Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
COCA-COLA vs. PEPSICO COMPANY
Company Financial Comparative Study
Coca-Cola Company and Pepsi Incorporation are beverage-producing companies worldwide. Over the years, people have had different opinions and ideas about the two companies, although their products are meant to serve the same purpose. Both plants have sub-plants, although Coca-Cola Company has its sub-plants worldwide. Pepsi Company has managed to set plants in specified regions, which serve as strong hold of the company. Pension plans set by both companies have also affected the level of investment and risk in the companies, and has also affected their level of production and sell of their products worldwide. Both companies have established strong public relations worldwide which aids them in linking the consumers to the company.
Both companies have diversified products that face competition from the rival company, and have different pension schemes. Pension schemes for both companies aim at benefiting their retired employees, and each company uses different approach. IFRS (International Financial Report Standard) enables the company to realize whether the pension plan scheme is a profit (asset) to them or loss (liability). This enables the company to determine whether the pension plan is overfunded or underfunded (Stickney et al., 2009).
In the year 2009, Coca Cola Company became the third major company to adopt the cash balance report to cater for their pension plan schemes. Executive managers of the company rejected the use of constitutional approach for funding pensioned plans. This resulted to minimized risks to the company, and secured benefits to the employees as compared to the preceding year. Mobility of the workforce also increased as a result of the plan, and career benefits accruing from the plan were more compared to their previous approach on dealing with pension plan. This pension approach plan has also ensured empowerment of the employers to set up new cash flow systems without any threat of litigation. This would especially accrue when the company is sued for discriminating age. This plan also resulted to an increase of revenue to the company in the year 2009, with reported $31.9 billion operating revenue, comparatively from 2008 that reported $28.9 billion operating revenue.
At the year 2009, PepsiCo Company still adopted the method of offering new employees a final salary pension, which benefits its workers and family members upon the worker's retirement. It includes benefits for their retired employees and medical fees upon retirement, and is calculated differently. This required high quality pension scheme to secure the retirement of both the newly and present employed workers, and the method is still applicable to present day by the company. This posed a greater risk to the company and resulted to decline of the total net sales of the company as compared to the preceding year.
Capital gains ($)
2009 2008 2007
Cost of goods sold 11,088 11,374 10,406
Total income before taxes 8,946 7,506 7,919
Total capital gains 2,142 3,868 2,487
2009 2008 2007
Total operating profit 8,044 6,959 7,182
Total income before taxes 5,946 5,142 5,658
Total capital gains 2,098 1,817 1,524
Funding levels (%)
Expected returns on planned assets 57 63
Actual return on planned assets 50 34
Expected return on invested capital 7.8-7.8
Actual return on invested capital 27.2-25.5
Coca Cola Company has a more secure pension fund, as it has proven to have a more percentage in its expected returns over the years, as compared to PepsiCo Company. Coca Cola Company has a wider field covering pension plans and retired medical bills of its employees. It sets aside larger portion as compared to PepsiCo Company, and hence the employees are more secure under the Coca Cola Company. The margin between the expected returns and actual returns under Coca Cola Company is slight as compared to PepsiCo Company. This renders it less risky for the Coca Cola Company to fund its pension plans, and on the other hand attracts more investors in the company. The results postulate more secure business operations for Coca Cola Company, with a more persistent increase in its production and rate of expected returns. In addition, the capital gains experienced by Coca Cola Company have proven to be higher over the years, with its products having a leading sale over PepsiCo Company. Coca-Cola Company had more profit gains than PepsiCo Company, and has shown significant improvement over the years. Although PepsiCo had…[continue]
"Coca-Cola Vs Pepsico Company Company Financial Comparative" (2012, August 23) Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/coca-cola-vs-pepsico-company-financial-81729
"Coca-Cola Vs Pepsico Company Company Financial Comparative" 23 August 2012. Web.29 November. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/coca-cola-vs-pepsico-company-financial-81729>
"Coca-Cola Vs Pepsico Company Company Financial Comparative", 23 August 2012, Accessed.29 November. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/coca-cola-vs-pepsico-company-financial-81729
The total asset turnover ratio on the other hand indicates that just as is the case with the fixed asset turnover ratio, the Coca-Cola Company has been less effective in the utilization of all its assets in sales generation. The inventory turnover ratio is essentially a measure of the number of times the inventory of a business entity is replaced or sold within a given period of time. In the
Pepsico vs. Coca Cola Pepsico vs. CocaCola The purpose of this essay is to present the comparative analysis of two companies CocaCola and PepsiCo. The main objective of the essay is to compare and analyze financial performance of two companies in terms of ratios. CocaCola is 126 years old company was created by Atlanta pharmacist John Pemberton in 1886. It has 3500 growing products available in 200+ countries. CocaCola receives 1,322,000 tweets per
Financial Comparison Financial analysis is a tool that allows third parties to analyze corporate financial statements. One of the main reasons that the Securities and Exchange Commission requires that statements are compiled and presented in a consistent manner is to ensure that third parties will be able to use the statements to compare different companies. These comparisons can, among other things, help with investment decisions. This paper will compare PepsiCo and
Pension Plans of Coca Cola Co. Vs. Pepsi Inc. Compare the pension plans of Coca Cola and Pepsi, noting what type of pension, and funded status as of 2007 end of year. A) Coca Cola Co. This is a Defined Contribution Plan. For its primary plan the employer matches 100% of participants contribution, up to 3% of compensation. Benefit obligation at end of year for 2007 was $3,517 million. Benefits paid for pensions plan were
In the future, this could result in some kind of major restructuring to deal with these issues. The problem is that these changes will occur when the company is facing greater challenges. This will hurt their competitive position, profit margins, stock performance and brand image. The above information will impact an investor's decision, by making them more cautious about purchasing the company over the long-term. ("The Coca Cola Company,"
Those conditions are understood. Both academia and the market are in agreement that the CMO does matter in a number of different situations. Therefore, the question of whether or not a female CMO affects firm performance is very much a valid one. The first research question is: What academic background contributes most to a woman's ascension to CMO or VP of Marketing? This question is basic, and can be answered
As obesity became a hot top, outcry from parents, educators and government institutions began to criticize these arrangements. Coca-Cola has also been rebuked for its Harry Potter promotional advertising campaign, the costliest movie tie-in ever, that promotes children's literacy while simultaneously pushing Coke sales (Baue, 2002). In 2003, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said soft drinks sold by Coca-Cola and PepsiCo in India contained high levels of pesticides