statements, or in the management discussion and analysis. For example, in 2006 Procter reported a 19 percent increase in selling, general, and administrative expenses. In comparison to other years, this is a large jump. If no other disclosure were given, this increase would signal a red flag to analysts. However, the management discussion and analysis section of Procter & Gambles 2007 10-K goes on to explain how this large increase resulted from the acquisition of Gillette (www.pg.com). This good level of disclosure is also consistent throughout the industry. Dis-aggregation of financial information is also important in order to obtain an accurate picture of a companys performance. If a company lumps items on financial statements together, analysts cannot be sure how to allocate the data to individual business activities. The line items on Procter & Gambles financial statements are somewhat aggregated; however, in the notes to their statements, line items are further broken down. One example of this is Procter & Gambles reporting of long-term debt. Long-term debt is shown as one line item on the 2007 balance sheet. However, note 5 of the 10-K filing dis-aggregates all the long-term debt into individual liabilities complete with interest rates and due dates (www.pg.com). Figure 10 shows the dis-aggregation.

37

Figure 10: Dis-aggregation of long-term debt notes June 30 2007 2006

LONG-TERM DEBT 3.50% USD note due October 2007 6.1 3% USD note due May 2008 Bank credit facility expires July 2008 4.30% USD note due August 2008 3.50% USD note due December 2008 6.88% USD note due September 2009 Bank credit facility expires August 2010 3.38% EUR note due December 2012 4.50% EUR note due May 2014 4.95% USD note due August 2014 4.85% USD note due December 2015 4.1 3% EUR note due December 2020 9.36% ESOP debentures due 2007-2021 4.88% EUR note due May 2027 6.25% GBP note due January 2030 5.50% USD note due February 2034 5.80% USD note due August 2034 5.55% USD note due March 2037 Capital lease obligations All other long-term debt Current portion of long-term debt

(1)

500 500 4,537 500 650 1,000 1,830 1,882 2,016 900 700 806 968 1,344 1,001 500 600 1,400 628 3,657 (2,544)

(www.pg.com)

23,37

500 500 19,555 500 650 1,000 1,857 1,779 900 700 763 1,000 917 500 600 632 5,553 (1,930) 35,976

This method of reporting is much more transparent than the single line item on the balance sheet, and it better depicts Procter & Gambles long-term debt. The rest of the personal products industry practices similar dis-aggregation methods in reporting. When a company with multiple segments reports financial information, it needs to be reported by individual segments. This allows analysts to assess the performance of each segment of the company. Some segments will out perform others; however, if there is no individual segment disclosure, there is no way to determine which segments are the strongest and which are the weakest. Procter & Gamble does report their financial results based on segments. This breakdown can be found in the notes to financial statements. For instance, note 12 of Procter & Gambles 2007 10-K breaks down performance by segment (www.pg.com). Figure 11 from note 12 shows global segment results.

38

Figure 11: Global segment results Before-Tax Global Segment Results BEAUTY AND HEALTH BEAUTY 2007 $ 2006 2005 HEALTH CARE 2007 2006 2005 HOUSEHOLD CARE FABRIC CAREAND HOMECARE 2007 2006 2005 BABY CARE AND FAMILY CARE 2006 2005 SNACKS, COFFEE AND PET CARE 2007 2006 2005 GILLETTE GBU(1) BLADES AND RAZORS (1) 2006 2005 DURACELL AND BRAUN (1) 2007 2006 2005 CORPORATE 2007 2006 2005 TOTAL COMPANY 2007 2006 2005 3,499 4,031 2,924 (963) (683) (820) 76,476 68,222 56,741 1,076 588 400 (1,690) (1,413) (1,030) 14,710 12,413 9,981 (www.pg.com) 781 394 273 (931) (696) (410) 10,340 8,684 6,923 489 194 155 135 8 55 3,130 2,627 1,884 24,575 6,998 7,384 67,509 66,205 31,183 138,014 135,695 61,527 271 135 108 206 93 61 2,945 2,667 2,181 2007 5,229 1,664 1,222 657 24,160 210 11,972 11,652 4,537 4,383 4,314 2,071 1,924 759 627 714 1,299 1,197 477 385 444 612 580 164 159 162 7,339 7,272 2,176 2,122 2,197 739 684 141 150 142 2007 18,971 17,149 15,796 12,726 4,156 3,553 3,186 2,291 2,793 2,369 2,129 1,440 453 435 391 671 7,649 6,928 6,845 7,731 654 567 647 769 22,981 $ 21,126 19,721 8,964 7,852 6,078 4,794 $ 4,359 3,977 2,148 1,740 1,210 3,492 $ 3,106 2,752 1,453 1,167 811 577 $ 535 535 279 234 161 14,470 $ 13,498 11,494 7,321 7,644 2,536 641 577 535 189 162 112 Net Sales Earnings Depreciation & Net Amortization Earnings Total Assets Capital Expenditure s

39

This level of segmentation disclosure is consistent with that the rest of the personal products industry.

Conclusion
On an absolute basis, Procter & Gamble exercises a high quality of disclosure. Their 10-K information provides in-depth notes and management discussion and analysis that discuss any foggy aspects of the reported financial information. This is done by dis-aggregating single line items found on the financial statements as well as breaking down results by segments. On a relative basis, Procter & Gamble reports with about he same disclosure as its competitors. Overall, the personal products industry practices high disclosure. The tables presented above are not exclusive to Procter & Gamble. 10-K reports produced by Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly-Clark, and ColgatePalmolive all had dis-aggregated reports as well as segmented reports.

Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative Analysis is the financial analysis technique that seeks to understand behavior by using complex mathematical and statistical modeling, measurement and research (investopedia.com). This tool will be used to compare sales manipulation diagnostics and expense manipulation diagnostics. Since there is flexibility in accounting, a company could manipulate their revenue and expenses in a fiscal year, which could alter their actual performance. Any inconsistence in a corporations numbers could throw up a red flag to investors. A thorough analysis of these ratios can show how accurate or inaccurate the quality of disclosure is from a company. In the following paragraphs, we will compare sales manipulation diagnostics, which includes net sales compared to cash from sales, net accounts receivable, unearned revenues, warranty liabilities, and inventory. We will also compare expense manipulation diagnostics, which compares sales to assets, changes in operating cash flows to operating income and net operating assets, and pension and other employment expenses to selling, general, and administrative expenses.

40

Sales Manipulation Diagnostics

Analyzing the sales of a company over a period can show if there are any distortions to the accounting during those years. Also, comparing these numbers to their competitors can also show if there are any manipulations of their accounting. Sales manipulation diagnostics will be used in the following paragraphs for the personal products industry.
Net Sales/ Cash From Sales

Net sales divided to cash from sales is an important ratio because it shows the amount inventory sold on credit. An ideal ratio is 1:1. This ideal ratio can be reached, but it is very hard to maintain due to the high amount of sales on credit. Sales on credit cause a delay in the amount of cash received, which causes this ratio to be higher than 1:1. It is normal to be slightly higher than a 1:1 ratio in the personal products industry. Procter & Gambles ratio has fluctuated from around 1:1 to 1.02:1 in the past five years. This alternating ratio shows that there were higher amounts of sales on credit one year, but the next year the cash from the sales was received. Therefore, this ratio shows that the net sales and cash from sales reported are believable.

41

Net Sales/ Accounts Receivable

Comparing net sales to net accounts receivable shows us a companys accounts receivable turnover. Accounts receivable turnover is the effectiveness of a company collecting debts. As seen in the above graph, all companies have fairly steady net sales to net accounts receivable ratios. Procter & Gamble has the most fluctuation from 14.28 percent to 11.54 percent, but this number has steadily decreased over the past five years. The decrease in this ratio, however, is not significant enough to cause a red flag because there are no sharp increases or decreases over time. A higher ratio means that the company is more efficient in collecting its accounts receivable. Upon analyzing this ratio, we believe that net sales are supported by accounts receivable and that Procter & Gamble are not manipulating their sales.

42

Net Sales/ Inventory

Net sales compared to inventory will show how a companys inventory turnover. Inventory turnover is the measure of how well a company can turn inventory into sales. Each company in this industry has maintained steady net sales to inventory ratios over the past five years. From 2003 to 2006, Johnson & Johnsons ratio increased, meaning that more sales were generated with the inventory that they had. Then in 2007 there was almost a 2 percent decrease, meaning that fewer sales were generated. Procter & Gamble has had a ratio of between 11 percent and 12 percent over the past five years. Since there is little fluctuation in this ratio, there is no reason to believe that Procter & Gamble has manipulated net sales with respect to inventory.

Conclusion
Using sales manipulation diagnostics for companies in the personal products industry has shown that some companies have more distortion than others do. Investors should still be extremely careful in examining a company and be very cautious if any distortions are found. Procter & Gamble was, overall, consistent in its accounting. However, this does not mean that Procter & Gamble has no distortion at all. The financial statements and annual reports should still be examined thoroughly before any important decisions are made.
43

Expense Manipulation Diagnostics

Analyzing the expenses of a company over a period can also show if there are any distortions to the accounting during those years. Comparing these numbers to their competitors can show if there are any manipulations of their accounting as well. Expense manipulation diagnostics will be used in the following paragraphs for the personal products industry.

Asset Turnover

Asset turnover is generated by comparing sales to total assets. This ratio shows the amount of sales produced for every dollar of assets produced. All the firms in the industry, except Procter & Gamble, have maintained a steady asset turnover ratio over the past five years. The industry leader is Avon, which means that they are efficient in producing sales with the assets that they have. Procter & Gambles ratio had a substantial decrease from 2005 to 2006. This would normally raise a red flag for the company, meaning that assets were understated substantially. However, the sharp decrease in asset turnover for Procter & Gamble was a result of the acquisition of The Gillette Company on October 1, 2005. This acquisition increased Procter & Gambles assets by $74 billion in this year. From 2006 to 2007, Procter & Gambles asset turnover
44

ratio rose slightly due to the increase in sales from the Gillette acquisition, and will continue to increase in years to come.

Cash Flows from Operating Activities/ Operating Income

The ratio of cash flows from operating activities compared to operating income shows how operating income is supported by cash flows. In the personal products industry, each company maintained a low and relatively steady ratio with an average of around one over the past five years, with the exception of Unilevers spike in 2005. Procter & Gambles ratio fell roughly 0.4 percent from 2003-2005. A drop in cash caused this decrease in the ratio from operating activities in 2005 while operating income was steadily increasing. This drop in cash from operations was due to the initial operating expenses of the Gillette acquisition. Operating cash flows increased in 2006 by 31 percent due to the benefit of acquiring Gillette (PG 10K). This caused the ratio to become steady for the next two years. Upon analyzing this ratio, it shows us that cash from operating activities is supported by operating income for Procter & Gamble.

45

Cash Flow from Operating Activities/ Net Operating Assets

The ratio of cash flows from operating activities to net operating assets shows how operating revenue is generated for every dollar in net operating assets that the company has. The higher the ratio, the more revenue a company has from its fixed assets. As the graph shows, Johnson & Johnson is the industry leader in this area, producing $1.05 in revenue, on average, with each dollar in net assets. Procter & Gamble is on the middle of the industry and has an average ratio of around 0.65 that has had little fluctuation over the past five years. Even though Procter & Gamble is among the top in the industry based on cash flow from operations data, they have a lower CFFO/NOA ratio due to the very large amount of fixed assets that they have compared to others in the personal products industry.

46

Pension Expense/ SG&A

The pension expense to selling, general, and administrative expense ratio shows how much money is being spent on retirees compared to the rest of SG&A expenses. Pension expense is a part of SG&A expenses. As a result, this ratio should be relatively low so that pension expense is only a portion of SG&A expenses. All companies in the personal products industry have maintained a low ratio over the past five years. Procter & Gambles ratio has relatively small change, if any, during this time period. This is because both pension expense and selling, general, and administrative expenses are increasing at about the same rate.

47

Other Employment Expenses/ SG&A

The ratio of other employment expenses to selling, general, and administrative expenses shows how much is spend on other employee benefits, except for pension funds, compared to all SG&A expenses. Other employee benefits in a company can include life, dental and health insurance, retirement programs, and even family benefits, and is included in SG&A. This ratio should remain relatively stable over time because the expenses should typically increase or decrease collectively. An increase in this ratio means that more is being spent on other employment expenses compared to SG&A. Procter & Gamble has had little fluctuation over the past five years in this ratio.

Conclusion
Using the quantity of disclosure method has shown that some companies in the personal products industry have more distortion than others. However, these distortions could be caused by changing their accounting policies, managers, or methods. Even if these changes explain the distortions in accounting, investors should still be very careful in examining the company. Procter & Gamble was, overall, consistent in its accounting. However, this does not mean that Procter & Gamble has no distortion at all. The

48

financial statements and annual reports should still be examined thoroughly before any important decisions are made.

Potential Red Flags

Whenever analysts come across questionable financial reporting, they will red flag it for further analysis. This is where biased and tampered financial reports will be exposed. One potential red flag discussed above was with the other employment expenses to selling general and administrative expenses ratio. Procter & Gamble reported a small decrease from 2003 to 2005 while the rest of the industry remained fairly flat. Although the move differed from that of the rest of the industry, it was small enough to be ignored and is considered to be insignificant. One ratio that displayed a broad range over the last five years was total accruals to change in sales. However, the rest of the industry reported very sporadic results here as well. Therefore, there is no evidence of manipulation here. The last ratio that presented a possible red flag was cash flows from operations to operating income. This ratio did have a fair decrease from 2003-2005; however, it never jumped outside the range of the rest of the industry. Therefore, this is not an example of accounting manipulation. The fact that Procter & Gamble does not amortize their goodwill does signal a red flag. Goodwill is a very large item on the balance sheet and it was reported in 2007 as $56.552 billion dollars. If Procter & Gamble amortizes their goodwill in order to better match revenues with expenses, their financial statements would look much different.

Undo Accounting Distortions

Whenever an item within a companys financial disclosures is believed to be materially misstated, analysts must go back and restate the numbers in order to obtain a more accurate picture of the company. If Procter & Gamble were to take their goodwill of $56.552 billion stated in 2007 and amortize it over the next five years, they would report $11.310 billion in amortization expense per year over that period. Total
49

assets would decrease by $11.310 billion per year as well. Net earnings for 2007 were only $10.340 billion. Therefore, Procter & Gamble must have at least a 3.4 percent increase in net sales during 2008 just to break even, all else equal. They must attain over a 22 percent increase in sales in order to maintain just the same level of net earnings. Historically, growth has not been this high. This makes positive net earnings over the amortization period highly unlikely. Looking at the company this way is completely different than what Procter & Gamble themselves presents. Without goodwill amortization, Procter & Gamble is a healthy growing company. If goodwill is amortized, net earnings drastically decreases, and they appear to be struggling to make profits.

Financial Analysis
The financial analysis is comprised of three different types of ratios. These types of ratios are liquidity, profitability, and capital structure. Within these three categories are different types of ratios that they correspond to. By looking at each companys financial statements, you are able to implement these ratios. The three different types of financial statements you look at are the income statement, balance sheet, and the statement of cash flows. Each statement is needed to calculate these ratios. Once you have made the calculations for all the ratios for each company, you are able to move on to the next step. This consists of putting them together and comparing them. Based on this, you are able to see where each company stands in the industry with its competitors.

Liquidity Analysis
The Liquidity analysis is a measure of its companys liquidity. It is divided up into two sections, which are short-term and long-term. These short-term ratios are Current ratio and Quick asset ratio. The long-term ratios are; Accounts receivable turnover, Days supply of inventory, Inventory turnover, Days sales outstanding, and Working

50

Capital turnover. These ratios are most helpful in measuring companies short and longterm obligations.

Current Ratio
Current Ratio is defined as Current Assets divided by Current liabilities. This ratio indicates whether a company can meet its short-term debt requirements. The more current assets you have the higher the ratio. In this case, a high ratio is desireable. It is said that if your current ratio goes below one, there could be a potential problem. The reason is because your current liabilities have exceeded your current assets and you are therefore unable to compensate for your debt.
2001 Current Ratio 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

0.96

1.23

0.77

0.81

1.22

2.30 0.94

1.68 1.06 1.04 1.04 0.70

1.71 1.13 1.02 1.39 0.78 1.21

1.96 1.09 1.00 1.56 0.74 1.19

2.49 1.03 1.01 1.17 0.72 1.21

1.20 1.05 0.95 1.31 0.68 1.07

1.62

1.08

51

Current Ratio
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

In the chart above Procter & Gamble is tied at fourth with an average current ratio of one. In 2003 and 2006, it is at a favorable rate above one, however two out of five years if not good enough. They are below the industry average and must be more consistent. Throughout the past 6 years, Johnson & Johnson has had the best current ratio out of all six companies. They have maintained a steady ratio above one and in years 2001 and 2005, they have jumped above two. In 2006, it decreased to the level where all the other companies were. It is still in a favorable position though. The industry average current ratio is fairly steady, which Procter & Gamble is slightly below in most years. Johnson & Johnson and Avon are the only two companies above the industry average. Unilever came in last with an average of a 0.72 current ratio. Also below the industry average was Colgate-Palmolive with an average of 1.0. It is imperative that Procter & Gamble maintains a more consistent ratio of above 1.0 to be looked at as more favorable.

Quick Acid Ratio (Acid Test)

The Quick Acid Ratio is defined as cash, securities, and accounts receivable all divided by current liabilities. This ratio shows whether a company can meet its debt obligations with its most liquid assets. If your company is greater than one, then you are able to compensate for your debt with your most liquid assets. Other assets such as inventories are not in this equation because they are not available to be converted into cash within a very short time period.

52

2001
Quick Acid Ratio

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

0.53 1.57 0.85 1.12 0.96 0.61 0.59 0.39 1.21 0.70

0.75 1.20 0.97 0.61 0.78 0.44 0.79

0.45 1.42 0.95 0.60 0.85 0.45 0.79

0.49 1.83 0.91 0.60 0.68 0.38 0.82

0.68 0.67 0.94 0.58 1.06 0.37 0.72

Quick Acid Ratio

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

The industry average is right below 1.0 and like the previous ratio Johnson & Johnson is the only company that exceeds its expectations. Their average is 1.30, which is the highest on the chart. However, like the current ratio test in 2006 their ratio dropped substantially to 0.67, which is slightly below the industry average of 0.72. In second is Kimberly-Clark with an average of 0.93. These two are the only ones
53

above the industry average. In third is Avon with an average of 0.79. Most of these companies have similarities with their own current ratio. Procter & Gamble came in fifth and is below the industry average with an average of 0.58. In every year, they are below the industry average. In 2004 and 2005, they are at an unfavorable state. They need to start moving in a more favorable direction and get up to the industry average.

Accounts Receivable turnover

Accounts receivable turnover is defined as sales divided by accounts receivable. This ratio measures the amount of times in a year a company collects its account receivables. The higher receivable turnover a company has the more effective that company will be. If the company has a lower turnover, this can indicate a possible collection problem.
2001
A/R Turnover

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 7.47

13.02 6.98 7.95 6.72 6.60 8.11 11.06 8.74

9.04

14.28 6.37 7.17 8.10 12.24 9.09

9.54

12.66 6.93 7.40 8.02 12.78 9.77

9.59

13.56 7.21 7.57 8.70 12.72 9.61

9.90

11.92 6.12 7.17 8.03 12.39 10.40

9.34

54

A/R Turnover 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

In every year Procter & Gamble lead the industry in accounts receivable turnover with an average of 13.09. Leading the industry is obviously very favorable to investors. Procter & Gambles A/R turnover did move up and down, but not too drastically and never were they unfavorable. P&G never came below the average, and actually, they stayed 2-3 points above each year. They need to continue what they are doing by moving in a favorable manner. The industry average was right above 9.0 from 20022006, and Avon and Unilever were the only two that consistently stayed above that average. The three companies that did not meet the industry average were ColgatePalmolive, Kimberly-Clark, and Johnson & Johnson. However, all three stayed at a very consistent rate and didnt have a lot of volatility. This shows consistency in these three companies even though they are below the Industry average.

Days Sales outstanding (A/R Days)

Days sales outstanding is equal to 365 days divided by the Accounts Receivable turnover. This is the number of days it takes to collect the accounts receivable during a year. Obviously you want this number to be very low. The reason is that you want to be able to collect your A/R as fast as possible. A high number gives you the exact opposite, which means your money will be worth less. A dollar is worth more today than tomorrow. This is the reason you want a low number.

55

2001
A/R Days

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 49.12

28.03 52.29 45.94 54.29 55.33 44.98 33.00 41.79

42.90

25.56 57.32 50.88 45.05 29.81 40.17

41.47

28.84 52.66 49.33 45.52 28.56 37.35

40.38

26.92 50.65 48.24 41.94 28.70 37.99

39.07

30.63 59.63 50.93 45.43 29.46 35.11

41.87

A/R Days
70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

The industry average in the Days Sales Outstanding was normally in the low 40s. In correlation to accounts receivable turnover, Procter & Gamble is obviously in first again. They show a favorable and steady average of 28.00 days from 2002-2006. The highest point was in 2006 at 30.63 and its low point was in 2003 at 25.56. They are the industry leaders and continue to show it through their ratios. As shown before in the A/R turnover, the other companies in the industry that were below the average
56

were Avon and Unilever. They also beat the industry average every year. This ratio shows them moving in a favorable position. All the leaders in this industry were somewhat steady. However, the three companies that did poorly compared to the industry average were Johnson & Johnson and Kimberly-Clark. Their biggest change from one year to the next was 9 days. That is a large amount when looking at the number of times it turns over throughout a year.

Inventory Turnover
Inventory Turnover is defined as cost of goods sold divided by inventory. This measures the amount of times inventory is sold during the year. Another way of putting it is how many times you stock your shelves each year. A high turnover is good for companies because you are making more products and sales that will create profit for your company. A low turnover does the exact opposite, it prolongs the making and selling of a companys products.
2001
Inventory Turnover

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

6.07 3.20 5.67 3.16 5.97 6.29 3.97 5.34 4.44 5.13

6.08 3.39 5.91 6.20 4.03 5.08 5.12

5.70 3.60 5.99 5.61 3.96 5.04 4.98

5.57 3.54 6.18 6.07 3.91 4.76 5.01

5.27 3.08 5.82 5.49 3.81 5.29 4.79

57

Inventory Turnover Procter & Gamble 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

The industry average in Inventory Turnover was slightly below 5. The industries low point was in 2001 with 4.44 and its high point was in 2002 with 5.13. The three companies in this section that consistently stayed above the industry average were Colgate-Palmolive, Kimberly-Clark, and Procter & Gamble. All three of these companies are consistently moving in a favorable manner. Unilever fell below during 2005 with a 4.76, but is still above average the other 4 years. Procter & Gamble had an average of 5.74. From 2004-2006 it has slightly decreased each year, but is still in a favorable position since it is above industry average. The leader was Colgate-Palmolive with 5.93 and right behind was Kimberly-Clark with 5.92. The only two that were below average and are moving in an unfavorable manner were Johnson & Johnson and Avon.

Days Supply Inventory (Inventory Days)

Days supply of inventory is equal to 365 days divided by the inventory turnover. This represents the number of days it takes to sell the inventory throughout the year. A low number is desired because it tells you how long your product is sitting on the shelves, and you obviously want to sell products as fast as possible. A high number shows that there could be a potential problem in the selling of your products. It could also be that your products are no longer attractive to customers.

58

2001
Inventory Days

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

60.10 113.98 64.34 115.40 61.14 58.04 92.02 68.30 89.16 75.83

60.01 107.56 61.81 58.84 90.63 71.91 75.13

64.05 101.42 60.90 65.01 92.17 72.38 75.99

65.56 103.14 59.07 60.16 93.38 76.72 76.34

69.32 118.52 62.72 66.48 95.68 68.96 80.28

Inventory Days
140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

In the days supply of inventory turnover, you want a low number of days. For example in this illustration, the company with the lowest number of days is KimberlyClark with an average of 61.66. Following closely behind is Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble. Procter & Gamble has an average of 63.81 and is fairly steady. However, it is moving in an unfavorable way. It starts in 2002 at 60.10 and ends at 2006 at 69.32. Each year it is still below the industry average, which is good, but must
59

do something to change its path to a favorable direction. The highest company with days supply of inventory is Johnson & Johnson with and average of 110.00. This is very unfavorable and they are well above the average days each year.

Cash to Cash Cycle

This cash to cash cycle is computed by taking days sales outstanding and adding it to days supply of inventory. This cycle shows you how long it takes a company to sell a product and collect the cash on that product. The faster this cycle turns the more liquid your company is. This means a low number is desired. You, as a company, want as many turns in a year as possible.
2001 Cash to Cash Cycle 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 138.27 166.27 110.28

88.13 169.69 116.47 103.02 125.02 110.09 118.73

85.57 164.88 112.69 103.89 120.44 112.08 116.59

92.89 154.08 110.23 110.53 120.73 109.73 116.36

92.48 153.79 107.31 102.10 122.08 114.71 115.41

99.95 178.15 113.65 111.91 125.14 104.07 122.14

60

Cash to Cash Cycle

200 Procter & Gamble 150 100 50 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Pamolive Avon Unilever AVG

The industry average of cash to cash cycle ranged anywhere from 138 days to 116 days. Once again Procter & Gamble lead the industry with an average of 92 days. No other company in this industry came below 100 days throughout the past six years. This graph shows that they are the most favorable company. However, in 2002, their cycle was 88 days and in 2006, it was almost 100 days. To continue to be the industry leader they must bring their cycle back down. Other companies who consistently bean the yearly industry average were Kimberly-Clark, Colgate-Palmolive, and Unilever. The company with the worst cash to cash cycle was Johnson & Johnson. They averaged an amount of 164 days throughout these six years. This is very unfavorable for one of the top companies in this industry.

Working Capital Turnover

Working capital turnover is calculated as sales divided by working capital. Working capital is equal to current assets minus current liabilities. This ratio shows a companies growth and its liquidity. It also analyzes money and sales used in operations of expanding the company. The higher the working capital turnover the better off a company is. This reason is simple because it is shows that a company is adding a high amount of sales to the cash it uses for these sales.

61

2001
Working Capital turnover

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

-74.79 3.10 -52.05 4.64 56.16 114.41 84.49 -8.07 -24.48 29.47

15.16 4.38 27.00

-10.22 3.54 35.51

-12.05 2.68 113.43 750.65 19.23 -9.03 144.15

15.70 13.98 65.96 -67.80 11.06 -9.04 4.98

181.88 1076.46 10.94 -11.61 37.96 8.54 -10.60 183.87

Working Capital Turnover

1200.00 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 -200.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Procter & Gamble is very volatile in this graph. In 2002, it starts very unfavorable and then bounces from positive to negative each year. It is however, moving in a favorable manner because it starts at -74.79 in 2002 and ends in 2006 at 15.70. The smoothest company in this chart is Johnson & Johnson with an average of

62

5.93. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this graph is the 2004 ColgatePalmolive turnover. It jumps to 1076.46, which is a very large number. This is going to cause the industry average to be higher than it should actually be simply because of Colgate-Palmolives turnovers in years 2004 and 2005. If they were taken out of the chart, there would be a more realistic industry average in 2004 &2005.

Conclusion
Looking at Procter & Gambles liquidity ratios it is safe to say that they are a liquid company. Its current ratio, quick ratio, and working capital turnover were below average, but every other liquidity ratio was above the industry average. They also lead the industry in some of these ratios. Procter & Gambles accounts receivable turnover and accounts receivable days lead the industry. They also had a third place stand in inventory turnover, but were very close to Colgate-Palmolive who was the leader. Overall, P&Gs numbers show that they are a fairly liquid company.

Profitability Analysis
The purpose of profitability analysis is to examine a firms operating efficiency, asset productivity, return on assets, and return on equity. All of these are measures of how well a company is utilizing its resources. Operating efficiency is measured by gross profit margin, operating expense ratio, operating profit margin, and net profit margin. Asset productivity is measured with the asset turnover ratio, and return on assets and return on equity are measured with the rate of return on assets and the rate of return on equity respectively.

Gross Profit Margin

Gross profit margin is calculated by taking a firms gross profit (sales minus cost of goods sold) and dividing it by sales. This ratio measures how much is left over from each dollar of sales after product costs are taken out. If this ratio is growing, cost of goods sold (COGS) is shrinking relative to sales. This frees up more sales revenue to

63

be used in other areas of the business or to be retained for future benefit; therefore, a high ratio here is desired.
2001 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 0.53 0.70 0.36 2002 0.48 0.71 0.35 0.55 0.60 0.50 0.53 2003 0.49 0.71 0.34 0.55 0.61 0.50 0.53 2004 0.51 0.72 0.34 0.55 0.62 0.49 0.54 2005 0.51 0.72 0.32 0.54 0.61 0.49 0.53 2006 0.51 0.72 0.30 0.55 0.60 0.49 0.53

Gross Profit Margin

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Since 2002, Procter & Gamble has grown its gross profit margin from 0.48 to 0.51. This trend is favorable both as a company and relative to the industry. They industrys gross profit margin has remained constant allowing Procter & Gamble to move up closer to the industry average. Therefore, Procter & Gamble is gaining relative to the industry.

64

However, in the personal products industry over the last five years as a whole, COGS sold has not increased or decreased relative to revenues.

Operating Expense Ratio

The operating expense ratio is calculated by dividing selling, general and administrative expenses by sales. This ratio directly measures how a firm is controlling operating expenses relative to sales. Because low expenses are preferred, a low operating expense ratio is preferred.
2001 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 0.26 0.35 0.16 2002 0.31 0.34 0.17 0.33 0.47 0.40 0.34 2003 0.31 0.34 0.17 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.30 2004 0.32 0.34 0.17 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.30 2005 0.32 0.34 0.17 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.30 2006 0.32 0.33 0.18 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.31

Operating Expense Ratio 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Over the last five years, Procter & Gamble has maintained a steady operating expense
65

ratio of about .32 or 32% with no significant change. The rest of the industry has maintained this steady pace as well. Therefore, both Procter & Gamble and the personal products industry as a whole have done well in keeping their operating expenses consistent relative to sales.

Net Profit Margin

Net profit margin is computed by taking a companys net income and dividing it by sales revenue. This ratio incorporates all of a companys expenses in order to come up with net income. With this ratio, bigger is better. Companies want net income as large as possible relative to sales; however, this ratio will not be as large as gross profit margin due the incorporation of all expenses into net income.
2002 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 0.11 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.47 0.08 0.19 2003 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.14 0.47 0.07 0.18 2004 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.47 0.07 0.18 2005 0.12 0.20 0.10 0.12 0.48 0.07 0.18 2006 0.13 0.21 0.09 0.11 0.53 0.10 0.20

66

Net Profit Margin

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Since 2002, Procter & Gamble has increased their profit margin from 0.11 or 11 percent to 0.13 or 13 percent. This is a favorable increase of about 18 percent. Therefore, Procter & Gamble has done well in controlling expenses. Over the past five years, they have risen above both Colgate-Palmolive and Kimberly-Clark with this particular profitability measure. The overall operating efficiency of Procter & Gamble has slightly increased since 2002. Their gross profit margin and operating expense ratio maintained pace with the industry while net profit margin had a significant increase and passed two competitors. This is indicative of better implementation of cost controls within the company and an increasingly efficient operation.

Asset Turnover
Asset turnover is computed by dividing sales by total assets. This ratio measures how well a company is using is assets to generate revenues. Year to year increases in this ratio are favorable and would indicate that a company is better utilizing assets to create revenues.

67

2001 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 0.87 0.84 0.89

2002 0.99 0.90 0.85 1.31 1.85 1.14 1.17

2003 0.99 0.87 0.84 1.32 1.89 1.12 1.17

2004 0.90 0.89 0.89 1.22 1.85 1.01 1.13

2005 0.92 0.86 0.98 1.34 1.69 0.97 1.13

2006 0.50 0.76 0.98 1.34 1.66 1.07 1.05

Asset Turnover
2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

From 2002 to 2005, Procter & Gambles asset productivity slightly decreased and Kimberly-Clark passed them. In those four years, Procter & Gamble did not do well both year to year as a company and relative to the industry. The industry average fell as well; however, it did not fall as much as Procter & Gambles. From 2005 to 2006, their asset turnover ratio was nearly cut in half. This would generally signal a red flag; however, this large decline was due the acquisition of Gillette. The addition of all
68

Gillettes assets into this ratio in 2006 had a significant impact on Procter & Gambles asset turnover. Still, Procter & Gamble was having steady declines in this area well before the acquisition of Gillette. They were already near the bottom of the industry in 2005 and the trend suggests that even without the Gillette acquisition, Procter & Gamble was headed for last place anyway. Therefore, Procter & Gamble has done a poor job utilizing assets to generate revenues.

Return on Assets
Return on assets (ROA) is a measure of how well a company uses assets to generate net income. This computed by dividing net income by total assets. Here, higher ratios are desired; however, they will not get as high as the asset turnover ratio, because net income will always be a smaller numerator than sales.
2002
Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

2003 0.13

2004 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.19 0.24 0.07 0.16

2005 0.12 0.19 0.09 0.15 0.20 0.07 0.14

2006 0.14 0.19 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.13

0.17 0.11

0.18 0.11 0.18 0.20 0.07

0.14

0.15

69

Return on Assets
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Procter & Gamble has experienced a slight increase in ROA from 0.13 or 13 percent in 2003 to 0.14 or 14 percent in 2006. This was about an 8 percent increase. Relative to the industry they have done even better surpassing both Avon and the industry average. Hence, Procter & Gamble has done well in maintaining a steady ROA while the industry on average fell.

Return on Equity
Return on equity (ROE) is a measure how profitable a company is relative to capital raised by owners. ROE is calculated by taking net income and dividing it by owners equity. With this ratio, bigger is better.

70

2002 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 0.29 0.27 0.30

2003 0.38 0.32 0.30 3.70 -5.21 0.64 0.02

2004 0.40 0.30 0.27 1.60 2.28 0.45 0.88

2005 0.40 0.32 0.24 1.07 0.89 0.36 0.55

2006 0.50 0.29 0.27 1.00 0.60 0.49 0.53

Return on Equity 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 -4.00 -6.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Procter & Gamble has experienced a 32 percent increase in ROE since 2003. They have been very profitable in this area year to year. However, Relative to the industry they have done even better. If Avons negative ROE is thrown out of the graph as an outlier, the industry average in 2003 is about 1.06. Therefore, the industry is on a downward trend while Procter & Gamble is moving up.

71

Conclusion
Procter & Gamble has managed to maintain either steady or growing profitability all but one of these measures. Therefore, they have done well with profitability on year by year basis. They do typically fall under the industry average; however, they are making gains relative to the industry.

Capital Structure Analysis

Capital structure analysis will reveal to analysts how much of a companys capital is debt financed and how much is equity financed. It will also show whether a company is capable of paying its debt. The three ratios used in this analysis are debt to equity, times interest earned, and debt service margin.

Debt to Equity
Debt to equity is calculated by dividing total liabilities by total owners equity. This ratio will reveal whether more debt or equity is used to finance assets.
2001 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 1.13 0.59 1.66 2002 1.98 0.79 1.77 19.23 -27.06 8.01 0.79 2003 1.70 0.80 1.48 7.43 8.65 5.41 4.25 2004 2.30 0.68 1.57 5.96 3.37 4.07 2.99 2005 2.52 0.52 1.93 5.30 5.00 3.72 3.17 2006 1.16 0.79 1.80 5.48 5.63 2.30 2.86

72

Debt to Equity Ratio 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00 -20.00 -30.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Debt to equity for Procter & Gamble has fluctuated with an overall decrease since 2002. This trend shows that Procter & Gamble has begun to finance assets more and more with equity than debt. On the other hand, the industry has on average chosen to finance capital with debt rather than equity.

Times Interest Earned

Times interest earned measures a companys ability to pay in its interest on debt. It is calculated by dividing income from operations by interest expense. Here, a higher ratio demonstrates a better ability to pay interest on debt.
2001 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 32.15 50.85 13.44 2002 11.07 59.31 14.71 14.10 -22.84 -4.71 11.94 2003 14.00 48.08 16.29 17.45 -50.38 -7.04 6.40 2004 15.62 65.98 17.64 17.73 -93.11 -8.40 2.58 2005 12.55 230.91 14.34 16.29 -68.39 -10.05 32.61 2006 11.84 208.73 11.17 13.61 -17.19 -17.01 35.19 73

Times Interest Earned

250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 -50.00 -100.00 -150.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Procter & Gambles times interest earned has fluctuated since 2002 with a slight increase. On average, their times interest earned has been about 13. Because Johnson & Johnsons times interest earned was so much higher than everyone else in the industry, Procter & Gamble fell below the industry average in 2004 and 2006. However, if Johnson & Johnson is removed as an outlier from the table, Procter & Gamble would be near the top of the industry in times interest earned.

Debt Service Margin

Debt service margin measures whether a firm is able to meet long-term debt obligations. This calculated by taking cash flows from operations in one year and dividing it by the current portion of long-term debt in the previous year. Higher ratios are desired in this instance to insure the ability to pay off debt.

74

2002 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG 16.02 14.47 17.56

2003 2.33 5.00 2.40 5.40 1.23 0.72 2.85

2004 4.31 9.74 3.44 5.62 3.62 0.96 4.62

2005 1.05 42.14 1.90 3.89 17.32 0.99 11.22

2006 0.99 21.33 2.11 5.00 0.90 0.86 5.20

Debt Service Margin

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever AVG

Procter & Gambles debt service margin has shrunk from 2.33 in 2003 to 0.99 in 2006. This demonstrates a decreasing ability to meet long-term debt obligations. During 2006, there were not enough cash flows to support the portion of debt due. This trend is well below the industry average indicating an even poorer performance relative to the industry.
75

Conclusion
In analyzing Procter & Gambles capital structure, a downward trend can be seen in their ability to pay their debts. Although their times interest earned has had slight increases, their debt service margin has declined substantially. This indicates a problem in paying off debt with cash flows.

Internal Growth Rate

Internal growth rate (IGR) is a measure of a companys capability to increase its assets with only retained earnings. If a company is able to finance growth internally, it will have no need to take on additional debt. To compute IGR, the dividend payout ratio must be known. The dividend payout ratio is equal to dividends paid divided by net income. The dividend payout ratio is then subtracted from one and this figure is multiplied by ROA to arrive at the IGR.
2002 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever Average 0.11 0.07 2003 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.03 0.09 2004 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.09 2005 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.07 2006 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.06

76

IGR 0.2000 0.1500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000 2003 2004 Year 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever Average

Since 2003, Procter & Gambles IGR has fluctuated with no upward or downward trend. Therefore, their ability to grow internally has remained steady. Because the rest of the industry has declined over this time, Procter & Gamble has had relative gains in IGR surpassing both Avon and the industry average.

Sustainable Growth Rate

Sustainable growth rate (SGR) is a measure of a companys capability to grow without borrowing money. It calculated by dividing dividends by equity. This ratio is then added to one and multiplied by the IGR. Higher SGRs are more favorable and allow companies to grow without increasing their debt burdens.

77

2002 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever Average 0.11 0.13 0.08

2003 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.23 0.33 0.04 0.15

2004 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.20 0.28 0.00 0.13

2005 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.22 0.01 0.11

2006 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.08

SGR
0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 2003 2004 Year 2005 2006 Procter & Gamble Johnson & Johnson Kimberly Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever Average

Procter & Gambles SGR has fluctuated since 2003 between 0.09 and 0.012, with no upward or downward trend. Therefore, their SGR has remained fairly stable. On the other hand, the industry average has dropped and Procter & Gamble actually rose above it. Therefore, Procter & Gamble has done well relative to the industry.
78

Forecasts of Financial Statements

Part of the prospective analysis of a company is trying to get a glimpse of what is likely to happen in the future years, in short-term and long-term. The published financial statements of a company can be analyzed to hopefully provide reasonable assumptions for what to expect in the future. These forecasts are important to base judgments about whether or not the company can make loan payments on time, a crucial insight for a prospective investor. While these forecasts are only based upon public information and are subject to asymmetrical information and other errors, the trend and benchmark analyses will help minimize the impacts of the errors on our valuation.

Methodology
In forecasting Procter & Gambles financial statements, the previous six years worth of 10-K reports from Procter & Gamble, as well as supplemental information from the financial statements of Procter & Gambles top competitors were used. Data was available from the first quarterly report of 2008 to aid in forecasting. First, we forecasted the income statement, which centralized around the growth rate of net sales. We then focused on the balance sheet. The balance sheet forecasts how changes in assets, debt, and equity will change to support the growth rate of net sales. Liquidity ratios such as the current ratio, inventory turnover, and receivables turnover, as well as asset turnover ratios helped forecast the balance sheet. Then, we used ratios linking the income statement forecasts to the statements of cash flows were used to predict cash flows. The forecasted statements are located in the appendix.

Income Statement
The first financial statement to be forecasted is the Income Statement. We created a common-size income statement to show every line item as a percentage of net sales. Then we calculated the growth of net sales over the past 5 years. This helps
79

in the forecasting of net sales, which is the central line item that all other line items relate to. Procter & Gamble experienced double-digit growth in 2004, 2005 and 2006, which was directly associated with the acquisition of Gillette. Pre-acquisition growth rate was already a healthy 7.8 percent. The growth rate for 2007 shows a slowing; however, the assumption is that Procter & Gamble will still achieve an annual growth rate of 10 percent. This assumption considers a first quarter 2008 reported sales growth of 8 percent and a 12.3 percent sales growth rate expected from analysts at Yahoo! Finance. Announcements of possibly selling off the Folgers and Duracell brands have also been considered. In considering long-term sales growth it was important to recognize that Procter & Gambles foreign sales account for a growing percentage of net sales, and some developing markets like China, are growing exponentially. Other line items have stayed roughly the same over the past 5 years, even with the acquisition of Gillette. We suspect a fair assumption for cost of products sold to remain steady at roughly 49 percent of net sales, and selling, general and administrative expenses at 31 percent of net sales. Since net earnings have slowly increased as a percentage of net sales to 13.52 percent in 2007, but we assume sales growth will slow, in the future we will assume net earnings will be around 13 percent of net sales.

Balance Sheet
The balance sheet forecast has to reflect growth in income statement items, as well as utilize ratio analyses that reflect Procter & Gambles business choices. The creation of a common-size balance sheet enables us to relate each line item to the balances of each section. The first section forecasted is the asset section. The asset turnover ratio for 2006 and 2007 dropped significantly while sales increased. We used an asset turnover ratio of 0.60, which is slightly higher than the previous two years averages, but lower than the average of the past 5 years. Accounts receivable was forecasted using the five year average accounts receivable turnover of 0.1283. We forecasted inventories using an assumed inventory turnover ratio of 5.5, which is just
80

below the five-year average and just above 2007 data. Total current assets were forecasted assuming they would be around 19% of total assets, which is slightly higher than the past two years but lower than the 5 year average. Property, Plant and Equipment, Goodwill, and Trademarks were forecasted in the same manner assuming 17%, 40%, and 20% of total assets, respectively. Other Noncurrent Assets was just forecasted using the excess balance. The next section of the balance sheet we forecasted was the equity section. First, Retained Earnings were forecasted using the previous years retained earnings, adding the forecasted net earnings, and subtracting forecasted dividends paid. Dividends paid are forecasted on the Statements of Cash Flows, which have historically grown at a smooth 10-12% per year. Total Equity was then forecasted by adding the change in retained earnings to the previous total equity balance. According to Procter & Gambles 2007 10-K, money was borrowed to fund a share repurchase. This share purchase was completed in 2007 and we assume they will hold onto these shares indefinitely. A substantial amount of stock was issued in 2006, which grew additional paid-in capital. We were unable to find a reason for the stock issue, or plans for the proceeds, so we cannot accurately forecast whether the additional paid-in capital account will decrease in the future. We believe some may be used to lower liabilities balances from share repurchase debt. The liabilities section was forecasted by subtracting the total equity from total liabilities and equity. Current liabilities was forecasted assuming a current ratio of 0.85, which is inbetween the 2007 and 5 year average ratios.

Statement of Cash Flows

Forecasting the statements of cash flows involves trying to forecast cash flows from operating activities as accurately as possible. This involves finding ratios linking the previously forecasted income statement to the statements of cash flows. We looked for trends using CFFO/Sales, CFFO/NI, and CFFO/OI ratios. The CFFO/OI ratio offered the best trend so we used it to forecast CFFO for the next ten years. The 2006
81

and 2007 data was similar at 0.86 and 0.87, respectively, so we used 0.87. The projected numbers were then crosschecked against the averaged CFFO/Sales of 20062007 data, which was stable. The resulting forecast was very close to the results of the CFFO/OI forecast, so we are confident with our projections. We have forecasted CFFI based on our assumed growth rates of noncurrent assets. The six years prior were volatile due to the acquisition of Gillette and the sell-off of some investment securities, but our expectations are for a smooth next ten years. By adding the forecasted CFFO and CFFI, we were able to predict the free cash flows to the firm, which shows that Procter & Gamble will have increasing free cash flows to use. CFFF was not forecasted, but we found a historical growth rate for Dividends Paid of between 10-12 percent, so we grew conservatively at 10 percent.

Conclusion
The forecasts for the next ten years of Procter & Gamble appear to be stable. The Gillette acquisition was a major growth in the company, which poised the overwhelming industry leader into a bright future. Even the share repurchase in 2006 and 2007 suggests Procter & Gamble thinks its stock is undervalued. As economies around the world improve, Procter & Gamble will grow its customer base, and our forecasts predict it to be inevitable.

82

Cost of Equity The cost of equity, Ke, is what we expect our returns to be for the current year. To find the cost of capital for Procter & Gamble we use the capital asset pricing model, or CAPM. In order to use CAPM, we have to find the necessary components of the equation, which includes the risk free rate, Procter & Gambles beta, and the market risk premium. We had to run regression analysis over 72 month, 60 month, 48 month, 36 month, and 24 month periods to find Procter & Gambles beta. Regression was ran over these time periods to give us several different betas so we can look at beta stability and be able to choose the best possible beta for our company. To find an estimate for our risk free rates, we used the St. Louis Federal Reserve website to get past Treasury bill rates. In our regression analysis, we used 3 month, 1 year, 2 year, 5 year, 7 year, and 10 year Treasury bill rates. Regression was ran over these time periods to find out during what time period the company has changed the most structurally. This also shows the investor horizon. The investor horizon is the length of time a sum of money is expected to be invested (investorwords.com). After analyzing the results, we found that the 3 month Treasury bill rate gave us our best result for beta. The 3 month T-bill rate was the best result because it gave us the highest adjusted R2 with 28.62 percent with the 36 month regression. This explains that Procter & Gamble has structurally changed in the past 36 months compared to any other time. Also, the 3 month T-bill shows that Procter & Gamble is better to be viewed as a short term investment, which is the investor horizon. The adjusted R2 gives us the best explanatory power for Procter & Gamble, which gives us a beta of .9358 and a risk free rate of 5.16 percent. The beta we calculated is very close to the published beta for Procter & Gamble, which is .92. The beta of the company was very stable over the 72 month, 60 month, 48 month, 36 month, and 24 month periods and had little fluctuation at all. This shows that Procter & Gambles performance follows the performance of the economy pretty closely over time. To find our market risk premium we used the 1926-2005 period of returns from the Standard and Poors 500 indexes (Business Analysis & Valuation textbook). This gave us
83

6.8 percent for our market risk premium. Next, we subtracted a .4 percent size premium from this number because Procter & Gamble has a very large market value, leaving us with a market risk premium of 6.4 percent. Putting all of this information into the CAPM equation, we were able to find our cost of equity, or Ke, to equal 11.15 percent. Regression Analysis 3 Month Rate RF R2 Beta Ke 1 Year Rate RF R2 Beta Ke 2 Year Rate RF R2 Beta Ke 5 Year Rate RF R2 Beta Ke 7 Year Rate RF R2 Beta Ke 10 Year Rate 72 Months 5.16% -0.0059 0.1809 6.32% 72 Months 5.22% -0.0058 0.1825 6.39% 72 Months 5.12% -0.0056 0.1837 6.30% 72 Months 5.07% -0.0054 0.1856 6.26% 72 Months 5.14% -0.0053 0.1864 6.33% 72 Months 60 Months 5.16% -0.0048 0.3170 7.19% 60 Months 5.22% -0.0044 0.3212 7.28% 60 Months 5.12% -0.004 0.3266 7.21% 60 Months 5.07% -0.0033 0.3347 7.21% 60 Months 5.14% -0.0031 0.3373 7.30% 60 Months 48 Months 5.16% -0.0004 0.5506 8.68% 48 Months 5.22% 0.0003 0.559 8.80% 48 Months 5.12% 0.0013 0.5705 8.77% 48 Months 5.07% 0.0028 0.5892 8.84% 48 Months 5.14% 0.0033 0.595 8.95% 48 Months 36 Months 5.16% 0.2862 0.9358 11.15% 36 Months 5.22% 0.2854 0.9337 11.20% 36 Months 5.12% 0.2847 0.9313 11.08% 36 Months 5.07% 0.2839 0.9305 11.03% 36 Months 5.14% 0.2838 0.9306 11.10% 36 Months 24 Months 5.16% 0.2176 0.8698 10.73% 24 Months 5.22% 0.2163 0.8671 10.77% 24 Months 5.12% 0.2157 0.8645 10.65% 24 Months 5.07% 0.2146 0.8627 10.59% 24 Months 5.14% 0.2144 0.8625 10.66% 24 Months
84

RF 5.28% 5.28% R2 -0.0053 -0.003 Beta 0.1873 0.3394 Ke 6.48% 7.45% Weighted-Average Cost of Debt

5.28% 0.0037 0.5997 9.12%

5.28% 0.2839 0.931 11.24%

5.28% 0.2141 0.8624 10.80%

Procter & Gambles weighted average cost of debt is 6.23 percent on a before tax basis, and 4.38 percent on an after tax basis. To get the weighted average we had to come up with several interest rates used for our liabilities. For trades payable and accrued expenses and other current liabilities, we used a three-month non-financial commercial paper rate of 4.63 percent (http://research.stlouisfed.org). For long term debt and current maturities of long term debt we used a rate of 5 percent found in Procter & Gambles annual 10-K report. The rates of 29.7 percent for taxed payable, 5.25 percent for deferred taxes, and 6.3 percent for other noncurrent liabilities were also found in the annual 10k report. We chose this percentage for other noncurrent liabilities because it was the rate for other post employment benefits, which makes up the companys other expenses. In order to calculate the weighted-average cost of debt we took all of Procter & Gambles liabilities and computed a weighted average of each line item based on the percentage of total liabilities. Next, we multiplied these percentages by the corresponding interest rate to come up with our value added weight. Adding the results up gave us our weighted average cost of debt before taxes. Multiplying this answer by 1 minus the tax rate gave us our weighted average cost of debt after taxes. Weighted Average Cost of Capital Now that we have our cost of equity and weighted average cost of debt, we are able to compute our weighted average cost of capital. To get our weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, we must plug in information into the WACC formula, which is WACCbt= (Ve/Vf)*Ke + (Vd/Vf)*kd; where Ve is the market value of the firms equity, Vd is the market value of the firms liabilities, Vf is the market value of the firms equity and liabilities together, Ke is the cost of equity, and Kd is the cost of debt. Plugging all the
85

necessary information into the WACC formula, we get a before tax WACC of 8.61 percent and an after tax WACC of 6.05 percent using 1 minus the tax rate.

86

Valuations After all of the analysis of the industry, the firm, its accounting policies, and financials, we are now ready to do a valuation of Procter & Gamble. Several different valuations will be used to compute the per share price of the company. This per share price compared to the actual per share price will advocate if the company is fairly valued, overvalued, or undervalued. The valuation methods to be used to value Procter & Gamble are the earnings multiples model, the discounted dividends model, the free cash flows model, the residual income model, the long-run residual income model, and the abnormal earnings growth model. Earnings Multiples Valuation
PG Share Price Trailing P/E Forward P/E P/B D/P PEG Price/EBITDA Price/FCF Enterprise Value/EBITDA 69.01 56.47 307.10 37.55 89.49 469.93 69.39 65.79

The earnings multiples valuation is the quickest and easiest way to value a firm. Unlike the other valuation methods, the earnings multiples valuation does not require detailed multi-year forecasts (Business Analysis and Valuation text). This valuation method uses eight different ratios calculated for Procter & Gamble and its competitors: Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly-Clark, Colgate-Palmolive, Avon, and Unilever. These ratios are calculated for each firm to come up with an industry average. The firms that produce numbers far from the average are known as outliers and are left out of the industry average. This average is used to determine if Procter & Gamble is fairly valued, undervalued, or overvalued. An assumption of 20% +/- will be used to determine a fair
87

valuation of Procter & Gamble. This gives an allowed variance of between 54.87 and 82.31 for the company to be fairly valued. Although this valuation is a quick and easy way to value a firm, it is highly inefficient. This valuation is inefficient because it values the company based on the industry average, even though not many firms, if any, operate at the industry average. As a result, the valuation of the firm is very inaccurate and does not give a result that one should rely on for a realistic valuation. The results of the earnings multiples valuation follows.

Trailing Price/ Earnings

PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(i n EUROs) EPS P/E Trailing Industry Average PG Share Price

65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481

3.55 4.07 3.16 1.331 160

18.36

21.08 PG EPS: 17.42 3.27 24.14 30.00 15.51

69.01

To get the trailing price to earnings ratio for the companies in the industry we took the trailing P/E ratio for each competitor from yahoo finance. These ratios were added together then divided by five (the number of competitors in the industry) to get our average P/E trailing ratio of 21.08 for the industry. This average was then multiplied by Procter & Gambles EPS of 3.27, found in the annual 10k, to compute the share price of $69.01. The actual share price at November, 1 2007 was $68.59. According to this method, Procter & Gamble is fairly valued based on our assumption that 20% +/- the actual price per share is a fair valuation.

88

Forward Price/ Earnings

PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(i n EUROs) P/E Forward Industry Average PG Share Price

65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481

15.33 15 20.85 NA NA

17.06 PG EPS: 3.31

56.47

The Forward price to earnings method is calculated by dividing the share price as of November 1, 2007 by the forecasted earnings per share. For Procter & Gambles competitors, the forward P/E ratio was found using yahoo finance. An average of these ratios was then taken to compute the industry average of 17.06. Avon and Unilever were not a part of the average because there was not a forward P/E ratio available for these companies. Procter & Gambles forecasted earnings per share of 3.31 was taken and multiplied by the industry average to give us a share price of $56.47. This method suggests that Procter & Gamble is fairly valued.

89

Price/ Book
PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00 BPS 15.66 14.71 3.57 1.44 3.93 P/B 4.16 4.82 21.36 27.79 631.73 Industry Average 14.53 PG BPS: 21.13 PG Share Price 307.10

The price to book ratio is computed by using the price per share at the November 1 price and the book value of equity per share from the most recent 10k for Procter & Gamble, and from yahoo finance for its competitors. Once the P/B ratio is found for each competitor in the industry, an average is taken. Unilever was left out of this average because it was an outlier in the industry. This average is then multiplied by Procter & Gamble BPS of 21.13, taken from the 10K, to come up with a share price of $307.10. We compare this to our actual share price of 68.59 and see that when using this method Procter & Gamble is extremely undervalued. The per share price is so high because there is a lot of variation in the P/B ratio for the industry and the average ratio of 14.53 is a lot higher than the real ratio of 4.16 for Procter & Gamble. There is no firm that operates at a ratio near the average. This shows the inefficiency in using this model.

90

Dividend/ Price
PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00 DPS 2.40 3.10 1.80 1.80 69.93 D/P 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 Industry Average 0.035 PG DPS: 1.33 PG Share Price 37.55

This method is used by taking the dividends per share and dividing it by the price per share for all of Procter & Gambles competitors to give us our D/P ratio. The D/P ratio for Procter & Gamble was found by dividing DPS by PPS (taken from the 10K), while the competitors D/P ratio was taken from yahoo finance. An average of the competitors ratios was taken to give us our industry average of .035. Next, Procter & Gambles DPS of 1.33 was divided by the industry average to give us our share price of $37.55. Comparing this per share price to our actual share price of $68.59, it is suggested that Procter & Gamble is overvalued.

91

P.E.G. Ratio
PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(i n EUROs) EPS PEG Industry Average PG Share Price

65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00

3.55 4.07 3.16 1.33 160.00

1.71 2.17 2.11 2.43 NA

2.105 PG EPS: 3.27

89.48

The PEG ratio takes a companys PE ratio and divides it by the estimated earnings growth rate for that company. The PEG ratio for Procter & Gambles competitors was taken from yahoo finance. To find a share price for Procter & Gamble, we took an average of the competitors PEG ratios, which came out to 2.105. This average did not include Unilever because there was not an available PEG ratio for them. Next, we multiply the average of 2.105 by Procter & Gambles estimated earnings growth rate of 13 percent. The result was then multiplied by our EPS of 3.27 (10K) to give us our share price of $89.48. Comparing this price to our actual share price of 68.59 shows that Procter & Gamble is undervalued.

92

Price/ EBITDA
PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(i n EUROs) 65.17 EBITDA 17.45 P/EBITDA 3.73 Industry Average 26.34 PG EBITDA: 17.84 PG Share Price 469.93

70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00

3.50 3.06 1.18 6.50

20.25 24.93 33.84 381.93

This method uses the price per share and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization to compute the P/EBITDA ratio. Price per share is the price as of November 1, 2007. EBITDA for Procter & Gamble was found in the 2007 10K, while it was found for the competitors on yahoo finance. Dividing PPS by EBITDA gave us the P/EBITDA ratio for each company. The P/EBITDA ratios were averaged together to give us an industry average of 26.34. The outliers in this area were Johnson & Johnson and Unilever, so they were not computed in the average. Next, the average was multiplied by Procter & Gambles EBITDA (10K) of 17.84 to give us our share price of $469.93. When this price is compared to our actual share price of 68.59, it is suggested that Procter & Gamble is significantly undervalued. The number is so high because the EBITDA of the competitors being averaged is drastically lower than that of Procter & Gamble, causing the P/EBITDA ratio to be much higher. Again, this shows how this method is unreliable and inaccurate.

93

Price/ Free Cash Flows

PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00 FCFPS -1.94 3.39 1.64 3.29 5666.00 Price/FCFP S -33.65 20.94 46.56 12.13 0.44 Industry Average 20.02 PG FCFPS: 3.47 PG Share Price 69.39

To calculate the Price/ Free Cash Flows ratio, we found free cash flows of Procter & Gamble from the annual 10-K report and for its competitors from yahoo finance. Free cash flows are just the sum of cash flow from operations and cash flow from investing. For the competitors in the industry, the free cash flows found on yahoo finance were averaged together to create an industry average of 20.02. Johnson & Johnson was not computed in this average because they were an industry outlier in this area. For Procter & Gamble, free cash flows were computed to be $10,959 and on a per share basis to be 3.47. Next, the industry average and Procter & Gambles free cash flows per share are multiplied together to get the share price of $69.39. This price suggests that Procter & Gamble is fairly valued.

94

Enterprise Value/ EBITDA

PPS Johnson & Johnson KimberlyClark ColgatePalmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00

EBITDA 17.45 3.5 3.06 1.18 6.5

EV/EBITDA 10.85 9.33 13.85 15.61 8.63

Industry Average 11.65 PG EVPS: 5.647

PG Share Price 65.79

Enterprise Value to EBITDA is calculated by dividing enterprise value by earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Enterprise Value and EBITDA for Procter & Gamble was found in the companys annual 10K report and was found for the rest of the industry from yahoo finance. For Procter & Gamble, enterprise value was calculated by adding market value of equity to the value of liabilities, and then subtracting cash and financial investments. Enterprise value was then divided by EBITDA to computer the EV/EBITDA ratio. An average of this ratio was taken to compute the industry average of 11.65. Next, Procter & Gambles enterprise value per share of 5.647 (10k) was multiplied by the industry average to compute the share price of $65.79. This model suggests that Procter & Gamble is fairly valued.

Conclusion
In using the earnings multiples valuation model, it is very hard to tell what the valuation of Procter & Gamble is. Four of the methods used claimed that the company was fairly valued; three claimed it was undervalued, and one claimed it was overvalued.
95

With this much variation in the valuations, it is clear that this model is not a reputable way of valuing a company. The earnings multiples valuation model values companies based on inaccurate measures and assumes that all companies in an industry operate at the same level, when in fact they do not at all. Even though this method of valuation has been used for some time now, other valuation methods must be used to get a more accurate valuation. Discounted Free Cash Flow The discounted free cash flow valuation method uses expected future free cash flows to arrive at an estimated price per share. The estimated price per share is the present value of the future free cash flows. In order to use this method, a companys cash flows from operations (CFFO), cash flows from investing (CFFI), book value of liabilities, and shares outstanding must be known. First, subtract the firms CFFI from their CFFO. This results in annual free cash flows. This cash flow must then be discounted back to its present value using WACC(BT) as the discount rate. We performed this operation for each year forecasted and added all of them together. A perpetuity is used for years beyond our forecast. Because we forecasted 10 years out, our perpetuity will start in year 11 with an estimated annual free cash flow of $29 billion dollars. The value of this perpetuity at year 10 equals the annual cash flow divided by the difference in before tax WACC and the growth rate. Based on our forecasts, will assume an growth rate of 0.10 will continue. In our case, the value of the perpetuity in year 10 will be:

$29,000 million / (.0861-0.10) = -$2086330.94 million

This total must then be discounted back to its present value using the present value factor for year 10 assuming a WACC(BT) of .0861. This comes out to -$913450.59

96

million. This figure is then added to the total present value of cash flows in year one through ten of $118,599.02 million to arrive at a total present value of -$794851.6 million. We must then subtract the book value of liabilities in order arrive at the value of just the equity. This comes out o be -$866105.6 million. This is divided by the number of shares (3,159 million) to arrive at a per share value of -$274.17. Since this is a negative share price, we cannot use this model to value Procter & Gamble.
Growth Rate 0 0.0361 0.0561 WACC(BT) 0.0761 0.0861 0.0961 0.1161 Overvalued Fairly Valued Under Valued Actual Share Price November 1, 2007 $68.59 212.52 120.49 77.62 63.88 53.12 37.43 0.025 628.65 199.43 106.98 83.67 67.02 44.93 0.05 N/A 925.45 192.59 130.86 95.99 58.08 0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 207.04 0.12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

The discounted free cash flow model is highly sensitive. Our initial WACC(BT) was .0861, and our initial growth rate was zero. Small changes in either of these inputs produce large changes in the companys value and portray different pictures of the firm. All boxes marked N/A represent negative results that were thrown out. Discounted Dividends Valuation Model Many investors value dividends as another way to achieve a desired return on their investment. By assuming that a company that has historically paid dividends will
97

continue to pay them, we can achieve an expected value for the stock based upon what dividends we expect the company to pay in the future. This model is known as the discounted dividends model. As previously discussed, dividends for Procter & Gamble have historically grown at 11-12 percent, and we took a conservative estimation of 10 percent growth for the next ten years. Since it is difficult to forecast a growth rate beyond 10 years, we performed a sensitivity analysis to consider different growth rates in the perpetuity, as well as different costs of equity in case of future variation. The model states that the price per share is the sum of each of the next ten years expected dividends discounted back to the present value, added to the terminal value of the perpetuity. The terminal value is calculated by taking the expected dividend in year 11 and dividing it by the cost of equity minus the growth rate of the perpetuity. This calculation is: 3.65/(0.1115-0.10) = $32.75 The resulting value is in year 10 dollars and must be discounted back to present year dollars. Adding this value to the present value of the forecasted dividends results in an estimated price of $24.32. This results in a current expected share price of $126.83. Our sensitivity analysis shows that this model is very sensitive to terminal value errors in our estimated cost of equity and projected growth rates. If we underestimated the cost of equity by just 2 percent, the stock price changes from very undervalued to very overvalued, with a price of $46.58. If we overestimated the growth rate by just 5 percent, the same result occurs.
Growth Rate 0 0.0715 0.0915 Ke 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 0.1515 Overvalued 41.38 30.88 27.25 24.32 19.87 16.69 0.025 55.46 37.32 31.87 27.72 21.84 17.9 0.05 102.31 51.51 40.97 33.9 25.03 19.72 0.1 N/A N/A 969.4 126.83 46.58 28.66 0.12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 107.66 40.17

98

Fairly Valued Under Valued

Actual Share Price November 1, 2007

$68.59

Residual Income Residual income has one main objective and that is to value a companys stock price. What it does is measure the cost of equity of a companys performance. Another way of putting it is it predicts a companys return. An important fact about residual income is it can either be positive or negative. If its positive it adds value to the firm and vice versa if negative. Either way there is an equilibrium that RI is constantly trying to get back to. This equilibrium is at zero. First, we recorded Procter & Gambles book value of equity each year by taking net earnings and subtracting it from dividends paid. Then we added the previous years BVE to get each year ending BVE. We then found our benchmark earnings by taking the previous years ending book value of equity and multiplying it with the cost of equity. The next step was to find the residual income. You simply take the difference of actual earning and benchmark earnings. We also found the perpetuity of residual income from year 11 and on. This perpetuity was 9562. This will be used to find the PV of terminal value perpetuity. However this is an inaccurate residual income. To get an accurate RI you must first calculate the present value multiple. Then multiply each years RI by that particular years multiple. This gives you an accurate Residual income for each year forecasted. As said before in the paragraph above the residual income must eventually move towards equilibrium of 0. This is shown through the PV of residual income graph. Slowly but surely each year it decreases a small amount. This causes a negative growth rate in the perpetuity. The next step was to find the total PV of annual residual income. You simply take the sum of each years accurate residual income from 2008 to 2017. Procter & Gambles total sum was 31125.34. From the previous perpetuity in the middle of the paragraph of 9562 we found the continuing terminal value perpetuity. We took the perpetuity and divided that number by the cost of equity minus growth rate. Using the continuing terminal value of perpetuity we
99

found the PV of terminal value perpetuity. The equation is simply the continuing terminal value of perpetuity multiplied by the year ten present value factor. For the second to last step in finding the residual income you must find the estimated price per share. The final step is simply finding the time consistent price. To calculate the price per share you add the total PV of residual income, the PV of terminal value perpetuity, and the initial book value of equity all together. You then divide that number by the total number of shares. To get the time consistent price you take the non time consistent price and multiply it to 1 plus the cost of equity all raised to the .33 power. The reason we did this is because Procter & Gambles end of the year is June 30th. The price date was set at November 1st which is a total of 4 months apart. If you divide the 4 months by 12 months you get .33. Procter & Gambles standard time consistent price is 41.87 at an 11.15 percent Ke and 0.0005 growth rate. With a time consistent price of $41.87 and an observed share price of $68.59 it is evident that Procter & Gamble is overvalued. The sensitivity of this model is quite small as you can see. If you go down to 2.5% in growth there is not a huge change in price. If you increase the cost of equity past 11.15% there is not a large difference in price. You can also see the same pattern if you decrease the cost of equity. A positive growth rate would be necessary to achieve a desirable stock price.
Growth Rate -0.0005 0.0715 0.0915 Ke 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 0.1515 64.52 51.15 46.11 41.82 34.91 29.59 -0.025 59.05 48.18 43.85 40.08 33.82 28.88 -0.05 55.74 46.21 42.3 38.84 33.02 28.33 -0.1 52.01 43.81 40.35 37.25 31.93 27.57 -0.12 51.06 43.17 39.82 36.8 31.61 27.34

100

Overvalued Fairly Valued Under Valued Actual Share Price November 1, 2007 $68.59

Long Run ROE Residual Income The long run ROE residual income uses growth rate, cost of equity, and return on equity to determine the most accurate price. The intrinsic price to book value is used in this model. It is also a perpetuity that is based off the previous residual income model. Normally when the word perpetuity comes to mind, inaccurate is the first thing thought because of the forecasting involved. However, this is an accurate model. Here is the equation used to calculate: =BVEo * (1+ (ROE-Ke) / (Ke-g)) all of the variables are know, so =66760(1+(0.1668-0.1115)/(0.1115-0.0036) Then we divide the result, $100,978.27, by the number of shares, 3159, to get an estimated share price of $33.11. This means that according to this model, the observed share price of $65.89 is severely overvalued. Analysis of the sensitivities of the three variables will help us to decide how believable the results are. Each of the tables uses two of the three items in the equation. In each table, one item is held constant and the other two are fluctuated.

101

In the first table growth and ROE are both fluctuated. The cost of equity is held constant. It was determined that the price is overvalued unless there is a growth rate of 10 percent. Even then the ROE must be fairly high at 13 percent to get a fair valued price.
Growth rate -0.05 0.1 ROE 0.13 0.1668 0.18 Undervalued Fairly valued Overvalued 20.33 24.4 29.39 31.18 0 19.63 25.52 32.75 35.34 0.05 17.8 28.48 41.58 46.27 0.1 0 57.11 127.16 152.29

102

In the second table the cost of equity and ROE are fluctuated. The growth rate is held constant. With a constant growth rate there is basically no chance of a fair valued price unless your cost of equity is cut down past 8 percent. In this table you can see that even with cost of equity being at 8.15 percent the ROE must be at 18 percent to get a fair valued price. Again, an 18 percent ROE is very high so there must be a large drop in the cost of equity to have a fair price. It should possibly be cut in half.
Ke 0.0815 0.1 ROE 0.13 0.1668 0.18 Undervalued Fairly valued Overvalued 26.84 35.2 45.45 49.12 0.1015 21.49 28.18 36.38 39.33 0.1115 19.56 25.64 33.11 35.79 0.1315 16.6 21.76 28.1 30.37

103

In the last table the cost of equity and the growth rate are fluctuated. The ROE is held constant. In this table there must be a 5 percent growth and a 10.15 percent cost of equity to get a fair valued price. At Procter & Gambles 11.15 percent cost of equity the only way they will receive a fair or undervalued price is at 10 percent growth. This is very unlikely to consistently grow year by year at this rate. Every other situation below a 5 percent growth will lead them with an overvalued price.
g -0.05 0.0815 Ke 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 Undervalued Fairly valued Overvalued 35.76 31.23 29.39 26.3 0 44.4 35.87 32.75 27.93 0.05 80.43 49.5 41.58 31.56 N/A 971.95 127.16 46.7 0.1

After analyzing these three charts it was determined that the long run ROE residual income tables are overvalued. In order for a fair or undervalued price there must be at least a 5 percent to 10 percent growth rate. Cost of equity also needs to be cut in half, and ROE needs to be close to 16 percent. Abnormal Earnings Growth The abnormal earnings growth (AEG) model values a firm using forecasted earnings, dividends, dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP), core earnings and normal

104

earnings. This model is tied to the residual income model, because changes in residual income equal abnormal earnings growth. For the AEG model, we must first calculate our DRIP income. This is done by multiplying forecasted dividends in 2008 by one plus the cost of equity (Ke). This results in DRIP income for year 2009. With the AEG model, all figures are discounted back to year one of the forecasts. This figure is then added to forecasted earnings to arrive at the cumulative dividend earnings. From there, subtract normal earnings to get abnormal earnings growth. Normal earnings are equal to net earnings in the previous year multiplied by one plus Ke. At this point, AEG should be equal to residual income. This check is shown below.

2009 Abnormal Earnings Growth Change in Residual Income

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

390

430

472

520

572

629

692

761

837

390

430

472

520

572

629

692

761

837

Next, AEG is discounted back to year one using Ke as the discount rate. This operation is to be carried out for each year forecasted. A perpetuity is utilized for each year beyond our forecasts. We assume abnormal earnings growth to be $800 million for each year starting in 2018. The value of this perpetuity in 2017 is AEG divided by Ke minus the growth rate.

$800 million / (.1115-0.10) = $69,565.22 million

105

This figure must then be discounted back to 2008 using Ke as the discount rate. The resulting value is $26,866.24 million. This is then added to the present value of AEG from 2009 to 2017 of $3,033.95 million to arrive at a total present value of $29,900.2 million. Then, add the present value of AEG to core earnings to get total average earnings of $40,240.2 million. Core earnings are equal to forecasted earnings. Total average earnings are then divided by the capitalization rate to arrive at the value of the firms equity. The capitalization rate is equal to Ke. Once the value of equity is known, it can be divided by shares outstanding to reach a per share price, $118.34. The per share price must then be grown four months in order to be compared to the actual observed share price on November 1, 2007.

Growth Rate 0 0.0715 Ke 0.0915 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 0.1515 Overvalued Fairly Valued Under Valued Actual Share Price November 1, 2007 $68.59 101.3 66.65 55.81 47.48 35.68 27.88 0.025 115.93 71.97 59.28 49.83 36.86 28.52 0.05 164.61 83.71 66.13 54.1 38.76 29.48 0.1 5.77 N/A 764.79 118.34 51.61 34.19 0.15 49.27 30.33 22.92 15.73 N/A 352.77

According to the AEG model, Procter & Gamble is undervalued with an initial Ke of .1115 and a growth rate of 0.1. The value derived from the model is $118.34 per share. The AEG model is sensitive to changes in the inputs of Ke and the growth rate.
106

Small changes produce different views of the firm. If we underestimated our cost of equity just 2%, the estimated value drops almost $70. A growth rate estimation error of just +/- 5% would also change the estimation from very undervalued to overvalued.

107

Credit Analysis Procter & Gambles credit worthiness was calculated by using the Altman Z-score model. This model combines five different ratios to see how likely a company is to go bankrupt (www.investopedia.com). The lower the ratio, the higher the risk of bankruptcy is for the company. A score that is lower than 1.2 means that the company has a very high risk of bankruptcy; while a score above 2 or 3 means that there is a low risk of bankruptcy for the company (Moore lecture notes). The formula for the Altman Z-score is:

Mark Moore Lecture

Altman Z-score
2007 Z-Score 2.89 2006 2.67 2005 3.44 2004 3.76 2003 4.60

108

According to the Altman Z-score formula, Procter & Gamble has a current credit score of 2.89. Although Procter & Gambles z-score has decreased each year from 20032006, it has maintained a low bankruptcy risk and has since increased in 2007.

Analyst Recommendation
The comprehensive product of the preceding research and analysis is the overall recommendation to buy. We believe that Procter & Gamble is poised for growth which is not fully captured by the observed stock price. We carefully researched information about Procter & Gamble as well as the top five competitors and learned exactly what it takes for these firms to grow and succeed. We discovered that the personal products industry is highly concentrated and requires firms use combinations of cost leadership and differentiation to compete effectively. Even with such high concentration and high competition, Procter & Gamble has grown to the largest firm in the industry. Our accounting analysis revealed that Procter & Gamble offers a high degree of disclosure in their annual filings. We acknowledged that goodwill is an inflated number, but do not think it is a material misstatement because it is a result of the purchase of Gillette, which was an ambitious and successful acquisition. Sales manipulation diagnostics revealed no problems in revenue recognition. Financial analysis revealed Procter & Gamble is substantially more liquid than the industry average. This will allow for less of a credit risk and therefore, a lower cost of equity. Procter & Gamble is below industry average on many of the profitability analyses, but trends show growth. IGR and SGR calculations showed steady growth rates. The forecasted financial statements showed steady revenue growth above industry average, as well as smoothly increasing dividend distributions. Procter & Gambles estimated cost of equity was fairly low which reflects a favorable beta, which indicates low risk.

109

The multiples valuation models provided expected prices mostly fairly valued, but several that showed favorably that Procter & Gambles stock is undervalued. We found a good trend in the growth rate of dividends, which provided a very large estimated price in the discounted dividends model. The residual income and long run return on equity residual income models both showed overvaluation, but the AEG model then showed undervaluation. With an observed price of $68.59, we dont believe the firm to be greatly undervalued, but believe this would be a solid investment with steady growth that the market currently doesnt completely reflect.

110

Appendix
3 Month Regression
SUMMARY OUTPU Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.090692635 R Square 0.008225154 Adjusted R Square -0.0059 Standard Error 0.069538651 Observations 72 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 70 71 SS 0.002807253 0.338493682 0.341300935 Standard Error 0.008240123 0.237365501 MS 0.002807253 0.004835624 F 0.580535781 Significance F 0.448662002 72 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.003380604 0.1809

t Stat 0.410261323 0.761928987

P-value 0.682867257 0.448662002

Lower 95% 0.013053803 0.292554902

Upper 95% 0.019815011 0.654266213

Lower 95.0% 0.013053803 0.292554902

Upper 95.0% 0.019815011 0.654266213

SUMMARY OUTPU Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.110664532 R Square 0.012246639 Adjusted R Square -0.0048 Standard Error 0.075228629 Observations 60 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 58 59

60 Month

SS 0.004069703 0.328242105 0.332311808 Standard Error 0.010084603 0.373834694

MS 0.004069703 0.005659347

F 0.719111747

Significance F 0.399921509

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.000780499 0.3170

t Stat 0.077395135 0.848004568

P-value 0.938575589 0.399921509

Lower 95% 0.020967024 0.431297909

Upper 95% 0.019406026 1.065324966

Lower 95.0% 0.020967024 0.431297909

Upper 95.0% 0.019406026 1.065324966

SUMMARY OUTPU Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.144547713 R Square 0.020894041 Adjusted R Square -0.0004

48 Month

111

Standard Error Observations ANOVA

0.081460599 48

df Regression Residual Total 1 46 47

SS 0.00651397 0.305248142 0.311762112 Standard Error 0.012155145 0.555758906

MS 0.00651397 0.006635829

F 0.98163625

Significance F 0.326978413

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.003760318 0.5506

t Stat 0.309360198 0.99077558

P-value 0.758444541 0.326978413

Lower 95% 0.028227355 0.568052286

Upper 95% 0.020706719 1.66931699

Lower 95.0% 0.028227355 0.568052286

Upper 95.0% 0.020706719 1.66931699

3 Month Regression
SUMMARY OUTPU Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.55370299 R Square 0.306587002 Adjusted R Square 0.2862 Standard Error 0.030896767 Observations 36 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 34 35 SS 0.014350491 0.032456747 0.046807237 Standard Error 0.005324093 0.241350012 MS 0.014350491 0.00095461 F 15.03282759 Significance F 0.000459737 36 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006187956 0.9358

t Stat 1.162255506 3.877219054

P-value 0.253225367 0.000459737

Lower 95% 0.004631902 0.445284631

Upper 95% 0.017007815 1.4262491

Lower 95.0% 0.004631902 0.445284631

Upper 95.0% 0.017007815 1.4262491

SUMMARY OUTPU Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.501575233 R Square 0.251577715 Adjusted R Square 0.2176 Standard Error 0.031389567 Observations 24 ANOVA df

24 Month

SS

MS

Significance F

112

Regression Residual Total

1 22 23

0.007286497 0.021676708 0.028963205 Standard Error 0.006752795 0.31985207

0.007286497 0.000985305

7.395169585

0.012520622

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.00640522 0.8698

t Stat 0.94852879 2.719406109

P-value 0.353164188 0.012520622

Lower 95% 0.007599219 0.206475083

Upper 95% 0.02040966 1.533140266

Lower 95.0% 0.007599219 0.206475083

Upper 95.0% 0.02040966 1.533140266

1 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.091640253 R Square 0.008397936 Adjusted R Square -0.0058 Standard Error 0.069532594 Observations 72 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 70 71 SS 0.002866223 0.338434711 0.341300935 Standard Error 0.008233788 0.236988162 MS 0.002866223 0.004834782 F 0.592834094 Significance F 0.443915948

72 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.003416616 0.1825

t Stat 0.414950702 0.769957203

P-value 0.679447041 0.443915948

Lower 95% 0.013005156 0.290187236

Upper 95% 0.019838389 0.65512872

Lower 95.0% 0.013005156 0.290187236

Upper 95.0% 0.019838389 0.65512872

113

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.112249006 R Square 0.012599839 Adjusted R Square -0.0044 Standard Error 0.075215178 Observations 60 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 58 59

60 Month

SS 0.004187075 0.328124732 0.332311808 Standard Error 0.010061246 0.373316716

MS 0.004187075 0.005657323

F 0.740116031

Significance F 0.393165995

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.000743658 0.3212

t Stat 0.073913087 0.860299966

P-value 0.94133387 0.393165995

Lower 95% 0.020883429 0.426110234

Upper 95% 0.019396114 1.06843895

Lower 95.0% 0.020883429 0.426110234

Upper 95.0% 0.019396114 1.06843895

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.146910819 R Square 0.021582789 Adjusted R Square 0.0003 Standard Error 0.081431942 Observations 48 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 46 47

48 Month

SS 0.006728696 0.305033416 0.311762112 Standard Error 0.01211878 0.554924157

MS 0.006728696 0.006631161

F 1.014708521

Significance F 0.319047057

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.003680221 0.5590

t Stat 0.303679205 1.007327415

P-value 0.762741681 0.319047057

Lower 95% 0.028074059 0.558014059

Upper 95% 0.020713617 1.675994692

Lower 95.0% 0.028074059 0.558014059

Upper 95.0% 0.020713617 1.675994692

1 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.553007734

36 Month

114

R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations ANOVA

0.305817554 0.2854 0.030913904 36

df Regression Residual Total 1 34 35

SS 0.014314475 0.032492762 0.046807237 Standard Error 0.005316488 0.241241144

MS 0.014314475 0.000955669

F 14.97847849

Significance F 0.000468992

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006357791 0.9337

t Stat 1.195862939 3.870203934

P-value 0.240023842 0.000468992

Lower 95% 0.004446612 0.443391437

Upper 95% 0.017162194 1.423913411

Lower 95.0% 0.004446612 0.443391437

Upper 95.0% 0.017162194 1.423913411

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.500397859 R Square 0.250398018 Adjusted R Square 0.2163 Standard Error 0.031414296 Observations 24 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 22 23

24 Month

SS 0.007252329 0.021710876 0.028963205 Standard Error 0.006749557 0.319846274

MS 0.007252329 0.000986858

F 7.348908508

Significance F 0.012762739

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006492734 0.8671

t Stat 0.961949608 2.710887033

P-value 0.346529556 0.012762739

Lower 95% 0.007504991 0.203746546

Upper 95% 0.020490458 1.530387686

Lower 95.0% 0.007504991 0.203746546

Upper 95.0% 0.020490458 1.530387686

115

2 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.092439115 R Square 0.00854499 Adjusted R Square -0.0056 Standard Error 0.069527438 Observations 72 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 70 71 SS 0.002916413 0.338384522 0.341300935 Standard Error 0.008227827 0.236500432 MS 0.002916413 0.004834065 F 0.603304532 Significance F 0.439936804 72 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.003455367 0.1837

t Stat 0.419961034 0.776726807

P-value 0.675800172 0.439936804

Lower 95% 0.012954516 0.287989007

Upper 95% 0.019865249 0.655381457

Lower 95.0% 0.012954516 0.287989007

Upper 95.0% 0.019865249 0.655381457

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.11420029 R Square 0.013041706 Adjusted R Square -0.0040 Standard Error 0.075198346 Observations 60 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 58 59

60 Month

SS 0.004333913 0.327977895 0.332311808 Standard Error 0.010042902 0.373053986

MS 0.004333913 0.005654791

F 0.766414305

Significance F 0.384939757

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 -0.00072865 0.3266

t Stat 0.072553755 0.875450915

P-value 0.942410853 0.384939757

Lower 95% 0.020831702 0.420158226

Upper 95% 0.019374402 1.073339133

Lower 95.0% 0.020831702 0.420158226

Upper 95.0% 0.019374402 1.073339133

SUMMARY OUTPUT

48 Month

116

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.150084015 R Square 0.022525211 Adjusted R Square 0.0013 Standard Error 0.081392715 Observations 48 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 46 47 SS 0.007022507 0.304739605 0.311762112 Standard Error 0.012094975 0.55409783 MS 0.007022507 0.006624774 F 1.060037289 Significance F 0.308590057

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.003667606 0.5705

t Stat 0.303233857 1.029581123

P-value 0.763078867 0.308590057

Lower 95% 0.028013528 -0.5448524

Upper 95% 0.020678316 1.685829733

Lower 95.0% 0.028013528 -0.5448524

Upper 95.0% 0.020678316 1.685829733

2 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.552386096 R Square 0.305130399 Adjusted R Square 0.2847 Standard Error 0.030929201 Observations 36 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 34 35 SS 0.014282311 0.032524926 0.046807237 Standard Error 0.005317458 0.241021551 MS 0.014282311 0.000956615 F 14.93004376 Significance F 0.000477406 36 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006389583 0.9313

t Stat 1.201623578 3.86394148

P-value 0.237812756 0.000477406

Lower 95% 0.004416792 0.441478447

Upper 95% 0.017195957 1.421107889

Lower 95.0% 0.004416792 0.441478447

Upper 95.0% 0.017195957 1.421107889

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.499765467 R Square 0.249765522 Adjusted R Square 0.2157 Standard Error 0.031427546 Observations 24

24 Month

117

ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 22 23 SS 0.00723401 0.021729195 0.028963205 Standard Error 0.006760749 0.319437524 MS 0.00723401 0.000987691 F 7.324165491 Significance F 0.012894366

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006427994 0.8645

t Stat 0.950781221 2.706319547

P-value 0.352044728 0.012894366

Lower 95% 0.007592942 0.20202714

Upper 95% 0.02044893 1.52697289

Lower 95.0% 0.007592942 0.20202714

Upper 95.0% 0.02044893 1.52697289

5 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.093502962 R Square 0.008742804 Adjusted R Square -0.0054 Standard Error 0.069520501 Observations 72 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 70 71 SS 0.002983927 0.338317008 0.341300935 Standard Error 0.008216178 MS 0.002983927 0.0048331 F 0.617394023 Significance F 0.434668996

72 Month

Coefficients Intercept 0.00355139

t Stat 0.432243604

P-value 0.666893024

Lower 95% 0.012835259

Upper 95% 0.01993804

Lower 95.0% 0.012835259

Upper 95.0% 0.01993804

118

X Variable 1

0.1856

0.236252965

0.785744248

0.434668996

0.285557267

0.656826083

0.285557267

0.656826083

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.116864859 R Square 0.013657395 Adjusted R Square -0.0033 Standard Error 0.075174887 Observations 60 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 58 59

60 Month

SS 0.004538514 0.327773294 0.332311808 Standard Error 0.009998063 0.373477612

MS 0.004538514 0.005651264

F 0.803097146

Significance F 0.373873465

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.000630603 0.3347

t Stat 0.063072482 0.896156876

P-value 0.949925654 0.373873465

Lower 95% 0.020643899 -0.41290213

Upper 95% 0.019382694 1.08229119

Lower 95.0% 0.020643899 -0.41290213

Upper 95.0% 0.019382694 1.08229119

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.155010943 R Square 0.024028392 Adjusted R Square 0.0028 Standard Error 0.081330107 Observations 48 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 46 47

48 Month

SS 0.007491142 0.30427097 0.311762112 Standard Error 0.012045414 0.553666775

MS 0.007491142 0.006614586

F 1.132518655

Significance F 0.292793314

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.003579332 0.5892

t Stat 0.297153076 1.064198597

P-value 0.767687417 0.292793314

Lower 95% 0.027825493 0.525261992

Upper 95% 0.020666829 1.703684803

Lower 95.0% 0.027825493 0.525261992

Upper 95.0% 0.020666829 1.703684803

5 Year Regression

119

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.551731072 R Square 0.304407176 Adjusted R Square 0.2839 Standard Error 0.030945292 Observations 36 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 34 35

36 Month

SS 0.014248459 0.032558778 0.046807237 Standard Error 0.005315669 0.241222399

MS 0.014248459 0.000957611

F 14.87917012

Significance F 0.000486418

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006467649 0.9305

t Stat 1.216713937 3.857352734

P-value 0.232091987 0.000486418

Lower 95% 0.004335091 0.440256987

Upper 95% 0.017270388 1.420702773

Lower 95.0% 0.004335091 0.440256987

Upper 95.0% 0.017270388 1.420702773

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.498758494 R Square 0.248760035 Adjusted R Square 0.2146 Standard Error 0.031448599 Observations 24 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 22 23

24 Month

SS 0.007204888 0.021758317 0.028963205 Standard Error 0.006768344 0.319640578

MS 0.007204888 0.000989014

F 7.284916966

Significance F 0.013106261

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006413466 0.8627

t Stat 0.947567936 2.699058533

P-value 0.353642465 0.013106261

Lower 95% 0.007623221 0.199834647

Upper 95% 0.020450153 1.525622614

Lower 95.0% 0.007623221 0.199834647

Upper 95.0% 0.020450153 1.525622614

120

7 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.093887236 R Square 0.008814813 Adjusted R Square -0.0053 Standard Error 0.069517976 Observations 72 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 70 71 SS 0.003008504 0.338292431 0.341300935 Standard Error 0.008211793 0.23620169 MS 0.003008504 0.004832749 F 0.622524355 Significance F 0.432774996

72 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.003594506 0.1864

t Stat 0.437724869 0.789002126

P-value 0.662933418 0.432774996

Lower 95% 0.012783398 0.284725775

Upper 95% 0.01997241 0.657453047

Lower 95.0% 0.012783398 0.284725775

Upper 95.0% 0.01997241 0.657453047

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.117702766 R Square 0.013853941 Adjusted R Square -0.0031 Standard Error 0.075167397 Observations 60 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 58 59

60 Month

SS 0.004603828 0.327707979 0.332311808 Standard Error 0.009978397 0.373645795

MS 0.004603828 0.005650138

F 0.814817012

Significance F 0.370433561

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.000574813 0.3373

t Stat -0.05760574 0.902672151

P-value 0.954260682 0.370433561

Lower 95% 0.020548744 -

Upper 95% 0.019399118 1.085212967

Lower 95.0% 0.020548744 -

Upper 95.0% 0.019399118 1.085212967

121

0.410653661

0.410653661

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.156529089 R Square 0.024501356 Adjusted R Square 0.0033 Standard Error 0.081310398 Observations 48 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 46 47

48 Month

SS 0.007638594 0.304123518 0.311762112 Standard Error 0.012024223 0.55357466

MS 0.007638594 0.006611381

F 1.155370507

Significance F 0.2880336

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.003518539 0.5950

t Stat 0.292620893 1.074881625

P-value 0.771127842 0.2880336

Lower 95% 0.027722044 -0.51926075

Upper 95% 0.020684966 1.70931521

Lower 95.0% 0.027722044 -0.51926075

Upper 95.0% 0.020684966 1.70931521

7 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.551627134 R Square 0.304292495 Adjusted R Square 0.2838 Standard Error 0.030947843 Observations 36 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 34 35 SS 0.014243091 0.032564146 0.046807237 Standard Error 0.005312393 0.241324001 MS 0.014243091 0.000957769 F 14.87111288 Significance F 0.000487862

36 Month

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006528082 0.9306

t Stat 1.228840194 3.856308193

P-value 0.227569353 0.000487862

Lower 95% 0.004267999 0.440190348

Upper 95% 0.017324164 1.421049094

Lower 95.0% 0.004267999 0.440190348

Upper 95.0% 0.017324164 1.421049094

SUMMARY OUTPUT

24 Month

122

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.498521956 R Square 0.248524141 Adjusted R Square 0.2144 Standard Error 0.031453537 Observations 24 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 22 23 SS 0.007198056 0.021765149 0.028963205 Standard Error 0.006767471 0.319755356 MS 0.007198056 0.000989325 F 7.275724203 Significance F 0.013156447

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006432712 0.8625

t Stat 0.950534107 2.697355038

P-value 0.352167426 0.013156447

Lower 95% 0.007602164 0.199361702

Upper 95% 0.020467587 1.525625737

Lower 95.0% 0.007602164 0.199361702

Upper 95.0% 0.020467587 1.525625737

10 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.094336242 R Square 0.008899326 Adjusted R Square -0.0053 Standard Error 0.069515012 Observations 72 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F

72 Month

123

Regression Residual Total

1 70 71

0.003037348 0.338263586 0.341300935 Standard Error 0.008208259 0.236243155

0.003037348 0.004832337

0.628546493

0.430567886

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.003631191 0.1873

t Stat 0.442382638 0.792809241

P-value 0.659576236 0.430567886

Lower 95% 0.012739665 0.283876353

Upper 95% 0.020002048 0.658467865

Lower 95.0% 0.012739665 0.283876353

Upper 95.0% 0.020002048 0.658467865

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.118377151 R Square 0.01401315 Adjusted R Square -0.0030 Standard Error 0.075161329 Observations 60 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 58 59

60 Month

SS 0.004656735 0.327655072 0.332311808 Standard Error 0.009960345 0.373836336

MS 0.004656735 0.005649225

F 0.824313933

Significance F 0.367678922

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.000518544 0.3394

t Stat 0.052060895 0.90791736

P-value 0.958659064 0.367678922

Lower 95% 0.020456341 0.408902225

Upper 95% 0.019419252 1.087727224

Lower 95.0% 0.020456341 0.408902225

Upper 95.0% 0.019419252 1.087727224

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.157747882 R Square 0.024884394 Adjusted R Square 0.0037 Standard Error 0.081294433 Observations 48 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 46 47

48 Month

SS 0.007758011 0.304004101 0.311762112 Standard Error 0.012003082 0.553489901

MS 0.007758011 0.006608785

F 1.173893778

Significance F 0.284249145

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 -0.0034454 0.5997

t Stat 0.287042901 1.083463787

P-value 0.775368535 0.284249145

Lower 95% -0.02760635 0.514431104

Upper 95% 0.020715551 1.713803632

Lower 95.0% -0.02760635 0.514431104

Upper 95.0% 0.020715551 1.713803632

124

10 Year Regression
SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.551649138 R Square 0.304316771 Adjusted R Square 0.2839 Standard Error 0.030947303 Observations 36 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 34 35 SS 0.014244227 0.03256301 0.046807237 Standard Error 0.005307461 0.241398246 MS 0.014244227 0.000957736 F 14.87281824 Significance F 0.000487556 36 Month

Intercept X Variable 1

Coefficients 0.006606458 0.9310

t Stat 1.244749346 3.856529299

P-value 0.221735785 0.000487556

Lower 95% -0.0041796 0.440379151

Upper 95% 0.017392516 1.421539665

Lower 95.0% -0.0041796 0.440379151

Upper 95.0% 0.017392516 1.421539665

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.498257102 R Square 0.24826014 Adjusted R Square 0.2141 Standard Error 0.031459061 Observations 24 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 22 23

24 Month

SS 0.007190409 0.021772796 0.028963205 Standard Error 0.006764368 0.319934988

MS 0.007190409 0.000989673

F 7.265442974

Significance F 0.013212829

Coefficients Intercept X Variable 1 0.006472477 0.8624

t Stat 0.956848829 2.695448566

P-value 0.349041087 0.013212829

Lower 95% 0.007555963 0.198863753

Upper 95% 0.020500917 1.525872857

Lower 95.0% 0.007555963 0.198863753

Upper 95.0% 0.020500917 1.525872857

125

126

Procter & Gamble

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007 Average

Assume

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Income Statements 2002-2007

Amounts in millions except per share amounts; Years ended June 30 $ 40,238 20,989 19,249 12,571 6,678 603 308 6,383 2,031 4,352 5,186 6,481 6,923 8,684 10,340 13.0% 10,936 12,030 13,233 2,344 2,869 3,058 3,729 4,370 6% 4,627 5,089 5,598 7,530 9,350 9,981 12,413 14,710 6,158 14,556 6,774 16,011 7,452 17,613 8,197 19,374 9,016 21,311 9,918 23,442 10,910 25,787 238 152 346 283 564 561 629 834 1,119 1,304 7,853 9,827 10,469 13,249 15,450 20% 16,825 18,507 20,358 22,394 13,383 16,504 18,400 21,848 24,340 31% 26,078 28,686 31,555 34,710 21,236 26,331 28,869 35,097 39,790 51% 42,903 47,193 51,913 57,104 62,814 38,181 24,633 22,141 25,076 27,872 33,125 36,686 49% 41,221 45,343 49,877 54,865 60,351 $ 43,377 $ 51,407 $ 56,741 $ 68,222 $ 76,476 100% $ 84,124 $ 92,536 $ 101,790 $ 111,969 $ 123,165 $ 135,482 66,386 69,096 41,999 27,096 $ 149,030 73,025 76,005 46,199 29,806 $ 163,933 80,327 83,606 50,819 32,787 $ 180,326 88,360 91,966 55,901 36,065 $ 198,359 97,196 101,163 61,491 39,672

NET SALES

Cost of products sold

Gross Profit

Selling, general and administrative expense

OPERATING INCOME

Interest expense

Other non-operating income, net

EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES

Income taxes

NET EARNINGS

Common-Size Income Statement 7.80% 100% 52.16% 47.84% 31.24% 16.60% 1.50% 0.77% 15.86% 5.05% 10.82% 11.96% 12.61% 12.20% 12.73% 13.52% 5.40% 5.58% 5.39% 5.47% 5.71% 17.36% 18.19% 17.59% 18.20% 19.23% 17.74% 5.43% 12.30% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 6% 13.0% 0.55% 0.30% 0.61% 0.41% 0.74% 0.56% 1.29% 1.22% 1.47% 1.64% 1.71% 1.47% 18.10% 19.12% 18.45% 19.42% 20.20% 18.65% 20% 30.85% 32.10% 32.43% 32.02% 31.83% 31.75% 31% 48.96% 51.22% 50.88% 51.45% 52.03% 50.39% 51% 51.04% 48.78% 49.12% 48.55% 47.97% 49.61% 49% 49% 51% 31% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 18.51% 10.38% 20.23% 12.10% 13.80% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20% 10.0% 100% 49% 51% 31% 20%

Sales Growth Percentage

NET SALES

Cost of products sold

Gross Profit

Selling, general and administrative expense

OPERATING INCOME

Interest expense

Other non-operating income, net

EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES

Income taxes

NET EARNINGS

127

2002 $ 10,793 11,872 13,060 14,366 15,802 17,382 19,121 21,033 23,136 3,427 196 3,090 $ 5,912 300 3,038 $ 5,469 423 4,062 $ 6,389 1,744 4,185 $ 6,693 1,133 5,725 $ 5,354 202 6,629

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

25,449

Procter & Gamble Balance Sheet 2002-2007 Amounts in Millions: June 30 CURRENT ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Investment securities Accounts receivable Inventories Materials and supplies Work in process Finished goods Total Inventories Deferred income taxes Prepaid expenses and other current assets TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT Buildings Machinery and equipment Land 1,031 323 2,102 3,456 521 1,476 12,166 7,257 7,983 8,781 9,659 10,625 11,688 12,856 14,142 26,639 29,303 32,233 35,457 39,002 42,903 47,193 51,912 4,532 17,963 575 23,070 (9,721) 13,349 23,835 56,082 28,041 84,124 5,608 140,206 61,691 30,845 92,536 6,169 154,227 67,860 33,930 101,790 6,786 169,649 74,646 37,323 111,969 7,465 186,614 82,110 41,055 123,165 8,211 205,276 26,219 28,840 31,724 34,897 38,387 90,321 45,161 135,482 9,032 225,803 10,966 2,464 13,430 1,831 40,776 11,132 2,375 13,507 1,875 43,706 19,610 4,290 23,900 1,925 57,048 19,816 4,347 24,163 2,703 61,527 55,306 33,721 89,027 3,569 135,695 56,552 33,626 90,178 4,265 138,014 4,729 18,222 591 23,542 (10,438) 13,104 5,206 19,456 642 25,304 (11,196) 14,108 5,292 20,397 636 26,325 (11,993) 14,332 5,871 25,140 870 31,881 (13,111) 18,770 6,380 27,492 849 34,721 (15,181) 19,540 1,095 291 2,254 3,640 843 1,487 15,220 1,191 340 2,869 4,400 958 1,803 17,115 1,424 350 3,232 5,006 1,081 1,924 20,329 1,537 623 4,131 6,291 1,611 2,876 24,329 1,590 444 4,785 6,819 1,727 3,300 24,031 15,556 17,112 57,103 62,814

42,225 99,353 49,677 149,030 9,935 248,383

46,448 109,289 54,644 163,933 10,929 273,222

51,092 120,218 60,109 180,326 12,022 300,544

56,202 132,239 66,120 198,359 13,224 330,598

Accumulated depreciation NET PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS Goodwill Trademarks and other intangible assets, net NET GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accrued and other liabilities Taxes payable Debt due within one year TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 2,205 5,330 1,438 3,731 12,704 31,340 34,474 37,922 11,201 1,077 2,088 27,070 67,140 74,224 11,475 1,396 2,291 27,520 12,557 2,261 2,808 39,770 12,887 2,894 3,230 44,050 35,976 12,354 4,472 72,787 23,375 12,015 5,147 71,254 2,795 5,512 1,879 2,172 12,358 3,617 7,689 2,554 8,287 22,147 3,802 7,531 2,265 11,441 25,039 4,910 9,587 3,360 2,128 19,985 5,710 9,586 3,382 12,039 30,717 41,714 45,885

50,474

55,521

61,073

67,180

73,898

82,016

90,587

100,016

110,387

121,796

134,345

148,150

163,334

1,634 --1,301 2,490 (1,339) (2,360) --11,980 13,706 40,776 1,297 2,931 (1,308) (2,006) --13,692 16,186 43,706 2,544 2,425 (1,283) (1,545) --13,611 17,278 57,048 2,473 3,142 (1,259) (1,566) --13,204 17,477 61,527 3,976 57,856 (1,288) (518) (34,235) 35,666 62,908 135,695 3,990 59,030 (1,308) 617 (38,772) 41,797 66,760 138,014 -----------

LONG-TERM DEBT DEFERRED INCOME TAXES OTHER NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY Convertible Class A preferred stock, stated value $1 per share (600 shares authorized) Non-Voting Class B preferred stock, stated value $1 per share (200 shares authorized) Common Stock, stated value $1 per share (10,000 shares authorized; issued: 2007--3,989.7, 2006--3,975.8) Additional paid-in capital Reserve for ESOP debt retirement Accumulated other comprehensive income Treasury stock, at cost (shares held: 2007--857.8, 2006--797.0) Retained earnings TOTAL SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY 1,580 1,526 1,483 1,451 1,406 (38,772) 48,103 73,066 140,206 (38,772) 55,040 80,003 154,227

(38,772) 62,670 87,633 169,649

(38,772) 71,064 96,027 186,614

(38,772) 80,297 105,260 205,276

(38,772) 90,453 115,416 225,803

(38,772) 101,625 126,588 248,383

(38,772) 113,914 138,877 273,222

(38,772) 127,431 152,394 300,544

(38,772) 142,301 167,264 330,598

128

Common Size Balance Sheets CURRENT ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Investment securities Accounts receivable Inventories Materials and supplies Work in process Finished goods Total Inventories Deferred income taxes Prepaid expenses and other current assets TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT Buildings Machinery and equipment Land Accumulated depreciation NET PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS Goodwill Trademarks and other intangible assets, net NET GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accrued and other liabilities Taxes payable Debt due within one year TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES LONG-TERM DEBT DEFERRED INCOME TAXES OTHER NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY Convertible Class A preferred stock, stated value $1 per share (600 shares authorized) Non-Voting Class B preferred stock, stated value $1 per share (200 shares authorized) Common Stock, stated value $1 per share (10,000 shares authorized; issued: 2007--3,989.7, 2006--3,975.8) Additional paid-in capital Reserve for ESOP debt retirement Accumulated other comprehensive income Treasury stock, at cost (shares held: 2007--857.8, 2006--797.0) Retained earnings TOTAL SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY 0.084 0.005 0.076 0.000 0.025 0.008 0.052 0.085 0.013 0.036 0.298 0.135 0.007 0.070 0.000 0.025 0.007 0.052 0.083 0.019 0.034 0.348 0.096 0.007 0.071 0.000 0.021 0.006 0.050 0.077 0.017 0.032 0.300 0.104 0.028 0.068 0.000 0.023 0.006 0.053 0.081 0.018 0.031 0.330 0.049 0.008 0.042 0.000 0.011 0.005 0.030 0.046 0.012 0.021 0.179 0.039 0.001 0.048 0.000 0.012 0.003 0.035 0.049 0.013 0.024 0.174

0.111 0.441 0.014 0.566 (0.238) 0.327

0.108 0.417 0.014 0.539 (0.239) 0.300

0.091 0.341 0.011 0.444 (0.196) 0.247

0.086 0.332 0.010 0.428 (0.195) 0.233

0.043 0.185 0.006 0.235 (0.097) 0.138

0.046 0.199 0.006 0.252 (0.110) 0.142

0.269 0.060 0.329 0.045 1.000

0.255 0.054 0.309 0.043 1.000

0.344 0.075 0.419 0.034 1.000

0.322 0.071 0.393 0.044 1.000

0.408 0.249 0.656 0.026 1.000

0.410 0.244 0.653 0.031 1.000

0.081 0.197 0.053 0.138 0.469 0.000 0.414 0.040 0.077 1.000

0.102 0.200 0.068 0.079 0.449 0.000 0.417 0.051 0.083 1.000

0.091 0.193 0.064 0.208 0.557 0.000 0.316 0.057 0.071 1.000

0.086 0.171 0.051 0.260 0.568 0.000 0.293 0.066 0.073 1.000

0.067 0.132 0.046 0.029 0.275 0.000 0.494 0.170 0.061 1.000

0.080 0.135 0.047 0.169 0.431 0.000 0.328 0.169 0.072 1.000

0.119 --0.095 0.182 (0.098) (0.172) --0.874 1.000 -----

0.098 --0.080 0.181 (0.081) (0.124) --0.846 1.000

0.088 --0.147 0.140 (0.074) (0.089) --0.788 1.000

0.085 --0.142 0.180 (0.072) (0.090) 0.756 1.000

0.023 --0.063 0.920 (0.020) (0.008) (0.544) 0.567 1.000

0.021

0.060 0.884 (0.020) 0.009 (0.581) 0.626 1.000

129

2002 2003 2004 2005 $ 2,306 $ 2,799 $ 5,428 $ 4,232 $ 4,352 1,693 --389 96 159 684 (98) 467 7,742 14,630 16,093 17,703 19,473 21,420 23,562 25,919 (1,679) 227 (5,471) 88 (6,835) (2,474) (4,630) (5,093) (5,602) (6,162) (2,721) (2,993) (3,293) (3,622) (6,779) (2,539) 4,911 1,963 (1,188) 555 (4,070) (368) (46) (1,196) 4,232 (782) 12,156 0.17 1.34 0.87 13,372 0.17 1.34 0.87 14,709 0.17 1.34 0.87 16,180 0.17 1.34 0.87 0.18 1.44 0.95 0.15 1.25 0.83 0.17 1.31 0.86 0.18 1.30 0.87 (2,731) 2,016 3,108 (2,013) 521 (5,026) (4,125) (61) 2,157 6,389 6,343 (3,703) (8,627) 22,545 (5,282) 1,319 (16,830) (10,578) 237 304 6,693 10,645 (4,209) 8,981 4,758 (17,929) 1,499 (5,578) (12,478) 187 (1,339) 5,354 10,952 (1,482) 143 (61) 37 (1,363) (2,024) 230 (7,476) (874) (10,144) (2,181) 517 (572) (100) (2,336) (2,667) 882 171 884 (730) (2,945) 281 (492) 673 (2,483) 63 163 (56) 936 178 527 8,700 415 (159) 56 625 (88) 299 9,362 ----5,186 1,703 6,481 1,733 6,923 1,884 524 564 (86) (644) (101) (498) 113 8,679 28,511 8,684 2,627 585 (112) (524) 383 230 (508) 10 11,375 10,340 3,130 668 253 (729) (389) (273) (157) 592 13,435 10,936 12,030 13,233 14,556 16,011 17,613 19,374 21,311 23,442

2006 2007 6,389 $ 6,693

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

25,787

31,362

34,498

(3,984) (7,457)

(4,383) (8,202)

(4,821) (9,022)

(5,303)

(5,833) (9,925) (10,917)

Procter & Gamble Statements of Cash Flows Amounts in millions; Years ended June 30 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net earnings Depreciation and amortization Share-based compensation expense Deferred income taxes Change in accounts receivable Change in inventories Change in accounts payable, accrued and other liabilities Change in other operating assets and liabilities Other TOTAL OPERATING ACTIVITIES INVESTING ACTIVITIES Capital expenditures Proceeds from asset sales Acquisitions, net of cash acquired Change in investment securities TOTAL INVESTING ACTIVITIES FINANCING ACTIVITIES Dividends to shareholders Change in short-term debt Additions to long-term debt Reductions of long-term debt Impact of stock options and other Treasury purchases TOTAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES EFFECT OF EXCHANGE RATE CHANGES ON CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CHANGE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR Free Cash Flows to the Firm (2,095) 1,394 1,690 (461) 237 (568) 197 17 1,121 3,427 907 0.19 1.78 1.16 0.20 1.68 1.11 (2,246) (2,052) 1,230 (1,060) 269 (1,236) (5,095) 387 2,629 5,428 7,337 17,798 0.17 1.34 0.87 19,578 0.17 1.34 0.87 21,536 0.17 1.34 0.87 23,690 0.17 1.34 0.87 26,059 0.17 1.34 0.87 28,664 0.17 1.34 0.87

CFFO/Sales CFFO/NI CFFO/OI

130

Common Sized Statements of Cash Flows 2002 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net earnings Depreciation and amortization Share-based compensation expense Deferred income taxes Change in accounts receivable Change in inventories Change in accounts payable, accrued and other liabilities Change in other operating assets and liabilities Other TOTAL OPERATING ACTIVITIES INVESTING ACTIVITIES Capital expenditures Proceeds from asset sales Acquisitions, net of cash acquired Change in investment securities TOTAL INVESTING ACTIVITIES FINANCING ACTIVITIES TOTAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES EFFECT OF EXCHANGE RATE CHANGES ON CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CHANGE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

56.21% 21.87% --5.02% 1.24% 2.05% 8.83% -1.27% 6.03% 100.00% 24.56% -3.32% 80.04% -1.29% 100.00% ---

59.61% 19.57% --0.72% 1.87% -0.64% 10.76% 2.05% 6.06% 100.00% 108.73% -10.49% 4.48% -2.71% 100.00%

69.23% 18.51% 4.43% -1.70% 0.60% 6.68% -0.94% 3.19% 100.00% 19.95% -2.27% 73.70% 8.62% 100.00%

79.77% 21.71% 6.04% 6.50% -0.99% -7.42% -1.16% -5.74% 1.30% 100.00% 93.36% -22.13% 24.49% 4.28% 100.00%

76.34% 23.09% 5.14% -0.98% -4.61% 3.37% 2.02% -4.47% 0.09% 100.00% 365.34% -120.82% -23.42% -121.10% 100.00%

76.96% 23.30% 4.97% 1.88% -5.43% -2.90% -2.03% -1.17% 4.41% 100.00% 118.61% -11.32% 19.81% -27.10% 100.00%

131

Cost of Capital Estimation

2007 CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accrued and other liabilities Taxes payable Debt due within one year TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 5,710 9,586 3,382 12,039 30,717

% of TL

Interest Rate

Value Added Weight

0.0801 0.1345 0.0475 0.1690 0.4311

4.63 4.63 29.70 5.00

0.371028995 0.622886855 1.40968086 0.844794678

LONG-TERM DEBT DEFERRED INCOMETAXES OTHER NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTALLIABILITIES

23,375 12,015 5,147 71,254

0.3281 0.1686 0.0722 1.0000

5.00 5.25 6.30

1.640258792 0.88526609 0.45507761

Weighted Average Cost of Debt Before Taxes: Ke 11.15% Weighted Average C of Debt After Taxes: ost

6.228993881 4.378982698

WAC C=(Ve/ Vf)* Ke+(Vd/ Vf)* Kd(1-t) WAC C=((66760/138014)* 11.15+(71254/138014)* 6.23)(1-.297) WAC at C WAC bt C 6.0528 8.6099

132

Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs)

PPS EPS P/ ETrailing Industry Average PG S hare Price 65.17 3.55 18.36 21.08 69.01 17.42 70.89 4.07 76.29 3.16 24.14 39.93 1.331 30.00 2481 160 15.51

PPS 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00

EPS 3.55 4.07 3.16 1.33 160.00

PEG Industry Average PG S hare Price 1.71 2.11 89.48 2.17 2.11 2.43 NA

Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs) P/ B 4.16 4.82 21.36 27.79 631.73 D/ P 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 Industry Average PG S hare Price 0.035 37.55 PG DPS 1.33 : Industry Average PG S hare Price 14.53 307.10 PG BPS 21.13 :

PPS EPS P/ EForward Industry Average PG S hare Price 65.17 3.55 15.33 17.06 56.47 15 70.89 4.07 76.29 3.16 20.85 39.93 1.331 no data 2481 160 no data

PPS EBITDA P/ EBITDA Industry Average PG S hare Price 65.17 17.45 3.73 26.34 469.93 70.89 3.50 20.25 PG EBITDA:17.84 76.29 3.06 24.93 39.93 1.18 33.84 2481.00 6.50 381.93

Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs)

PPS 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00

BPS 15.66 14.71 3.57 1.44 3.93

Johnson & Johnson Kimberly-Clark Colgate-Palmolive Avon Unilever(in EUROs)

PPS 65.17 70.89 76.29 39.93 2481.00

DPS 2.40 3.10 1.80 1.80 69.93

133

Discounted Dividends Approach Perp 0 2007 1.28

WACC(BT)

0.0861

Kd

0.0622

Ke

0.1115 11 3.65 7 2014 2.49 0.4771 1.19 317.56 8 2015 2.74 0.4293 1.18 9 2016 3.02 0.3862 1.17 10 2017 3.32 0.3475 1.15

1 2008 1.41 0.8997 1.27

2 2009 1.55 0.8094 1.25

3 2010 1.70 0.7282 1.24

4 2011 1.87 0.6552 1.23

5 2012 2.06 0.5895 1.22

6 2013 2.27 0.5303 1.20

DPS (Dividends Per Share) PV Factor PV Dividends Year by Year Total PV of Annual Dividends Continuing (Terminal) Value Perpetuity PV of Terminal Value Perpetuity Estimated Price per Share (end of 2007) Time Consistent Estimated Price Observed Share Price Initial Cost of Equity (You Derive) Perpetuity Growth Rate (g) 12.09 110.34 122.43 $126.83 $68.59 0.1115 0.1 Ke 0 41.38 30.88 27.25 24.32 19.87 16.69 Actual Share Price November 1, 200 Growth Rate 0.025 55.46 37.32 31.87 27.72 21.84 17.9 0.05 0.1 0.12 102.31 N/A N/A 51.51 N/A N/A 40.97 969.4 N/A 33.9 126.83 N/A 25.03 46.58 107.66 19.72 28.66 40.17 $68.59 0.0715 0.0915 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 0.1515 Overvalued Fairly Valued Under Valued

134

WACC(BT) 0 2007 1 2008 14630.43 2473.93 12156.49 0.9207 11192.79 118599.02 -2086330.94 13372.14 0.8477 11336.04 14709.36 0.7805 11481.12 16180.29 0.7187 11628.06 17798.32 0.6617 11776.87 19578.15 0.6092 11927.59 21535.97 0.5609 12080.24 23689.57 0.5165 12234.85 26058.52 0.4755 12391.43 2 2009 16093.47 2721.33 3 2010 17702.82 2993.46 4 2011 19473.10 3292.81 5 2012 21420.41 3622.09 6 2013 23562.45 3984.30 7 2014 25918.70 4382.73 8 2015 28510.57 4821.00 9 2016 31361.62 5303.10 10 2017 34497.78 5833.41

0.0861

Kd

0.0622

Ke

0.1115

Discounted Free Cash Flow

$72,660 28664.38 29000.00 0.4378 12550.02

0.05

0.1

0.12

Cash From Operations Cash Investments 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 2007) Time Consistent Estimated Price Observed Share Price Initial WACC Perpetuity Growth Rate (g) -913450.59 -794851.57 71254.00 -866105.57 3159 -$274.17 -$284.00 $68.59 0.1115 0.1 WACC 0.0361 0.0561 0.0761 0.0861 0.0961 0.1161 925.45 192.59 130.86 95.99 58.08 0 212.52 120.49 77.62 63.88 53.12 37.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A g 0.025 628.65 N/A 199.43 106.98 83.67 67.02 44.93 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 207.04 N/A

135

WACC(BT) Perpetuity 0 2007 10340 4209 66760 10340.00 2008 66760 10936.07 4629.90 73066.17 1 2 390.47 2009 73066.17 12029.67 5092.89 80002.95 3 429.52 2010 80002.95 13232.64 5602.18 87633.42 4 472.47 2011 87633.42 14555.91 6162.40 96026.93 5 519.71 2012 96026.93 16011.50 6778.64 105259.79 6 571.69 2013 105259.79 17612.65 7456.50 115415.93 7 628.85 2014 115415.93 19373.91 8202.15 126587.69 8 691.74 2015 126587.69 21311.30 9022.37 138876.63 9 760.91 2016 138876.63 23442.43 9924.60 152394.46 10 837.01 2017 152394.46 25786.68 10917.06 167264.08 11

0.0861

Kd

0.0622

Ke

0.1115

Change in Residual Income Year Beginning Book Value of Equity Net Earnings Dividends Paid Ending Book Value of Equity

Actual Earnings "Normal" (Benchmark) Earnings Residual Income (Annual) PV Factor PV of Annual Residual Income ROE 31125.34

10936.07 7443.74 3492.33 0.8997 3142.00 0.1638

12029.67 8146.88 3882.80 0.8094 3142.87 0.1646 0.005061604

13232.64 14555.91 8920.33 9771.13 4312.31 4784.78 0.7282 0.6552 3140.38 3134.90 0.1654 0.1661 0.004622729 0.004220217

16011.50 10707.00 5304.49 0.5895 3126.78 0.1667 0.003851336

17612.65 11736.47 5876.18 0.5303 3116.29 0.1673 0.003513517

19373.91 12868.88 6505.04 0.4771 3103.73 0.1679 0.003204341

21311.30 14114.53 7196.77 0.4293 3089.31 0.1684 0.002921548

23442.43 15484.74 7957.69 0.3862 3073.28 0.1688 0.002663025

9562 Average ROE 0.1668 0.003609458

25786.68 16991.98 8794.69 0.3475 3055.81 0.1692 0.002426807 85375.00

Total PV of Annual Residual Income Continuing (Terminal) Value Perpetuity PV of Terminal Value Perpetuity Initial Book Value of Equity Book Value of Liabilities Number of Shares Estimated Price per Share (end of 2007) Time Consistant implied price Observed Share Price Perpetuity Growth Rate (g) 29664.43 66760 71254.00 3159 40.38 $41.82 $68.59 -0.0005 Ke -0.0005 64.52 51.15 46.11 41.82 34.91 29.59 Actual Share Price November 1, 2007 Growth Rate -0.025 59.05 48.18 43.85 40.08 33.82 28.88 -0.05 55.74 46.21 42.3 38.84 33.02 28.33 -0.1 52.01 43.81 40.35 37.25 31.93 27.57

-0.12 51.06 43.17 39.82 36.8 31.61 27.34 $68.59

0.0715 0.0915 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 0.1515 Overvalued Fairly Valued Under Valued

136

Book Value of Equity Long Run Return on Equity Long Run Growth Rate in Equity Cost of Equity Number of Shares Estimated Price per Share (end of 2007) Time Consistent Estimated Price Observed Share Price g Ke

66760 0.1668 0.0036 0.1115 3159 31.97 $33.11 $68.59

ROE

0.1 0.13 0.1668 0.18 ROE g

-0.05 20.33 24.4 29.39 31.18 0.1 0.13 0.1668 0.18

0 19.63 25.52 32.75 35.34

0.05 17.8 28.48 41.58 46.27

0.1 0 57.11 127.16 152.29

0.0815 26.84 35.2 45.45 49.12

0.1015 21.49 28.18 36.38 39.33

0.1115 19.56 25.64 33.11 35.79

0.1315 16.6 21.76 28.1 30.37

Ke

0.0815 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315

-0.05 35.76 31.23 29.39 26.3

0 44.4 35.87 32.75 27.93

0.05 0.1 80.43 N/A 49.5 971.95 41.58 127.16 31.56 46.7

137

Abnormal Earnings Growth Model WACC(BT) 0.0861 Kd 0.0622 Ke 0.1115 10

Net Earnings Dividends Paid Drip Cum-Dividend Earnings Normal Earnings Abnormal Earning Growth PV Factor PV of AEG Residual Income Check Figure 10340 10936.07 12029.67 13232.64 14555.91 3033.95 16011.5 17612.65 19373.91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 10340 10936.07 12029.67 13232.64 14555.91 16011.50 17612.65 19373.91 21311.30 23442.43 25786.68 4209 4629.90 5092.89 5602.18 6162.40 6778.64 7456.50 8202.15 9022.37 9924.60 10917.06 516.23 567.86 624.64 687.11 755.82 831.40 914.54 1005.99 1106.59 12545.91 13800.50 15180.55 16698.60 18368.46 20205.31 22225.84 24448.43 26893.27 12155.44 13370.98 14708.08 16178.89 17796.78 19576.46 21534.1 23687.51 26056.26 390.47 429.52 472.47 519.71 571.69 628.85 691.74 760.91 837.01 0.8997 0.8094 0.7282 0.6552 0.5895 0.5303 0.4771 0.4293 0.3862 351.30 347.66 344.07 340.51 336.98 333.50 330.05 326.63 323.25 390.47 429.52 472.47 519.71 571.69 628.85 691.74 760.91 837.01 21311.3 23442.43 25786.68 69565.22 26866.24 29900.20 40240.20 0.1115 g 114.24 118.34 $68.59 0.1115 0.1 Ke 0.0715 0.0915 0.1015 0.1115 0.1315 0.1515 0 101.3 66.65 55.81 47.48 35.68 27.88 0.025 115.93 71.97 59.28 49.83 36.86 28.52 0.05 0.1 0.15 164.61 5.77 49.27 83.71 N/A 30.33 66.13 764.79 22.92 54.1 118.34 15.73 38.76 51.61 N/A 29.48 34.19 352.77

800

Core Earnings Total PV of AEG Continuing (Terminal) Value PV of Terminal Value Total PV of AEG Total Average Earnings Perp (t+1) Capitalization Rate (Perpetuity)

Intrinsic Value Per Share (End of 2007) Time Consistent Implied Price Nov 1, 2007 Observed Price Ke g

138

Altman Z-S core 2005 2004 2003 2007 2006 -6686 4344 -4710 -5032 2862 41,797 35,666 13,204 13,611 13,692 57,048 43,706 138,014 135,695 61,527 9,981 9,350 7,530 14,710 12,413 191643.78 176743.56 130447.27 138486.54 115630.79 71,254 72,787 44,050 39,770 27,520 56,741 51,407 43,377 76,476 68,222 2007 -0.0484 0.3028 0.1066 2.6896 0.5541 2004 -0.1058 0.3340 0.5409 2.0893 0.9011 2003 4.5992 2003 0.0786 0.4386 0.5685 2.5210 0.9925 2006 0.0320 0.2628 0.0915 2.4282 0.5028 2005 -0.0766 0.2146 0.1622 2.9613 0.9222 2004 -0.0882 0.2386 0.1639 3.4822 0.9011 2003 0.0655 0.3133 0.1723 4.2017 0.9925

Working Capital Retained Earnings Total Assets EBIT MVE BV Liabilities S ales

RAW Working Capital/ Total Assets Retained Earnings/ Total Assets EBIT/ Total Assets MVE/ BV of Liabilities S ales/ Total Assets

WEIGHTED 1.2 1.4 3.3 0.6 1

2007 -0.0581 0.4240 0.3517 1.6138 0.5541

2006 0.0384 0.3680 0.3019 1.4569 0.5028

2005 -0.0919 0.3004 0.5353 1.7768 0.9222

Z-Score

2007 2.8854

2006 2.6680

2005 3.4429

2004 3.7595

139

References
1. Procter & Gamble Website: www.pg.com 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 10-Ks 2. Johnson & Johnson Website: www.jnj.com 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 10-Ks 3. Colgate-Palmolive Website: www.colgate.com 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 10-Ks 4. Kimberly-Clark Website: www.kimberly-clark.com 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 10-Ks 5. Avon Website: www.avon.com 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 10-Ks 6. Unilever Website: www.unilever.com 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 financial statements 7. 8. 9. 10.. 11. Wikipedia CNN Money Fortune www.wikipedia.org www.cnn.money.com www.fortune.com

Palepu, Krishna G. and Paul M. Healy. Business Analysis and Valuation Using Financial Statements. 4th ed. Thomson Southwestern 2008. CNN Money: www.money.cnn.com
140

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Yahoo Finance: MSN Money: Google Finance: Tutor2u: E-articles: Wall Street Journal: Investopedia: iSeek: Risk Glossary: FASB:

www.finance.yahoo.com www.moneycentral.msn.com www.finance.google.com www.tutor2u.net www.e-articles.info online.wsj.com www.investopedia.com www.iseek.org http://www.riskglossary.com/link/netting.htm www.fasb.gov

Kieso, D. E., Weygandt, J. J., & Warfield, T. D. (2007). Intermediate Accounting (12th ed.). (C. DeJohn, Ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Investor Words St. Louis Federal Reserve Dr. Moore lecture notes London Stock Exchange Yahoo! Finance UK MSN Money UK

www.investorwords.com research.stlouisfed.org

www.londonstockexchange.com uk.yahoo.com uk.msn.com

141