Financial Statement Analysis of BSRM, GPH Ispat & S.

Alam Steels
Course Code: Fin-501 (Section 2)

Prepared for

Dr. Quazi Sagota Samina

Assistant Professor
Department of Business Administration
East West University

Prepared by

Name ID
Anik Saha 2022-2-95-037
Suha Tabin 2023-1-95-068
Maliat Mahi 2023-1-95-073
Kaberi Sultana 2023-1-95-080
Ariful Islam 2023-2-95-009

Date of Submission: 05 December 2024

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

5 December 2024
Quazi Sagota Samina
Assistant Professor
Department of Business Administration
East West University
Aftabnagar, Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh

Subject: Term Paper on Financial Statement Analysis of BSRM, GPH Ispat & S. Alam Steels

Dear Ma’am,

It is with great respect and honor that we submit our term paper titled "Financial Statement
Analysis of BSRM, GPH Ispat & S. Alam Steels." This report aims to identify and thoroughly
analyze various financial ratios, while evaluating the financial performance of the
aforementioned organizations over the past five years.

We sincerely hope that this report provides valuable insights and a clear understanding of the
subject matter. We are deeply grateful for the opportunity to work on this topic, as it has been a
highly beneficial learning experience that will undoubtedly aid our professional development.
We will always be available to address any further queries or questions regarding this report and
provide any necessary clarifications.

Sincerely Yours,
Anik Saha
ID: 2022-2-95-037
On behalf of the group

Page | 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Before presenting this report, we find it essential to express our heartfelt gratitude to those who
have inspired and supported us throughout this journey. First and foremost, we would like to
thank the Almighty for granting us the strength, wisdom, and ability to think critically and
complete this report.

It is with great pleasure that we present this term paper on "Financial Statement Analysis of
BSRM, GPH Ispat & S. Alam Steels." The successful completion of this project is the result of
hard work, determination, and effort on our part, along with invaluable guidance from our course
instructor and mentor. We would like to extend a special note of thanks to Assistant Professor
Quazi Sagota Samina, whose knowledge, wisdom, and unwavering commitment to excellence
inspired and motivated us throughout this project. Without her insights, support, and
encouragement, this project would not have been possible.

We also wish to express our sincere appreciation to all those who have been involved in this
project from its inception. Writing this report has been a significant academic challenge, and
without the support, patience, and guidance of everyone involved, this task would not have been
completed. To them, we owe our deepest gratitude.

Page | 3
1 Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Origin of the Report: ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Objective of the Study................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................................. 8
2. Industry Overview ................................................................................................................................ 9
2.1 The world's largest 5 steel producers: ......................................................................................... 10
2.2 Bangladesh steel Industry Overview: ......................................................................................... 10
3. Company Profile ................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 BSRM ......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 GPH Ispat Limited ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd ..................................................................................................... 12
4. Financial Statement Analysis .............................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Liquidity Ratios ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 Activity Ratio ............................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Debt Management Ratio: ............................................................................................................ 20
4.4 Profitability Ratios ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.5 Market Ratios .............................................................................................................................. 27
5. Comments on Overall Position & Recommendations ........................................................................ 30
6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 31
7. Reference ............................................................................................................................................ 32

Page | 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A company's financial health can be effectively evaluated through a comprehensive performance

analysis, which involves examining various financial ratios such as profitability, liquidity, and
solvency. These ratios serve as critical indicators for investors, creditors, and other stakeholders,
providing them with valuable insights into the company's overall financial condition. By
analyzing these ratios, they can make well-informed decisions regarding investments,
creditworthiness, and other business-related matters.

Moreover, the analysis of financial statements plays a vital role in identifying potential growth
opportunities and uncovering the company's strengths and weaknesses. A detailed assessment of
financial performance allows stakeholders to pinpoint areas where the company is excelling, as
well as areas that may require improvement. By evaluating the financial data, one can gain a
clear understanding of the company’s operational efficiency, financial stability, and areas of risk.
This, in turn, supports strategic decision-making, helps in enhancing business operations, and
assists in formulating long-term plans for growth and sustainability.

Page | 5
1. Introduction

This study, titled "Financial Statement Analysis of BSRM, GPH Ispat & S. Alam Steels
Industries in Bangladesh," aims to provide an in-depth evaluation of the financial performance of
three of the most prominent steel manufacturing companies in Bangladesh: BSRM, GPH Ispat,
and S. Alam Steels. These companies are integral players in the Bangladeshi steel industry, a
sector vital to the country's infrastructure development and economic growth. The steel industry
in Bangladesh has witnessed significant growth due to increasing domestic demand, government
initiatives, and investments, positioning these companies at the forefront of the nation's industrial
expansion.

This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of key financial ratios—liquidity, efficiency,

leverage, profitability, and market ratios—over a five-year period to evaluate the financial
stability, operational performance, and market position of three companies. Drawing on data
from annual reports and financial statements, the research aims to identify areas of strength and
weakness while providing strategic insights into their competitiveness, sustainability, and
adaptability within the evolving steel industry.

1.1 Origin of the Report:

This report has been meticulously prepared as part of the partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the course Financial Management (Course Code: FIN-501) in the Master of Business
Administration (MBA) program at East West University. The assignment was entrusted to us by
our esteemed course instructor, Dr. Quazi Sagota Samina, whose expertise and guidance have
been invaluable throughout the preparation of this report. Dr. Samina authorized the completion
of this report on a group basis, ensuring that we adhered to academic rigor and conducted a
comprehensive analysis of the subject matter.

1.2 Objective of the Study

The "Financial Statement Analysis of BSRM, GPH Ispat & S. Alam Steels Industries in
Bangladesh" report aims to provide a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the financial
performance of three prominent companies in Bangladesh's steel industry. Covering the five-year
period from 2019 to 2023, this study integrates an in-depth analysis of financial statements and
ratio calculations to offer insights into the financial health, operational efficiency, and market

Page | 6
positioning of BSRM, GPH Ispat, and S. Alam Steels Industries. The objectives of the report are
outlined as follows:

 Financial Ratio Analysis: This report aims to analyze and evaluate a comprehensive
range of financial ratios for BSRM, GPH Ispat, and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steel. The
analysis covers liquidity ratios, efficiency ratios, leverage ratios, profitability ratios, and
market ratios. By examining these metrics over a five-year period (2019–2023), the
report seeks to assess the companies' financial stability, operational efficiency,
profitability, leverage, and market performance.
 Trend Identification: Trend Analysis: The report aims to identify patterns and trends in
the financial performance of the selected companies. It seeks to highlight significant
changes in performance metrics over the study period, offering a dynamic view of the
companies' financial trajectories.
 Comparative Analysis and Benchmarking: A key objective of the report is to compare
the financial performance of BSRM, GPH Ispat, and S. Alam Steels Industries against
each other and relevant industry benchmarks. This comparative framework allows for a
deeper understanding of the competitive positioning of these companies and their
alignment with broader industry standards.
 Insights for Decision-Making: Through the analysis of financial ratios and the financial
performance of the companies, this report aims to offer valuable insights to stakeholders,
including investors, management, and industry professionals, enabling them to make
well-informed decisions. These insights are intended to highlight areas of strength and
weakness, uncover potential growth opportunities, and identify areas requiring
improvement.
 Academic Fulfillment: The report fulfills academic requirements by demonstrating the
application of theoretical concepts in financial analysis. It reflects the students' ability to
conduct a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of financial data and to present their
findings in a clear and professional manner.

1.3 Methodology

The financial statement analysis was undertaken utilizing data extracted from the annual reports
and financial statements of BSRM, GPH Ispat, and S. Alam Steels for the five-year period

Page | 7
spanning 2019 to 2023. This analysis encompassed the calculation and interpretation of critical
financial ratios across five distinct categories, aiming to provide a holistic evaluation of the
companies' financial performance and stability. The specific financial ratios analyzed include the
following, serving as a foundation for assessing operational efficiency, profitability, liquidity,
leverage, and market valuation. This approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of the
financial dynamics influencing these industry leaders:

 Liquidity Ratios
Current Ratio (Times)
Quick Ratio (Times)
 Efficiency Ratios
Fixed Inventory Turnover (Times)
Days Sales Outstanding (Days)
Fixed Asset Turnover (Times)
Total Asset Turnover (Times)
 Leverage Ratios
Debt Ratio
Time Interest Earned Ratio
 Profitability Ratios
Net Margin
Return on Equity (ROE)
Return on Assets (ROA)
 Market Ratios
Price-Earnings Ratio (P/E)
Market-to-Book Value Ratio (MB

1.4 Limitation of the Study

The study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, it relies entirely on secondary
data obtained from the financial statements and annual reports of BSRM, GPH Ispat, and S.
Alam Steels. These documents may not disclose all relevant details, potentially restricting the
depth of the analysis. Additionally, the study is confined to historical data from 2019 to 2023,

Page | 8
which may not account for recent developments or emerging trends that could influence future
performance. The focus on quantitative analysis, such as financial ratios, means qualitative
factors like management efficiency, corporate governance, and external economic conditions are
not thoroughly addressed. Furthermore, external influences such as government policies, global
steel market trends, or disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic are excluded, limiting the scope
of the findings. Differences in accounting practices among the companies may also lead to
inconsistencies in data comparison, while the lack of precise industry benchmarks specific to the
Bangladeshi steel industry further constrains the analysis. Time constraints may have restricted a
deeper exploration of additional financial metrics or contextual variables. Lastly, the dynamic
nature of the steel industry, characterized by price fluctuations of raw materials and global
supply chain challenges, may render some findings less applicable to future scenarios. Despite
these limitations, the study offers valuable insights and serves as a solid foundation for
understanding the financial performance of the selected companies.

2. Industry Overview

The production and consumption of steel are widely regarded as critical indicators of a country's
economic development, with steel usage serving as a direct measure of infrastructure growth.
The steel industry is a cornerstone of economic progress, supporting various complementary
sectors such as transportation, energy, heavy engineering, and construction. In Bangladesh, the
steel and re-rolling industry has played a pivotal role in advancing the nation’s infrastructure by
supplying essential long steel products, including rebar, angles, beams, and channels. Notably,
the industry's achievement of self-sufficiency in billet production has paved the way for
exporting finished steel goods, extending its impact beyond domestic borders.

Globally, crude steel production among 64 reporting countries reached 156.4 million tons (Mt) in
September 2021, reflecting a 2.9% increase compared to the same period in 2020. However, total
world crude steel production for the first nine months of 2021 was 1,347.4 Mt, marking a 3.2%
decline from the corresponding period in 2020. This decline is attributed to the COVID-19
pandemic, as several major steel-producing nations experienced lockdowns that disrupted
operations.

Page | 9
China continues to dominate as the world's largest producer and consumer of steel. In September
2021, China produced 92.6 Mt of crude steel, a significant 10.9% increase from September 2020.
Conversely, India, another key player in the global steel industry, produced 8.5 Mt of crude steel
during the same month, reflecting a 2.9% decrease compared to September 2020. The varying
trends highlight the dynamic nature of the global steel market and its susceptibility to economic
and operational challenges.

2.1 The world's largest 5 steel producers:

The world's largest 5 steel producers in 2023, by production volume (in million metric tons).

Rank Characteristic Production volume in million metric tons

1 China Baowu Group* (China) 130.77
2 ArcelorMittal** (Luxembourg) 68.52
3 Ansteel Group*** (China) 55.89
4 Nippon Steel Corporation****(Japan) 43.66
5 HBIS Group ***( China) 41.34

In 2023, China’s Baowu Group was ranked as the world’s largest steel producer. China Baowu
Group produced around 130.8 million metric tons of crude steel that year, around 62 million
metric tons more than ArcelorMittal, which was second in the ranking.

2.2 Bangladesh steel Industry Overview:

The steel industry in Bangladesh has experienced remarkable growth in recent years, fueled by
increasing demand for long steel products and the rapid development of infrastructure projects.
Demand for long steel has surged to 7.5 million metric tons (MT) from just 2.5 million MT a
decade ago, reflecting the industry's expansion. The market value has also grown significantly,
reaching approximately BDT 450 billion, with an annual growth rate of 15%-21% in recent years
compared to the previous 8%-10%. Per capita steel consumption has risen from 25 kg in 2012 to
45 kg today, with projections of 73 kg by 2022, highlighting the industry’s growth potential
despite remaining below global averages.
Bangladesh has achieved self-sufficiency in producing both finished and semi-finished (billet)
steel, with a combined installed capacity of 9 million MT. However, average capacity utilization

Page | 10
stands at 70%-75%, deemed optimal by industry experts. Traditionally, the market was
dominated by three major players—BSRM, Abul Khair Steel (AKS), and KSRM—who
collectively controlled over 50% of the market. However, the rise of smaller competitors in
recent years has transformed the industry into a more competitive market. Among the 400 steel
and re-rolling mills in the country, only 45 are members of the Bangladesh Steel Manufacturers
Association (BSMA), but these members account for over 80% of the nation’s steel production.
The industry also plays a crucial role in employment, providing jobs to nearly 1 million people
both directly and indirectly. Despite higher production capacity than domestic demand, the
increasing need for steel in mega infrastructure projects is expected to sustain the industry's
growth momentum. With a strong foundation and ample opportunities for expansion, the steel
industry remains a key driver of Bangladesh’s economic development.

3. Company Profile

3.1 BSRM

BSRM Steels Limited (BSRMSL), a flagship company of the BSRM Group, stands as a pioneer
and leader in Bangladesh's steel industry. Incorporated on July 20, 2002, the company
commenced commercial operations on April 1, 2008. Initially established as a private limited
company, it transitioned to a public limited company in December 2006. The company operates
cutting-edge melting and re-rolling facilities in Chattogram, with production capacities of
1,000,000 metric tons and 800,000 metric tons, respectively.
BSRM is renowned for its innovation in producing Grade 500W steel, the first high-strength,
earthquake-resistant rebar in Bangladesh, meeting international standards like ISO 6935. Notable
achievements include the launch of BSRM Xtreme steel and the production of specialized 50
mm rods used in high-impact projects, including the Padma Bridge. The company adheres to 10
global standards and has successfully passed rigorous tests, such as the U.K.’s 5 million cyclic
loading fatigue test.

With a commitment to quality and sustainability, BSRM integrates advanced European

technology into its operations. It has maintained its leadership in the domestic steel market by
catering to the infrastructure and construction sectors with durable and reliable products. Its
registered office is located at Sadarghat Road, Chattogram, and the company continues to play a

Page | 11
critical role in Bangladesh’s economic development through its contributions to large-scale
infrastructure projects

3.2 GPH Ispat Limited

GPH Ispat Limited is one of Bangladesh's prominent steel manufacturers, specializing in the
production of M.S. Billet and M.S. Rod. Established in 2006, the company transitioned to a
public entity in 2009 and was listed on the Dhaka and Chittagong Stock Exchanges in 2012.
Commercial production began in 2008, with an initial annual production capacity of 84,000
metric tons of billet and 120,000 metric tons of rod.
GPH has set new benchmarks in steel manufacturing by introducing Asia’s first Quantum
Electric Arc Furnace integrated with Winlink Technology, significantly expanding its production
capacity to over 1 million metric tons. Its high-grade products, including the GPH Quantum
B600C-R and B600D-R rebar, adhere to stringent international standards.

Certified under ISO 9001 for quality management, ISO 14001 for environmental management,
and ISO 45001 for occupational health and safety, GPH emphasizes sustainability through eco-
friendly operations. Initiatives such as zero-discharge water recycling and energy-efficient
systems underline its commitment to environmentally responsible practices. The company also
exports M.S. Billet to international markets, contributing to the national economy.
Employing over 2,200 staff, GPH invests heavily in employee training, welfare programs, and
community development initiatives. In the fiscal year 2023-24, the company contributed BDT
4,200.22 million to the national exchequer, cementing its role as a key player in the steel industry
and a significant contributor to Bangladesh's economic growth.

3.3 S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd

S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Limited, the flagship entity of S. Alam Group, was established on
December 12, 2000, under the Companies Act 1994. Headquartered in Chattogram, it operates a
modern manufacturing facility in Patiya, specializing in cold-rolled steel strips, galvanized plain
(GP), and corrugated iron (CI) sheets. With an annual production capacity of 120,000 metric tons
and a galvanizing capacity of 72,000 metric tons, the company leverages advanced technology to
meet market demands. Renowned for high-quality galvanized products used in construction and
agriculture, it has been instrumental in advancing Bangladesh's steel industry. With an

Page | 12
authorized capital of Tk. 350 crores and paid-up capital of Tk. 98.37 crores, the company ensures
operational efficiency through a 17 MW power plant established in 2009. S. Alam remains
committed to innovation, excellence, and sector growth.

4. Financial Statement Analysis

Financial statement analysis is essential for evaluating a company's financial health,

performance, and viability. It aids stakeholders in making informed decisions about investments,
credit, and strategic planning.

4.1 Liquidity Ratios

1. The Liquidity ratios of BSRM of last 5 years

Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

Current Ratios (Times) 0.98 1.14 1.16 1.11 1.15
Quick Ratios (Times) 0.54 0.31 0.48 0.46 0.70

2. The Liquidity ratios of GPH Ispat Ltd of last 5 years

Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

Current Ratios (Times) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Quick Ratios (Times) 0.55 0.65 0.5 0.46 0.68

3. The Liquidity ratio of S.Alam Cold Rolled Steel Ltd

Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

Current Ratios (Times) 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.02
Quick Ratios (Times) 0.0025 0.53 0.0063 0.0059 0.013

Comparison of Liquidity Ratios _ Current Ratios (Times)

Current Ratios (Times) 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

GPH Ispat 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
BSRM 0.98 1.14 1.16 1.11 1.15
S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.02

Based on the above table, here's a detailed interpretation of the liquidity ratios for each company:

Page | 13
 BSRM
1. Trend: The current ratio fluctuated, starting at 1.15 in 2019-2018, peaking at 1.16 in
2021-2020, and declining to 0.98 in 2023-2022.
2. Interpretation: BSRM initially had sufficient liquidity, with a ratio above 1.0 indicating
that its current assets could comfortably cover liabilities. However, the declining trend,
especially falling below 1.0 in 2023-2022, signals reduced liquidity. This could pose a
risk in meeting short-term obligations if the downward trend continues

 GPH Ispat

1. Trend: The current ratio remained steady at 1.0 across all years from 2019 to 2023.

2. Interpretation: GPH Ispat consistently maintained just enough current assets to cover its
current liabilities. However, this indicates no significant improvement in liquidity over
time. A current ratio of 1.0 suggests that the company might face challenges handling
unexpected obligations since it has no extra liquidity buffer.

 S.Alam Cold Rolled Steel Ltd

1. Trend: The current ratio remained below 1.0 throughout the years, with a slight decline
from 0.87 in 2019-2020 to 0.88 in 2023-2022.
2. Interpretation: Consistently low ratios below 1.0 indicate that the company’s current
assets are insufficient to meet its current liabilities. This reflects poor liquidity
management, making it potentially vulnerable to short-term financial pressures. The
slight increase to 0.88 in recent years shows a minor improvement, but it is still
concerning.

 Comparison across Companies

In terms of liquidity, GPH Ispat demonstrates the most consistency with a stable ratio of 1.0,
though it lacks improvement in its liquidity buffer. BSRM achieved the highest ratio (1.16) in
2021-2020, reflecting strong liquidity during that period. Conversely, S. Alam Cold Rolled
Steels Ltd recorded the weakest performance, with all ratios below 1.0, indicating persistent
short-term financial challenges.

Page | 14
 Comparison of Liquidity Ratios _ Quick Ratios (Times)

Quick Ratios (Times) 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

BSRM 0.54 0.31 0.48 0.46 0.70
GPH Ispat 0.55 0.65 0.5 0.46 0.68
S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd 0.0025 0.53 0.0063 0.0059 0.013

From the above mentioned table, the interpretation of quick ratios is being described below:

 BSRM

1. Trend: The quick ratio dropped from 0.70 in 2019-2018 to a low of 0.31 in 2022-2021
but recovered to 0.54 in 2023-2022.
2. Interpretation: BSRM experienced inconsistent liquidity, with a strong recovery
recently. However, it remains below 1.0, meaning it may still face challenges meeting
short-term obligations without relying on inventory.

 GPH Ispat

1. Trend: The quick ratio improved from 0.46 in 2020-2019 to 0.65 in 2022-2021 but
decreased to 0.55 in 2023-2022.
2. Interpretation: GPH Ispat has slightly better liquidity than the others, but it still lacks
enough liquid assets to fully cover short-term liabilities. The decline in the recent year
shows a slight weakening in liquidity management
 S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd

1. Trend: The quick ratio was consistently very low, decreasing from 0.013 in 2019-2018
to just 0.0025 in 2023-2022.
2. Interpretation: S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd is in a critical liquidity situation, with
extremely insufficient liquid assets to cover short-term liabilities, posing significant
financial risk.

 Comparison of Quick Ratios:

GPH Ispat has a reasonable quick ratio that has improved over time, though it remains below 1.0,
suggesting it cannot fully cover short-term debts with liquid assets. BSRM experienced a decline

Page | 15
in liquidity in 2022-2021 but recovered in 2023-2022, although its ratio stayed under 1.0,
indicating ongoing challenges. S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd consistently shows very low
quick ratios, reflecting significant financial difficulties with insufficient liquid assets to meet
short-term liabilities.

4.2 Activity Ratio

Activity ratios measure how efficiently a company utilizes its assets to generate revenue or
manage its operations. Key metrics include inventory turnover, accounts receivable turnover, and
asset turnover, which help assess operational efficiency and identify areas for improvement in
resource management.
1. The Activity Ratio of BSRM of last 5 years

Name
2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018
Fixed Inventory turnover Ratio 3.38 2.98 3.35 2.25 3.80
Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) 30.13 38.81 48.24 79.91 53.79
Fixed Asset turnover Ratio 3.02 2.87 2.33 1.64 2.62
Total Asset turnover Ratio 1.10 0.82 0.76 0.60 0.93

2. The Activity Ratio of GPH Ispat of last 5 years

Name
2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018
Fixed Inventory turnover Ratio 2.80 2.53 2.38 1.12 3.98
Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) 35.86 31.05 33.72 86.08 68.92
Fixed Asset turnover Ratio 1.36 1.38 0.93 0.36 0.59
Total Asset turnover Ratio 0.76 0.79 0.6 0.24 0.42

3. The Activity Ratio of S.Alam Cold Rolled Steel Ltd

Name
2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018
Fixed Inventory turnover Ratio 0.62 0.51 0.53 0.42 0.82
Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) 183.81 257.78 127.48 178.77 158.64
Fixed Asset turnover Ratio 1.41 1.14 1.26 0.95 1.2
Total Asset turnover Ratio 0.33 0.28 0.3 0.24 0.34

Page | 16
 Comparison of Activity Ratios_ Fixed Inventory turnover Ratio

Fixed Inventory turnover Ratio 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

3.38 2.98 3.35 2.25 3.80
BSRM
2.80 2.53 2.38 1.12 3.98
GPH Ispat
0.62 0.51 0.53 0.42 0.82
S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd

Based on the above table, here's a detailed interpretation of the Fixed Inventory turnover Ratio:
Analysis:

BSRM: The ratio remained strong and relatively stable, ranging from 3.80 in 2019-2018 to 3.38
in 2023-2022, showing consistent inventory turnover efficiency.

GPH Ispat: The ratio has declined over the years from 3.98 in 2019-2018 to 2.80 in 2023-2022,
indicating slower inventory turnover, with a noticeable drop in 2020-2019 to 1.12. This suggests
challenges in inventory management during that period.

S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd: This company has the lowest turnover, with ratios ranging
from 0.82 in 2019-2018 to 0.62 in 2023-2022, reflecting poor inventory efficiency and slower
movement of stock compared to its peers.

Comment: BSRM demonstrates the highest inventory turnover, reflecting strong and efficient
inventory management. In contrast, GPH Ispat encounters some challenges with its inventory
efficiency but still maintains a relatively stable turnover ratio. Meanwhile, S.Alam Cold Rolled
Steels Ltd faces significant difficulties with inventory management, as indicated by its low
turnover ratio, suggesting a need for improvement in its inventory handling processes.
Comparison of Activity Ratios_ Days Sales Outstanding (DSO)

Days Sales Outstanding 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

30.13 38.81 48.24 79.91 53.79
BSRM
35.86 31.05 33.72 86.08 68.92
GPH Ispat
183.81 257.78 127.48 178.77 158.64
S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd

Page | 17
Based on the above table, here's a detailed interpretation of the Days Sales Outstanding (DSO):

Analysis:

BSRM: The DSO for BSRM has decreased steadily from 53.79 days in 2019-2018 to 30.13 days
in 2023-2022, indicating an improvement in the efficiency of its receivables collection. This
suggests that the company is collecting its receivables faster over the years.

GPH Ispat: GPH Ispat's DSO has shown variability, ranging from 68.92 days in 2019-2018 to
35.86 days in 2023-2022. While there was a significant drop in the most recent period, the DSO
remains relatively high, which might indicate some challenges in collection efficiency compared
to BSRM.

S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd: This company has an extremely high DSO, with a sharp
increase from 158.64 days in 2019-2018 to 183.81 days in 2023-2022. Such a high DSO suggests
significant inefficiencies in collecting receivables, which could point to cash flow issues or
slower customer payments.

Comment: BSRM demonstrates superior performance, with a consistent reduction in its Days
Sales Outstanding (DSO), reflecting effective management of receivables. GPH Ispat has made
progress in improving its receivables collection, though its DSO remains relatively high,
suggesting there is still potential for enhanced efficiency. S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd, on the
other hand, faces significant difficulties in managing receivables, as evidenced by its very high
DSO, which indicates major inefficiencies in its collection processes.

Comparison of Activity Ratios_ Fixed Asset turnover Ratio

Fixed Asset turnover Ratio 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

3.02 2.87 2.33 1.64 2.62
BSRM
1.36 1.38 0.93 0.36 0.59
GPH Ispat
1.41 1.14 1.26 0.95 1.2
S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd

Page | 18
Based on the above table, here's a detailed interpretation of the Fixed Asset turnover Ratio:

Analysis:
BSRM: The Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio for BSRM has shown strong performance with
consistent growth from 2.62 in 2019-2018 to 3.02 in 2023-2022. This indicates that BSRM
effectively utilizes its fixed assets to generate revenue, showing efficient use of its property,
plant, and equipment.

GPH Ispat: GPH Ispat's ratio has been relatively low throughout the period, fluctuating from
0.59 in 2019-2018 to 1.36 in 2023-2022. While there was an improvement in 2023, the ratio
remains below BSRM, signaling that GPH Ispat uses its fixed assets less efficiently in generating
sales.

S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd: S.Alam's ratio has shown modest consistency, ranging from 1.2
in 2019-2018 to 1.41 in 2023-2022. Although it is higher than GPH Ispat's, it is still considerably
lower than BSRM’s, suggesting that S.Alam is not as efficient as BSRM in leveraging its fixed
assets for revenue generation.

Comment: BSRM demonstrates superior efficiency in utilizing its fixed assets, as evidenced by
its leading Fixed Asset Turnover Ratio. While GPH Ispat has shown some progress, its asset
utilization remains less efficient compared to BSRM. S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd exhibits
consistent yet comparatively lower turnover, reflecting moderate effectiveness in employing its
fixed assets to generate revenue.

Comparison of Activity Ratios_ Total Asset turnover Ratio

Total Asset turnover Ratio 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

1.10 0.82 0.76 0.60 0.93
BSRM
0.76 0.79 0.6 0.24 0.42
GPH Ispat
0.33 0.28 0.3 0.24 0.34
S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd
Based on the above table, here's a detailed interpretation of the Total Asset turnover Ratio

Analysis:

Page | 19
BSRM: BSRM exhibits a gradual improvement in its Total Asset Turnover Ratio, increasing
from 0.60 in 2020-2019 to 1.10 in 2023-2022, peaking above its earlier ratio of 0.93 in 2019-
2018. This indicates that the company has become more efficient in using its total assets to
generate revenue over time.

GPH Ispat: GPH Ispat's ratio shows slower growth, increasing from 0.24 in 2019-2018 to 0.76
in 2023-2022, with some fluctuation during the period. While improving, its overall efficiency in
utilizing total assets is moderate compared to BSRM.

S.Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd: S.Alam demonstrates a consistent yet low ratio, ranging from
0.24 in 2020-2019 to 0.33 in 2023-2022. This reflects a steady but limited ability to utilize its
total assets for revenue generation, significantly lagging behind both BSRM and GPH Ispat.

Comment: BSRM demonstrates the highest efficiency in utilizing its total assets to generate
revenue, as indicated by its leading Total Asset Turnover Ratio. GPH Ispat has shown progress
in improving its asset utilization, though it remains less efficient than BSRM. In contrast, S.Alam
Cold Rolled Steels Ltd significantly underperforms, highlighting considerable inefficiencies in
its asset usage compared to its competitors.

4.3 Debt Management Ratio:

 BSRM STEEL LTD

Here is the trend analysis and interpretation of the Debt ratios and Times earned ratios of GPH
ISPAT Ltd for the last 5 years based on ratios below:

The Debt & Time earned ratios of BSRM Ltd of last 5 years.

Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

Debt Ratio(percentage) 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.64
Time earned Ratio (Times) 1.54 1.97 1.13 9.17 5.86

Trend Analysis: Over the past five years, the ratio has remained relatively stable, ranging
between 0.64 and 0.68, reflecting consistent debt financing in the company’s capital structure. In
contrast, another ratio showed greater fluctuation, peaking at 9.17 in 2019-2020, signaling strong

Page | 20
debt coverage at the time. It then dropped sharply to 1.13 in 2020-2021, indicating weaker
coverage, but improved to 1.54 in 2022-2023, showing recovery though still below the peak.

Interpretation: BSRM Ltd's stable debt ratio indicates a consistent reliance on debt for
operations, influenced by strategic decisions or industry norms. Fluctuations in the times-earned
ratio reflect shifts in its ability to cover debt with operating income. A peak in 2019-2020
signaled strong financial health, while a subsequent decline highlighted challenges, followed by
recent improvements suggesting better operating performance or debt reduction.

 GPH ISPAT LTD

Here is the trend analysis and interpretation of the Debt ratios and Times earned ratios of GPH
ISPAT Ltd for the last 5 years based on the ratios below.

The Debt & Time earned ratios of GPH Ispat Ltd of last 5 years

Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

Debt Ratio(percentage) 0.79 0.83 0.77 0.81 0.71
Time earned Ratio (Times) 2.42 1.39 2.90 2.69 2.19

Trend Analysis: The Debt Ratio has shown a generally declining trend over the past 5 years,
with a slight increase in 2021-2022. The Times Earned Ratio has fluctuated over the past 5 years.
It increased significantly from 2019 to 2021, then dropped in 2022, and increased again in 2023.

Interpretation: The company appears to be reducing its dependence on debt for financing, as
reflected in the declining Debt Ratio, which typically indicates better financial health and lower
risk. However, the slight rise in 2021-2022 may require further analysis. The Times Earned
Ratio, which measures the ability to cover interest expenses with earnings, has fluctuated over
the years, indicating varying capacity to meet debt obligations.

 S. ALAM COLD ROLLED STEEL

Here is the trend analysis and interpretation of the Debt ratios and Times earned ratios of S.
Alam Cold Rolled Ltd for the last 5 years based on the ratios below:

Page | 21
 The Debt & Time earned ratios of S. Alam Cold Rolled Ltd of the last 5 years.

Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018

Debt Ratio(percentage) 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.87 0.90
Time earned Ratio (Times) 1.86 1.28 1.37 1.49 1.41

Trend Analysis: The debt ratio has remained relatively stable over the past 5 years, fluctuating
between 0.87 and 0.90. There is no clear upward or downward trend. The time earned ratio has
shown some fluctuation. It increased from 1.28 in 2021 to 1.86 in 2023.

Interpretation: A debt ratio of 0.87 to 0.90 means 87-90% of the company's assets are financed
by debt. While not excessively high, it’s crucial to monitor this to avoid over-leverage. The times
earned ratio, which reflects the ability to cover interest expenses with EBIT, indicates good
financial health, as it consistently exceeds 1. S. Alam Cold Rolled Ltd. has maintained stable
debt levels over the past five years and comfortably covered interest expenses, signaling a
healthy financial position. Nonetheless, keeping an eye on the debt ratio is advisable to prevent
significant increases.

 Comparison between 3 Companies

Here is the comparison of the debt ratios & Time earned ratios for the following three companies
over the past 5 years:
Comparison between 3 companies_ Debt Ratios (Percentage)

Debt Ratio Year

Company Name 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
GPHISPAT Ltd. 0.79 0.83 0.77 0.81 0.71
BSRM STEEL 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.64
S Alam Cold Rolled Steel 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.87 0.9

GPHISPAT Ltd., S. Alam Cold Rolled Steel, and BSRM Steel employ distinct debt financing
strategies. GPHISPAT Ltd. and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steel have higher average debt ratios of
0.78 and 0.88, respectively, while BSRM Steel takes a more conservative approach with an

Page | 22
average of 0.67. S. Alam Cold Rolled Steel recorded the highest debt ratio at 0.90 in 2023, and
GPHISPAT Ltd. peaked at 0.83. In contrast, BSRM Steel maintains a stable range of 0.64 to
0.68. While higher debt ratios can boost returns, they also heighten risk during economic
downturns.
Comparison between 3 companies_ Time earned Ratios (Times)

Times Interest Earned ratio Year

Company Name 2023-2022 2022-2021 2021-2020 2020-2019 2019-2018
GPHISPAT Ltd. 2.19 2.69 2.9 1.39 2.42
BSRM STEEL 5.86 9.17 1.13 1.97 1.54
S Alam Cold Rolled Steel 1.41 1.49 1.37 1.28 1.86

GPHISPAT Ltd. leads with an average Times Interest Earned ratio of 2.57, followed by BSRM
Steel (3.48) and S. Alam Cold Rolled Steel (1.44). GPHISPAT remained stable, BSRM saw
volatility, and S. Alam showed minimal change. Higher ratios for GPHISPAT and BSRM
suggest stronger debt coverage than S. Alam.

4.4 Profitability Ratios

Profitability ratios measure a company's ability to generate earnings relative to revenue, assets,
or equity, reflecting its overall efficiency and financial performance. These ratios provide critical
insights into the effectiveness of management in delivering returns to stakeholders.

Profitability Ratios of BSRM of last 5 years

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

Gross Margin 9.59 10.5 13.15 13.37 8.27
Net Profit Margin 3.52 4.89 5.54 1.92 2.83
Operating Profit Margin 7.64 8.09 10.18 9.25 5.52
Return on Asset 3.88 3.99 4.21 1.15 2.63

Page | 23
 Profitability Ratios of GPH Ispat of last 5 years

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

Gross Margin 13.48 13.25 14.51 16.52 16.26
Net Profit Margin 0.45 3.12 5.73 3.19 6.07
Operating profit Margin 10.96 10.31 11.12 11.92 13.07
Return on Asset 0.31 2.30 3.09 0.75 2.56

Profitability Ratios of S.Alam Cold Rolled Steel Ltd

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

Gross Margin 16.01 16.12 13.93 15.43 15.58

Net Profit Margin 0.74 1.32 1.54 1.26 1.94

Operating profit Margin 15.09 15.06 12.87 14.19 14.56

Return on Asset 0.23 0.4 0.45 0.29 0.6

BSRM:

 Trend: Gross margins have fluctuated, peaking at 13.37% in 2019-2020 but declining to
9.59% by 2022-2023. There was a sharp dip of -8.66% in the 2018-2019 period, followed
by recovery and gradual decline in subsequent years.
 Interpretation: The recovery after 2018-2019 suggests some operational improvements,
but the downward trend in recent years indicates increasing cost pressures or declining
revenue efficiency.

GPH Ispat:

 Trend: Gross margins remained relatively stable, fluctuating slightly between 13.25% and
16.52% over the years. The highest margin (16.52%) was recorded in 2019-2020,
followed by slight declines.
 Interpretation: The stability suggests consistent performance and effective cost
management, though the recent small declines indicate slight operational inefficiencies.

Page | 24
S. Alam:

 Trend: Gross margins have shown a moderate and relatively steady trend, ranging
between 13.93% and 16.12% in recent years, with a small dip (-0.68%) in 2018-2019.
 Interpretation: The resilience and slight growth in recent years suggest efficient
management of production costs and steady revenue generation.

Comparison of Gross Margin Across Companies:

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

BSRM 9.59 10.5 13.15 13.37 8.27
GPH ISPAT 13.48 13.25 14.51 16.52 16.26
S. Alam 16.01 16.12 13.93 15.43 15.58

Comparison of Gross Margin Across Companies

1. BSRM shows fluctuating performance. It lacks consistency and resilience during

downturns.
2. GPH Ispat maintains steady performance, peaking in 2019-2020 but gradually declining,
yet achieving a positive growth rate in the toughest year. This reflects better adaptability
compared to BSRM.
3. S. Alam exhibits the strongest stability, with consistently high gross margins, peaking in
2022-2023. It faced minimal negative growth during challenges, indicating strong market
positioning.

Net Profit Margin of 3 Companies over 5 years

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

BSRM 3.52 4.89 5.54 1.92 2.83
GPH ISPAT 0.45 3.12 5.73 3.19 6.07
S. Alam 0.74 1.32 1.54 1.26 1.94

Page | 25
Comparison of Net Profit Margin Across Companies:

1. BSRM has shown resilience in recent years with positive growth in 2020-2021, but it
experienced a severe downturn in 2018-2019, indicating vulnerability during economic
challenges.
2. GPH Ispat has the most volatile performance, peaking in 2018-2019 but suffering a
significant decline that highlights its susceptibility to market pressures.
3. S. Alam demonstrates the weakest net profit margin among the three, with consistent but
modest growth, avoiding extreme losses, indicating stability but limited profitability.

Operating Profit Margin of 3 Companies

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

BSRM 3.88 3.99 4.21 1.15 2.63
GPH ISPAT 0.31 2.30 3.09 0.75 2.56
S. Alam 0.23 0.4 0.45 0.29 0.6

Comparison of Operating Profit Margin Across Companies

1. BSRM shows moderate growth and a recovery trend, peaking in 2020-2021, but its lower
margins compared to others suggest limited efficiency in managing operating costs.
2. GPH Ispat maintains a steady performance with consistent double-digit margins, peaking
in 2018-2019. However, it has experienced a gradual decline, indicating challenges in
sustaining operational efficiency.
3. S. Alam stands out with the highest and most stable operating margins, peaking in 2022-
2023, demonstrating strong operational control and profitability.

Return on Asset of 3 Companies

Name 2022-2023 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020 2018-2019

BSRM 3.88 3.99 4.21 1.15 2.63

GPH ISPAT 0.31 2.30 3.09 0.75 2.56
S. Alam 0.23 0.4 0.45 0.29 0.6

Page | 26
Comparison of Return on Asset Across Companies

1. BSRM exhibits steady improvement, peaking in 2020-2021, but its performance is

modest compared to the industry standard, and it faced a slight negative growth in 2018-
2019.
2. GPH Ispat has shown the most volatility, with the highest negative growth in 2018-2019,
though it has managed occasional recoveries in 2020-2021.
3. S. Alam consistently lags behind in ROA, with minimal improvement and the lowest
returns among the three, though it has avoided extreme downturns compared to GPH.

4.5 Market Ratios

Market ratios assess a company's market performance and investor perceptions, typically
evaluating stock price relative to earnings, book value, or sales. These ratios provide insights into
the company's valuation, growth potential, and investor confidence.

Market Ratios of BSRM

Year
Market Ratios
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Earnings Per Share 1.97 0.79 8.10 7.92 9.46

Price-to-Earnings Ratio 19.85 53.68 8.77 8.06 6.74

Market Ratios of S. Alam Cold Rolled Steels Ltd.

Year
Market Ratios
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Earnings Per Share 1.01 0.52 0.83 0.63 0.48

Price Earnings Ratio 20.10 40.85 30.11 52.25 68.48

Page | 27
 Comparison of Earnings Per Share Between 3 Companies

Companies Earnings Per Share Over 5 Years

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

BSRM 1.97 0.79 8.10 7.92 9.46

GPH Ispat 1.29 1.29 7.20 1.15 1.16

S. Alam 1.01 0.52 0.83 0.63 0.48

Performance Leader: BSRM stands out with the highest and most consistent EPS growth,
showing strong operational and financial management.

Fluctuating Performer: GPH Ispat's performance is volatile, with a noticeable peak in 2021 but
difficulty sustaining growth. It suggests the company benefits from temporary opportunities but
struggles with long-term stability.

Underperformer: S. Alam consistently underperformed, with a declining EPS trend, indicating

ongoing issues in maintaining profitability.

Key Takeaway: BSRM is the most resilient and reliable company over the period, while GPH
Ispat has potential but lacks stability. S. Alam needs significant improvement to remain
competitive.

Comparison of Price Earnings Ratios Between 3 Companies

Companies Price-to-Earnings Ratios Over 5 Years

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

BSRM 19.85 53.68 8.77 8.06 6.74

GPH Ispat 15.58 19.33 6.64 36.83 36.79

S. Alam 20.10 40.85 30.11 52.25 68.48

Page | 28
Trends and Interpretations of Price-to-Earnings Ratios

BSRM:

● Trend: The Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio has shown a significant decline over the years,
starting from 19.85 in 2019 and dropping consistently to 6.74 by 2023.
● Interpretation: This downward trend suggests reduced market confidence in the
company or declining earnings growth over the years. A consistently lower P/E ratio
could also indicate undervaluation if the company's fundamentals remain strong.

GPH Ispat:

● Trend: The P/E ratio fluctuated considerably, starting at 15.58 in 2019, peaking at 36.83
in 2022, and stabilizing slightly at 36.79 in 2023.
● Interpretation: The sharp rise and stabilization may reflect increased profitability,
improved investor sentiment, or market speculation during these years. However, the
fluctuations suggest volatility in the company's performance or market perception.

S. Alam:

● Trend: The P/E ratio has shown a steady increase, starting at 20.10 in 2019 and rising to a
high of 68.48 in 2023.
● Interpretation: This significant rise indicates strong market confidence, higher earnings
growth, or market overvaluation. It may also point to high investor expectations for
future growth.

Comparison of Price-to-Earnings Ratios Across Companies

1. Volatility: GPH Ispat experienced the most significant year-to-year fluctuations,

reflecting volatility. BSRM had a more consistent downward trajectory. S. Alam
displayed consistent growth.
2. Performance Indicators: BSRM: Shows a bearish trend, indicating potential issues in
growth or market perception. GPH Ispat: High variability indicates potential
opportunities but with higher risk. S. Alam: Steady upward growth suggests better
market sentiment and possibly stronger fundamentals.

Page | 29
 3. Valuation: In 2023, S. Alam had the highest P/E ratio (68.48), indicating it was valued
more highly by the market compared to GPH Ispat (36.79) and BSRM (6.74). This could
either suggest confidence in S. Alam’s growth potential or overvaluation.
4. Stability: BSRM appears to have the most predictable, albeit declining, trend, which may
appeal to conservative investors looking for fewer surprises.

5. Comments on Overall Position & Recommendations

The analysis of the financial performance of BSRM, GPH Ispat Ltd, and S. Alam Cold Rolled
Steel Ltd over the past five years reveals distinct trends and areas for improvement. In terms of
liquidity, BSRM’s declining current and quick ratios, particularly the drop below 1.0 in the most
recent period, suggest potential challenges in meeting short-term obligations. Similarly, S.
Alam’s liquidity position remains critical, with extremely low quick ratios, raising concerns
about its ability to sustain operations without heavy reliance on inventory. Conversely, GPH
Ispat demonstrates consistent liquidity, maintaining a current ratio of 1.0, although its quick ratio
reflects a moderate capacity to manage short-term liabilities independently.

The activity ratios indicate that BSRM leads in operational efficiency, with strong inventory
turnover and improving Days Sales Outstanding (DSO), highlighting effective receivables
management. GPH Ispat, while showing moderate efficiency, faces fluctuations in DSO,
suggesting inconsistencies in its credit collection processes. In contrast, S. Alam exhibits weak
asset utilization and high DSO, signaling inefficiencies in its operations and credit policies.

Debt ratios reveal a mixed picture. BSRM’s moderate debt ratio is coupled with a fluctuating
time-earned ratio, which has declined significantly, raising concerns about its debt-servicing
capability. GPH Ispat’s high debt ratio reflects heavy reliance on external financing, but its
relatively stable time-earned ratio suggests manageable interest obligations. S. Alam, burdened
by an exceedingly high debt ratio, shows slight improvement in its time-earned ratio, yet its
overall financial risk remains elevated.

Profitability ratios position BSRM as the strongest performer, with consistent gross and net profit
margins, as well as a high return on assets (ROA), reflecting operational efficiency. GPH Ispat
shows declining net profit margins, which have adversely impacted its ROA. S. Alam, while

Page | 30
maintaining steady margins, trails behind in profitability, with minimal ROA highlighting
inefficiencies in asset utilization.

In terms of market performance, BSRM stands out with strong earnings per share (EPS) growth
and attractive price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios, signaling investor confidence. Conversely, GPH
Ispat and S. Alam exhibit declining EPS and fluctuating or high P/E ratios, suggesting
overvaluation and weakening market confidence.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, BSRM’s overall performance is commendable, with solid profitability and market
appeal, though it needs to address liquidity and debt servicing. GPH Ispat demonstrates stability
but requires improvements in profitability and debt management to enhance its position. S. Alam
faces significant challenges across liquidity, profitability, and market valuation, necessitating
strategic restructuring and operational efficiency. To ensure sustainable growth, all three
companies should focus on optimizing liquidity, reducing debt reliance, enhancing profitability
through cost control, and improving market confidence by driving earnings growth and
maintaining favorable valuation metrics.

Page | 31
 7. Reference

Annual Reports and Financial Statements

 BSRM Limited. (Annual Reports of last 5 years from 2018-19 to 2022-23)

 GPH Ispat Limited. (Annual Reports of last 5 years from 2018-19 to 2022-23)
 S. Alam Ispat Limited. (Annual Reports of last 5 years from 2018-19 to 2022-23)

Financial Analysis Books

 Gitman, Lawrence J. Principles of Managerial Finance. 14th ed., Pearson, 2021.

 Penman, S. H. (2013). "Financial Statement Analysis and Security Valuation." McGraw-Hill
Education.
 Fridson, M. S., & Alvarez, F. (2011). "Financial Statement Analysis: A Practitioner's Guide."
Wiley.

Industry Reports and News Articles

 Relevant industry reports and news articles discussing the financial performance and
analysis.
 Marketscreener.com
 Infront analytics

Page | 32