Author: Artem Zaiets(36981)

Summary

This paper’s purpose is to look through and analyze the activities of ConAgra Foods within food processing industry. It will touch the areas of the financing of the company as well as those of the business strategies and compare the company’s major competitors’ operations over the past 5 years. The statistics will also project the expected future growth under the rate of 5% over a 3 year period and look at the sensitivity analysis. Using the projected data, this paper will also show the internal growth rate of the company as well as the external funds required for the future.

Introduction

ConAgra Foods, Inc. is an American packaged foods company that is located in Omaha, Nebraska that was founded a whole century ago in 1919. The company produces and sells products under 27 different brand names, most of which are popular and known only within the North America. Some of ConAgra’s major brands include Hunt’s, Healthy Choice, Marie Callender’s, Orville Redenbacher, Slim Jim (snack food), Reddi-wip, Egg Beaters, Hebrew National, P. F. Chang’s, and Bertolli ready meals. The products of the company diverse from cooking oil to hot dogs, frozen dinners, peanut butter, hot cocoa and many more.

As was mentioned earlier, the company’s brands are known mostly in North American, including Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, nevertheless, the company still competes with European and Asian packaging food companies in the market and holds a quite strong position in the list.

1. Financial Strategy

There are many tools and ratios that can be useful in order to find out a firm’s financing strategy over a course of period. In this passage, I will be discussing 3 of them: debt to equity ratio, payout ratio and retained earnings during the period from 2010 to 2014, and will compare them with other major competitors that the company has in the food processing industry.

The first tool that will be used is debt to equity ratio. This ratio indicates the proportion of equity and debt that a company uses to finance its assets to know whether it is conducting a riskier but more profitable business or vice versa. From the chart we can observe the comparison of this ratio with 2 other industry-related companies (Appendix Table 1). As can be seen from the chart, over the course of these 5 years, the ratio for ConAgra Foods, Inc. jumped drastically from 0.7862 to 1.752 in December 31^st of year 2013. This can be explained by the fact that the company decided that it did not have sufficient revenue in order to operate further, and as was mentioned earlier the higher the ratio is, the more risk the company takes but the more money it receives as a turn-over at the same time. We can observe the same situation with Kraft Foods, an American company which was founded in year 2012 as a grocery manufacturing and processing conglomerate. A new company has relatively ‘less’ to lose than an older one, especially when a company such as ConAgra Foods is nearly 100 years old. Indeed, in the short run, according to microeconomic rules of companies, the latter need to have as much revenue as possible in order to operate in the long run. That is why the ratio for the second company is relatively high. As for Nestle which was founded in year 1905 and that is headquartered in Switzerland, we can observer that the situation is rather more stable compared to the 2 other companies. In year 2012, it reached a maximum of 0.4494 ratio in debt to equity which is quite low considering this industry is capital-intensive.

The payout ratio, on the other hand, shows the amount of dividends per share to earnings per share that a company makes. For investors, the ratio can show whether the company’s dividend payments seem to be appropriate and sustainable or whether the company’s paying out more than it can sustain. New and-or fast growing companies usually focus on re-investing their earnings so the business can grow, and as a result, tend to have lower dividend payout ratios. Conversely, larger companies usually have a higher payout ratio. Let us analyze the data from Table 2 (Appendix Table 2).