The Effect of Differences between
IFRS and US GAAP on Financial Ratios
There are two major competing
financial standards in the world currently. The largest is International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The next, United States Generally
Accepted Accounting Standards (US GAAP), may not be the largest, but certainly
extremely significant and widely used even outside the U.S. by companies who
chose to file with the S.E.C. for purposes of seeking financial capital in the
United States. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether or not use of
IFRS or GAAP produces a material effect on financial ratios. The paper starts
with the hypothesis that the different reporting standards will produce a
materially different effect on the financial ratios which could have an impact
on how financial statement and ratio users invest.
The paper
examines thirty-two publicly-held pharmaceutical companies of which there will
be a brief listing and description of. Sixteen of the pharmaceutical companies
use International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and sixteen of the
companies use United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP).
The financial statements for 2012 were examined and the account information was
collected for the purpose of generating 6 financial ratios. Averages of the
financial ratios divided by reporting standards were developed as well as
standard deviations. The standard deviations were used to develop normal
distribution graphs again divided between reporting standards.
The
paper will examine differences between International Financial Reporting
Standards and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Standards and attempt
to determine how the differences could possible effect the financial ratios
observed. The review of the differences
between reporting standards will not be exhaustive, but will
look at differences that are deemed most significant to the respective
financial ratio being examined. The paper will then attempt to reconcile the
analysis of the reporting standards and financial ratio observed with the
averages, standard deviation and normal distribution developed from observing
the financial statements of the thirty-two companies.
Ratios for Publicly held Pharmaceutical Companies using IFRS
Ratios for Publicly held
Pharmaceutical Companies International Financial Reporting Standards
|
||||||
Phoenix Group
|
Novo-Nordisk
|
Nordion
|
Lundbeck
|
Merck
|
GSK
|
|
Current Ratio
|
1.218755524
|
1.856132729
|
1.959619911
|
2.72941176
|
4.31977313
|
0.9910966
|
Quick Ratio
|
0.784968889
|
1.415103059
|
1.662329708
|
2.35011765
|
3.31977313
|
0.7038002
|
Sales/Receivables
|
8.766074679
|
8.094823114
|
5.266735502
|
7.97720798
|
5.28369432
|
5.0421595
|
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.103200024
|
0.827429318
|
0.546961281
|
0.71595238
|
0.71737866
|
0.7013356
|
Sales/Total Assets
|
2.899210934
|
0.182056601
|
0.571280575
|
0.39064317
|
0.74400687
|
0.6372755
|
Sales/Working Capital
|
24.74199683
|
4.211929825
|
2.232434305
|
2.28571429
|
2.19412042
|
-214.88618
|
Ratios for Publicly held
Pharmaceutical Companies International Financial Reporting Standards
|
|||||
Boehring
|
Beiersdorf
|
Bayer
|
Grifols
|
Almirall
|
|
Current Ratio
|
1.255075311
|
2.111895709
|
1.44942362
|
3.26307675
|
1.244587
|
Quick Ratio
|
0.912082515
|
1.713199348
|
0.916558516
|
1.57863932
|
0.874098
|
Sales/Receivables
|
4.595245543
|
5.676691729
|
5.350558471
|
7.16061876
|
6.911943
|
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.872166633
|
0.588741722
|
0.520648893
|
0.50729775
|
0.616049
|
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.849681897
|
1.083408072
|
0.774505221
|
0.46574076
|
0.503576
|
Sales/Working Capital
|
9.429396662
|
2.950659502
|
6.753864447
|
1.95345156
|
11.19508
|
Ratios for Publicly held Pharmaceutical
Companies International Financial Reporting Standards
|
|||||
GW
|
Dong-A
|
Yuhan Corp
|
Stada Arzneimttel
|
UCB
|
|
Current Ratio
|
3.0511113
|
1.629305913
|
4.021146401
|
1.217674481
|
1.00774336
|
Quick Ratio
|
2.74522183
|
1.292030848
|
3.214675822
|
0.727455935
|
0.6670354
|
Sales/Receivables
|
20.8564232
|
6.870848708
|
4.858579406
|
3.734375984
|
3.67664671
|
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.97466787
|
0.521052632
|
0.316264418
|
0.494803974
|
0.74234528
|
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.77163226
|
0.652966756
|
0.55339339
|
0.616306314
|
0.32799145
|
Sales/Working Capital
|
1.39646667
|
3.803104575
|
1.551384778
|
8.707905522
|
219.285714
|
Ratios for Publicly held
Pharmaceutical Companies using US GAAP
Ratios for Publicly held
Pharmaceutical Companies using US GAAP
|
||||||
Alexion
|
Allergan
|
Amgen
|
Bristol-Myers
|
Cambrex
|
Eli Lily
|
|
Current Ratio
|
4.153417627
|
4.071219869
|
3.81015749
|
1.15001812
|
1.73403512
|
1.5541689
|
Quick Ratio
|
3.890924188
|
3.812910884
|
3.475155659
|
0.94987317
|
0.8762195
|
1.2390369
|
Sales/Receivables
|
3.836676838
|
7.470295734
|
6.60802224
|
5.71553681
|
6.39133058
|
6.7749903
|
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.888711364
|
0.864157091
|
0.824628884
|
0.73838034
|
0.32463657
|
0.7877974
|
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.433934557
|
0.621921062
|
0.306438543
|
0.49087667
|
0.69822647
|
0.6570966
|
Sales/Working Capital
|
0.998769717
|
1.697229159
|
0.722869059
|
14.1876006
|
4.51936204
|
4.8617827
|
Ratios for Publicly held
Pharmaceutical Companies using US GAAP
|
|||||
Forest Laboratories
|
Gilead Sciences
|
Pernix
|
Pfizer
|
Perrigo
|
|
Current Ratio
|
3.858990928
|
1.441760694
|
1.774238925
|
2.14595199
|
2.98492127
|
Quick Ratio
|
3.538195584
|
1.033101718
|
1.36616626
|
1.899157902
|
2.04563651
|
Sales/Receivables
|
9.310506503
|
5.366241518
|
1.673054096
|
4.765390208
|
5.42997392
|
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.772777213
|
0.737043473
|
0.618725831
|
0.807852711
|
0.36160235
|
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.586317625
|
0.442487885
|
0.2438392
|
0.317473816
|
0.66154594
|
Sales/Working Capital
|
1.653269278
|
4.98236573
|
1.467928806
|
1.798572997
|
2.37969748
|
Ratios for Publicly held
Pharmaceutical Companies using US GAAP
|
|||||
Procter & Gamble
|
Questcor
|
Regeneron
|
Spectrum
|
Baxter
|
|
Current Ratio
|
0.879672381
|
2.624763548
|
7.373965148
|
2.062922031
|
1.94578693
|
Quick Ratio
|
0.609828562
|
2.515149504
|
7.198862733
|
1.950162387
|
1.35679765
|
Sales/Receivables
|
13.79037574
|
8.29236205
|
1.446532155
|
2.766570105
|
5.85154639
|
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.493415392
|
0.943931968
|
0.098421733
|
0.817119753
|
0.51451727
|
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.632769729
|
2.01754935
|
0.412447548
|
0.503664024
|
0.69592938
|
Sales/Working Capital
|
-27.92125459
|
3.467472783
|
0.823140796
|
1.86840177
|
3.15263275
|
Averages and Standard Deviations of IFRS and US GAAP
Ratios
Average
|
IFRS
|
IFRS Without Outliers
|
US GAAP
|
Combined
|
US GAAP Without Outliers
|
|
Current Ratio
|
2.082864347
|
2.722874436
|
2.298075186
|
|||
Quick Ratio
|
1.554818126
|
2.359823694
|
1.899044874
|
|||
Sales/Receivales
|
6.882664179
|
5.951080247
|
5.968087822
|
6.096340736
|
||
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.610393474
|
0.662107459
|
0.639829656
|
|||
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.751479761
|
0.6076574
|
0.672376722
|
|||
Sales/Working Capital
|
5.487940423
|
4.512731886
|
1.291240068
|
3.474332504
|
2.456678217
|
Standard Deviation
|
IFRS
|
IFRS Without Outliers
|
US GAAP
|
US GAAP Without Outliers
|
|||
Current Ratio
|
1.07748318
|
1.63659654
|
|||||
Quick Ratio
|
0.89885091
|
1.69840565
|
|||||
Sales/Receivables
|
4.02852629
|
1.584561491
|
3.0234485
|
||||
Gross Profit Margin
|
0.21368246
|
0.23899989
|
|||||
Sales/Total Assets
|
0.61227345
|
0.4031336
|
|||||
Sales/Working Capital
|
79.4952293
|
3.354718071
|
8.43568113
|
1.486072
|
Current Ratio
The Current Ratio is the
Current Assets divided by the Current Liabilities:
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
The main purpose of the current ratio
is to determine the ability of a company to pay off its current liabilities
with its current assets. The higher the ratio the more capable the company is
of paying off its current liabilities with its current asset. A ratio under 1
suggests that the company would be unable to pay off its current liabilities if
they came due immediately. This does not mean that the company will fail, but
it is a poor indication for the company’s financial health. The current ratio
gives a sense of the company’s ability to turn its product into cash. Companies
that have long inventory turnover or excessive days outstanding on their
receivables may have difficulties paying off their obligations.
The average current ratio for IFRS
reporting companies is 2.08 (2.082864347) where the average current ratio
for US GAAP reporting companies is 2.72 (2.722874436).
The standard deviation for IFRS
reporting companies is 1.077 (1.07748318), where the standard deviation for
US GAAP reporting companies is 1.637 (1.63659654).
The pharmaceutical companies that report in US
GAAP have a higher average current ratio than the companies that report in
IFRS, they also have a larger standard deviation. So while the companies tend
to be more able to pay off their current liabilities with their current assets
they are not as uniformed in their results. This suggests that companies that
report in IFRS on average were not as able to pay off their current liabilities
with their current assets as easily as companies that report in US
GAAP, but the companies were more able to do so at a more consistent rate from
one IFRS reporting company to the other.
The company with the lowest current
ratio was a US GAAP reporting company. This might suggest more stability among
the companies that report using IFRS or it might be interpreted as a greater
ability to achieve a higher profit and more competitive environment among the
companies that report using US GAAP. It could also mean that the US GAAP
reporting companies may be able to manipulate the results to produce a higher
Current Ratio at the expense of uniformity.
One of the
reasons that US GAAP companies have a wider current ratio standard deviation
may be the inventory methods by which the US GAAP companies are allowed use. Under US GAAP public companies are allowed to
use the Last-In-First-Out inventory method for cost of goods sold. This would
result in the remaining inventory being values at lower costs which would lower
the current asset which would result in both lower Current Assets than the IFRS
average and higher Current Assets by US GAAP companies that don’t report using
Last-In-First-Out. The higher average current ratio by US GAAP reporting
companies could the product of higher accounts receivables which could be the
result in differences in revenue recognition principles. US GAAP has far more
revenue recognition standard which could may lead to the difference between the
two averages.
Normal Distributions of Current Ratios
Quick Ratio
The Quick ratio is Current assets less Inventory divided by
current liabilities:
(Current Assets – Inventory)
Current Liabilities
Like the Current Ratio the Quick ratio measure a
company’s ability to measure the company’s ability to pay off current
liabilities, but only with its most liquid assets. For this reason it excludes inventories from
current assets. The Quick Ratio measure each dollar of liquid assets to current
liabilities. The higher the Quick Ratio the better the company’s liquid
position. The Quick Ratio is more conservative than the Current Ratio because
it excludes inventory. Inventory is excluded because in order to turn inventory
into cash takes more time and to do so quickly may result in the company
selling the inventory at a lower price or, even worse, below cost. The Quick
Ratio includes Accounts Receivable in the ratio which some financial analysts challenge
as being liquid because all the accounts receivable may not be collectable or
collectable at the amounts stated. Accounts receivable is subject to a bad debt
account may be written off over time. While the account should be balanced
against an allowance for doubtful accounts which is based on historic
un-collectability of accounts receivable this is subject to estimates which
could be adjusted to produce varying results.
The average Quick Ratio of IFRS
Reporting Companies is 1.55 (1.554818126), while the average Quick Ratio of US GAAP
Reporting Companies: 2.36 (2.359823694).
The standard deviation of IFRS
Reporting Companies: .899 (0.89885091), while standard deviation of US
GAAP Reporting Companies: 1.698 (1.69840565).
As with the Current Ratio the Average
of the Quick Ratio is higher with the companies that report using US GAAP than
with the companies that report using IFRS, yet the US GAAP companies continue
to have a higher standard deviation.
The Companies reporting with US GAAP on average
are more able to pay off their current liabilities using their most liquid of
current assets. However, there is more uniformity among the companies reporting
in IFRS. The company with the lowest Quick Ratio is a company that reports
using US GAAP. The average and distribution could mean that the use of US GAAP
may result in a company being able to
report a higher ratio at the expense of uniformity among reporting companies.
Normal
Distributions of Quick Ratios
Receivables Turnover Ratio
Receivables Turnover ratio is
Sales divided by receivables:
Sales
Receivables
The receivables turnover ratio
measures the number of times trade receivables turnover during the year. The
higher the ratio the shorter the time between the sale the collection of cash.
This is an indicator of how fast the company is getting paid for it goods or
services. The higher the ratio the better the cash flow. A slow or low ratio
may mean that the company is have difficulty collecting or is extending credit
to customers that it should not be extending credit to.
The average for IFRS Reporting
Companies is 5.951 (5.951080247), while the average for US GAAP
Reporting Companies: 5.968 (5.968087822).
The standard deviation for IFRS
Reporting Companies is 1.584 (1.584561491), while the standard deviation for
US GAAP Reporting Companies is 3.023 (3.0234485).
The companies reporting using US GAAP have a
slightly higher average Sales/Receivables ratio than the companies reporting
using IFRS, but the standard deviation is much greater with the companies
reporting using US GAAP. The US GAAP reporting companies also reported the
lowest Sales/Receivables ratios of all the companies observed. Of the 32
companies observed the three lowest reporting ratios came from US GAAP
reporting companies. This could indicate that US GAAP allows for companies to
report as Receivables accounts that should actually be reported as Bad Debt. If
Bad Debt is being reported as a receivable this would result in a lower ratio
for Sales/Receivables because the Bad Debt is not being reported on. If Bad
Debt is being reported as a receivable then this could also have an effect on
the Current Ratio and the Quick Ratio. The higher the Receivables that higher
the Current Ratio and the Quick Ratio. However, a company that reports Bad Debt
as Accounts Receivable will have a sacrifice Sales/Receivable Ratio for a
higher Current Ratio and Quick Ratio. Another possibility is the manner in
which the different methods allow for the
writing off of uncollectable accounts. Accounts that are being listed as
accounts receivable that should be listed as uncollectable could inflate the
accounts receivable. Differing methods of handling accounts receivables and
writing them off may cause the wider standards deviation observed of the US
GAAP reporting companies.
Normal Distributions of Receivables Turnover Ratios
Gross Profit Margin
Gross Profit Margin is Sales
less Cost of Goods Sold divided by Net Sales:
(Sales – Cost of Goods Sold)
Net Sales
The Gross Profit Margin Ratio is used
to assess the firms health by determining the amount of money left over from
Sales after the cost of the products sold are subtracted from the Gross Sales.
The Gross Profit allows for the company to pay for operating and other
expenses. A company’s Gross Profit Margin should be stable and should not
fluctuate much from one period to another. More efficient companies will see a
higher Gross Profit Margin
The average for IFRS Reporting
Companies is .610 (0.610393474), while the average for US GAAP
Reporting Companies is .662 (0.662107459).
The standard deviation for IFRS
Reporting Companies is .214 (0.21368246), while the Standard Deviation for
US GAAP Reporting Companies is .239 (0.23899989)
The Average Gross Profit Margin for US GAAP
reporting companies is slightly higher than is it with IFRS reporting companies
and the standard deviation is also slightly greater with the US GAAP reporting
companies than it is with the IFRS reporting companies. This could indicate
that US GAAP allows for a greater profit margin to be reported than does IFRS.
The difference between the Gross Profit Margin of IFRS and US GAAP could be a
result of different revenue recognition methods. It’s possible that there are different costing and valuation methods
that allow result in the higher Gross Profit Margin for the US GAAP, but the
differences also result in more fluctuation among the companies and, therefore,
a wider standard deviation. This ratio was very close and may be because of the
industry that is being observed has consistent pricing strategies and demand by consumers
resulted in ratios that were very near to each other regardless of the
differences in accounting standards and principles.
Normal Distributions of Gross Profit Margin Ratios
Asset Turnover Ratio
Asset Turnover Ratio is Sales
divided by Total Assets:
Sales
Total Assets
The asset turnover ratio measures the
amount of sales generated for every dollar worth of assets. This is a measure
of the firm’s efficiency using its assets.
This can also be a measure of pricing
strategy. Companies with a low Asset Turnover should examine their assets to
determine if there is a problem. This ratio is related to the Current and Quick
Ratios. Many problems with this ratio could be a result of Inventory. Firms
could be holding obsolete Inventory. The collection period for Accounts Receivable
could be too long or the Accounts Receivable may include uncollectible Bad
Debts.
Fixed Assets may not be being used to
their full capacity.
The average for IFRS Reporting
Companies: .751 (0.751479761),
while the average for US GAAP Reporting Companies .608 (0.6076574).
The standard deviation for IFRS
reporting companies is .612 (0.61227345), while the standard deviation for US GAAP
Reporting Companies: .403 (0.4031336)
For this ratio the average for IFRS reporting
companies is higher than for the US GAAP reporting companies, but the standard
deviation for the IFRS reporting companies is much larger than the Standard
deviation for the US GAAP reporting companies. The IFRS reporting companies
might have a higher Asset Turnover Ratio based on Valuation or because IFRS how
allows asset improvements to be expensed or capitalized. If Improvements to
assets are expensed in the period in which they occur the value of the assets
will be lower. However, if improvements to assets are capitalized then the
value of the assets would be higher. While IFRS has a slightly higher average
the standard deviation is much larger than the standard deviation of companies
reporting using US GAAP. Three of the four lowest ranked companies report using IFRS. The lowest two report using
IFRS. US GAAP requirements may result in a higher valuation of assets which
might explain the lower, more uniform results in Asset Turnover Ratio.
Normal
Distributions of Asset Turnover Ratios
Working Capital Turnover Ratio
Working Capital
Turnover is Sales divided by Current Assets less Current Liabilities:
Sales
(Current Assets – Current Liabilities)
(Current Assets – Current Liabilities)
Working Capital is the Current Assets minus the Current
Liabilities. Working Capital is used to fund operations and purchase inventory.
The Working Capital Ratio is used to analyze the relationship between the money
used to fund operations and the sales generated from these operations. The
higher the working capital ratio the higher the amount of sales relative to the
amount of money to fund sales. A high Working Capital Ratio can also mean that
the company has less excess capital for increasing sales or for future
projects.
The average for IFRS reporting
companies (without outliers) is 4.512 (4.512731886), while the average for US GAAP
Reporting Companies (without outliers) is 2.457 (2.456678217).
The standard deviation for IFRS
reporting companies (without outliers) is 3.355 (3.354718071), while the standard Deviation for US GAAP Reporting Companies
(without outliers) is 1.486 (1.486072).
The Working Capital Turnover for companies
reporting using IFRS is significantly higher than it is for the companies using
US GAAP. The standard deviation for companies reporting in IFRS is also much
higher. With the exception of the outliers the lowest Working Capital Turnover
ratios were reported from companies reporting in US GAAP. The difference in the
ratios between US GAAP and IFRS could be a result of differences in amounts
inventory being carried by the companies. Different inventory methods might
encourage the US GAAP reporting companies to carry inventory at different
levels which might affect the ratio. It could also mean that they have more
liquid assets on hand used to fund future investments. Greater accounts
receivable could account for a lower Working Capital Turnover ratio. The higher
average working capital turnover ratio is not necessarily a better indicator
for the company as it means that current assets and current liabilities are
closer in amount to each other. This would mean there are fewer current assets
to cover liabilities as they come due.
Normal Distributions of Working Capital Turnover
Ratios
A Comparison in the Way IFRS vs. US GAAP Reporting
Standards can Effect Financial Results.
The purpose of this comparison is to demonstrate differences
in company values and reporting that can result due to differences in
accounting methods and standards.
·
For these examples we will compare US GAAP,
using the Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) method of inventory, against IFRS, using the
First-In-First-Out (FIFO) method of inventory.
·
Units (A) were bought earlier in time than units
(B).
·
When determining the “Cost of Goods Sold” with LIFO,
we value the inventory by using the units bought last in time first.
·
When determining the “Cost of Goods Sold” with
FIFO, we value the inventory by using the units bought first in time first.
·
We start by determining the number of units sold
at the top left of the spreadsheet.
·
The cost of the units sold is listed above the
“total beginning inventory”.
·
You will see the “total beginning inventory”
which lists the amount of units on hand before sales are made.
·
You will next see “units used” which is the number
of units sold from this set of inventory units and is used to value “cost of
goods sold”.
·
Next is the “units remaining” which is the
inventory left over after the sale and is used at the end to value “remaining
inventory”
·
All units are sold for $2.00.
·
“Gross Margin” = “Sales” – “Cost of Goods Sold”.
Summary of the Effects of the
Differences between IFRS and US GAAP on Financial Ratios
International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS) and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Standards (US
GAAP) are different primarily in that IFRS is principles based and US GAAP is
rules based. US GAAP is about 25,000 pages of rules whereas IFRS is about 2000
pages of rules. This difference allows greater flexibility by the company’s
using IFRS. However, that flexibility is criticized because it could be used to
distort financial information. Supporters of IFRS would argue that IFRS
captures the economics of transaction better than US GAAP.
Upon
examining some of the differences between IFRS and US GAAP my initial
conclusion would be that IFRS would impact financial ratios in a way that would
make the IFRS reporting companies have higher average financial ratios.
However, I found the result of the study to be counter-intuitive.
The results of the study tended to
show that US GAAP reporting companies produced higher financial ratios on
average. That being said US GAAP companies also produced higher standard
deviations which might indicated less conformity between the companies
accounting methods than with IFRS reporting company’s use of accounting
methods. That being said, with the two ratios where IFRS had a higher average
IFRS also had a higher standard deviation. Regardless of whether US GAAP was
higher or IFRS was higher the reporting standard with the higher average had
the higher standard deviation.
The financial ratios of the two reporting
standards is subject to other forces which could easily outweigh the
differences between the accounting standards and principles used. US GAAP
reporting companies were primarily reporting in the United States where as IFRS
is required or permitted in 120
countries and 90 countries have fully conformed with IFRS as promulgated by the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and include a statement
acknowledging such conformity in audit reports. Most, but not all, of the
countries in the study were European countries. This could mean that the
differences are more the product of regional economics than the product of
differences in accounting standards and principles. Additionally, the tax codes
and regulations of European countries might also have an impact on the
companies which could have produced lower average financial ratios.
The differences on their face would seem to favor IFRS, but
the measured results favored US GAAP. This study looked solely at the
pharmaceutical industry. A future study examining multiple industries might
give a clearer understanding as to whether accounting methods have a material
effect on the financial ratios. If the results are consistent across multiple
other industries when independently looked at (not all grouped together as a
whole) then it would suggest that US GAAP produced a favorable impact on the financial
ratios of the companies using the US GAAP accounting methods.
Bibliography
Phoenix Group. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.phoenixgroup.eu/EN/Service/InvestorRelations/Documents/Phoenix%20GB%202011-12_EN.pdf
Novo-Nordisk. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.novonordisk.com/investors/annual-report-2012/default.asp
Nordion. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nordion.com/investors/financial_results.asp
Lundbeck. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://investor.lundbeck.com/downloads.cfm?dYear=2012
Merck KGaA. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.emdgroup.com/emd/investors/financials/annual_reports/annual_reports.html
GlaxoSmithKline. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.gsk.com/content/dam/gsk/globals/documents/pdf/GSK-Annual-Report-2012.pdf
Boehringer Ingelheim. (2013). Annual Report 2012 Retrieved
from http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com/corporate_profile/annual_report.html
Beiersdorf. (2013). Annual Report Retrieved from http://www.beiersdorf.com/investors/financial-reports/annual-reports
Bayer. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.annualreport2012.bayer.com/
Grifols. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.grifols.com/en/web/international/investor-relations/annual-report-and-annual-audited-account
Almirall. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://investors.almirall.es/phoenix.zhtml?c=209345&p=irol-reportsannual
GW Pharmaceuticals. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved
from http://ir.gwpharm.com/annuals.cfm
Dong-A. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://en.donga.co.kr/Pass.da?viewPath=/b05/managementReport
Yuhan Corp. (2013). Financial Information 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.yuhan.co.kr/Eng/03_IR/03_02_Financial%20Information.asp?subNum=3&pageNum=2
STADA Arzneimittel. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.stada.com/investor-relations/financial-publications/financial-reports/2012.html
UCB. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ucb.com/investors/Financials/Financial-reports/Annual-reports
Alexion. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://ir.alexionpharm.com/annuals.cfm
Allergan.
(2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://agn.client.shareholder.com/financials.cfm
Amgen. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://investors.amgen.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=61656&p=irol-reportsannual
Bristol-Myers-Squibb. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.bms.com/investors/Pages/annual-reports.aspx
Cambrex. (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved from http://ir.cambrex.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=80683&p=irol-sec
Eli Lilly. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://investor.lilly.com/financials.cfm
Forest Laboratories. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved
from http://investor.frx.com/investor_center/annual_reports
Gilead Sciences. (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved from http://investors.gilead.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=69964&p=irol-sec
Pernix. (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved from http://www.pernixtx.com/investor-relations/sec-filings/
Pfizer. (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved from http://www.pfizer.com/investors/sec_filings
Perrigo. (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved from http://perrigo.investorroom.com/sec-filings
Proctor & Gamble. (2013). Annual Report 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.pg.com/en_US/investors/financial_reporting/annual_reports.shtml
Questcor. (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved from http://ir.questcor.com/financials.cfm
Regeneron. (2013). 10-K 2012.
Retrieved from http://investor.regeneron.com/financials.cfm
Spectrum. (2013). 10-K 2012.
Retrieved from http://investor.spectrumpharm.com/sec.cfm
Baxter (2013). 10-K 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.baxter.com/investors/reports_and_financials/index.html
Finch,
Howard, and Laurie Hillstrom. "Financial Ratios." Encyclopedia
of Management. Ed. Marilyn M. Helms. 5th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2006.
292-297. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
"Ratio
Measure." Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Ed. Paul J.
Lavrakas. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2008. 692-693. Gale
Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
"Calculating
Ratios." Gale Business Insights Handbook of Investment Research.
Ed. Miranda Herbert Ferrara. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 304-306. Gale Business
Insights. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
"Financial
Ratios." Encyclopedia of Small Business. Ed. Laurie Collier
Hillstrom and Kevin Hillstrom. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2002. 502-505. Gale
Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
"Profit
Margin." Encyclopedia of Small Business. Ed. Virgil L. Burton,
III. 4th ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2011. 1010-1012. Gale Virtual
Reference Library. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
“GAAP vs. IFRS: LIFO and FIFO” Gurufocus.
Wolinski, Jacob. 21 February 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment