Accounting Standards for Long-term
Construction Contracts between US, UK, Greece
and IAS: The case of Greece
Marina A. Poularaki
MSc in Finance & Financial Information Systems
School of Finance, University of Greenwich-The Business School
TITLE:
Accounting Standards for Long-term Construction Contracts
between US, UK, Greece and IAS: The case of Greece
STUDENT: Marina A. Poularaki
DEGREE: MSc
“A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of
Master of Science”
Kavala 2007
1
ABSTRACT
Although accounting standards for construction contracts are important determinates of
financial reporting quality, they differ across countries. Such differences reduce the quality and
the relevance of accounting information. The recent initiatives to harmonise accounting
standards across countries and to adopt a uniform set of International Accounting Standards 11
(IAS11) have received considerable attention from investors, regulators and academics
worldwide.
This dissertation reports that there is diversity in accounting for construction contracts among
United Kingdom, United States, Greece and International Accounting Standards. Out of the
analysed Standards American SOP 81-1 is the most detailed one. The least detailed one is IAS
11 and the one that differs more is GAS. Moreover, with the help of the construction
companies’ statements and ratios; it examines the progress of the sector in Greece, before and
after the year 2002.
Using a sample of 50 Greek companies for the period 2000-2004, and with the assist of the
construction companies’ individual financial statements and financial ratios, we show that
Greek construction companies where not ready and, therefore, unable to adsorb effectively
there funds, to maintain the cost in low level and to have profits.
These companies are selected as they are considered to be leaders in the specific sector with
prospects of further development and all of them, that were registered in the Athens Stock
Market (22) in the year 2000, were included in our sample. The financial statements that we
used were prepared according to the GAS, ones Greek listed companies started to adopt IAS in
uses that begun from the 1.1.2005.
Furthermore, we assume that the construction companies of our sample used the same
accounting and operating practices and that inflation rate, and the influencing factors are
remained stable in the period 2000-2004. Finally companies were not expanded via acquisition
changing their activities. Further research will examine the construction sector in Greece, after
the year 2004, taking into consideration the legislation that passed by the Government in 2001
in order to promote mergers and after the registered companies in the Athens Stock Market,
started to adopt International Accounting Standards.
Keywords: IAS11, United States construction policies, United Kingdom construction policies,
Greek construction policies, financial analysis.
2
CONTENTS:
Rights ........................................................................................................................1
Abstract .....................................................................................................................2
Contents .................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables & Figures .......................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1:
Introduction to the thesis ................................................................. 6
1.1
Aims and Objectives ........................................................................ 7
1.2
Structure of the thesis ...................................................................... 8
1.3
Introduction ...................................................................................... 9
1.3.1 Percentage of completion method................................................... 11
1.3.2 Completed contract method ............................................................ 11
1.4
Chapter 2:
Construction field in Europe........................................................... 12
Literature Review ............................................................................. 13
2.1
Introduction ..................................................................................... 14
2.2
United Kingdom ............................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Long – Term Contract work – in - progress ................................. 15
2.2.2 Statement of Accounting policies .................................................... 17
2.3
Unite States ....................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Percentage of Completion Method ................................................. 20
2.3.2 Completed Contract Method .......................................................... 22
2.3.3 Comparison of two Methods ........................................................... 23
2.3.4 Legislative change in Accounting Methods ................................... 24
2.4. International Accounting Standards 11 ......................................... 25
2.4.1 Contract revenues and contract costs ............................................ 26
2.4.2 Fix-price contract and cost-plus price contract ............................ 26
2.4.3 Recognition of contract revenues and expenses ........................... 26
2.4.4 Percentage of Completion Method ................................................. 27
2.4.5 Disclosure .......................................................................................... 27
2.4
Greece................................................................................................ 28
2.5.1 Evaluation of two methods .............................................................. 29
2.6
A Comparison................................................................................... 30
3
Chapter 3:
Research Design ............................................................................... 34
3.1
Aims of this study ............................................................................. 35
3.2
Ratios ................................................................................................. 37
3.3
Data collection .................................................................................. 38
3.4
Methodology ..................................................................................... 39
3.5
Information on the field................................................................... 40
3.6
Ratios Analysis ................................................................................. 42
3.6.1 Profitability Ratios ........................................................................... 42
3.6.2 Ratios of Efficiency .......................................................................... 46
3.6.3 Liquidity Ratios................................................................................ 48
3.6.4 Activity Ratios .................................................................................. 51
3.6.5 Evolution Ratios ............................................................................... 55
3.6.6 Leverage Ratios ................................................................................ 58
Chapter 4:
4.1
Conclusions and Limitations ........................................................... 61
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 62
References ................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix ................................................................................................................... 71
4
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Table 3.1: The Turnover for Construction Companies that consist our sample ......... 35
Figure 3.1: Diachronic Evolution of Total Product’s Participation in GNP.................. 40
Figure 3.2: The Evolution of Profitability ratios for registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 44
Figure 3.3: The Evolution of Profitability ratios for non-registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 45
Table 3.2: The Turnover fluctuant for listed and non-listed construction
companies ............................................................................................................... 45
Figure 3.4: The Evolution of Efficiency ratios for registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ............................................................... 47
Figure 3.5: The Evolution of Efficiency ratios for non-registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 48
Table 3.3: The average Efficiency ratios for listed and non-listed
construction companies ......................................................................................... 48
Figure 3.6: The Evolution of Liquidity ratios for registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 49
Figure 3.7: The Evolution of Liquidity ratios for non-registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 50
Table 3.4: Financial data for listed and non-listed construction companies................ 51
Figure 3.8: The Evolution of Activity ratios for registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ............................................................... 52
Figure 3.9: The Evolution of Activity ratios for non-registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ............................................................... 53
Table: 3.5: The average Activity ratios for listed and non-listed
Construction Companies ...................................................................................... 53
Figure 3.10: The Evolution of Evolution ratios for registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 56
Figure 3.11: The Evolution of Evolution ratios for non-registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 57
Figure 3.12: The Evolution of Debt ratios for registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ................................................................ 59
Figure 3.13: The Evolution of Debt ratios for non-registered Construction
Companies in the Athens stock market ..................................................... 60
5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE THESIS
6
1.1 Aims and objectives
As of 2005, all listed companies in the European Union are obliged to present their
financial statements in compliance with IFRS, so that as many countries as possible
may establish mutually acceptable accounting practices that are widely recognizable
and readable.
However, it should be underlined that many listed companies are going to find it
difficult to implement IFRS, due to the substantial differences that will arise in their
financial statements. Construction companies comprise one of the sectors that will have
to undergo major changes in the way their financial statements are presented; this is
even truer in the case of Greece (Floropoulos, 2000)
This analyses is based on the data collection for “long-term construction contracts”
among UK, US, Greece and IAS, presenting and analyzing their accounting policy.
The aim is to pinpoint basic differences and similarities in the account processing of
construction contracts in these countries. The main focus is on the differences and
similarities between Greek and UK accounting standards, on the one hand, as compared
to those from IAS, on the other, as well as on how the former differ from US
accounting standards.
Two samples were selected for this purpose; they comprise a total of 50 Greek
construction companies that are considered leaders in the sector. On the basis of their
financial statements (Balance Sheets-Operating results) and conversion of figures into
indices the financial situation of Greek construction companies is extensively analysed
for the 2000-2004 period. The aim is to present and analyse the impact that undertaking
the 2004 Olympic Games and drawing monetary funds from the 3rd CSF - which
started in 2001 - had on the Greek construction industry.
7
1.2 Structure of the thesis
The first chapter presents each one of the accounting standards applied for construction
contracts in the UK, the US, Greece and IAS. What is mainly analysed is the manner in
which income and expenses are recognized and accounted for in cases of long-term
construction contracts and how these amounts appear in Balance Sheets and Operating
result. PCM and CCM are described in detail, presenting the advantages and
disadvantages of each method in the case of long-term construction contracts.
The final part of this chapter includes a comparative analysis of these accounting
standards and reaches the conclusion that there are no significant differences among
IAS, the UK and the US concerning long-term construction project contracts. On the
other hand, important differences are noted between Greek accounting standards and
the standards mentioned above.
Chapter 3 examines the construction industry in Greece in the 2000–2004 period. Two
samples were selected: the first concerns the 22 Greek construction companies that
were listed in the Stock Market in 2000. The second sample includes 28 companies that
are not listed but have a significant market share. On the basis of the companies’
financial statements, six types of ratios (Profitability ratios, Efficiency ratios, Evolution
ratios, Liquidity ratios, Activity ratios and Leverage ratios) were selected. These indices
were then comparatively analysed for listed and non-listed construction companies,
calculating the average figure for each ratio for listed and non-listed companies. Results
and limitations of the research are presented in Chapter 4.
8
1.3 Introduction
“A construction contract is a contract specifically negotiated for the construction of an
asset or a combination of assets that are closely interrelated or interdependent in terms
of their design, technology and function or their ultimate purpose or use. A significant
feature of a construction contract is that the date of commencement and the date of
completion fall into different accounting period” (Adrian & Douglas, 1996).
The two recognition methods that are commonly used are: a) the “completed contract
method” and b) the “percentage of completion methods”. Although both methods are in
accordance with the general accepted accounting principles, their respective effects on a
company’s reported financial position and operating results, can be vary greatly
(Department of Treasury, 2000).
The “percentage of completion method” recognises profit in proportion to progress on a
contract for each period in which construction occurs. The completed contract method
recognizes profit only after all work on the contract is complete (minor costs which
may occur at the end of a contract maybe ignored when deciding whether a contract is
complete).
Although both methods are in accordance with recognized accounting
principles, their respective effects on a company’s reported financial position and
operating results can vary greatly (Trotman, 1982).
Classification of Contracts
SOP (Statement of Position) # 81 – prepared by AICPA, the “American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants” – is the “bible” ruling US construction accounting. When
it was originally prepared in 1979-80, SOP was called "Accounting for Performance of
Construction-Type and Certain Production-Type Contracts" and stresses how
significant it is to state revenue recognition policies. There are four categories of
contract pricing (par. 15 SOP 81-1) that stand out in US practice: (a) “fixed price”, (b)
“cost type price”, (c) “time-and-material price” and (e) “unit-price”. This illustrates that
in US tradition accounting tends towards more detailed classification, maybe because
of wider business diversification (Wright, 2004).
9
IAS 11 (International Standard), i.e. “Construction Contracts” initially came into force
in 1978; major amendments were made 1993. This document refers to the following
types of contracts: (a) :fixed price contracts” and (b) “cost-plus contracts” (Georgiou,
2003).
SSAP 9 (Statement on Standard Accounting Practice) of England, entitled "Stocks and
Long-Term Contracts" came into force in 1975 and gives no clear specification for
long-term contracts (Chalyi & Momot, 2002).
“Fixed price contracts apply in cases of construction projects in which the contractor
agrees to a fixed contract price, or a fixed rate per unit of output and they may
occasionally be affected by cost escalation clauses”.
According to Burgh (2004), where fixed price contracts are concerned, a reliable
estimate of the outcome may be achieved, if all conditions below are fulfilled:
(a) There is reliable measurement of total contract revenue;
(b) Economic benefits related to the contract will probably flow into the enterprise;
(c) There can be reliable measurements of total contract costs as well as of the stage
of contract completion appearing at the balance sheet; and
(d) There is clear identification and reliable measurement of contract costs
attributable to the contract; this means that it is possible to compare actual
contract costs with estimates made beforehand.
“Cost plus contracts apply in construction cases when contractors are reimbursed for
allowable or otherwise defined costs, while they also receive a percentage of these costs
or a fixed fee.”
AICPA (1981) proposes, that in such cases, there can be reliable measurements of the
construction contract outcome, if all conditions below are fulfilled:
(a) Economic benefits related to the contract will probably flow into the enterprise;
and
10
(b) There can be clear identification and reliable measurement of contract costs
attributable to the contract regardless of whether or not they are specifically
reimbursable.
Often the construction project takes more than one year to complete. Therefore, the
construction industry uses methods of recognising revenue and income referred to as
long term construction contract methods (Adrian & Douglas 1996).
The “percentage of completion method”, recognises profit to progress on a contract for
each period in which construction occurs. The completed contract method, recognises
profit only after all work on the contract is competed. Although both methods are in
accordance with recognised accounting principles, their respective effects on
company’s reported financial position and operating results can vary greatly (Trotman,
1982).
1.3.1 Percentage of Completion Method
As we mentioned earlier, According to this method, contract profit is determined by
correlation to progress made in each period, concurrent with construction, with
emphasis on the proportion of total cost and revenue estimates at contract completion.
The advantage of this method is that data on the trend of income can be more rapidly
incorporated into accounts. The PCM method has one drawback, however. As it is
based on predictions, it cannot take into account unforeseen factors which may
influence actual levels of profit at the completion stage. Obviously, it is difficult to
make an accurate prediction of final profit at the beginning of a contract period, and
especially in contracts that are technically complex or have a long completion period.
(Palmer et al, 1999).
1.3.2 Completed Contract Method
The completed contact method measures performance on the basis of what contracts
were completed during the period regardless of how much contracting effort took place
during the period and, therefore, doesn’t disclose recent performance if the contract
11
extends beyond one accounting period. The basic disadvantage of this method is that
the total outcome is recognised to the last period although big parts of the project had
been completed in previous period (Trotman, 1982).
1.4 The construction field in Europe
The construction field constitutes one of the most important fields in Europe, since it
makes up 10 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The number of technical
companies actively engaging in the construction field in Europe is estimated at €2.3
million, whereas 11.8 million people are employed, thus making up approximately 7
per cent of the workforce as a whole.
In 2002, the total turnover of construction companies in the European Union amounted
to € 900 billion. Germany (24 per cent) held the leading place among the European
Union's member states, followed by the United Kingdom and France (15 per cent and
13 per cent respectively). The countries mentioned above made up approximately 75.5
per cent of the total turnover of the construction field in Europe along with France, Italy
and Spain (European Commission, 2004).
According to Technical Chamber of Greece (TCG) (2003), the construction field tends
to be rather stable in Europe in the year 2003, since it demonstrates a slight increase by
0.5 per cent in contrast to 2002. The UK is expected to exhibit the highest rate of
increase (4.4%), followed by Spain (3.8 per cent) and Sweden (2.6 per cent).
12
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
13
2.1 Introduction
Construction contracts – mainly due to the fact that their starting and conclusion dates
normally fall into different time periods - have been the topic of numerous studies.
Among these, Trotman (1985), examined how the structure of a company influences
the choice of its accounting method and discovered that there is a correlation between
profitability and the accounting method used for “long-term construction contracts”.
Roques (2001) , through describing IAS, discovered that PCM, which is used to
recognize revenue and expenses, leads to problems when it comes to comparing
financial statements. Larson & Brown (2004), using a sample of 100 construction
companies reached the conclusion that (a) one in three companies does not achieve
transparency levels required by SEC and GAAP in their accounting methods and (b)
that same sector companies use different methods to recognized income and expenses.
Furthermore, due to the need for listed companies to use IAS, numerous studies
examine similarities between IAS and accounting standards applied in other countries.
European accounting standards were split into two types for a long period of time. One
part of Europe was under the strong influence of the UK and the USA and another was
influenced by Central European practices.
Trotman (1982), found “that there is a considerable diversity in the methods used for
accounting for profit on long-term construction contracts in UK and US. Zeff S. (2001),
Saze A. (2004) and Laurence (2002) compared and analysed IAS against UK standards.
Others investigated differences between IAS and US standards, among them Wright
(2002) and Ernst & Young (2002). These studies mainly highlighted differences and
similarities of construction contracts in regard to recognizing revenue and expenses, in
their accounts processing and in the presentation of company financial statements.
14
2.2 United Kingdom
The position in the United Kingdom is given in “Statement of Standard Accounting
Practice” (SSAP) No. 9, “stock and work in progress” which suggested that because of
the length of time taken to complete long – term contracts, differing the recognition of
profit until completion may not give a fair view of the company’s operations during the
years. The statement suggested that: “when the business carries out contracts and it is
considered that their outcome can be assessed with reasonable certainty before their
conclusion, then the attributable profit should be taken up, but the judgment involved
should be exercised with prudence” (Davies et al, 1990).
UK companies are not using a strict percentage – of – completion method but are in fact
using considerable discretion in deciding when profits are to be recognised. In addition,
a number of the companies that included profit on uncompleted contracts state that only
profits earned have been included. They do not state, however, what method was used
to decide whether profits have been earned. For example, work in progress has been
valued at cost as well as direct and indirect overheads with an addition for only such
profits as have been earned less payments to account (ICAEW tax faculty, 2003).
SSAP 9 aims at ensuring, on the one hand, that the lowest cost and net realisable value
is used for the evaluation of stocks and, on the other hand, that amounts appearing in
main standard balance sheet classification boxes reflect stocks sub-classification, as it
appears in the balance sheet or financial statement notes. Another of SSAP 9
requirements is that long term contract proceeds and expenses are reflected in the
operating cost statement at every stage throughout contract activity (Kirk, 2003).
2.2.1 Long – Term Contract work-in-progress
A contract which can be considered as long-term according to SSAP 9 is typically one
requiring over 1 year for completion. However contract duration of over 1 year is not
15
the key element to classification as long-term. Some contracts may take less than a year
to complete, yet they should be considered long-term for accounting purposes if they
constitute a major part of total company activity over the period. In that case, if
turnover and concomitant revenue were not stated, the turnover and results for the
period in question would not be faithfully represented in the corresponding financial
statements. However, this policy needs to be applied consistently from year to year
within the company (ICAEW, 1998).
The standard accounting practice for long-term contracts is as follows:
Contract by contract basis should be used for the assessment of long-term contracts;
this is also seen in “profit and loss accounts”, because turnover and related costs are
recorded to reflect the progress of contract activity. Turnover can be estimated
according to the following parameters: (a) the proportion of total contract work
completed and (b) the business and the industry which it applies to (Wilson, 2001).
In instances when a firm undertakes long-term contracts, the outcomes of which are
reasonably certain when assessed ahead of time, profits attributable are to be prudently
calculated and are not to be omitted for the review period. The proportion of the work
completed by the accounting date should be reflected in profits taken up and any
unknown profitability inequalities should be taken into consideration vis-à-vis each
contract stage. This is achieved by including the right portion of total contract value in
the profit and loss account as turnover throughout the duration of contract activity. This
is then combined with costs incurred so far in the contract work completed .
Consequently, the reported results are a valid concomitant of the proportion of work
completed (Gemmel & Brood, 1982).
If it is not possible to be reasonably certain in assessing the outcome of long–term
contracts before these are concluded, then no profit amounts should appear in the
“profit and loss account” for such contracts; however, in these cases, it might be
suitable to present part of the total contract value as turnover using a “zero estimate of
profit”, when no loss is expected (ICAEW, 1998).
Long-term contracts should be disclosed in the balance sheet as follows:
16
When recorded turnover exceeds payments on account, this excess sum is to appear as
“amounts recoverable on contracts” and should be included separately under debtors;
As for balance of payments on account, these are to be recorded as payments on
account and should be included separately under creditors;
According to Wilson (2001), “Long-term contract balances” should include the amount
of long-term contracts, at costs incurred, net of amounts transferred to cost of sales,
after deducting foreseeable losses and payments on account not matched with turnover;
this should be presented separately under 'Stocks' in the balance sheet. The note to the
balance sheet should record separately balances of:
(a) net cost minus foreseeable losses; and
(b) applicable payments on account;
2.2.2 Statement of accounting policies
Accounting policies used by a firm should be consistent from year to year. The policies
applied to long-term contracts and for calculation of stocks need to be clearly denoted,
particularly those concerning calculation of turnover. Payments on account should
comprise all amounts received, or expected to be received within predictions for
contracts in progress, on the date accounts are composed.
SSAP 9 does not give a definition of turnover, yet, according to SSAP 9 Appendix 1,
turnover and correlating expenses should be included in the “profit and loss accounts”
concomitantly with progress of the activity. On some occasions, turnover is evaluated
in relation to the estimated value of work completed thus far in the contract; in some
contracts it may also be possible to identify and record, in an appropriate way, specific
aspects of the contract that have been concluded through separate sale values and
expenses, e.g. when customer acceptance or delivery has taken place. For auditing
purposes, turnover normally correlates to the value of work completed or certified as
such (Wilson, 2001).
17
Guidelines are provided by SSAP 9 in regard to how one should handle stocks and long
term contracts in accounts. When profit for an accounting period is determined, costs
need to be allocated to reporting periods and this process involves the cost of unsold or
unconsumed stocks; these stocks – to the extent they are believed to be recoverable –
are carried forward until the period in which they are sold or consumed (Kirk, 2003).
SSAP 9 guidelines concerning long-term contracts ensure that results of company
activity for the period under review are more faithfully reported, concurrently with
contract progress, rather than reports of turnover and profit made after contract
completion. Thus, in compliance with these guidelines, turnover and revenues
throughout the duration of a contract should be credited (Gemmell & Broad, 1982).
Data on turnover and costs for each contract phase are entered in the P&L section and
corresponding profit can be recorded in cases where the final results can be estimated in
advance with relative certainty (GAAP, 2004).
2.3 US
The SEC SAB No. 101, introduced in 1999, deals with several aspects of revenue
determination, but does not deal with accounting of “long-term contracts” directly.
Moreover, it emphasizes SEC approval of existing GAAP, in particular “ARB No.45”
and “SOP No. 81-1”, and underlines the significance of disclosure of the policies used
for determination of income (Larson & Brown, 2004).
ARB 45 “Long-term Construction Type Contracts” outlines two methods for
accounting of long-term construction contracts.(a) The PCM method determines
income concurrently with progress of work on a contract. Determination of income and
profit is typically correlated to costs incurred during rendering of services specified in
the contract. (b) The CCM method acknowledges income following contract
completion, or near completion. According to ARB 45 and SOP 81-1, the PCM method
should be the method of choice in cases where reasonable forecasts of final results can
be made (IASB, 2005).
18
According to ARB 45 recommendations: “recognised income is to be that percentage of
estimated total income…that incurred costs to date bear to estimated total costs” (costto-cost method). ARB 45 focuses on net income or the difference between cost and
revenue. SOP 81-1 confirms the above and gives guidance on how ARB 45 should be
applied. This allows the use of one of two methods so that income earned to date may
be calculated (IASB, 2005).
Profit centre measurement forms the basis for construction firm accounting. According
to AICPA “Statement of Position (SOP) 8 1 -1”, the definition of a profit centre is “a
single contract for construction”. In terms of cost accounting meaning, a profit centre is
“any subunit or segment of an organization that is assigned both revenues and expenses
for an activity or group of activities that generate profits or losses that can be
segregated and separately measured and analyzed by its profit contribution to the
organization” (Deakin & Maher, 1987).
When AICPA appeared in “Construction Contractors”, an Audit and Accounting
Guide, it identified four basic types of construction contracts that could be used to
measure profit centres. These contract types are distinguished by pricing policies and
categorised as: (a) “fixed-price or lump sum”, (b) “time-and-material contracts”, (c)
“cost-type (fee, or percentage)”, and (d) “unit price contracts”. The emphasis on
individual contracts is a unique facet of financial reporting concerning the construction
industry. In other words, accounting policies used by construction firms to determine
income from their activities are substantially different from those used by businesses in
other sectors of industry (Bass, 1998).
The AICPA does not give a clear definition of what it considers as a “long-term”
contract. However, the rule of thumb seems to be any contract in the construction
industry which lasts more than a year. For a “long-term construction contract”, revenue
definition can be compounded by the customary practice of progressive customer
invoicing. In most cases, invoices do not correspond to actual work completed to date.
As a result, contract profits may be overstated during the earlier phase of construction
and, correspondingly understated in the latter phases. The main reason for adopting this
practice is the increase of the firm's available working capital in the early stages of a
19
project, which may enable self-financing of the project after a certain point (Jensen, &
Craig, 1998).
In the construction industry definition of income entails the assessment of financial
results for long-term activities and their accurate allocation within relatively short-term
accounting periods according to the matching principle suggested by GAAP. Therefore
the special feature of construction industry accounting focuses on the issue of correct
assessment of income, costs and corresponding gross profit, in the appropriate
accounting period. This is important for determination of income tax liability (Callan,
et al, 1994).
Although GAAP permits use of both PCM and CCM, the method used must be clearly
stated and, if they are both used, firms must specify the reasons underlying the use of
each one. SOP No. 81-1 discusses the use of input and output methods to enable
determination of the extent of completion of a contract if PCM is used (Larson &
Brown, 1998).
2.3.1 Percentage of Completion Method
When the PCM is used, revenue, expense, and income are recognized for every
accounting period while construction lasts. When the “completed-contract method” is
used, revenue, expense, and income are recognized only after construction has been
completed. It is more appropriate to use PCM due to the fact that when revenues are
recognized throughout the progress of a project, information is more easily related to
what is actually happening “(SFAC No. 5, FASB, 1984)”. According to ARB No. 45
(AICPA, 1955), PCM should be applied every time a firm can assess with reasonable
accuracy the amount of total project costs; on the other hand, the “completed-contract
method” should be applied only if it is impossible for costs to be estimated (Albrect,
1994).
This means that the SOP 8 1 -1 recommends the POC method as the accounting
methodology of choice for long-term contracts (profit centre), as long as estimates are
more or less reliable. Furthermore, SOP 81 -1 proposes certain prerequisites so that a
construction company may apply this method. These prerequisites are as follows: (a)
20
contracts should contain provisions which clearly present rights to be enforced in
regard to goods or services that will be rendered according to the terms and conditions
of any agreement made; (b) the person selling goods and services is more or less certain
that the buyer will satisfy contractual obligations, and (c) the contractor expects, under
normal circumstances, to fulfil contractual obligations (AICPA, 1993).
When PCM is applied, gross profit and revenue for a given contract are proportionally
recognized vis-a-vis the progress made during construction operations. The strong point
of PCM is that it presents actual revenue currently earned on a particular project and,
therefore, allows the contractor to have an improved cash flow reporting model. In the
view of AICPA (1993), the weakness of PCM is that it depends on management
estimates of cost, which entails a high degree of uncertainty. Gross profit margins
accrued are entered for each accounting period according to the total projected
estimated cost, i.e. the ratio of current actual contract cost to total estimated contract
cost. Due to the fact that gross profit is recognised proportionally for each period, POC
is in effect an accounting hybrid method combining cash Basis and accrual basis of
accounting. This means that when POC is applied, revenue, expenses, and income are
recognised for the whole building contract period as a portion of the work to be finally
completed (AICPA, 1993; Welsch et al, 1979).
Nevertheless, PCM differs from the other accounting methods mentioned above, as
contract income is realized according to contract value earned and not according to cash
collected or owed receivables to date. There are complications and measurements
arising with “long-term construction contracts” due to the alternative construction in
process inventory account; this is because inventory valuation directly affects the
measurement of contract income, tax liability, and reporting of the construction firm’s
financial position (Jensen & Craig, 1998).
Professional accountants use several tactics when implementing PCM so as to ascertain
the value earned on a profit centre. These include :(a) “the cost-to-cost method”, (b)
“the effort-expended method”, and (c) “the units-of-work performed”. Each one of
these techniques aims at measuring progress accomplished in terms of costs, units, or
valued added for a given profit centre in the accounting period at hand and apply input
and output measures. Examples of such measures would be costs incurred, labour hours
21
worked, tons produced, or miles of pavement installed. Input measures are
dimensionally classified as efforts made for the contract to be completed. Output
dimensions, on the other hand, come under results obtained.
What management has to be capable of achieving is to present more or less accurate
and experimental cost estimates of the progress of construction to contract completion
and this is what makes PCM use difficult. It is also difficult to accurately project final
gross profit amounts for income tax purposes. Because of current tax laws and due to
AICPA (1993) supporting the cost-to-cost (CTC) method, Certified Public Accountants
tend to prefer this technique. This results in PCM being the most widely used method
under CTC by professional accountants, when they try to ascertain construction
contract gross profits (Adler, 1989). This is why the PCM method will be presented and
discussed below in terms of the CTC accounting technique in regard to “long-term
contract revenues, expenses, and gross profits” (Trotman, 1985).
2.3.2 Completed Contract Method
If the CCM method is used, total income and gross profit are acknowledged only at the
point of sale, i.e. when the construction contract is virtually complete, or near
completion. ARB 45 recommends the use of this method only when predictions are
uncertain, due to inherent risks or inability to produce reliable estimates. AICPA SOP
81-1 defines inherent risks as any parameter affecting the validity of
otherwise
reasonably dependable contract estimates. For the accounting periods relevant to the
length of time until completion, contract costs and customer invoices are debited and
shown as accounts receivable in the balance sheet, under the heading "construction
contract invoices". Unlike the PCM method, the CCM requires accounting of only costs
to date in the interim accounting periods; the corresponding income statement does not
include either income earned to date, nor estimated profit on the contract (Pereira,
1992).
Hence, throughout progress of work, the firm accrues contract costs but does not
determine contract income until the point of near completion. Consequently, by the use
of the CCM, acknowledgment of gross profit , which then creates the corresponding
22
income tax liability, is postponed until the project is 100 per cent complete. Unlike the
POC method, the CCM is not based on estimates of income or gross profit; these
amounts reflect actual figures, determined after the completion of the contract, and
subject to the appropriate income tax rate (Jensen & Craig, 1998).
2.3.3 Comparison of two Methods
It is clear that AICPA prefers the use of the “percentage of completion (POC) method”
for profit centre measurement; this is based on the theory that, as the contract
progresses, revenues and gross profits are earned along the way. . On the other hand,
the CCM requires contract completion before it can recognise revenue, whereas costs
incurred during progress of work are listed in an inventory account under the title
'construction in progress'. Similarly, progress invoices determined under CCM are
included in another inventory account titled ' invoices on construction-in- progress"
(Jensen & Craig, 1998).
In practice, the overwhelming majority (appr. 90 per cent) of construction companies
apply the POC method (AICPA, 1993). The reason underlying this choice is that the
POC method helps the presentation of financial results, whereas the CCM method
defines the final revenue subject to income tax. The advantage of applying the two
methods to address divergent financial objectives is that tax liability can be deferred
until the end of the contract while, at the same time, the firm is able to report revenues
in financial statements for the corresponding period (Pereira, 1992).
Before the introduction of tax reforms, it was possible for a contractor to use the PCM
method to record revenues in financial reports to creditors and investors and the CCM
method for acknowledging taxable gross profit. After the TRA '86 and TAMRA '88
“tax legislation revisions”, a contractor is now legally required to enforce a 90:10 rate
of use of the two methods to declare income if (a) a contract lasts for more than two
years (b) firm sales are over $10,000,000 per year (Larson, 1998).
2.3.4 Legislative change in Accounting Methods
23
Important changes in long-term construction contract accounting were effected by the
introduction of the TRA of 1986. Firstly. the use of the CCM was significantly limited.
Furthermore the IRC section 460 was created, which permitted a choice between only
two accounting methods for a long-term contract, these being (a) the POC method, (b)
the POCCC method, a POC derivative . Additionally, the TRA '86 gave specific advice
on how to use the POC method to record taxable income. TRA '86 specifically requires
that 40% of reported contract revenues be recorded by the POC method as taxable
subject, whereas the normal method of recognition of gross profit for tax purposes may
be used for the remaining 60 per cent (Hawkins, 1989).
What TAMRA’88 accounting rules mean in effect is that the CC method is not used for
tax accounting. In other words, income recognition postponement and, consequently,
tax liability recognition is restricted to 10 per cent of contract generated revenue.
According to TAMRA'88, the tax schedule now shows how 40 per cent PCM revenues
in 1993 must now be recorded and recognized at 90 per cent of its earned value, which
means that 90 per cent of earned value is taxed at a rate of 34 per cent. The 10 per cent
of the earned value that remains is postponed to 1995; that is when income recognized
and taxed at a rate of 34 per cent. The same goes for tax liability incurred and deferred
for the 1994 accounting period. In the end, the 10 per cent of the income postponed to
1993 and 1994 is totalled against the earned value recognized in 1995; it is then taxed
at the appropriate rate when the contract is 100 per cent complete. (Jensen & Craig,
1998).
Management’s attitude towards accounting standard is related to a firm’s capital
structure because of restrictive covenants in debenture trust deeds and other credit
agreements. Examples of these covenants include restrictions on current ratios, dept
ratios, net tangible assets and dividends. Debt equity ratios may not affect the choice of
accounting techniques for those companies which are not close debt-equity limits
outlined in the restrictive covenants. Also, the extent of the fluctuations in income from
period to period under the completed contract method depends on the number and the
size of contracts the company is involved with. For example, even if the level of
activity of the firm has been constant, if a not many large contracts are completed in a
period and none in the next, wide fluctuations in reported income can result (Trotman,
24
1984). However, according to Larson (2004), if a contract has numerous contracts
which are continually being completed, periodic income will be approximately the
same under both methods. It was argued that an accounting method which increased the
volatility of reported income may put a company into technical default under its loan
agreement and therefore it was hypothesised that companies with high debt – equity
ratios would prefer the percentage of completion method. However a statistically
significant relationship exceeds between gearing and choice of accounting method.
2.4 International Accounting Standards 11
IAS and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) combines a group of
accounting principles and methods, which are admissions, definitions, rules and bases
of valuation, that defines a framework of financial statements tat are addressed mainly
to external users (Alamanos, 2002). Compliance towards IAS’s is a very serious
procedure since accountancy is the movement force for the orthological development of
enterprises and finance.
There are some serious reasons that is in favor of IAS’s edition and enforce their
applying in a global level. These reasons are more of strategically and financial nature
than accountancy (Georgiou, 2003).
This standard aims at specifying income and expense accounting for construction
contracts, for cases in which contractual activity starts and ends at different accounting
periods. This Accounting Standard (IAS) is applied for the recording of construction
contracts accounts in the financial balance sheets of construction companies.
Construction contracts, according to IAS 11, include:
(a) the construction of an isolated or numerous asset items;
(b) the provision of services for the construction of an asset item and,
(c) the demolition or restoration of an asset item (IASB, 2004).
2.4.1 Contract Revenue and Contract Cost
25
Contract revenue includes: (a) the initial amount of the contract, and (b) contract
amendments, as long as the income to be acquired can be reliably calculated.
Contractual cost includes: (a) direct and indirect contractual costs and, (b) any other
costs that are borne by the client (Kavadias, 2002).
2.4.2 Fix-price contract and Cost-plus price contracts
According to Whittington (2005), in a fix-price contract, the following should be
safeguarded so that the calculation of the financial result may be reliable:
(a) contractual income can be reliably estimated,
(b) financial benefits derived from the contract flow into the enterprise and,
(c) c) contractual cost and completion stage can be reliably estimated.
In a cost-plus price contract, results may be reliably estimated, when:
(a) contractual financial benefits flow into the company, and,
(b) contractual cost derived from the contract may be clearly determined.
Both in cases of fixed-price contracts and cost-plus price contracts, the enterprise has
the possibility of making reliable estimations, only when the contract refers to the rights
the contracting parties have vis-à-vis the asset item that is to be constructed, to the price
the client is paying the construction company as well as to the manner of payment of
this price (CEC, 2004).
2.4.3 Recognition of contract revenues and expenses
The handling of revenues and expenses depends on the final outcome: whether this
brings about profit or loss or whether it may be reliably calculated. When the contract is
expected to be profitable, its revenue and expenses are recognized as financial year
results, depending on the stage of the contract completed. However, in the opposite
case, the loss to arise is to be fully recognized in the results of the financial year within
which the project was considered damage-feasant (IASB, 2004).
26
If the outcome of a construct contract cannot be reliably estimated, then:
(a) revenue should be recognized only to the extent the contractual cost undertaken is
expected not to be retrieved, and
(b) the contractual cost not expected to be retrieved is recognized as an expense.
When uncertainties concerning the result of the contract vanish, then:
(a) if the contract is considered to be profitable, revenues and expenses will be
recognized according to the Percentage of Completion Method, while
(b) if the contract is considered to be damage-feasant, this will be recognized in the
financial year results (Protopsaltis & Vroustouris, 2002).
2.4.4 Percentage of Completion Method
Recognizing revenues and expenses according to the completion stage is a technique
known as the Percentage of Completion Method. According to this method, contract
revenue is recognized in the financial year results in relation to the contract expenses
realized so that the specific percentage of completion might be achieved. If there is
uncertainty concerning the collection of an amount which is included in the contract
revenue and which has been recognized in the results, then this amount will be
recognized as an expense and not as a reduction of the contract revenue (Grant
Thornton).
2.4.5 Disclosure
According to Georgiou (2003), the company is obliged to publicise:
(a) the amount of contract revenue that was accounted for under income
(b) the method used to determine contract revenue
(c) the method used to determine contract completion stage
(d) the amount of advance payments collected
(e) the amount of advance payments not-collected
(f) the gross amount owed to clients
(g) the gross amount owed by clients
27
(h) any other claim or liability.
Paragraph 24 of IAS 11 recognizes that the percentage of completion method has the
risk in making estimates. Paragraph 43 provides restrictions intended to overcome this
problem. On the other hand, paragraph 28 states that the disadvantage of competed
contract method is that reported income does not reveal the level of activity on
contracts during the period. However, the standard does not set rules on additional
information which should be disclosed in order to eliminate the stated disadvantage
(Trotman, 1982).
IAS 11 does not solve the problem of lack of comparability between companies in the
same industry. APB Statement No 417 states that achieving comparability between
enterprises depends on accomplishing two difficult tasks: (a) identifying and describing
the circumstances that justify o require the use of a particular accounting practice or
method and (b) eliminating the use of alternative practices under these circumstances;
IAS 11 has achieved the first task but failed in the second (CEC, 2003).
2.5 Greece
Books and Records Code (BRS) Presidential Degree 186/1992 adopts the percentage of
completed method, because in the article 12 paragraph 15 defines that in the case of
public technical work buildings performance, the invoice is published within one month
from the temporary measurement and in the same taxation period that the measurement
occurred and as is referred in paragraph 12.5.2 circular of the Books and Records Code
(No 3/1992) when the project continues after the end of the accounting period, only the
part of the project that has been completed during the period is pricing (Sakellis, 2003).
2.5.1 Evaluation of two methods
These two methods differ in measurement and presentation: (a) of the results of the
construction projects and (b) the works under construction (final inventor)
period during the construction period.
28
of each
Completed contract method is considered more objective and conservative, since the
results are recognized only after the completion of the project, and so revenues and
costs are definitely. According this method, presents the basic weakness of the
unsuccessful measurement of the revenues and the results during the construction
period, since the entitle results are attributing to the period in which the project was
completed, although the most valued part of it has been completed in previous periods.
Subsequently this method forces the basic accounting standard of matching principle
(IASC, 1998).
The percentage of completed method is based on the correct principle that the real
result belongs proportion to the uses that the project took place, which means that the
interim uses of the construction period and the matching principle is successfully
applied. The weakness of the method is specified to the uncertainty that is combined
with the estimate of the works that was done and the total cost of the project. So it is
possible that during the construction period profits to be calculated and disturbed while
on with the completion of the project, these profits could be proven fake, because of
exceeding on the construction cost (Alamanos, 2000).
It is acceptable that in the case where there is a dependable estimation of the cost which
is required for the completion of a long – term contract and the percentage of the
projects were completed the percentage of completed method should be applied. But in
the cases that there is a lack of dependable estimates or forecasts are doubtful the
completed method is preferable. In any case the company must disclose the method that
used (IASC, 1998).
According to opinion No 257/1995 ESYL long – term contracts should be recording
either using the percentage of completed method or the completed method. The
recording method that is usually used is the recording of revenue based on the
invoicing, which are following the corresponding certifies. Cost is registrant on the use
that is occurred while any future losses are not recognized.
29
When a result of a contract can’t be reliable estimate then: (a) the revenue is registries
only to the extent that the actual conventional cost is possible to be recovered, (b) the
conventional cost is weighting on the outcomes of the use that has happened.
Cases where the conventional cost isn’t possible to be recovered and must weight on
the results of the use are: (a) contracts of which their validity are seriously doubtful,
(b)Contracts that the completion depends on the outcome of the tendency or imminent
legislative regulation, (c) contracts that concern properties that are going to be alienated
or seizures (d) contracts where the client fails to face his obligations and (e) contracts
where the constructor has difficulties to complete the contract or face his obligations.
(TCG, 2005)
When the uncertainties that was obstructing the reliably estimation of the contract result
stop to exist, the revenues and the expenses are posting to the result and again,
according to the completion period of the contract.
In case where there is the probability that the total conventional cost will overcome the
total conventional revenue, the expected loss, goes directly on the results of the use.
The amount of this loss is defined, independently whether the project has started,
independently from the completion stage of the conventional activity and independently
of the profit amount that is accepted to earn from other contracts (Sakellis, 2002).
2.6 A Comparison
As explained in the ASB's FRED 28, issued in May 2002, the corresponding
international rules of SSAP 9 are divided into IAS 2 “Inventories”, IAS 11
“Construction Contracts” and IAS 18 “Revenue”. Furthermore, FRED 28 contains
IASB's proposals for amending IAS 2. What is more, IASB has also made indications
that it intends to review both IAS 2 and IAS 11 as part of its short-term US/IAS
convergence project (Roques, 1982).
According to IAS 11, when a contract constitute a “part of a package”, it needs to be
considered in combination with the other parts. Conversely, if each contract relates to
30
separate activities, and corresponding costs and income can be clearly distinguished, it
should be considered separately for accounting. The rules of UK GAAP are quite
similar; requires that contract specifics should be accounted separately only in the case
where individual components have distinct operations and fair values can be reliably
assigned to each individual activity.
PCM is used for revenue and expenses recognition by both IAS 11 and SSAP 9.
According to IAS 11, completion may be assessed on the basis involve (a)
consideration of costs related to work already performed, (b) surveys of work
performed or (c) the conclusion of the physical part of the contract work. UK
accounting standards involves consideration of similar parameters, but it specifically
allows revenue determination by reference to costs incurred to be practiced only when
these are pertinent to actual contract' performance.
IAS 11 recommends using the PCM when it is possible to compile reliable estimates of
the final results. On the other hand, SSAP 9 guidelines focus more on conservative
estimates and acknowledge “prudently calculated attributable profit” when contract
results are a plausible assessment of the outcome. In the absence of, or inability to
produce, trustworthy estimates, both IAS 11 and SSAP 9 apply the “zero profit
method”, according to which revenue is acknowledged only by reference to incurred
costs that are deemed as recoverable. The accounting method applied to loss-making a
contract is similar under IAS 11 and SSAP 9.
The arrangement of the relevant amounts in the balance sheet differs. According to IAS
11, an asset is defined as the gross amount expected from clients for contract work. The
amount recognised as an asset by SSAP 9 is determined net of payments on account
and subdivided between debtors and stocks (Gemmell & Broad, 1982).
As for UK rules for recognition of revenue on “long-term contracts” in progress, these
comply with IAS; however, IAS provides more detailed guidance on contract types and
revenue measurement. There are two main differences between SSAP 9 and IAS in
regard to the measurement of “long-term contract balances” and these are presented
below: Firstly, SSAP 9 stresses prudence when profit is calculated, whereas IAS
31
highlights reliability. Secondly, in some cases, IAS demands that contracts should be
combined or segmented. Under certain circumstances, IAS requires application of the
standard to individual parts of a single contract that constitute distinct parts of the
activity (fragmentation), or collectively to a group of contracts that are not
distinguishable enough to reflect the substance of work when considered separately.
UK GAAP and IAS detail different requirements where presentation and disclosure are
concerned. IAS demands that amounts received from customer prior to the performance
of related work should be recognized as a separate liability, but makes no requirements
concerning balance sheet analysis of the remaining amount. On the other hand, IAS
demands that what should be presented as a single asset or liability is the gross amount
due to/from customers for contract work, which is calculated as total revenue receivable
plus any costs, net of progress payments incurred in respect of revenue not taken yet
(Pereira, 1992).
In the UK, amounts recoverable on contracts, “payments on account, long-term contract
balances and foreseeable losses” have to be separately disclosed. According to
judgment No 257/1995 reached by the National Accounting Board, , the PCM or CCM
should be used for construction contract accounting. The main difference concerns the
issue of foreseeable losses. According to Greek laws, any foreseeable losses are not
acknowledged. Instead, these should bear directly on the results.
IFRS is implemented in cases of “fixed – price and cost – plus construction contracts”
of contractors for the definition of a single or multiple assets. US GAAP guidelines
address the perspective of the contractor rather than the contract's, unlike IFRS. Its
scope is wider and applies not only to construction contracts, but also to unit-price and
time-and-materials contracts.
IAS 11 and SOP 81-1 differs concerning their respective requirements for revenue
recognition, is an issue that could be resolved ahead of their major joint project on
revenue definition. For instance, in cases where percentage of completion is nondefinable, IAS 11 recommends use of the cost-recovery method, whereas US GAAP
requires application of the CCM. In that respect, the more explicit guidelines of SOP
32
81-1 for combination or fragmentation of contracts could be incorporated into IAS 11
(Wright, 2004). The IFRS
stated that, since its initial considerations of the
prerequisites for application of combination/fragmentation, it has improved its
perception of the IAS 11 provisions for recognition of a percentage of estimated
revenue and costs, rather than of a percentage of estimated gross profit under US
GAAP (paragraphs 19-40).
Under IAS 11, when a reliable estimation of a contract outcome is possible, revenue
and costs are to be recognised in the balance sheet by reference to the contract
completion stage. If total contract costs are foreseen to exceed that contract revenue,
then immediate recognition of expected loss must follow.
US GAAP permits two different approaches: (a) The revenue-cost approach uses a
factor, equivalent to the estimated percentage of completion, by which estimated total
revenues are multiplied to define total income for that period, and estimated total costs
are multiplied to define corresponding period costs (b) the gross-profit approach uses
the same factor described above to multiply estimated gross profit, in order to define
gross profit for the reporting period. Regardless of the accounting method used, losses
are accepted as such ,either when incurred , or when estimated contract costs are
forecast to exceed total revenue (Chayi & Momot, 2002).
33
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN
34
3.1 Aims of this study
The analysis on construction sector data has been performed by applying the
methodology of corporate financing ratios for the period 2000-2004. . There are two
samples selected so that they reflect the difference between companies listed in Athens
Stock Market (sample one) and companies not listed (second sample), while both of
samples are major companies in the construction sector, due to the projects awarded to
them and their capital structure. These companies attain the degree of 5th, 6th and 7th in
constructional classification. Also, they are the biggest in the Greek market and, as seen
in Table 3.1, they cover 69.51 per cent of the sector’s turnover.
Α/Α
COMPANIES
TURNOVER
1
AKTROR S.A
5.00%
2
J & P ABAX S.A
4.92%
3
TERNA S.A
4.74%
4
MOCHLOS S.A
4.64%
5
PANTECHNIKI S.A
4.12%
6
ATHINA AETB & TE
3.96%
7
EBEDOS S.A
3.14%
8
ALTE S.A
2.87%
9
THEMELODOMI S.A
2.08%
10
AEGEK S.A
1.78%
11
ATTI -KAT S.A
1.70%
12
METKA S.A
1.67%
35
13
MICHANIKI S.A
1.60%
14
BIOTER S.A
1.46%
15
EUKLIDIS S.A
1.40%
16
IONIOS S.A
1.34%
17
EDRASI - PSALLIDAS S.A
1.32%
18
INTRAKAT S.A
1.30%
19
KARAGIANNIS TH. S.A
1.28%
20
ERGAS S.A
1.21%
21
EKTER S.A
1.19%
22
GENER AN. GEN. ERGOLIPTIKI
1.03%
23
ANASTILOTIKI S.A
0.98%
24
ATHONIKI S.A
0.96%
25
DOMIKI S.A
0.90%
26
DIEKAT S.A
0.86%
27
PROODEUTIKI S.A
0.84%
28
ERETBO S.A
0.81%
29
TECHNERGA - TSABRAS S.A
0.76%
30
GANTZOULAS S.A
0.71%
31
FINOBETON S.A
0.69%
32
ELTER S.A
0.64%
33
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION S.A
0.61%
34
ROKA S.A
0.60%
35
PRECONSTRUCTA S.A
0.59%
36
ROXOTIS S.A
0.57%
37
ERGO S.A
0.56%
38
ERGOTEM S.A
0.54%
39
MELKA CONSTRUCTION S.A
0.51%
40
ALKI S.A
0.48%
41
FILLIPOS S.A
0.44%
42
ETEO S.A
0.40%
43
GREEK CONSTRUCTION S.A
0.39%
44
EKME S.A
0.35%
45
ELEKTROMEK S.A
0.32%
46
KIROMITI S.A
0.30%
47
AIAS S.A
0.26%
48
K. KAPARAKIS - DIEDROS S.A
0.24%
49
ALTEK S.A
0.23%
50
BITROS CONSTRUCTION S.A
0.22%
36
69.51%
Table 3.1: The Turnover for Construction Companies that consist our sample)
(Source: Athens Stock Exchange)
The basic economic parameters the financial analysis will focus on concern turnover,
net fixed asset value, total assets, equity capital, total liabilities of companies studied as
well as profitability. Six of the most important groups of financial ratios were used for
the attribution on the sector’s tendencies. (a) Evolution ratios, (b) Profitability ratios,
(c) Activity ratios, (d) Leverage ratios, (e) Liquidity ratios and (f) Efficiency ratios. Our
main goal was to present the development of constructional companies after 2002,
because of the 3rd Community Support Framework (CSF) started in 2001 and the
Olympic Games.
3.2 Ratios
Ratios selected for this study have been found to be significant predictors of
construction companies in previous empirical research. Among these: Kallunki et all,
(1996), Giannaros (1997), Cudd & Duggal (2000) and Singh & Raymond (2002) and
are classified into six categories:
Profitability ratios measured by (a) gross margin ratio (b) operating margin ratio and (c)
pre-tax earning. Efficiency ratios measured by (a) return on equity and (b) return on
assets. Liquidity ratios measured by (a) current and (b) acid ratio. Activity ratios
measured by (a) receivable turnover ratio, (b) suppliers turnover ratio and (c) inventory
turnover ratio. Evolution ratios measured by (a) turnover ratio, (b) pre-tax profit and (c)
real properties Leverage ratios measured by (a) bank loans/owned capital and (b)
debt/owned equity (Walsh, 1996).
Profitability ratios pprovides an indication on the sales-purchases policy implemented
by the company and it is one of the most important measures to evaluate the efficacy of
company management. Efficiency ratios show as how efficiency companies use its
assets to produce profit and the extent of a company’s success when compared to its
ability to offer adequate performance levels to the partners comprising it or its shareholders (Westwick, 1973)
37
A company’s liquidity reflects the company’s ability to respond to its short-term
liabilities, i.e. whether it pays back in time all short-term creditors for its activities. It
also determines how far the company is in a position to pay off interest on its loans,
dividends to its shareholders, taxes to the state and respond to any unforeseen expenses.
The disadvantage of this ratio is that it does not discern between various types of
current assets, some of which are more easily liquidated than others.
Activity ratios measure the number of days that company claims remain uncollected
over clients and informs us on the policy of credit given by the company and the
number of days short-term liabilities remain unpaid by the company to its suppliers and
informs us on the policy of credit followed. Leverage ratios reflect the ability of the
company to respond to its long-term liabilities and provide high level security to its
creditors. These ratios are affected by developments in the economy sector as well as
the objectives of each company (Lavand & Albant, 1971).
Activity ratios show the intensity with which the firm uses assets in generating sales.
These ratios indicate whether the firm’s investment in current and long-term assets is
too large, too small, or just right. If too large, funds may be tied up in assets that could
be used more productively. If too small, the firm may be providing poor service to
customers or inefficiently producing products (Westwick, 1973).
An important assumption underlying the use of ratios as a control for size differences is
strict proportionality between the numerator and the denominator. This strict
proportionality.
3.3 Data Collection
The description and detailed analysis of the financial state of Greek construction
companies below is based on data from balance sheets and operating results published
and available for processing.
38
Data was drawn from ASE, books, magazines, articles, speeches or even telephone
calls. No questionnaire was used as the nature of investigation did not require it.
Financial statements can be found to the web-site of the company and in many
statistical magazines. The basic criterion for selecting the first sample was Athens
Stock Exchange, since companies listed are classified on the basis of their turnover.
The basic criterion for selecting the second sample was the turnover of non-listed
companies and their representation in the class of construction projects. All companies
prepared their financial statements accordance with Greek GAS.
To obtain a largely homogenous sample, companies were selected based on the
following criteria:
(a) Companies that were not expanded via acquisition changing their activities.
(b) Companies that attained the degree of 5th, 6th and 7th in constructional
classification.
(c) Companies that were considered to be leaders in the specific sector with
prospects of further development
3.4 Methodology
The traditional ratio analysis was used to examine the construction sector in Greece. In
order to safeguard a typical picture of financial scale development, 4 financial years
have been selected to be included in the analysis of accounting sheets; they concern the
four-year period between 2000 and 2004. This period was selected for 3 reasons: (a) the
3rd CSF started in 2001; (b) during that period the construction sector depended heavily
on public works, and (c) due to the preparations leading up to the Olympic Games.
These financial data comprise necessary material for drawing conclusions on the policy
implemented by companies and the companies’ financial structure.
For the ratios to be more meaningful the companies should compare its results with
another of the same level of technology as this will be a good basis measurement of
efficiency. For that, this dissertation classified all the sampled companies into two
groups: the listed and the non-listed construction companies in the ASE. Financial
figures will be transformed into ratios and a comparative analysis will be performed.
39
The basic economic parameters the financial analysis will focus on concern turnover,
net fixed asset value, total assets, equity capital, total liabilities of companies studied as
well as profitability. The evaluation of the financial parameters concerning these two
samples is then presented in the form of ratios, which reflect the effectiveness of
entrepreneurial decisions made and provide us with useful information about Greek
construction companies.
For each company of our sample, 15 specific financial ratios were calculated for the
period 2000-2004, which cover the financial profitability ratios, the financial liquidity
ratios, the financial activity ratios, the financial evolution ratios, the financial leverage
ratios and the financial efficiency ratios. Moreover, for each group we calculated the
average of each ratio for the period 2000-2004, in order to exam and compare our
results.
3.3 Information on the field
General Information – Basic Features
The importance of the construction industry for the Greek economy is indisputable. The
high growth rate it has enjoyed in recent years is higher than that of any other sector of
the Greek economy. This role is further enhanced due to the undertaking of projects for
the 2004 Olympics. One need only mention that in the 1995-2004 period, the
construction industry represented 6.34% of the gross national product (see Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1
40
Furthermore, there have also been various changes in the sector of technical enterprises
due to public works and amendments effected in tendering procedures.(TCG, 2005). To
be more specific, the listing of major technical companies in Athens Stock Market, the
drawing of significant monetary funds and the grand scale public and private works
undertaken due to the Olympics gave construction companies a leading role in the
Greek market. In fact, during the 1986-1993 period in Greece, 7 integrated
Mediterranean programmes, amounting to a total budget of 2.1 billion ECU, were
completed. The 1st Community Support Framework (CSF) was implemented in the
1989-1993 period. Community funding continued with the 2nd CSF, which was
completed in the 1994-1999 period. Its implementation presented certain problems due
to weaknesses in management and CSF implementation mechanisms and the high
volume of projects. This led to the loss of 1 billion euro from community funds.
(AICPA, 1998)
In 2001, due to high demands for timely and sound completion of Olympic construction
projects and the 3rd CSF, which had already started, Law No 2940/2001 was passed,
which led to the restructuring of the construction industry via mergers, take-overs and
strategic alliances. (TCG, 2005)
41
Under the previous institutional framework, construction companies were classified
according to their A' to Z' contracting degree, while the H' class degree was legislated
in 1995 as general degree for all projects kind. Companies listed in the Athens
Exchange hold both H' and Z' class degrees and Law 290/2001 referring to
“Development, tax and institutional motives for construction companies and other
provisions” allows for corporation enlistment in 7 categories of the Greek Registry of
Contractors.
However under present legislation, ranking of contractors to the 7th class degree
requires the following:
(a) Registration in at least 4 out of the 7 project categories (vehicular projects,
construction projects, hydraulic projects, electromechanical projects, harbour projects,
industrial and energy projects),
(b) Solvency ratios > 1 (that is Equity / Total Liabilities > 1 and Current Assets / Shortterm liabilities > 1),
(c) Equity capital of the ending fiscal year exceeding Euro 88 million,
(d) Net turnover (accumulated) for the fiscal year 1998 - 2000 exceeding Euro 176
million (including turnover of joint ventures) and,
(e) Fixed assets more than Euro 17, 6 million taking under consideration the last year
financial statements. new legislation creates tax relief motives associated with joint
ventures as well as motives for further development related to investment and
equipment subsidies. (TCG, 2005)
3.6 Ratios Analysis
There are basically two uses of financial ratio analysis: to track individual firm
performance over time, and to make comparative judgments regarding firm
performance. Firm performance is evaluated using trend analysis—calculating
individual ratios on a per-period basis, and tracking their values over time. This
analysis can be used to spot trends that may be cause for concern, such as an increasing
average collection period for outstanding receivables or a decline in the firm's liquidity
status. In this role, ratios serve as red flags for troublesome issues, or as benchmarks for
performance measurement (Gallizo, 2002).
42
Another common usage of ratios is to make relative performance comparisons. For
example, comparing a firm's profitability to that of a major competitor or observing
how the firm stacks up versus industry averages enables the user to form judgments
concerning key areas such as profitability or management effectiveness. Users of
financial ratios include parties both internal and external to the firm. External users
include security analysts, current and potential investors, creditors, competitors, and
other industry observers. Internally, managers use ratio analysis to monitor
performance and pinpoint strengths and weaknesses from which specific goals,
objectives, and policy initiatives may be formed. (Singh & Schmidgall, 2002)
3.6.1 Profitability Ratios
Usually, the types of ratios most often used and considered by those outside a company
are the profitability ratios. One of the most widely-used financial ratios is the net profit
margin (NPM), also known as return on sales (ROS). For the evaluation of profitability
for the sector’s enterprises one uses the indicators gross, operating and pre-tax profits.
According to Helfert (1994), these ratios express the percentage of gross, operating and
pre-tax profits in the whole turnover of each enterprise. Return on sales provides a
measure of bottom-line profitability, gross margin measures the direct production costs
of the firm, and operating margin goes one step further by incorporating other than
production related costs such as selling, general, and administrative expenses of the
firm. Operating profit is also commonly referred to as earnings before interest and
taxes, or EBIT.
The registered construction companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and 5th
degree), presented average gross margin13.69 per cent during the period 2000-2004,
while, for all the companies consisting our sample, the corresponding margin was 15.04
per cent. This means that for each Euro in sales, the companies spend thirteen cents in
direct costs to produce the goods or services that they sell. The average operating
margin was 11.62 per cent for all the companies while for our 50 companies it was
estimated at 12.75 per cent. This indicates that the companies spend an additional
thirteen cents out of every Euro in sales on other than production related expenses, such
43
as sales commissions paid to the companies’ sales force or administrative labor
expenses. The corresponding percentage for the pre-tax earnings was 8.94 per cent and
10.73 per cent respectively; that is to say, that for every Euro in sales, the companies
generated 11 Euros in net income.
The first places according to the profitability (average for the period 2000-2004) were
occupied by the following enterprises:
(a) For the gross margin: TERNA S. A (21.14 per cent), PANTEXNIKI S. A
(20.5 per cent) and THEMELIODOMI S.A (19.03 per cent).
(b) For the operating margin: TERNA S. A (21.14 per cent), PANTEXNIKI S. A
(19.3 per cent) and AKTOR S. A (16.75 per cent).
(c) For the pre-tax earning: PANTEXNIKI S. A (16.39 per cent), AKTOR S. A
(14.33 per cent) and MOCHLOS S. A (11.6 per cent).
Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and
5th degree)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Gross margins
Operating margin
Pre-tax earnings
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.2: The evolution of Profitability ratios for registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange).
The non registered construction companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (6th and 5th
degree), present average gross margin 15.3 per cent during 2000-2004, while the
operating and the pre-tax earnings are 12.98 per cent and 11.15 per cent respectively.
The ranking of companies is as follows:
(a) For the gross margin: INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY S.
A (52.85 per cent), X. ROKAS – ARKADIAS S. A (36. 6 per cent) and ALTEK
S. A (28. 14 per cent).
44
(b) For the operating margin: X. ROKAS – ARKADIAS S. A (38.17 per cent),
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY S. A (38.16 per cent) and
TEXNERGA – TSABRAS S. A (19.13 per cent).
(c) For the pre-tax earnings: X. ROKAS – ARKADIAS S. A (39. 38 per cent),
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY S. A (65.36 per cent) and
TEXNERGA – TSABRAS S. A (17. 88 per cent).
Non Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (6th and
5th degree)
25
20
gross margin
15
operating margin
10
pretax earnings
5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.3: The evolution of Profitability ratios for non-registered construction companies in the Athens
Stock Exchange)
The tendencies of profitability ratios are shown in the a non satisfactory levels for the
companies of our sample. During the last five years they presented small fluctuations
and the biggest of them were during the period 2002 – 2003. Specifically, the gross
profit margin ratio has been decreased. During the years 2002 and 2003, it represented
an average reduction of 0. 46 per cent and 3. 47 per cent respectively. The net profit
margin ratio has been reduced to 8.36 per cent and then increased again in 2003 at 4. 14
per cent. These results show that the reduction of ratios is mainly attributed to the
reduction of profit for the enterprises despite the fact that their turnover shows major
increase as we can see in table 3.2.
Year
Percentage of Turnover Fluctuation
1999-2000
+31.42%
45
2000-2001
+13.32%
2001-2002
+36.52%
2002-2003
+22.26%
2003-2004
+2.87%
Table 3.2: The turnover fluctuant for listed and non-listed construction companies
The increase of their turnover peaked in the year 2002. This leads us to the conclusion
that enterprises showed increased running costs, which resulted to the lessening of
profits as well as increased operational costs. Moreover, it shows lack of effectiveness
in the way the product is used as well as the way that the company chooses the price of
the product, mainly during 2002.
The most important reason for such fluctuations is due to turnover developments of the
construction companies selected; turnover presents great fluctuations and the reasons
according to Giannaros (1997) were: (a) price policy followed by the construction
companies involved in the sector of construction projects; (b) competition conditions
prevailing in the market, and c) very high discounts, which may sometimes exceed
margin profits.
3.6.2 Ratios of Efficiency
The efficiency of companies measured by the efficiency ratios, which are the return on
equity (ROE) and the return on assets (ROA). The efficiency of the return on equity
ratio is expressed as the percentage of the pre-taxes profits in the return on equity, and
measures the net return per Euro invested in the company by the owners, the common
shareholders while the efficiency of the return on assets impresses the return on capital
of enterprise that have different origin. The return on assets measures how effectively
the company’s assets are used to generate profits net of expenses. The long term
obligations and forecast are calculated as the percentage of the pre-tax profits in the
total return on equity, the long – term obligations and forecasts (Walsh, 2000).
46
One should note that, in each of the efficiency ratios mentioned above, the numerator in
the ratio comes from the firm's income statement. Hence, these are measures of periodic
performance, covering the specific period reported in the company’s income statement.
During the five-year period between 2000 and 2004 the average efficiency of the
registered in the Athens Stock Exchange construction companies (7th, 6th and 5th
degree) was 9. 39 per cent for the return on equity. This means that the companies
generating net worth of 9 cents per Euro of net worth and 6. 21 per cent for the return
on assets that means that for each Euro in assets, the firm generate six cents in profit.
The corresponding percentages for the 50 companies of our sample were estimated at
10. 33 per cent and 6. 78 per cent respectively.
The ranking according to the return on equity and return on assets, during the examined
period was the following: (a) ΑΚΤΟΡ ΑΤΕ ( 27.77 per cent and 16.95 per cent
respectively), (b) ΤΕΡΝΑ Α.Ε ( 20.58 per cent and 12.35 per cent respectively) and (c)
J & B ABAX A. E ( 21.53 per cent and 21.01 per cent respectively).
Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and 5th
degree)
14
12
10
8
return on equity
return on assets
6
4
2
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.4: The evolution of Efficiency ratios for registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
For the non registered in the Athens Stock Market construction companies (6th and 5th
degree) the return on equity was estimated at 17.1 per cent and the return on assets at
8.11 per cent. The ranking based on the efficiency was: (a) CONSTRUCTION
47
COMPANY S. A (55. 96 per cent and 26.39 per cent respectively), (b) ELECTROMEC
S. A (47.69 per cent and 17.53 per cent respectively) and (c) ALKI S. A (37. 8 per cent
and 24. 24 per cent respectively).
Non Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (6th
and 5th degree)
30
25
20
return on equity
return on assets
15
10
5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.5: The evolution of Efficiency ratios for non-registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
As we can see in table 3.3, the ratios presented fluctuations in the 2000-2004 period,
due to the course of the net profit acquired in the year 2004. and due to the case that
construction companies don’t use efficiently its assets.
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Return on Equity
15.84%
12.76%
10.23%
12.56%
10.33%
Return on Asset
10.58%
10.68%
6.28%
7.24%
6.78%
Table 3.3: The average efficiency ratios for listed and non-listed construction companies
3.6.3 Liquidity Ratios
The liquidity of enterprises is evaluated by the use of current and acid ratios. The
current and quick ratios are used to gauge a firm's liquidity. The high liquidity does not
constitute purely positive clue since, potentially, it reflects bad distribution of capital or
less favorable terms of transaction with the suppliers or the creditors.
48
The average current liquidity for the registered in the Athens Stock Exchange
construction companies (7th, 6th and 5th) for the period 2000 – 2004 estimated to be 21.6
per cent. This indicates that for every Euro in current liabilities, the firm has 2 euro in
current assets. Such assets could, theoretically, be sold and the proceeds used to satisfy
the liabilities if the firm ran short of cash However, some current assets are more liquid
than others with the most liquid current asset is cash (Westwick, 1993). Accounts
receivable are usually collected within one to three months, but this varies by firm and
industry. The least liquid of current assets is often inventory. Depending on the type of
industry or product, some inventory has no ready market. Since the economic definition
of liquidity is the ability to turn an asset into cash at or near fair market value, inventory
that is not easily sold will not be helpful in meeting short-term obligations. The quick
(or acid test) ratio incorporates this concern; and for the acid in 1. 69 per cent by
excluding inventories, the quick ratio is a more strident liquidity measure than the
current ratio. It is a more appropriate measure for industries that involve long product
production cycles, such as in manufacturing (Lavand & Albant, 1971).
.For the same period the corresponding ratios for the 50 companies of our sample were
around 2. 24 per cent and 1. 81 per cent respectively.
The ranking of the companies, according to the liquidity (average of a 5-year period)
was as follows:
(a) For the current liquidity: (α) MECHANICS S.A (5.79 per cent),
PROODEUTIKH S. A (3.58 per cent) and (b) THEMELIODOMI S. A (2. 49
per cent)
(b) For the acid liquidity: (a) MECHANICS S. A (4.87 per cent), ERGAS S. A
(2.28 per cent) and (b) THEMELIODOMI S. A (2. 08 per cent).
49
Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and 5th
degree)
3
2,5
2
current liquidity
1,5
acid liquidity
1
0,5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.6: The evolution of liquidity ratios for registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
The average acid liquidity for the non registered in the ASE construction companies (6th
and 5th degree), was shaped at 2.32 per cent and 1.93 per cent respectively. The
companies with the biggest current liquidity were: (a) MELKA CONSTRUCTION &
COMMERCIAL S. A (5.32 per cent), (b) ERGO S. A (4.33 per cent) and (c) EKME S.
A (3.78 per cent). The companies with the biggest acid liquidity were: (a) MELKA
CONSTRUCTION & COMMERCIAL S. A (5.02 per cent), (b) ERGO S. A (4. 05 per
cent) and (c) EKME S. A (3. 33 per cent).
Non Registered Companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange (6th and 5th degree)
3
2,5
2
current liquidity
1,5
acid liquidity
1
0,5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.7: The evolution of liquidity ratios for non-registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
50
Liquidity appears to have decreased. The current as well as the acid liquidity have both
decreased. The small reduction in particular ratios was not caused due to the reduction
of circulating assets of the enterprises under examination but due to the increased shortterm liabilities. The biggest reduction was presented in the year 2002 due to high
increase of short-term liabilities. . It also determines how far the company is in a
position to pay off interest on its loans, dividends to its shareholders, taxes to the state
and respond to any unforeseen expenses (Rushinek, 1992). Finally, construction
companies give its creditors the security that the company can continue operating and
thus, safeguard company funding by said creditors, which means that the company does
not need to try and find short-term capital either from banks or from contributions by
share-holders.
Financial Data
Years
Cash
reverses
Short-term
liabilities
Fluc.
2002
Fluc.
2001
2.149.989
3.278.994
-20.87%
2.594.500
+76,41%
4.576.973
-19.5%
3.682.629
28.799.344
35.242.274
+91.47%
67.479.765
+8.69%
73.346.461
+10.69%
81.188.217
02/01
03/02
2003
Fluc.
2000
04/03
Table 3.4: Financial data for listed and not listed construction companies
At the same time, it is worth mentioning that despite the increase of enterprises’
turnover, cash availability appears to have reduced. This reduction has contributed to
the reduction of fluidity, particularly the direct one that is based on the immediate
liquid assets of the company. However, companies according to the sector that they
belong maintained a satisfactory level of piqued assets. There is no accumulation of
cash or reserves without certain reasonable explanation given that these resources could
be used elsewhere and yield further profits for the enterprises. Furthermore there were
sufficient circulating assets and facilities to pay back for the increased short-term
liabilities (Singh & Schmiggall, 2002).
51
2004
3.6.4 Activity Ratios
The analysis of activity is measured by the account turnover ratio, the account suppliers
ratio, and the inventory turnover. Inventory is an important economic variable for
management to monitor since euros invested in inventory have not yet resulted in any
return to the firm. Inventory is an investment, and it is important for the firm to strive to
maximise its inventory turnover. The inventory turnover ratio is used to measure this
aspect of performance. Assets turnover ratios indicate how efficiently the company
utilises its assets. These sometimes are referred to as utilization ratios or assets
management ratios (Giannaros, 1997).
An increase in them would be an indication that companies are using assets more
productively. The account suppliers’ ratio provides an indication of how quickly the
company collects its account receivable. The average account, suppliers and inventory
turnover for the registered in the Athens Stock Market construction companies (7th, 6th
and 5th degree), were shaped at 144, 60 and 61 days respectively. The corresponding
ratios for the 50 companies of our sample were lower (55 and 60 days respectively).
The companies with the biggest average account turnover for the period we examine
were: (a) MICHANIKI S. A Ε (471 days), (b) GENER GEN ΑΝ. ERGOLIPTIKI S. A
(391 days) and (c) AEGEK S. A (371 days). According to the account suppliers’ ratio
the results were: (a) GENER GEN. ΑΝ. ERGOLIPTIKI S. A (168 days), (b)
THEMELIODOMI S. A (119 days) and (c) J&B AVAX (115 days). As for the
inventory turnover, the companies were positioned as follows: (a) GENER GEN ΑΝ.
ERGOLIPTIKI S. A (246 days), (b) EDRASI – CH. PSALIDAS S. A (128 days) and
(c) MICHANIKI S. A (112 days).
52
Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and 5th
degree)
250
200
account turnover ratio
150
account suppliers turnover
100
inventory turnover
50
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.8: The evolution of Activity ratios for registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
The non registered in the Athens Stock Market construction companies 6th and 5th
degree for the five year period between 2000 and 2004, showed and average account
turnover of 84 days, an average account suppliers ratio of 36 days and an inventory
turnover of 60 days.
The position of the top 3 companies according to the activity ratios is:
(a) For the account turnover: BITROS CONSTRUCTION S. A (390 days),
METALOBIOMIXANIA ARKADIAS CH. ROKAS S. A (267 days) and
PRECONSTRUCTA S. A (207 days).
(b) For the account suppliers: BITROS CONSTRUCTION S. A (85 days), ΕΤΕΟ
S. A (57 days) and ERGOTEM S. A (53 days).
(c) For the inventory turnover: BITROS CONSTRUCTION S. A (184 days),
ALTEK S. A (182 days) and PRECONSTRUCTA S. A (117 days).
53
Non Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (6th and 5th
degree)
100
90
80
70
account turnover ratio
60
account suppliers turnover
50
inventory turnover
40
30
20
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.9: The evolution of Activity ratios for non-registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
It is clear that the companies of our sample have a big average duration of expectancy
on claims that is increases by the year, while the biggest increase was observed in 2004
as we can see in table 3.5
Table 3.5: Average activity ratios for listed and non-listed construction companies
Year
Account receivable
turnover
Account suppliers
turnover
Inventory turnover
Average
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
106
121
135
142
185
138
53
54
55
56
53
55
41
53
75
63
72
60
2000-2004
This fact shows that there is an existing moderation in the policy of collecting the
claims of the sector’s company as well as an inability in collecting the claims in
reasonable time. In regard to the settlement of liabilities, the features appear to be
relatively lower and moreover there is a gradual reduction. In comparison to the
equivalent proportion of income and payments, it is shows that a large percentage of
claims is collected in a period of more than 100 days each year where as the respective
proportion of paying the liabilities that occurs within that same time is by far smaller.
54
This way, the companies of our sector do not ensure the collection of claims in order to
finance their urgent operational needs.
According to ICAP (2003), long standing claims are mainly due to the nature of
construction company works, since such companies are active in the sector of public
works, which is characterized by delays in paying off projects. Such delays do not
involve any risk concerning state payments to the companies, but they do play an
important role in the companies’ ability to respond to their short-term liabilities and to
fund their investment schemes.
The inventory ratios express the frequency with which the average inventories are
renewed within the fiscal year. A high rate of the ratio expresses a successful
management as the company is being activated for a relative reservation of capital and
also because the inventories are recent and useful (Walsh, 2000). The companies of our
sample maintain their rate of the ratio in relative low levels. This, however,
progressively increased and the biggest increase was observed in 2002 (75 days on
average); then reduction of the indicator’s price was observed. This increase in 2002 is
attributed to the lack of reserves, in the increasing needs of the constructional sector, in
the weakness of the company’s ability to follow the correct way of planning the order
of reserves, and the materialization of their decisions regarding the reservation of
operational capital. In conclusion, it must be noted that the enterprises do not use
effectively their assets in order to achieve sales, to maintain the cost in low levels and
to have net profits (Eustathiou, 1980).
Increase in the duration of reserves is associated with an increase in turnover, which
demands that companies should commit capital in reserves so that they may meet their
project work obligations. The duration of liabilities indicates that technical companies
negotiate better with their suppliers and are given more favorable terms, at least in
regards to the time aspect of credit (ICAP, 2005).
55
3.6.5 Evolution Ratios
For the estimation of evolution for the sector’s companies, we used the ratios, turnover,
pre-tax profits and real properties. The ratios of evolution indicate the course and the
development of companies during the 5 year period between 2000 and 2004 as well as
the total sum that has been priced by the enterprises during the reported period. All the
above correspond in sales. The ratio of turnover increased in satisfactory levels per year
for the enterprises of our sample and the biggest increase was observed in 2002. In this
year, the companies presented an increase that in many of them exceeded 100%
compared to the turnover they reported in 2001. This increase was caused by the
growth of the constructional sector because of the Olympic Games and the 3rd C.S.I and
represents a quantitative indicator that is derived directly from the quantity of sales.
The registered construction companies in the Athens Stock Market (7th, 6th and 5th
degree), presented average turnover, pre-tax profits and real properties, during the
period 2000 – 2004 of 33.51 per cent, 31.72 per cent and 33.16 per cent respectively,
while for all the companies that consist our sample, the corresponding ratios are 58.56
per cent, 21.47 per cent and 77.01 per cent respectively.
The ranking of companies was as follows:
(a) For the turnover: EDRASH – X. PSALIDAS S. A (35.03), J&B AVAX S. A
(34.94 per cent) and AKTOR S. A (34 9 per cent).
(b) For the pretax profits: EBEDOS S. A (30.64 per cent), BIOTER S. A (30.09
per cent) and TERNA S. A (26.92 per cent).
(c) For the real properties: ALTE S. A (56.18 per cent), ERGAS S. A (50.24 per
cent) and EDRASH – X. PSALIDAS S. A (49.32 per cent).
56
Registered companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and 5th
degree)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
turnover
pre-tax profits
real properties
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.10: The evolution of Evolution ratios for registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
The non registered construction companies in the Athens Stock Market (6th and 5th
degree) presented average turnover, pre-tax profits and real properties, during the
period 2000 – 2004 of 83.61 per cent, 11.22 per cent and 120.86 per cent respectively.
The ranking of companies is as follows:
(a) For the turnover: ALTEK S.A (412.77 per cent), KAPARAKHS – DIEDROS
S. A (403. 45 per cent) and AIAS S. A (326.04 per cent).
(b) For the pre-tax profits: IONIOS S.A (25.59 per cent), ELTER S. A (22 75 per
cent) and PRECONSTRUCTA S. A (14.69 per cent).
(c) For the real properties: INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
S.A (61. 19 per cent), FINOBETON S. A (58. 75 per cent) and ELTER S. A
(57. 26 per cent).
57
The non registered companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (6th and
5th degree)
350
300
250
200
turnover
150
pre-tax profits
100
real properties
50
0
-50
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.11: The evolution of Evolution ratios for non-registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
As seen in figure 3.11, the ratio of turnover, present big increased a lot in 2003, that is
owned in the previous companies.
Observing the ratio of turnover, it is evident that the majority of these companies
present a large increase in sales, mainly in 2002, as a consequence of the lack of
centralization of the sector. This ascending course of turnover was not followed by the
ratio profit pre-taxes. The companies of our sample presented an ascendant course for
the years 2000 and 2001. In 2002, however, when a big increase was noticed in the
sales of enterprises, 58 per cent of companies have reported loss, 28 per cent of
companies have reported small rise in profits, and hardly 20 per cent of companies have
had an important increase of profits pre-taxes that, nevertheless, were not proportional
to the sales’ increase. The latter fact was due to the lack of suitable infrastructure of the
sector’s enterprises and making them unable to face the new challenges of the market as
well as the increased operational costs. Finally, the indicator of corporal constant costs
showed an ascending tendency that reached its peak in 2002 and that revealed the
intense investment activities of companies in fixed equipment.
58
3.6.6 Leverage Ratios
Leverage ratios, also known as capitalisation ratios, provide measures of the firm's use
of debt financing. Two ratios are used extensively by analysts outside the firm to make
decisions concerning the provision of new credit or the extension of existing credit
arrangements. It is also important for management to monitor the firm's use of debt
financing. The commitment to service outstanding debt is a fixed cost to a firm,
resulting in decreased flexibility and higher break-even production rates. Therefore, the
use of debt financing increases the risk associated with the firm. Managers and creditors
must constantly monitor the trade-off between the additional risk that comes with
borrowing money and the increased opportunities that the new capital provides
(Palaskas & Plemmenos, 2006).
It is important to recall that there are only two ways to finance the acquisition of any
asset: debt (using borrowed funds) and equity (using funds from internal operations or
selling stock in the company). The total debt ratio captures this idea. A debt ratio of 35
percent means that, for every Euro of assets the firm has, 35 cents was financed with
borrowed money. The natural corollary is that the other 65 cents came from equity
financing. This is known as the firm's capital structure—35 percent debt and 65 percent
equity. Greater debt means greater leverage, and more leverage means more risk. How
much debt is too much is a highly subjective question, and one that managers
constantly attempt to answer? The answer depends, to a large extent, on the nature of
the business or industry. Large manufacturers, who require heavy investment in fixed
plant and equipment, will require higher levels of debt financing than will service firms
such as insurance or advertising agencies (ICAP, 2005).
The total debt of a firm consists of both long- and short-term liabilities. Short-term (or
current) liabilities are often a necessary part of daily operations and may fluctuate
regularly depending on factors such as seasonal sales. Many creditors prefer to focus
their attention on the firm's use of long-term debt. Thus, a common variation on the
total debt ratio is the long-term debt ratio, which does not incorporate current liabilities
in the numerator (Giannaros, 1997). In a similar vein, many analysts prefer a direct
59
comparison of the firm's capital structure. Such a measure is provided by the debt-toequity ratio.
These ratios are affected by developments in the economy sector as well as the
objectives of each company. This is why we consider it necessary to refer to some
aspects of the construction industry that concern credit developments. In 2003 there
was an increase in construction sector loans that came up to 54.4 per cent. This was due
to Olympic projects in .progress and to the difficulty faced by constructors to draw
funds from Athens Stock Exchange (Palaskas & Plemmenos, 2006).
The registered construction companies in the Athens Stock Market (7th, 6th and 5th
degree), presented average dept equity and total employed equity (debt/owner equity)
during the period 2000 – 2004 of 0,44 and0,06 respectively, while for all the companies
that consist our sample, the corresponding ratios were 1.38 and 1.27 respectively
Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (7th, 6th and 5th
degree)
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
Debt ratio
Debt/equity ratio
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.12: The evolution of Debt ratios for registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
The average dept equity and total employed equity (debt/owner equity) for the non
registered construction companies in the Athens Stock Market (6th and 5th degree) were
2.32 and 1.93 respectively, as shown in figure, they decreased progressively during the
period 2000 -2004.
60
The ranking of companies was as follows: (a) ALTEK S. A (0.85 and 1.72 respectively)
and (b) BITROS CONSTRUCTION S. A (1. 22 and 2. 44 respectively).
Non Registered Companies in the Athens Stock Exchange (6th and 5th
degree)
3
2,5
2
Dept ratio
1,5
Debt/equity
1
0,5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Figure 3.13: The evolution of Debt ratios for non-registered construction companies in the Athens Stock
Exchange)
The ratio of debt reveals a progressive increase during the last five year period as well
as the ratio of lending tax. The capital’s structure of the sector presented a small
improvement mainly in the year 2002, despite the increasing obligations of enterprises.
This ratio reveals an economic independence for the sector’s companies where that is
say the equity funding of companies cover their external financiers. Although the ratio
lending/equity funding remained at a low level, in 2003 a rabid increase was observed.
In general, the sample’s companies did not face problems of solvency and weren’t in
great debt with loans.
61
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS & LIMITATIONS
62
4.1 Conclusion
In the first part of this dissertation we presented and compared the account principles
for construction contracts between UK, US, Greece and also the International
Accounting Standards. The basic differences and similarities noted are mainly related to
recognition of revenue and expenses, to their accounting processing and the methods
used to this effect as well as to the manner in which revenue and expenses appear in the
Balance Sheet.
Construction contracts, according to international as well as UK accounting standards,
are processed on a case by case basis. This is in contrast to US and Greek accounting
standards, which might allow such a practice, but do not consider it necessary.
When the outcome of a contract can be reliably assessed, the percentage of project
completion method is used by IAS and UK accounting standards to recognize
conventional revenue and expenses as these stands on the date the Balance Sheet is
completed. However, when total conventional revenue is higher than total conventional
cost, then the loss foreseen is recognized as an expense. The same method for
recognising conventional revenues and expenses is also preferred by US accounting
standards, which, however, allow for two different approaches:
(a) “revenue cost approach”. approach uses a factor, equivalent to the estimated
percentage of completion, by which estimated total revenues are multiplied to
define total income for that period, and estimated total costs are multiplied to
define corresponding period costs
(b) “gross-profit approach” uses the same factor described above to multiply
estimated gross profit, in order to define gross profit for the reporting period.
Regardless of the accounting method used, losses are accepted as such ,either
when incurred , or when estimated contract costs are forecast to exceed total
revenue.
When the outcome of a contract cannot be reliably estimated, IAS and UK accounting
standards use the “zero profit method”, which recognizes revenue only to the extent that
conventional cost is expected to be covered. US accounting standards use the
63
completion method when the outcome of a contract cannot be reliably estimated and
income is recognized only after the contract has been completed.
According to Greek accounting standards, long-term contracts are accounted for using
either the “percentage of completion method” or the “completed contract method”.
However, the usual accounting method is to recognize income on the basis of invoicing,
which follows respective certifications. Cost is entered in the balance sheet of the
period within which it was realized, while potential future losses are not recognized.
There are no significant differences among IAS US GAAP and UK accounting
standards. On the other hand, there are significant differences between the GAAP’s
mentioned above and the Greek NAP. However, Greece adopted International
Accounting Standards with the enactment of Law 2992/2002, which requires from
Greek companies listed on the ASE to apply IAS from the beginning of the calendar
year 2003. The adoption of IAS resulted from international tendencies and the need of
harmonization of accounting principles that become more intense at the beginning of
1990.
On the second part of this dissertation, we analyzed the construction field in Greece by
using the financial statements and ratios of the most 50 important construction
companies in Greece. This analysis was done for the period 2000 and 2004 and the
results were the following.
During the 2000-2004 period construction companies showed an upward, trend due to
the high demand of both private and public works. This development is reflected in the
high turnover increase; turnover tripled during this period. This growth culminated in
2002, increased the negotiating power of construction companies vis-à-vis their
suppliers and increased the profitability of net working capital.
Furthermore, construction companies reduced monetary reserves and liberated capital
to increase their investment schemes and changed the manner of funding their
investment schemes, by increasing bank loans and reducing the participation of equity
64
capital. Liquidity was in a satisfactory level and construction companies could meet
their current obligations.
One of the biggest problems faced by the industry in the 2000-2004 period was the
increase in the cost of goods sold, due to their activation in the public project sector and
the increased competition in the price policy followed. Therefore, the high turnover
increase was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in net profit margin.
Construction companies had long standing claims, due to the nature of their works,
since such companies, according to Giannaros (1997), are active in the sector of public
works, which is characterised by delays in paying off projects. Finally, its worth
mentioned, the weakness of the construction companies ability to follow the correct
way of planning the order of reserves and the materialization of their decisions
regarding the reservation of operational capital.
For the ratio analysis to be more meaningful, we consider some unavoidable
limitations.
(a) Sampled companies used the same accounting and operating practices and they
didn’t apply creative accounting in trying to show the better financial
performance.
(b) Inflation rate remained stable, because in time of inflation profit may be
overstated while asset price are understated.
(c) Companies were not expanded via acquisition changing their activities.
(d) Influencing factors and seasonal factors remained stable and
(e) All the individual companies of our sample had on an industry target.
Further research would be useful to examine the construction sector in Greece, after the
year 2004, taking under consideration the legislation that passed by the Greek
government in 2001, in order to promote merger and to give domestic companies the
critical mass to under take projects in their own right. Also it would be useful to
examine the construction field in Greece, after the year 2005, when the registered
companies in the Athens Stock Market, started to adopt International Accounting
Standards.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Gemmell, J., Broad, D. (1982), “SSAP 9 seven years on…and still it means
headaches fir auditor”. Journal of Accountancy (June), vol 3, pag 19-23.
2. Wilson A. (2001), “Stock and Long term Contracts (SSAP 9), UK and
International GAAP Tolley”, 7th edition, 657 UK, chapt. 16.
3. Trotman K. T. (1982), “An evaluation of accounting for construction contracts:
An international comparison”. International Journal of Accounting, vol. 17,
issue 2, p 151, 16p,
4. Adrian J. and Douglas J. (1999), “Construction Accounting”
5. Palmer J. W., Combs E. W. and Smith A. M. (2000), “Construction Accounting
& Financial Management”, 5th edition.
6. Trotman K. T (1985), “The effect of the firm’s capital structure on the choice of
accounting methods for long – term Construction Contracts”. The Accounting
Review Journal, vol. 55, p. 78-84.
7. Jensen A. D., Craig W. J. (1998), “The impact of TAMRA ’88 on US
construction accounting practices”. (Southern Polytechnic University). The
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, vol. 16, p. 303-313.
8. Larson K. R. and Brown L. K. (2004), “Where are we with long – term Contract
Accounting?”. The Accounting Horizons Journal, vol. 18, issue 3, pp. 207-219.
9. American Institute of Certified Public Accountant Audit and Accounting Guide
Construction Contractors (AICPA) (1981), prepared by the Construction
Contractor Guide Committee, chap. 1.
10. ARB 45 (2000), Contractor Accounting: Construction-Type contracts, pag. 1-2.
11. The Construction Industry in Greece, Consolidations, Exportations and
Partnerships with Banks (1999), Investment Research & Analysis Journal.
12. Tan W. (1999), “Construction Cost and building height”. Journal of
Construction Management and Economics vol. 17, p. 129-132.
13. Eddie W. L., Cheng H., Shen L. Y and Fong P. (2002), “Ranking of
Construction Information for Various functions of the general Contractors: A
preliminary study”. Journal of Construction Research, vol. 3, issue 1, p. 181191.
66
14. Wright I. (2004), “Similarities and differences. A comparison of IFRS and US
GAAP”.
15. Floropoulos N. I. (2000), “IAS: First Time Users: Some empirical evidence
from Greek Companies”, Aristotle University of Thessalonica.
16. Department of Treasury (2000), “Accounting for long – term Contracts”,
Internal Revenue Service, Z6 CFR part 1.
17. Ghicas D., Iriotis N., Papadaki A. and Walker M. (2001), “Fundamental
Analysis and the Valuation IPO’s in the Construction Industry”. The
International Journal of Accounting.
18. IAS Versus US GAAP (2005): “Information Asymmetry – Based Evidence from
Germany’s New Market”. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol 41, No 3, June.
19. Australian Accounting Standards Board (2003), “Request Comment on IAS 11
Construction Contracts”.
20. European Commission (2004), “Long term contracts between government units
and non-governments partners”.
21. Pacter P. (2005), “what exactly is convergence?”. International Journal of
Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, vol. 2, p. 67 – 83.
22. Bass C. R., JR. (1998), “Construction Contracts”.
23. Accounting Standards Board (2002), FRED 28, “Construction and Service
Contracts”.
24. European Commission (2003).
25. International Accounting Standards Board (2005), “Convergence – IAS 11
Construction Contracts – Combining and segmenting contracts”.
26. National Audit Office (2004), “Financial Accounting Update”.
27. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (2003), Guidance of
the application of UITF 40, Revenue recognition and service contracts.
28. Statements of Standards Accounting Practice 9 (SSAP 9) (2001), “events after
the balance sheet date”.
29. Government Financial Reporting Manual (FREM) (2001), Chapter 6th.
30. Kirk R. (2003), “Kick off time for International Reporting Standards”.
31. Statements of Standards Accounting Practice 9 (SSAP 9) (1988), “stocks and
long – term contracts”.
32. UITF abstract 40 (2005), “Revenue recognition and service contracts”.
67
33. Presidential Degree 186/1992
34. ESYL No 257/1995
35. Roques C. (2001), “service statistics and the international harmonization of
accounting rules”.
36. Institute of Chartered Accountant of New Zealand (2003), “request for comment
on discussion paper and exposure draft NZ IAS 11 construction contracts”.
37. Books and Record code No 3/1992.
38. ICAP (2005), “Construction Companies”.
39. Darlene A. S. (1992), “update on estate taxation of non – resident aliens”. The
CPA Journal.
40. Constructions Economy Institute, (2005).
41. Chayi I., Momot T. (2002), “concise standards comparison of Ukraine,
Great Britain, the USA, Russian”, IASB.
42. 49. Patton M. J. (1982), “Ratio Analysis and Efficient Markets in Introductory
Financial Accounting”. The Accounting Review, Vol. I, No 3.
43. Bayldon R., Woods A. and Zafiris N. (1984), “A note on the pyramid technique
of financial ratio analysis of firm’s performance”. Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting.
44. Mcleays S., Trigueiros D. (2002), “Proportionate Growth and the Theoretical
Foundations of Financial Ratios”. Abacus, vol 38, No3.
45. Gallizo J. L., Gargallo P. and Solvador M. (2002), “Searing Wealth: Evidence
from Financial Ratios in Spain”. Journal of International Financial
Management and Accounting.
46. 53. Singh A., Schmidgall R. (2002), “Analysis of Financial Ratios commonly
used by US lodging Financial executives”. Institute of Management &
Administration, inc., issue 03-12.
47. International Accounting Standard Committee (1998), “Construction
Contracts”.
48. Sakellis E. (2002), “International Accounting Standards: Analysis and
application with Greek Accounting Standards and the commercial legislation”.
49. Sakellis E. (2003), “Greek Accounting Standards” 2nd ed.
50. Protopsaltis N., Vroustouris P. (2002), “International Accounting Standards:
practical analysis and interpretation with examples”.
68
51. Georgiou A. (2003), “International Accounting Standards”.
52. Grant Thornton (2004), “International Accounting Standards: A presentation”,
1st ed.
53. Davies M., Paterson R., Wilson A. and Ernst Y. (1990), “UK GAAP: generally
accounting practice in the United Kingdom” 2nd ed.
54. Pereira V. (1992), “UK/US Gaap comparison: A comparison between UK and
US accounting principles”, 2nd ed.
55. Lavand R, Albant J. (1971), “Ratio Analysis”
56. Walsh C. (1996), “key management ratios: how to analyse compare and control
the figures that drive company value” 2nd ed.
57. Westwick C. (1973), “How to use management ratios”.
58. Kavadias G. (2002), “International Accounting Standards”, 1st ed. pag. 274279.
59. Konings J. and Vandenbussche H. (2003), “The Adjustment of financial ratios
in the presence of soft budget constraints: Evidence from Bulgaria”. European
Accounting Review, vol 13, issue 1, pag. 131-159.
60. Cudd M. and Dugglas R. (2000), “Industry Distributional Characteristics of
Financial Ratios: An Acquisition Theory Application”. The Financial Review,
issue 41, pag. 105-120.
61. Gannaros (1997), “The Greek construction field”
62. Helfert E. (1994), “Techniques of Financial Analysis”, Financial Analysis, 8th
ed.
LINKS:
1. Construction contracts by Body of Sworn values of Greece (1993), pag. 1-46.
2. W. David Albrect (1994), Revenue and Expense Recognition Issues in Long –
Term Construction Contracts in:
http://www.profalbrecht.com/research/ltconstructionrev/
3. Richard Whittington (2004), the potential impact of conversion to IFRS by
2005 in: http://194.143.187.55/accountancy/feature.asp?TOCid=255
69
4. Edward M. Burgh (2005), Long – Term Construction Contracts in:
http://www.taxprobatelaw.com/article.jsp?practArea=36&articleIndex=0
5. Commission
of
the
European
Communities
(2003)
in:
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1725:EL:HTML
6. SEC (2002) in:
http://www.bdo.com/about/publications/assurance/fr_jan_1503/revenue.asp
7. Summary of IAS 11 in: http://www.iasplus.com/standard/ias11.htm
8. Technical Chamber Greek (2005) in:
www.ase.gr/content/gr/Announcements/CompaniesPress/Press.asp?press_id=42
2 - 33k
70
APPENDIX
71
R A T I O S (YEAR 2000)
RPOFITABILITY RATIOS
(%)
EVOLUTION RATIOS (%)
Α/Α
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
ORECOMPANIES
DEGREE
TURNOVER
T AX
PROFIT
REAL
PROPERTIES
RETURN ON
EQUITY
RET URN
ON
ASSET S
ACCOUNT TURNOVER RATIOS (DAYS)
RECEIVABLE
T URNOVER
RAT IOS
ACCOUNT
SUPPLIERS
T URNOVER
LIQUITIDY
RATIOS
LEVERAGE RAT IOS
INVENTORY
BORROWED/OWNER
DEBT/OWNER
T URNOVER
EQUITY
EQUITY
MARGIN RATIOS (%)
CURRENT
ACID
GROSS
MARGIN
OPERATING
MARGIN
PRETAX
EARNING
AKTROR S.A
7ΗΣ
6 4 ,6 4
1 0 1 ,3 9
1 1 7 ,3 9
9 ,0 8
8 ,4 0
8 7 ,0 0
3 4 ,0 0
2 5 ,0 0
0 ,3 2
0 ,1 2
2 ,4 6
2 ,4 5
1 0 ,5 9
8 ,6 3
J & P ABAX S.A
7ΗΣ
5 3 ,6 8
3 ,1 0
3 4 ,0 4
1 0 ,0 0
7 ,3 0
1 2 4 ,0 0
1 2 4 ,0 0
1 7 ,0 0
0 ,3 2
1 ,8 1
2 ,4 3
0 ,6 4
1 7 ,0 0
1 3 ,0 0
9 ,4 0
TERNA S.A
7ΗΣ
3 4 ,2 1
- 2 2 ,6 9
4 ,5 0
1 2 ,2 4
9 ,3 9
9 5 ,0 0
9 8 ,0 0
2 1 ,0 0
0 ,2 7
0 ,1 9
2 ,0 8
1 ,8 7
3 7 ,4 1
3 2 ,0 1
3 1 ,0 1
1 3 ,5 7
MOCHLOS S.A
7ΗΣ
8 8 ,3 9
- 7 6 ,9 2
1 7 ,1 9
6 ,6 0
4 ,6 0
2 2 2 ,0 0
1 2 1 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,4 0
1 ,8 1
1 ,7 5
1 8 ,0 0
1 0 ,5 0
7 ,0 7
PANTECHNIKI S.A
7ΗΣ
9 7 ,0 3
6 7 ,7 4
7 3 ,3 4
1 0 ,0 7
8 ,3 2
0 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,3 6
0 ,2 1
2 ,2 8
2 ,2 8
1 9 ,5 0
1 7 ,9 0
1 7 ,4 0
ATHINA AETB & TE
7ΗΣ
- 8 ,2 3
8 ,2 2
6 9 ,8 3
5 0 ,0 0
3 9 ,1 4
1 4 7 ,0 0
1 3 ,0 0
3 ,0 0
0 ,4 1
0 ,2 1
0 ,7 7
0 ,7 4
9 ,7 1
9 ,2 3
8 ,9 9
EBEDOS S.A
7ΗΣ
1 1 ,5 0
7 ,3 0
2 3 ,9 0
7 ,2 0
3 ,7 0
1 3 6 ,0 0
1 0 5 ,0 0
4 ,0 0
0 ,2 4
0 ,4 0
0 ,8 9
0 ,8 5
1 0 ,6 7
6 ,3 5
4 ,2 3
ALTE S.A
7ΗΣ
3 8 ,1 8
4 4 ,4 4
1 6 4 ,8 6
1 4 ,9 4
7 ,4 7
2 7 ,0 0
7 9 ,0 0
2 7 ,0 0
0 ,1 7
0 ,3 1
3 ,1 1
2 ,9 0
2 6 ,3 2
2 3 ,6 8
1 7 ,1 1
THEMELODOMI S.A
7ΗΣ
4 2 ,8 9
- 1 2 ,6 3
1 1 4 ,9 5
5 ,9 7
3 ,3 9
3 1 ,0 0
8 7 ,0 0
4 ,0 0
0 ,0 1
0 ,1 2
6 ,1 2
6 ,0 8
6 8 ,0 2
2 1 ,7 1
1 2 ,0 1
AEGEK S.A
7ΗΣ
2 ,0 8
- 5 5 ,9 1
- 8 ,7 1
0 ,6 1
2 ,8 5
9 8 ,0 0
5 6 ,0 0
4 2 ,0 0
0 ,4 8
0 ,6 3
1 ,7 8
1 ,6 5
2 6 ,9 3
2 1 ,0 1
9 ,8 8
ATTI -KAT S.A
7ΗΣ
2 7 ,6 0
3 ,7 0
2 9 ,3 0
1 4 ,4 0
1 3 ,5 0
1 0 0 ,0 0
8 8 ,0 0
4 6 ,0 0
0 ,4 0
0 ,7 0
1 ,6 0
1 ,5 0
1 3 ,0 0
1 4 ,2 0
1 5 ,5 0
6 ,5 1
METKA S.A
7ΗΣ
3 ,0 4
5 7 ,8 7
4 ,4 7
1 0 ,0 0
4 ,8 1
2 3 ,0 0
6 3 ,0 0
8 3 ,0 0
0 ,0 2
0 ,3 4
2 ,3 0
1 ,6 3
1 0 ,6 6
1 5 ,7 1
MICHANIKI S.A
7ΗΣ
- 2 1 ,3 3
- 6 4 ,6 5
- 0 ,2 0
1 ,3 7
1 ,2 9
1 .1 1 8 ,0 0
5 1 ,0 0
6 7 ,0 0
0 ,0 2
0 ,0 6
9 ,4 7
9 ,0 7
1 3 ,2 6
9 ,7 7
9 ,9 9
BIOTER S.A
7ΗΣ
- 7 ,8 4
- 3 3 ,7 0
1 3 1 ,4 4
5 ,2 7
4 ,1 2
1 3 9 ,0 0
5 3 ,0 0
1 2 9 ,0 0
0 ,1 1
0 ,2 8
1 ,2 8
0 ,7 9
2 3 ,2 6
1 0 ,0 8
1 3 ,7 5
EUKLIDIS S.A
6ΗΣ
1 4 ,3 9
- 5 1 ,8 0
1 1 4 ,0 2
3 ,4 4
2 ,9 1
2 6 5 ,0 0
4 0 ,0 0
1 3 6 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,1 8
4 ,1 7
2 ,9 3
1 ,3 0
2 ,1 4
5 ,6 7
IONIOS S.A
6ΗΣ
6 7 ,0 0
2 9 5 ,0 0
6 8 ,0 0
0 ,3 7
0 ,1 2
1 1 3 ,0 0
8 9 ,0 0
6 8 ,0 0
0 ,0 6
1 ,2 0
1 ,3 8
0 ,6 1
1 5 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
9 ,0 0
EDRASI - PSALLIDAS S.A
6ΗΣ
1 1 1 ,9 9
7 0 ,3 1
1 5 ,5 0
6 ,4 0
4 ,9 1
0 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,1 9
0 ,2 3
1 ,5 3
1 ,1 6
2 8 ,8 2
1 2 ,3 5
7 ,6 5
INTRAKAT S.A
6ΗΣ
1 0 ,5 0
7 ,2 0
8 ,9 0
5 ,6 0
2 ,8 0
1 0 3 ,0 0
9 8 ,0 0
2 3 ,0 0
0 ,1 2
0 ,8 7
1 ,7 0
1 ,5 4
2 8 ,8 6
2 1 ,7 1
1 9 ,7 1
KARAGIANNIS TH. S.A
6ΗΣ
5 8 ,0 0
7 2 ,0 0
2 5 ,0 0
0 ,3 5
0 ,1 2
6 5 ,0 0
4 3 ,0 0
3 ,0 0
0 ,1 7
0 ,2 4
5 ,3 0
5 ,2 3
0 ,5 8
0 ,2 3
0 ,1 6
ERGAS S.A
6ΗΣ
3 4 ,2 9
2 0 ,5 9
5 5 ,4 5
1 4 ,8 0
7 ,3 2
5 1 ,0 0
1 8 ,0 0
4 4 ,0 0
0 ,0 8
0 ,7 8
2 ,2 5
2 ,0 2
2 6 ,2 5
1 4 ,3 2
9 ,7 9
EKTER S.A
6ΗΣ
1 4 ,8 5
4 7 ,5 8
- 2 ,9 1
6 ,8 7
6 ,0 8
2 0 8 ,0 0
8 ,0 0
2 5 ,0 0
0 ,0 6
0 ,1 3
5 ,9 3
5 ,6 0
1 5 ,3 8
1 0 ,7 7
7 ,6 9
GENER AN. GEN. ERGOLIPTIKI
6ΗΣ
- 2 1 ,6 0
- 1 0 ,6 0
- 2 ,7 8
0 ,1 2
0 ,6 4
2 6 8 ,0 0
2 2 8 ,0 0
4 3 3 ,0 0
0 ,3 2
0 ,6 9
2 ,2 0
1 ,4 7
3 6 ,7 0
1 4 ,0 2
7 ,3 0
ANASTILOTIKI S.A
6ΗΣ
1 1 ,8 2
2 5 ,5 5
0 ,1 6
3 5 ,2 2
1 2 ,8 8
1 1 5 ,0 0
3 2 ,0 0
4 ,0 0
0 ,4 9
1 ,1 6
1 ,0 5
1 ,0 3
1 1 ,7 7
1 8 ,5 0
1 9 ,1 5
ATHONIKI S.A
6ΗΣ
3 9 ,0 0
7 ,0 0
3 5 4 ,0 0
0 ,2 3
0 ,1 2
4 5 ,0 0
4 3 ,0 0
3 3 ,0 0
0 ,7 0
1 ,6 0
2 ,5 6
2 ,0 8
0 ,7 2
0 ,2 0
0 ,1 4
DOMIKI S.A
6ΗΣ
1 4 ,2 9
2 3 ,8 1
1 2 3 ,2 1
0 ,0 0
9 ,7 4
1 7 9 ,0 0
6 4 ,0 0
8 2 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
4 ,4 2
3 ,6 7
3 5 ,0 0
2 5 ,0 0
2 1 ,6 7
DIEKAT S.A
6ΗΣ
4 4 ,1 9
3 3 ,1 4
9 5 ,4 4
0 ,0 4
0 ,0 0
3 0 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
2 4 ,0 0
0 ,1 2
0 ,3 4
1 ,9 9
1 ,8 4
1 6 ,7 5
1 1 ,7 6
1 0 ,9 5
PROODEUTIKI S.A
6ΗΣ
6 5 ,7 5
9 ,3 8
5 ,8 6
7 ,4 5
5 ,7 7
2 2 ,0 0
9 ,0 0
3 1 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,2 9
3 ,4 6
0 ,3 0
1 6 ,3 2
1 1 ,5 7
8 ,4 2
ERETBO S.A
6ΗΣ
7 8 ,4 7
- 1 3 ,8 4
5 ,0 8
9 ,4 8
1 1 ,0 2
2 1 0 ,0 0
5 9 ,0 0
4 2 ,0 0
0 ,4 0
0 ,2 7
2 ,8 3
2 ,3 9
1 2 ,4 5
1 0 ,7 6
9 ,4 6
TECHNERGA - TSABRAS S.A
6ΗΣ
5 1 ,2 8
3 6 ,3 6
1 7 ,5 0
3 3 ,3 3
2 3 ,0 8
1 2 ,0 0
6 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
0 ,1 1
0 ,4 4
2 ,4 3
2 ,3 3
2 8 ,8 1
2 7 ,1 2
2 5 ,4 2
GANTZOULAS S.A
6ΗΣ
0 ,4 2
7 ,6 9
1 0 ,5 3
3 2 ,3 1
2 1 ,0 0
1 1 ,0 0
3 ,0 0
1 4 ,0 0
0 ,1 5
0 ,5 4
2 ,4 4
2 ,3 1
1 3 ,9 2
1 6 ,0 3
1 7 ,7 2
FINOBETON S.A
6ΗΣ
8 ,7 9
7 ,6 9
1 9 ,2 3
2 3 ,7 3
1 7 ,0 7
4 ,0 0
7 ,0 0
1 1 ,0 0
0 ,1 7
0 ,3 2
1 ,7 4
1 ,6 4
1 8 ,1 8
1 6 ,1 6
1 4 ,1 4
ELTER S.A
6ΗΣ
8 8 ,6 9
1 6 ,0 5
3 5 ,7 6
2 2 ,2 0
1 1 ,0 7
7 8 ,0 0
2 2 ,0 0
1 ,0 0
0 ,3 5
0 ,9 4
1 ,4 9
1 ,4 8
8 ,7 3
1 0 ,9 8
1 1 ,4 0
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION S.A
6ΗΣ
6 3 5 ,6 6
1 1 6 ,0 2
6 5 ,9 8
1 2 2 ,2 1
6 1 ,5 1
1 6 ,0 0
6 1 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
0 ,5 7
1 ,2 2
1 ,1 7
0 ,5 9
6 8 ,0 0
7 0 ,0 0
7 8 ,0 0
ROKA S.A
6ΗΣ
3 1 ,9 2
4 2 ,9 9
- 9 9 ,6 5
1 0 ,7 3
8 ,8 0
1 6 5 ,0 0
1 4 ,0 0
2 8 ,0 0
0 ,0 1
0 ,2 3
2 ,4 2
0 ,2 7
3 9 ,1 7
3 8 ,5 4
3 7 ,9 0
PRECONSTRUCTA S.A
5ΗΣ
- 1 2 ,5 8
- 5 1 ,7 4
9 ,4 2
8 ,8 9
5 ,5 4
2 2 9 ,0 0
6 4 ,0 0
1 7 8 ,0 0
0 ,5 8
0 ,5 6
2 ,3 1
1 ,3 5
7 ,7 3
7 ,9 0
8 ,1 1
ROXOTIS S.A
5ΗΣ
6 ,7 3
7 ,2 3
6 ,0 2
7 ,4 7
9 ,8 3
1 3 2 ,0 0
1 0 9 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,1 6
0 ,7 0
1 ,6 5
1 ,4 5
1 2 ,8 2
1 5 ,3 8
1 5 ,3 8
ERGO S.A
5ΗΣ
6 5 ,3 3
1 1 8 ,0 5
7 1 ,6 6
0 ,4 5
0 ,6 5
6 8 ,0 0
2 6 ,0 0
0 ,0 0
0 ,1 1
0 ,2 1
4 ,4 9
4 ,4 9
1 ,0 0
0 ,4 5
0 ,2 6
ERGOTEM S.A
5ΗΣ
3 1 ,9 3
- 4 ,9 4
6 8 ,1 0
3 3 ,0 3
2 1 ,8 3
6 7 ,0 0
4 9 ,0 0
4 3 ,0 0
0 ,5 1
0 ,6 0
1 ,6 7
1 ,4 7
2 2 ,9 7
1 9 ,5 0
1 7 ,2 7
MELKA CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ΗΣ
2 ,2 7
2 3 ,0 8
5 0 ,0 0
2 0 ,5 1
1 8 ,3 9
4 1 ,0 0
2 4 ,0 0
2 8 ,0 0
0 ,0 5
0 ,1 2
8 ,6 7
7 ,8 9
1 6 ,6 7
1 6 ,6 7
1 7 ,7 8
ALKI S.A
5ΗΣ
7 1 ,4 3
8 3 ,3 3
1 2 0 ,0 0
4 7 ,8 3
3 0 ,5 6
5 1 ,0 0
5 ,0 0
1 5 ,0 0
0 ,1 7
0 ,5 2
2 ,0 8
1 ,8 3
2 3 ,6 1
2 0 ,8 3
1 5 ,2 8
FILLIPOS S.A
5ΗΣ
1 9 ,4 0
5 4 ,3 0
2 0 ,8 9
0 ,1 5
0 ,2 0
5 4 ,0 0
4 3 ,0 0
2 3 ,0 0
0 ,3 0
0 ,5 6
1 ,6 6
1 ,5 0
0 ,1 1
0 ,0 9
0 ,0 8
ETEO S.A
5ΗΣ
3 1 ,0 9
1 3 4 ,4 0
7 ,0 5
0 ,2 3
0 ,2 0
8 9 ,0 0
6 7 ,0 0
4 7 ,0 0
0 ,2 0
0 ,9 3
1 ,3 9
1 ,0 3
0 ,2 5
0 ,2 5
0 ,2 5
GREEK CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ΗΣ
1 0 1 ,5 0
1 0 2 ,9 0
3 8 ,0 8
1 4 ,8 4
9 ,2 7
3 5 ,0 0
2 ,0 0
4 ,0 0
0 ,2 0
0 ,5 8
2 ,2 4
2 ,2 0
1 3 ,9 7
1 0 ,6 0
7 ,6 2
EKME S.A
5ΗΣ
9 ,9 7
3 2 ,4 0
1 9 1 ,6 5
0 ,2 5
0 ,2 3
6 5 ,0 0
3 5 ,0 0
8 ,0 0
0 ,0 6
0 ,1 7
4 ,7 3
4 ,6 0
0 ,2 4
0 ,2 3
0 ,2 3
ELEKTROMEK S.A
5ΗΣ
1 8 ,8 7
1 4 ,2 9
1 0 0 ,0 0
6 6 ,6 7
2 6 ,6 7
5 8 ,0 0
6 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
0 ,3 3
1 ,4 2
1 ,2 4
1 ,1 2
1 7 ,4 6
1 5 ,8 7
1 2 ,7 0
KIROMITI S.A
5ΗΣ
1 0 2 ,9 0
4 5 ,4 5
5 4 ,7 0
4 0 ,0 0
1 9 ,0 5
1 3 ,0 0
5 5 ,0 0
8 ,0 0
0 ,5 8
1 ,0 5
1 ,0 2
0 ,9 5
1 3 ,5 7
1 2 ,1 4
1 1 ,4 3
AIAS S.A
5ΗΣ
9 2 ,7 8
2 6 ,6 1
1 8 ,0 0
2 6 ,8 1
1 6 ,1 9
2 4 ,0 0
1 2 ,0 0
2 ,0 0
0 ,1 4
0 ,6 6
2 ,2 9
2 ,2 6
9 ,5 0
8 ,3 0
7 ,5 6
K. KAPARAKIS - DIEDROS S.A
5ΗΣ
3 0 ,0 0
5 0 ,0 0
1 1 ,1 1
1 5 ,0 0
1 3 ,6 4
1 1 2 ,0 0
5 6 ,0 0
5 6 ,0 0
0 ,3 0
0 ,1 0
7 ,0 0
6 ,0 0
2 3 ,0 8
2 3 ,0 8
2 3 ,0 8
ALTEK S.A
5ΗΣ
1 1 2 ,7 8
2 9 ,0 2
1 9 ,4 9
7 6 ,0 0
3 2 ,0 0
1 5 ,0 0
0 ,2 0
0 ,4 8
2 ,0 6
1 ,9 2
1 1 ,6 6
1 6 ,5 0
1 7 ,3 7
5ΗΣ
2 4 ,8 5
6 5 ,4 9
1 5 1 ,0 3
3 4 ,0 7
BITROS CONSTRUCTION S.A
9 ,4 7
2 ,1 5
2 ,3 5
3 8 1 ,0 0
1 5 4 ,0 0
3 1 8 ,0 0
0 ,3 0
0 ,6 2
0 ,8 5
0 ,6 1
- 2 ,3 2
- 1 ,3 6
- 1 ,3 6
72
R A T I O S (YEAR 2001)
EVOLUTION RATIOS (%)
RPOFITABILITY RATIOS
(%)
ACCOUNT TURNOVER RATIOS (DAYS)
Oretax
profit
Real
Properties
RETURN ON
60,44
69,32
15,09
21,86
15,5
35
54,31
100,73
36,06
11,17
62,86
219
7ης
19,61
8,46
4,5
12,24
9,39
95
MOCHLOS S.A
7ης
5,4
23,5
35,38
6,67
4,81
5
PANTECHNIKI S.A
7ης
36,37
63,5
10,24
15,92
12,29
6
ATHINA AETB & TE
7ης
62,67
10,94
13,57
18,03
12,51
112
7
EBEDOS S.A
7ης
25,21
-32,85
5,24
5,5
4,88
145,62
8
ALTE S.A
7ης
47,37
15,38
-75,51
9,87
5,91
19
54
Α/Α
COMPANIES
DEGREE
Turnover
1
AKTROR S.A
7ης
2
J & P ABAX S.A
7ης
3
TERNA S.A
4
EQUITY
RET URN ON
ASSET S
Receivable
turnover
ratios
Account
suppliers
turnover
LEVERAGE
RATIOS
LIQUITIDY
RATIOS
MARGIN RATIOS (%)
Inventory
turnover
Debt
Debt
equity
Current
Acid
Gross
margin
Operating
margin
Pretax
earning
40
0
0
0,36
2,29
2,29
18,9
22,8
16,5
136
142
0
0,16
1,56
1,36
15,8
13,9
11,1
87
23
0,06
0,53
1,28
1,1
39,7
34,4
19,9
159
98
24
0,02
0,35
1,35
1,15
15,39
9,36
7,75
110
22
65
0
0,3
1,67
1,67
8,34
24,14
22,69
7
21
0,16
0,43
1,94
1,68
9,9
9,6
9,47
74,28
119,91
0,34
0,81
1,46
1,19
12,06
8,63
3,29
36
0,1
0,49
3,11
2
18,75
16,96
13,39
9
THEMELODOMI S.A
7ης
3,78
-30,25
23,53
6,42
5,48
345
31
38
0,12
0,33
2,12
0,61
8,45
8,4
8,32
10
AEGEK S.A
7ης
29,6
1,88
-6,15
3,39
5,61
293
23
293
0,09
0,19
3,29
2,99
13,5
7,76
7,77
11
ATTI -KAT S.A
7ης
25,6
-12,8
-21,8
11,5
10,3
62
72
55
0,3
0,7
2,5
2,3
11
10,9
10,7
12
METKA S.A
7ης
3,46
29,9
4,82
14
6,67
22
61
118
0,02
0,46
1,95
1,25
19,51
15,18
8,18
13
MICHANIKI S.A
7ης
-9,83
7,4
-40,52
2,1
1,97
390
35
145
0
0,06
6,22
5,12
11,84
11,89
11,9
14
BIOTER S.A
7ης
23,17
2,08
-43,46
3,81
2,4
82
42
141
0,26
0,39
0,86
0,33
12,46
10,99
11,4
15
EUKLIDIS S.A
6ης
13,1
0,973
27,89
0,068
4,8
37
114
117
0,11
0,47
2,33
1,88
19
10,7
5,5
16
IONIOS S.A
6ης
12
47
7
0,52
0,23
97
65
47
0,12
1,62
1,34
0,98
15
13,5
12
17
EDRASI - PSALLIDAS S.A
6ης
13,48
9,13
17,5
6,94
4,51
0
0
63
0,23
0,22
1,6
1,15
14,34
9,33
7,43
18
INTRAKAT S.A
6ης
3,5
-6,2
29,4
37,4
21,3
120
71
16
0
0,51
2,42
2,32
23,75
23,51
21,89
19
KARAGIANNIS TH. S.A
6ης
-30
-26
33
0,23
0,09
67
45
29
0,12
0,4
3,73
3,48
0,23
0,19
0,17
20
ERGAS S.A
6ης
-58
-82,93
-19,11
2,67
1,41
122
44
100
0,09
0,66
2,59
2,31
5,63
4,55
3,98
21
EKTER S.A
6ης
74,27
-14,7
-1,49
6,43
5,32
138
21
23
0,13
0,21
3,98
3,62
9,32
7,63
5,51
22
GENER AN. GEN. ERGOLIPTIKI
6ης
-3,4
-17,08
65,71
0,09
0,46
588
260
380
0,22
0,47
2,32
1,5
25,97
11,17
7,53
23
ANASTILOTIKI S.A
6ης
119,04
31,69
2,63
37,61
11,31
93
26
2
0,4
2,09
1,03
1,03
11,41
18,9
20,39
24
ATHONIKI S.A
6ης
31
14
-34
0,25
0,14
34
24
58
0,38
0,79
2,25
1,86
0,22
0,15
0,13
25
DOMIKI S.A
6ης
25
-57,61
-6,4
5,07
3,25
144
51
80
0,05
0,23
4,2
3,54
15,23
11,92
7,28
26
DIEKAT S.A
6ης
33,87
191,85
-65
0,12
0,1
49
14
48
0,26
0,79
1,2
0,88
14,53
9,69
8,23
27
PROODEUTIKI S.A
6ης
21,29
3,53
3,9
7,67
5,77
22
9
31
0
0,29
4,6
0,16
15,31
9,36
5,93
28
ERETBO S.A
6ης
28,38
67,75
2,55
12,9
16,87
164
46
9
0,4
0,22
3,15
3,03
9,35
11,23
12,61
29
TECHNERGA - TSABRAS S.A
6ης
16,1
33,33
23,4
33,61
21,28
13
5
4
0,13
0,57
1,87
1,85
31,39
29,93
29,2
30
GANTZOULAS S.A
6ης
1,27
-16,67
71,43
23,81
14
14
8
20
0,17
0,63
2,08
1,94
17,08
15,42
14,58
31
FINOBETON S.A
6ης
27,27
64,29
4,84
31,51
23,71
3
6
6
0,21
0,3
1,73
1,64
20,63
18,25
18,25
32
ELTER S.A
6ης
9,15
-26,35
11,63
15,85
8,48
71
20
16
0,34
0,68
1,89
1,75
16,96
8,7
7,69
33
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION S.A
6ης
21,53
1,02
12,7
75,24
29,38
32
48
31
1,09
1,71
1,06
0,44
66,67
71,11
77,78
34
ROKA S.A
6ης
-13,27
-15,4
-99,65
14,67
12,14
165
13
41
0
0,23
3,25
1
36,03
36,76
37,13
35
PRECONSTRUCTA S.A
5ης
26,4
151,64
4,68
19,79
12,22
181
51
67
0,52
0,59
2,33
1,95
23,55
18,32
16,14
36
ROXOTIS S.A
5ης
20,51
16,67
40
21,43
12,24
66
37
56
0,11
0,71
1,5
1,2
14,89
12,77
14,89
37
ERGO S.A
5ης
24,31
67,04
30,2
0,43
0,24
87
63
27
0,09
0,16
5,8
5,2
0,23
0,4
0,35
38
ERGOTEM S.A
5ης
18,27
-7,77
6,05
0,25
0,36
86
78
22
0,09
0,72
1,88
1,53
0,08
0,09
0,13
39
MELKA CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
1,11
62,5
-53,33
31,71
27,66
40
24
36
0,09
0,15
6,47
5,67
17,58
21,98
28,57
40
ALKI S.A
5ης
13,89
18,18
18,18
39,39
27,66
45
13
22
0,21
0,39
2,46
2,08
23,17
17,07
15,85
41
FILLIPOS S.A
5ης
17,97
36,54
8,32
0,2
0,24
34
24
9
0,03
0,83
1,49
1,43
1
0,09
0,09
42
ETEO S.A
5ης
23,06
76,5
3,2
0,4
0,2
56
32
18
0,31
0,63
1,6
1,15
0,29
0,29
0,29
43
GREEK CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
37,14
277,66
14,85
88,5
28,55
56
5
7
0,76
2,03
1,29
1,25
23,2
21,9
20,99
44
EKME S.A
5ης
-12
1,89
2,48
0,23
0,15
43
12
9
0,13
0,28
3,43
3,1
0,29
0,27
0,27
45
ELEKTROMEK S.A
5ης
33,33
50
87,5
60
26,67
43
13
4
0,35
1,15
1,43
1,39
17,86
16,67
14,29
46
KIROMITI S.A
5ης
-32,14
-62,5
-2,7
14,63
4,96
54
81
27
0,56
1,95
1,05
0,96
13,68
10,53
6,32
47
AIAS S.A
5ης
-4,13
107,34
347,71
51,03
23,83
46
12
6
0,64
1,05
1,55
1,5
12,91
17,1
16,35
48
K. KAPARAKIS - DIEDROS S.A
5ης
253,85
300
20
31,58
24
40
16
16
0,16
0,34
3,15
3
15,22
21,74
26,09
49
ALTEK S.A
5ης
30,71
21,75
23,52
28,82
19,32
43
14
6
0,13
0,48
2,1
2,04
15,53
15,9
16,25
50
BITROS CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
64,63
-478,66
175,13
8,98
4,2
333
34
250
0,38
1,14
1,52
1,46
0,18
0,09
0,09
73
R A T I O S (YEAR 2002)
RPOFITABILITY RATIOS
(%)
EVOLUTION RATIOS (%)
Receivable
turnover
ratios
Account
suppliers
turnover
Ore-tax
profit
Gross
margin
7ης
206,72
160,39
39,14
39,69
23,01
47,00
30,00
1,00
0,00
7ης
175,65
51,52
111,85
15,57
22,30
225,00
190,00
38,00
0,00
0,70
1,42
1,41
10,70
12,10
14,00
0,26
1,32
1,13
15,40
13,10
TERNA S.A
7ης
331,47
232,26
265,47
20,30
11,26
102,00
92,00
22,00
0,14
10,00
0,79
1,32
1,13
16,23
14,70
4
MOCHLOS S.A
7ης
712,73
142,37
106,07
9,85
7,43
21,00
34,00
17,00
8,17
2,18
1,92
7,04
7,80
5
PANTECHNIKI S.A
7ης
183,54
28,83
43,92
12,53
7,55
91,00
18,00
0,00
0,17
8,58
0,64
1,38
1,24
13,90
27,73
22,69
6
ATHINA AETB & TE
7ης
85,31
3,88
74,59
10,15
4,90
173,00
30,00
15,00
7
EBEDOS S.A
7ης
11,84
82,64
5,25
10,08
6,95
121,67
91,89
167,74
0,15
0,64
1,58
1,45
9,61
8,52
7,52
0,55
0,91
1,28
0,93
6,35
1,72
8
ALTE S.A
7ης
48,21
-84,67
504,17
1,51
0,67
13,00
36,00
5,37
53,00
0,08
0,58
1,86
1,65
11,45
5,78
9
THEMELODOMI S.A
7ης
36,88
45,19
-7,43
-3,85
151,00
1,39
111,00
136,00
0,34
0,62
1,60
1,35
3,67
2,54
-9,90
10
AEGEK S.A
7ης
-14,62
-12,73
3,02
2,60
4,30
11
ATTI -KAT S.A
7ης
80,90
-18,50
186,40
7,21
6,21
410,00
25,00
41,00
0,19
0,35
2,23
2,04
3,19
14,85
7,94
49,00
58,00
46,00
0,46
0,79
1,37
1,23
5,28
5,03
12
METKA S.A
7ης
-4,72
29,90
3,01
16,00
4,80
6,01
23,00
64,00
83,00
0,02
0,38
2,00
1,40
22,84
15,93
11,51
13
MICHANIKI S.A
7ης
35,11
21,16
32,74
14
BIOTER S.A
7ης
156,38
136,87
362,87
2,77
2,57
327,00
29,00
142,00
0,00
0,08
5,37
4,06
9,02
4,91
10,67
5,57
2,95
271,00
94,00
255,00
0,88
0,69
0,76
0,74
12,64
10,13
15
EUKLIDIS S.A
6ης
0,65
-0,84
10,53
24,54
0,52
0,30
34,00
110,00
134,00
0,51
0,88
1,32
1,10
31,60
5,60
16
IONIOS S.A
6ης
-41,00
0,50
-60,00
-23,00
0,21
0,10
56,00
34,00
55,00
0,21
0,56
2,31
1,60
19,00
11,00
17
EDRASI - PSALLIDAS S.A
6ης
8,00
30,97
5,32
16,84
4,89
2,81
88,00
56,00
180,00
0,24
0,92
1,54
0,85
14,59
9,91
18
INTRAKAT S.A
6ης
6,02
-17,10
14,80
14,40
27,90
18,00
156,00
89,00
27,00
0,00
0,56
2,13
2,00
19,21
10,00
24,27
19
KARAGIANNIS TH. S.A
6ης
20
ERGAS S.A
6ης
5,00
-52,00
43,00
0,10
0,06
78,00
56,00
66,00
0,21
0,76
2,31
2,03
0,15
0,12
0,09
-27,27
-142,86
0,79
-1,15
-0,58
168,00
60,00
134,00
0,09
0,86
2,15
1,94
10,16
2,34
-2,34
21
EKTER S.A
6ης
22
GENER AN. GEN. ERGOLIPTIKI
6ης
53,59
51,31
3,72
8,45
5,58
169,00
16,00
31,00
0,14
0,51
2,20
1,94
10,22
6,35
5,25
71,27
-5,50
1,72
0,15
0,67
294,00
69,00
174,64
0,30
0,67
2,03
1,29
19,00
11,90
23
ANASTILOTIKI S.A
4,14
6ης
6,10
-52,32
11,65
14,27
5,04
65,00
18,00
37,00
0,32
1,83
1,00
0,88
11,16
8,75
24
6,78
ATHONIKI S.A
6ης
1,00
-100,00
115,00
0,10
0,09
56,00
76,00
110,00
0,14
0,56
2,40
1,59
0,15
0,09
0,07
25
DOMIKI S.A
6ης
77,33
-45,45
-1,71
2,76
1,59
81,00
29,00
23,00
0,27
0,34
3,16
2,93
4,14
3,38
2,26
26
DIEKAT S.A
6ης
-26,51
-7,35
60,48
0,11
0,08
93,00
32,00
88,00
0,29
1,10
0,76
0,49
24,96
15,11
10,34
27
PROODEUTIKI S.A
6ης
-41,30
-51,37
163,40
3,62
2,87
322,00
14,00
59,00
0,01
0,25
3,46
0,44
27,00
10,40
1,09
28
ERETBO S.A
6ης
11,03
13,29
191,19
11,63
13,05
148,00
41,00
12,00
0,32
0,19
3,55
3,39
20,00
14,87
12,61
29
TECHNERGA - TSABRAS S.A
6ης
43,80
-12,50
143,10
20,11
10,67
37,00
30,00
104,00
0,11
0,59
1,99
1,54
23,35
20,30
17,70
30
GANTZOULAS S.A
6ης
4,58
-31,43
47,22
13,33
7,10
31,00
17,00
44,00
0,17
0,62
2,30
2,03
20,32
16,73
9,56
31
FINOBETON S.A
6ης
12,08
7,56
6,92
28,89
15,76
2,00
42,00
3,00
0,22
0,80
0,97
0,96
20,29
19,57
18,84
32
ELTER S.A
6ης
17,73
6,00
64,88
14,82
8,00
60,00
16,00
47,00
0,30
0,80
1,24
0,89
12,08
8,71
7,02
33
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION S.A
6ης
14,56
-17,42
38,98
32,12
16,99
9,00
33,00
332,00
0,68
1,54
1,01
0,44
30,00
35,00
47,50
34
ROKA S.A
6ης
-13,93
-2,72
2.509,00
10,20
10,45
579,00
19,00
81,00
0,00
0,20
3,63
0,71
37,18
38,46
41,88
35
PRECONSTRUCTA S.A
5ης
17,10
21,57
2,26
27,60
15,40
155,00
43,00
54,00
0,59
0,77
1,98
1,67
25,58
20,13
16,76
36
ROXOTIS S.A
5ης
-53,19
-14,29
328,57
16,67
8,45
116,00
66,00
133,00
0,19
0,50
1,67
1,22
59,09
45,45
27,27
37
ERGO S.A
5ης
22,61
-33,16
65,86
0,45
0,21
68,00
24,00
13,00
0,20
0,28
3,35
3,17
0,16
0,18
0,19
38
ERGOTEM S.A
5ης
12,69
-64,44
71,12
0,11
0,09
43,00
26,00
15,00
0,12
0,64
1,66
1,49
0,21
0,12
0,06
39
MELKA CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
30,77
-53,85
82,61
12,24
9,30
31,00
18,00
37,00
0,08
0,15
6,47
6,67
14,29
12,61
10,08
40
ALKI S.A
5ης
58,54
76,92
76,92
53,49
34,33
28,00
8,00
1,00
0,19
0,53
2,17
2,16
18,46
11,54
17,69
41
FILLIPOS S.A
5ης
23,73
12,76
24,99
0,08
0,09
65,00
45,00
26,00
0,10
0,32
1,44
1,20
1,00
0,09
0,08
42
ETEO S.A
5ης
95,16
-74,84
34,02
0,01
0,01
75,00
43,00
37,00
0,30
0,88
1,97
1,46
0,01
0,01
0,01
43
GREEK CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
45,52
-5,82
74,43
27,65
18,28
120,00
21,00
16,00
0,20
0,48
2,40
2,21
18,03
16,30
13,58
44
EKME S.A
5ης
-17,30
-72,94
16,38
0,06
0,04
46,00
35,00
28,00
0,14
0,22
3,96
3,30
0,13
0,10
0,09
45
ELEKTROMEK S.A
5ης
23,81
-33,33
26,67
36,36
14,81
35,00
11,00
3,00
0,36
1,27
1,36
1,33
12,50
9,62
7,69
46
KIROMITI S.A
5ης
76,84
16,67
58,33
17,07
4,90
43,00
46,00
35,00
0,32
0,97
1,27
1,04
19,64
8,93
4,17
47
AIAS S.A
5ης
1,81
-42,58
0,68
23,98
11,03
109,00
65,00
33,00
0,23
0,89
1,98
1,72
6,70
10,10
9,22
48
K. KAPARAKIS - DIEDROS S.A
5ης
6,52
-33,33
291,67
13,11
10,96
37,00
15,00
15,00
0,10
0,21
2,69
1,54
8,16
12,24
16,33
49
ALTEK S.A
5ης
-98,91
-114,14
14,19
-4,04
-3,42
87,00
45,00
832,00
0,07
0,17
3,53
3,27
100,30
1,23
-210,91
50
BITROS CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
224,40
-6,12
-51,69
9,06
1,51
388,00
94,00
162,00
1,82
4,98
1,11
1,07
0,13
0,03
0,03
1
AKTROR S.A
2
J & P ABAX S.A
3
-
EQUITY
RET URN ON
ASSET S
74
Debt
Debt
equity
MARGIN RATIOS (%)
Acid
DEGREE
Inventory
turnover
LIQUITIDY
RATIOS
Current
COMPANIES
RETURN ON
LEVERAGE
RATIOS
Turnover
Α/Α
Real
Properties
ACCOUNT TURNOVER RATIOS (DAYS)
Operating
margin
Pretax
earning
R A T I O S (YEAR 2003)
EVOLUTION RATIOS (%)
RPOFITABILITY RATIOS
(%)
ACCOUNT TURNOVER RATIOS
Ore-tax
profit
Real
Properties
RETURN ON
EQUITY
RET URN ON
ASSET S
Receivable
turnover
ratios
14,72
8,16
10,90
38,44
20,77
56
18,24
31,48
7,18
20,09
6,45
91
7ης
45,63
60,01
15,94
28,18
15,33
84
MOCHLOS S.A
7ης
6,48
17,21
-19,08
8,34
5,94
5
PANTECHNIKI S.A
7ης
-5,89
-22,04
-3,58
7,03
6
ATHINA AETB & TE
7ης
17,17
-12,75
6,73
8,93
7
EBEDOS S.A
7ης
-11,51
21,09
27,30
8
ALTE S.A
7ης
1,20
552,17
9
THEMELODOMI S.A
7ης
36,88
10
AEGEK S.A
7ης
11
ATTI -KAT S.A
12
Account
suppliers
turnover
LEVERAGE
RATIOS
LIQUITIDY
RATIOS
MARGIN RATIOS (%)
Inventory
turnover
Debt
Debt
equity
Current
Acid
Gross
margin
Operating
margin
Pretax
earning
22
2
0,00
0,79
1,50
1,49
16,50
17,30
13,20
127
25
0,00
0,52
1,32
0,99
15,10
13,30
10,90
64
31
0,16
0,83
1,32
1,00
12,22
11,01
9,07
39
56
45
0,22
0,54
1,74
1,32
12,13
13,98
16,27
3,95
152
27
18
0,14
0,58
1,61
1,35
14,17
8,74
10,51
4,77
185
26
13
0,04
0,82
1,43
1,33
7,54
4,63
3,91
5,90
2,81
266
1
1
1,51
1,12
4,03
4,08
13,88
8,54
4,79
17,93
7,69
4,52
13
36
33
0,07
0,60
1,76
1,64
16,67
15,66
8,93
-10,50
-6,00
11,00
7,00
156
182
54
0,57
0,95
1,39
1,26
7,50
9,30
9,38
-5,93
-3,21
-34,09
2,54
4,38
502
42
43
0,32
0,44
2,04
1,90
28,23
15,41
8,17
7ης
-16,88
-28,04
15,24
4,35
2,10
47
79
60
0,81
1,18
1,97
1,81
19,31
7,60
4,18
METKA S.A
7ης
7,07
3,32
1,95
17,00
6,00
21
60
85
0,01
0,50
1,89
1,42
23,75
14,88
11,11
13
MICHANIKI S.A
7ης
53,74
60,81
90,97
4,76
4,26
237
18
89
0,00
0,12
4,11
3,22
6,82
10,65
11,16
14
BIOTER S.A
7ης
109,11
27,50
82,45
7,14
3,84
110
54
105
0,35
0,71
1,07
0,63
8,57
7,60
6,42
15
EUKLIDIS S.A
6ης
-4,23
400,25
31,21
1,38
2,50
38
76
229
24,05
0,90
1,28
0,91
26,90
7,30
2,20
16
IONIOS S.A
6ης
67,00
29,00
82,00
0,23
0,15
79
56
47
0,12
1,35
1,16
0,99
12,00
8,50
6,00
17
EDRASI - PSALLIDAS S.A
6ης
5,58
8,12
9,57
5,26
2,70
99
56
270
0,29
1,02
1,41
0,79
14,47
9,82
5,17
18
INTRAKAT S.A
6ης
40,10
-24,60
6,20
20,40
12,50
126
116
10
0,19
0,67
1,56
1,52
15,50
10,00
11,67
19
KARAGIANNIS TH. S.A
6ης
34,00
82,00
-14,00
0,18
0,07
34
24
7
0,31
0,66
2,34
2,28
0,13
0,12
0,11
20
ERGAS S.A
6ης
43,75
-130,00
-10,16
0,36
0,17
117
42
97
0,10
0,99
2,15
1,94
13,04
9,38
0,49
21
EKTER S.A
6ης
44,51
263,94
133,63
27,66
18,23
87
25
22
0,16
0,51
1,80
1,56
11,45
12,21
13,36
22
GENER AN. GEN. ERGOLIPTIKI
6ης
46,30
7,00
-10,17
0,14
0,80
259
277
134
0,38
0,88
2,03
1,58
13,44
7,52
3,00
23
ANASTILOTIKI S.A
6ης
1,47
30,03
0,61
17,34
6,60
42
12
45
0,30
1,63
1,06
0,84
13,14
8,98
5,72
24
ATHONIKI S.A
6ης
50,00
61,00
-25,00
0,16
0,07
76
85
115
0,41
0,74
2,22
0,93
0,12
0,08
0,07
25
DOMIKI S.A
6ης
24,00
33,33
22,61
2,76
1,59
65
23
23
0,15
0,33
2,34
2,06
5,45
4,14
2,42
26
DIEKAT S.A
6ης
14,75
0,79
73,00
0,06
0,08
89
27
82
0,63
1,81
1,06
0,72
24,50
14,33
9,17
27
PROODEUTIKI S.A
6ης
4,10
-46,50
-17,97
1,94
1,47
335
19
84
0,17
0,27
3,46
0,54
-60,85
-15,63
0,50
28
ERETBO S.A
6ης
191,21
120,38
-4,88
23,96
21,76
51
14
16
0,30
0,36
2,63
2,32
9,96
9,60
9,54
29
TECHNERGA - TSABRAS S.A
6ης
52,79
22,86
-4,96
21,50
11,29
46
24
75
0,14
0,69
1,99
1,54
12,62
13,62
14,29
30
GANTZOULAS S.A
6ης
54,98
62,50
-3,77
19,40
10,00
30
20
39
0,19
0,76
2,06
1,78
16,45
12,85
10,03
31
FINOBETON S.A
6ης
32,61
57,69
2,99
56,16
21,93
2
40
2
0,37
1,52
0,78
0,77
25,14
16,34
11,80
32
ELTER S.A
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
S.A
6ης
3,88
3,28
14,45
14,34
7,26
58
16
47
0,28
0,94
1,24
0,95
9,41
7,30
6,88
6ης
-2,55
1,77
35,50
31,61
13,27
42
56
478
0,53
1,41
1,22
0,63
68,54
76,40
78,65
34
ROKA S.A
6ης
39,70
-10,24
7,08
8,77
9,10
238
15
31
0,00
0,27
3,60
1,21
23,72
23,26
20,00
35
PRECONSTRUCTA S.A
5ης
-33,06
-57,61
1,33
13,78
7,73
231
65
136
0,70
0,75
1,99
1,34
20,78
11,96
10,61
36
ROXOTIS S.A
5ης
268,18
83,13
-13,33
24,44
9,40
54
18
131
0,22
0,91
2,00
1,29
19,75
16,05
13,58
37
ERGO S.A
5ης
69,11
67,58
4,80
0,40
0,50
84
24
4
0,18
0,26
3,73
3,64
0,16
0,18
0,19
38
ERGOTEM S.A
5ης
39,13
19,20
1,27
0,12
0,09
98
76
40
0,03
0,84
1,55
1,40
0,11
0,07
0,05
39
MELKA CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
24,37
16,67
-19,05
13,46
9,93
25
15
79
0,06
0,23
4,96
3,63
10,81
10,14
9,46
40
ALKI S.A
5ης
-13,08
-56,52
-8,70
21,74
12,82
32
10
29
0,13
0,70
1,88
1,59
13,27
10,62
8,85
41
FILLIPOS S.A
5ης
-17,71
-9,74
-92,74
0,07
0,08
54
43
33
0,04
0,36
1,58
1,31
1,00
0,09
0,09
42
ETEO S.A
5ης
9,46
71,61
0,39
0,15
1,12
78
65
58
0,40
0,85
1,64
1,25
0,18
0,10
0,07
43
GREEK CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
4,19
39,68
7,64
34,14
22,30
87
34
22
0,20
0,51
2,40
2,18
20,85
19,10
18,21
44
EKME S.A
5ης
20,20
-49,95
-0,75
0,03
0,02
54
32
14
0,10
0,24
3,79
3,20
0,08
0,05
0,04
45
ELEKTROMEK S.A
5ης
6,73
-12,50
5,26
30,43
9,09
33
10
23
0,26
2,22
1,20
1,06
9,91
8,11
6,31
46
KIROMITI S.A
5ης
50,00
257,14
-28,07
34,72
15,82
36
30
25
0,28
0,95
1,70
1,48
21,03
13,69
9,92
47
AIAS S.A
5ης
-26,55
1,92
3,94
17,96
13,14
79
54
20
0,21
0,50
2,01
1,87
17,04
13,50
12,80
48
K. KAPARAKIS - DIEDROS S.A
5ης
104,08
37,50
2,13
16,67
12,22
26
7
7
0,09
0,36
2,21
2,13
18,00
14,00
11,00
49
ALTEK S.A
5ης
714,04
-309,26
9,77
8,86
6,73
49
45
23
0,03
0,30
1,75
1,44
2,62
4,70
6,12
50
BITROS CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
-15,64
-230,51
-8,05
-15,71
-2,14
310
87
313
3,19
6,34
1,02
1,02
0,10
-0,02
-0,04
Α/Α
COMPANIES
DEGREE
Turnover
1
AKTROR S.A
7ης
2
J & P ABAX S.A
7ης
3
TERNA S.A
4
33
75
R A T I O S (YEAR 2004)
EVOLUTION RATIOS (%)
COMPANIES
DEGREE
Turnover
Ore-tax
profit
Real
Properties
1
AKTROR S.A
7ης
-26,76
-20,24
2
J & P ABAX S.A
7ης
-4,11
12,39
3
TERNA S.A
7ης
-2,86
24,96
4
MOCHLOS S.A
7ης
18,69
5
PANTECHNIKI S.A
7ης
-19,77
6
ATHINA AETB & TE
7ης
-6,13
7
EBEDOS S.A
7ης
8
ALTE S.A
9
THEMELODOMI S.A
10
RPOFITABILITY RATIOS
(%)
RETURN ON
ACCOUNT TURNOVER RATIOS (DAYS)
Receivable
turnover
ratios
Account
suppliers
turnover
Inventory
turnover
LEVERAGE
RATIOS
LIQUITIDY
RATIOS
MARGIN RATIOS (%)
Debt
Debt
equity
Current
Acid
Gross
margin
Operating
margin
Pretax
earning
6
0
0,71
1,57
1,52
25,3
22,9
14,4
24
0,08
0,58
1,48
1,18
15,4
12,5
9,7
0,3
0,79
1,48
1,18
14,96
13,57
11,67
0,4
0,8
1,93
1,47
12,43
16,35
18,35
0,08
0,65
1,45
1,08
20,37
17,15
8,65
0,05
0,94
1,42
1,31
4,34
1,57
0,6
23
0,4
0,7
1,31
1,19
14,23
9,65
5,31
52
6
0,08
0,7
1,56
1,55
2,76
0,71
-1,12
164
52
0,3
0,2
1,23
1,08
7,5
6,3
5,8
48
0,48
0,63
1,78
1,65
14,18
11,93
3,53
53
73
0,81
1,11
2,2
1,97
26,18
10,9
4,35
56
128
0,01
0,83
1,51
1,09
25,75
13,95
13,3
28
118
0
0,16
3,78
2,89
7,91
11,92
14,26
153
10
250
0,46
0,94
1,24
0,63
12
10,79
8,61
49
153
333
0,5
0,88
1,31
0,91
17,2
10,5
1,2
0,17
87
65
47
0,7
1,4
1,06
0,75
15
11,7
9
5,36
2,47
134
32
131
0,27
1,17
1,39
0,68
10,92
6,87
3,83
115,38
21,79
12,27
174
60
12
0,33
0,44
2,45
2,33
14,7
12,92
13,73
-12
0,21
0,11
24
51
7
0,06
0,3
4,59
4,45
0,08
0,09
0,09
788,89
3,48
7,46
3,01
115
41
33
0,08
0,51
3,31
3,21
23,94
13,59
9,04
28,89
68,97
32,01
19,26
66
20
14
0,18
0,66
1,32
1,19
10,17
10,95
14,24
-27,29
-35,6
-3,77
0,16
0,55
548
7
110
0,07
0,52
2,59
2,57
12,38
7,52
2,43
-27,24
-41,38
-3,76
10,12
4,63
70
20
76
0,29
1,19
1,05
0,74
11,19
7,9
5,61
6ης
76
8
36
0,17
0,08
76
83
142
0,93
1,64
1,49
0,59
0,1
0,06
0,04
DOMIKI S.A
6ης
9,09
-50
81,56
1,74
0,85
60
21
21
0,31
0,42
1,56
1,36
5
3,33
1,11
26
DIEKAT S.A
6ης
12,86
-2,83
-2,49
0,11
0,81
60
10
44
0,76
2,27
0,94
0,72
14,83
10,01
7,86
27
PROODEUTIKI S.A
6ης
-1,64
-74,72
-21,49
0,49
0,35
397
22
84
0,25
0,36
2,9
0,06
-20,52
-
-
28
ERETBO S.A
6ης
68,62
50,01
12,5
35,8
28,16
30
8
5
0,29
0,39
2,78
2,64
7,46
7,98
8,49
29
TECHNERGA - TSABRAS S.A
6ης
6,64
-79,07
20,9
4,19
2,13
45
22
73
0,14
0,8
1,71
1,34
11,21
4,67
2,8
30
GANTZOULAS S.A
6ης
22,88
17,95
-3,92
20,91
10,98
6
2
8
0,18
0,66
2,26
2,18
12,34
10,25
9,62
31
FINOBETON S.A
6ης
10,38
-41,49
27,54
44,44
12,57
14
4
20
0,56
1,43
1,35
1,22
25,25
16,34
11,8
32
ELTER S.A
INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
S.A
6ης
17,62
26,8
21,57
16,73
8,4
49
14
44
0,26
0,98
1,16
0,88
11,14
9,43
7,42
6ης
17,79
-32,89
-9,61
18,6
10,8
43
57
398
0,46
0,87
1,56
0,8
31,03
36,21
44,83
34
ROKA S.A
6ης
-4,14
42,91
36,41
11,88
13,26
189
5
55
0
0,18
2,56
0,98
46,92
53,85
60
35
PRECONSTRUCTA S.A
5ης
-4,39
-39,02
-83,44
8,15
4,82
242
68
153
0,46
0,66
2,12
1,36
17,69
7,98
6,77
36
ROXOTIS S.A
5ης
71,6
-254,55
0
-58,62
-16,04
21
11
26
0,31
1
2,59
2,24
-5,76
-7,91
-12,23
37
ERGO S.A
5ης
-14,53
-47,69
21,93
0,24
0,31
75
45
32
0,1
0,26
4,26
3,75
0,01
0,1
0,12
38
ERGOTEM S.A
5ης
4,13
-55,37
15,9
0,08
0.06
42
35
4
0,3
1,23
1,1
1,04
0,01
0,015
0,02
39
MELKA CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
74,32
35,71
8,82
15,83
10,86
14
8
48
0
0,35
3,57
2,76
7,36
6,98
7,36
40
ALKI S.A
5ης
-5,31
30
4,76
26,53
15,85
61
3
85
0,16
0,67
2
1,24
18,64
16,82
12,15
41
FILLIPOS S.A
5ης
51,01
-19,87
14,33
0,06
0,067
56
43
28
0,02
0,35
1,4
1,14
1
0,06
0,05
42
ETEO S.A
5ης
2,5
12,21
7,25
0,09
0,07
67
78
77
0,2
0,85
1,58
1,27
0,15
0,05
0,04
43
GREEK CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
-21,71
-3,73
7,74
25,04
17,77
132
56
106
0,09
0,39
2,84
2
24,67
22,9
22,39
44
EKME S.A
5ης
57,1
297,72
2,28
0,12
0,1
65
45
10
0,1
0,36
2,99
2,45
0,12
0,09
0,1
45
ELEKTROMEK S.A
5ης
-13,51
-28,57
15
20
10,42
68
4
30
0,32
0,8
1,55
1,15
13,54
8,33
5,21
46
KIROMITI S.A
5ης
6,75
8
-4,88
33,33
15,08
33
28
14
0,24
0,85
1,89
1,77
21,56
10,32
10,04
47
AIAS S.A
5ης
12,18
48,78
3,4
25,12
16,9
98
56
40
0,1
0,49
2,45
2,12
20,47
19,3
16,97
48
K. KAPARAKIS - DIEDROS S.A
5ης
-26
9,09
-6,25
0,09
0,14
30
10
10
0,09
0,14
5
4,78
25,68
20,27
16,22
49
ALTEK S.A
5ης
-18,44
80,05
10,47
13,47
9,52
67
54
46
0,1
0,4
1,41
1,1
10,61
12,7
13,51
50
BITROS CONSTRUCTION S.A
5ης
-41,44
-17,32
66,11
-6,51
-1,7
541
58
541
4,67
7,33
1,18
1,18
0,14
-0,05
-0,06
EQUITY
RET URN ON
ASSET S
-15,11
29,8
17,05
76
7
-2,16
21,52
13,45
100
16
-6,67
29,96
16,39
126
97
35
-2,49
8,64
8,3
5,33
32
37
35
-30,33
19,91
5,6
3,17
202
34
40
-67,81
-0,8
2,94
1,47
206
25
16
3,87
9,5
13,9
3,8
2,5
223
201
7ης
-30,95
-108,67
14,62
-0,63
-0,4
19
7ης
59,18
-251,55
-4,08
6,8
4,7
143
AEGEK S.A
7ης
2,08
-55,91
-8,71
0,61
2,85
552
17
11
ATTI -KAT S.A
7ης
-35,8
-71,14
-3,87
1,31
0,63
664
12
METKA S.A
7ης
6,64
27,68
3,42
19
7,26
20
13
MICHANIKI S.A
7ης
-1,76
25,59
-3,7
6,15
5,3
287
14
BIOTER S.A
7ης
-21,69
5,03
-27,01
7,25
3,61
15
EUKLIDIS S.A
6ης
-23,78
-64,88
-3,46
0,49
0,3
16
IONIOS S.A
6ης
2
54
18
0,32
17
EDRASI - PSALLIDAS S.A
6ης
-6,2
-30,92
15,2
18
INTRAKAT S.A
6ης
115,38
21,43
19
KARAGIANNIS TH. S.A
6ης
52
25
20
ERGAS S.A
6ης
2,17
21
EKTER S.A
6ης
22,08
22
GENER AN. GEN. ERGOLIPTIKI
6ης
23
ANASTILOTIKI S.A
6ης
24
ATHONIKI S.A
25
Α/Α
33
76
77