The project is to analyze and compare the financial statements of two Canadian or US public companies from the same industry. In order to avoid duplication of projects the instructor must approve the companies covered in the term project before any work is done. The names of the companies you plan to analyze must be submitted to me by e-mail before the end of the second week of the course. It is recommended that the companies chosen for the project should not be banks, insurance companies or in the financial services or real estate sectors because they need specialized knowledge that is not covered in this course. The companies selected should have been in business for at least 5 years.
All the information needed should be available from the two most recent annual (do not use quarterly reports) reports. The data needed for each company is:
1. The three most recent year end balance sheets;
2. Detailed income and cash flow statements for the past 2 years.
Your report, which should not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten (12 pt. font) pages, excluding appendices, should address the following:
I. Using the ratios from Exhibit 14.4 of the text, assess and compare the
performance of the companies, and their financial health. Address
which company performed better, what is the trend for each over the
past two years, and how does the performance of each
compare over the most recent 2 years (worth 75% of the grade).
II. Consider the qualitative information, comments and future objectives contained
in the non-financial portions of the annual report. Comment on whether
the reported results support the statements, and whether the company's
financial position will enable it to achieve its stated objectives. Which
company is better poised for the future (worth 15% of the grade)?
III. Comment on the degree of disclosure offered, and on the clarity (or lack thereof)
of the statements themselves and the notes (worth 10% of the grade).
Copies of the financial statements (balance sheet, statement of retained earnings, income statement, cash flow statement), BUT NOT THE FOOTNOTES OR THE ENTIRE ANNUAL REPORTS, on which your report is based must be submitted with your project.
I. Business Background:
Palm Inc., ("PLMO" in NASDAQ, hereinafter as PLMO) and Research In Motion Limited ("RIM" in TSE and "RIMM" in NASDAQ, hereinafter as RIM) are competitors in wireless communication industry by providing both integrated handheld hardware, software and services that support various wireless network standards.
Palm Inc. is one of the pioneers in handheld devices field by being key provider of handheld computing devices and operating systems. Before the restructure in 2003, Palm consisted of the Solutions Group and PalmSource. Its business includes production of Palm related hardware and software, and third-party licensees. As of May 31, 2003, PLMO had shipped over 22.3 million Palm-branded devices and approximately 29.1 million Palm-powered devices have been sold worldwide. In addition, Its total revenue reached 871.9 million.
RIM positions itself as a leading designer and manufacturer of wireless solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market. It provides platforms and solutions for seamless access to time-sensitive information including e-mail, phone, short message service (SMS) messaging, Internet and intranet-based corporate data applications. It also licenses its technology to handset and software vendors to enable these companies to offer wireless data services using the BlackBerry Enterprise Server. As of March 1, 2003, RIM achieved fiscal year revenue of $307 million, and there are in excess of 10,000 companies worldwide with the BlackBerry Enterprise Server installed.
II. Industry Background
As communication and information services converge and mobile applications become prevalent, the wireless handheld will be the target device for delivering next-generation integrated communication features of phone, email and digital assistance to business and individual consumers. Some research firms expect the relevant market to have a size of $70 billion, including wireless data services, mobile devices, application software, systems integration and related services, in 2006 . By far, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) and mobile phone are the two key players competing severely with for the leadership and market share in this emerging market. Both are trying to penetrating to the other's segment with integrative features. In the third quarter of 2003, facing increasing pressure from the mobile phone market, worldwide PDA shipments declined 0.2 percent.
As the predictions by some industry analysts, there is no clear sign that which device is able to dominate the market in near future. Convergence and competition for leadership of market / standard will be the main trail of this rising industry.
III. Financial Ratio Analysis
* As growing companies in an emerging sector, PLMO and RIM both operate with intensive operating expenses and comparatively low revenue, and thus recorded net loss in the financial reports of all the past three fiscal years without any dividend. Therefore, the following ratios can NOT be obtained properly or meaningful: Dividend Payout Ratio, Times Interest Earned Ratio, Cash Coverage Ratio, Price/Earning Ratio, and Dividend Yield Ratio.
A. Test of profitability
As shown in Exhibit-1 A, the Gross Margin of PLMO decreased by 14% from 37.4% to 32.2% while RIM's increased by 17.2% from 39% (adjusted with inventory write-down) to 45.7%. RIM's net increase comes from higher percentage of service and software revenue (which have more margin) in product mix while PLMO's drop is mainly due to sluggish hardware sales. Both of the companies have decreasing profit margin at similar level, which are from -0.08 to -0.51 and from -0.10 to -0.49, and are caused by high operating expenses for R&D, and Sales, Marketing & Administrative activities.
Exhibit 1-B shows that due to net loss caused by expansion, these two companies have negative decreasing ROE and ROA. PLMO's ROE and ROA decreased from -0.12 and -0.16 in 2002 to -0.94 and -1.54 in 2003, while RIM's data from -0.03 and -0.06 to -0.19 and -0.34. PLMO and RIM both have increasing positive financial leverage percentage, i.e. rate of return on their companies' assets is higher than the average after-tax interest rate on borrowed fund, which means that the companies create positive value for shareholders by borrowing money.
The Dupont Analysis (Table 1) shows that RIM is basically superior to PLMO for all those ROE profit drivers. Although PLMO's Asset return is higher than that of RIM, it is based on PLMO's smaller average total assets rather than more net sales. This indicates RIM's operation has better perspective. Following its policy of expanding mainly with capital contribution by shareholders, RIM's financial leverage is 30% less than that of PLMO. Although usually such a low proportion implies not enhancing the return to shareholders as well as less risk, it fits with RIM's status, i.e. as a growing company, it obtains little benefit from tax shield of debt financing, but "clean debt sheet" makes future financing, when necessary, much easier and cheaper. Compared with RIM, PLMO relies a bit more on outside financing, but by far it is no need to be concerned with that.
2002 2003 Asset Turnover
2002 2003 Leverage
2002 2003 ROE
PLMO -0.08 -0.51 0.90 1.11 1.60 1.65 -0.12 -0.94
RIM -0.10 -0.49 0.31 0.34 1.08 ( 1.14 -0.03 ( -0.19
Exhibit 1-C compares the EPS and Fixed Asset Turnover between PLMO and RIM.
The Fixed Asset Turnover demonstrates that PLMO has a competitive advantage over RIM in terms of its ability to effectively utilize its fixed assets to generate revenue. But it should be noticed that the two companies have different operating strategy and business model: RIM's investment in R&D and infrastructure steadily increased over the past 2 years (while such expenses of PLMO decreased by 15% every year on average), which guarantees the sustainability of development of the company.
Summary: Profitability is a primary measure of the overall success, as well as a necessary condition for survival, of a company. And the above tests of profitability reveal that: 1) Both of the companies are operating in red ink, but in view of their status and industry development, it is still acceptable; 2) RIM, in view of its higher ratios such as ROE and profit margin, is better at making profit, and probably keeping sustainable competency, than PLMO.
B. Test of Liquidity
Cash is the lifeblood of a business. Cash ratio assesses the adequacy of available cash of a company. Exhibit 2 - A shows that PLMO's cash ratio was kept around 1 in the 3 past years, while RIM's ratio decreased from 8.37 in 2001 to 2.28 in 2003, i.e. PLMO reserves less cash in hand. Usually holding excess cash is uneconomical, since it is far better to invest the cash in productive assets or reduce debt. But for RIM, in the past 3 years it intensively invested in acquisition of relevant technologies, R&D, SG&A and buyback of its outstanding common shares, which matches with the objectives it stated in the Annual Report. For example, RIM purchased the assets of a company whose proprietary software code provides capabilities to facilitate foreign language input and display on handheld products in June 2002 to meet its objective of "significantly increase our BlackBerry subscriber base in North America and globally". Therefore by far it is not necessary to be concerned with RIM's cash ratio.
The two companies' current ratio and quick assets are exhibited in Exhibit 2 - B. PLMO's current ratio was between 1.56 and 2.05 in the past 3 years while RIM's data decreased dramatically from 14.19 in FY01 to 2.85 in FY03. This ratio measures the cushion of working capital maintained to allow for the inevitable unevenness in the flow of funds through the working capital accounts. PLMO successfully reduced its inventory amount by $ 30 million and thus improved its current ratio. The track of RIM's current ratio also demonstrates the changing structure of its assets and liabilities. RIM used part of excess cash and cash equivalents acquired technology and equipments needed for further growth and repurchased its own stock. Although RIM's current ratio still looks conservative, it embodies and well serves its business model of "leverage between technology development and infrastructure investment".
Quick ratio, also called acid test, is similar to the current ratio except for being more stringent on short-term liquidity, because quick assets are readily convertible into cash at approximately their book values. PLMO's ratio is somewhat stable with range from 1.14 to 1.55, while RIM's reduced from 12.93 by the end of FY01 to 2.59 of FY03. Since both of the company are still in rapid growth phase of development and need sufficient cash to support its operation and expansion, such a higher-than-average ratio should not be regarded as problematic.
The similar Revenue recognition practice described in Annual Report of both companies provides a solid base for comparison of receivable turnover of them, but PLMO's Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements only releases limited information about its Allowance for Doubtful Accounts, which directly affect its calculation of Account Receivable and might cause investors' concerns. PLMO's receivable turnover (refer to Exhibit 2 - C), which measures both the short-term liquidity and operating efficiency, decreased by 7% from 11.59 in FY02 to 10.83 in FY03. Such a decrease, which is mainly caused by the $34 million more account receivable, means that PLMO became less efficient in collection activities. Since in the past 3 years, around 44% of PLMO's account receivable has been concentrated in its 3 key customers (Ingram Micro, Tech Data, and Best Buy), PLMO and its investor should keep an eye on the performance of those companies as well. RIM's receivable turnover is less than that of PLMO, but it increased by 16% from FY02 to FY03, which should attributes increased revenue and decreased account receivable, and thus is a positive signal of RIM's performance.
Inventory turnover measures the liquidity of the inventory, by reflecting the relationship of the inventory to the volume of goods sold during the period. Both of the firms showed favorable increased inventory turnover, i.e. more efficient inventory management. PLMO's inventory "turned over" 15.21 times during FY03, which increased from 9.16 in FY02. It is much higher than RIM's 4.85 times. RIM has a higher ratio of inventory to revenue. But this is also partly caused by RIM's different business model of cooperating with carrier partners for adoption of its handheld hardware and wireless platform besides providing hardware.
Summary: Liquidity refers a company's ability to meet its currently maturing debts. The above tests of liquidity focus on evaluating the two company's short-term financial strength. It is concluded that: 1) generally speaking, PLMO has advantage in holding less excess cash in hand, and collects account receivable and manages inventory more efficient than RIM; 2) PLMO should strengthen its efforts in cost control and work out an effective plan to control risk of credit sales without sacrificing potential sales/profit; 3) the trend of RIM's liquidity ratios is positive, which indicates its active growth.
C. Tests of Solvency and Equity Position
Debt-to-Equity Ratio measures the proportion of capital provided by shareholders and creditors. A high ratio normally suggests higher reliance on debt by a company. Such a situation increases the risk that a company may not be able to meet its contractual financial obligations during a business downturn. Both companies have increased ratio over the past 3 fiscal years (Exhibit 3 - A), and PLMO always has higher number than RIM, which means that RIM has less financial risk than PLMO.
The Cash Flow Statement reflects the company's ability to generate cash from sales to meet current cash needs, and therefore is particularly helpful in estimating future financial health of a company. By analyzing the following chart of pattern analysis of Cash Flow Statement, we are able to conclude:
2003 2002 2001
O I F O I F O I F
PLMO - + + - - + - - +
RIM + + - + - - - - +
1) PLMO: generally experiences a shortfall in cash flow from operations and from investing activities. The deficiency in cash is mainly financed by long-term debt and investment by shareholders in FY01 and FY02, and partly by the sale of short-term investment in FY03. This pattern is most typical of a young, fast-growing company. Although its "net cash used in operating activities" decreased dramatically from FY02 to FY03, its cash flow to "account receivable" is very high, which indicates financial uncertainty and risk.
RIM: supports its business activities primarily with cash flow from operating and investing activities, which indicates that it has a better finance situation when compared with PLMO. In addition, RIM's deficit in financing activities came from buyback of common share. Such an action usually happens when the company believes its stocks undervalued.
Summary: Debt-to-equity ratio tests the companies' ability to meet their long-term obligation as well as how they has financed its assets and activities. The data demonstrate that: 1) due to the net loss of these two companies, Times Interest Earned Ratio and Cash Coverage Ratio are meaningless in analysis. But it should be noticed that for growing companies like PLMO and RIM, their current debt (for which the interest are paid) should be expected to bring future profits; 2) both companies currently have proper financial structure; 3) RIM mainly relies on its equity for operation, and thus has better financial position to generate the cash necessary to meet its financial obligations in case of a business downturn.
D. Market Test
Price/Earning Ratio and Dividend Yield Ratio measure the "market worth" of a company by relating the current market price of a share to an indicator of the return that might accrue to the investor. Usually a higher ratio is associated with significant growth potential of a company, since the price of a stock is related to the present value of its future earnings. Regarding dividend, investors only accept low or nil dividend yield when they estimate the stock price will increase while they own it. Normally stock with low growth potential often offer much higher dividend than do stocks with higher growth potential. Again, due to PLMO and RIM's pure loss in the past 3 fiscal years, calculations of historical data essentially have no meaning. But looking at the market price of the two company (Exhibit 4 - A), we could find that in the past 2 years, RIM's stock price almost doubles while that of PLMO shrank by more than 50% to $46. Such a trend by and large matches with the above analysis, and demonstrate investors' confidence in RIM's performance and potential growth.
E. Miscellaneous Ratio
Book value per share, which has no relationship to and usually less than market value, measures the owners' equity in terms of each common share outstanding. Higher ratio normally is associated with companies that have good growth potential. PLMO's value plummeted from $25.89 to $8.75 in 3 years while RIM's ratio decreased from $11.51 to $9.15. PLMO's reduction was partly caused by continuous net loss which resulted in shrinking equity applicable to common shares. RIM's ratio is also affected by its deficit, but since we always should analyze the ratio in the synergy of its business model, it's still acceptable while moderate concern might be necessary.
Besides the quantitative data and following notes concerning the "solid" operation facts in the past fiscal years, PLMO and RIM also provided descriptive information about their financial position and future objectives, which functions as importantly as, even not more than, the numerical one. Therefore, comprehensive analysis on BOTH parts is the base of proper forecasts on the company's business perspective.
For example, In the "Letter to Stockholders" on the first page of its Annual Report 2003, PLMO acclaimed its new product launch, increased market share from 51.4% to 57.7% in U.S. and success in inventory / SGA reduction by $32 million and $ 96 million respectively, but in Item 7 - the MD&A sections, it acknowledged that "the decrease in the Solution Group revenue was primarily driven by a decline in unit shipments reflecting a continued weak economy in both the consumers and enterprise segments and a decline in the average selling price of our handheld devices reflective of a price sensitive and increasingly competitive market." Moreover, it recognized that increasing Palm OS platform licensing brings more competition into the hardware market and more pressure on product development of itself, and "certain competitors may have larger and more established sales forces calling upon potential enterprises customers." Such words more or less weaken its declared confidence in being "an undisputed leader" of the handheld industry.
In sum, PLMO's business objectives of "leading the innovation and market of handheld industry" are challenged by both inside problems such as large operating loss, intensive write-off of investments and potential litigation obligation, and severe outside conditions including increasing competition from both computer hardware manufacturers and mobile phone providers, weak global economy, and uncertainty of industrial standard, etc. Hence, there will be a truly tough and uncertain battle before PLMO's final success.
The improving performance shown in RIM's financial statements well supports its accumulative business objectives, such as steadily growing BlackBerry subscriber base and increasing revenue/gross profit margin, in the past 3 fiscal years and the strategy of "leverage the technology and infrastructure investments". The management also expressed strong confidence in "significant revenue growth in FY04" , which is basically foreseeable. But RIM is also facing some risks: 1) Reliance on Blackberry as the main revenue driver. Although RIM benefited significantly from the rapid international expansion and successful alliance with network carrier partners, the uncertainties of technologic change (including continued acceptance of RIM's product) and relationship with partners directly influence are critical to RIM's further growth; 2) Potential litigation obligation: RIM won a few lawsuits in FY03 but was ruled guilty in infringing 8 patents of NTP Inc. and has compensated it $58 million by far, although further verdict of other compensation is pending and RIM's appeal is in process. If RIM finally loses this lawsuit, it might need to share certain percentage of revenue with NTP.
Based on the comprehensive analysis of the financial statements of the two companies, we may conclude that: RIM displays moderately better perspective than PLMO for its stronger financial ratios and comparatively less competitive business environment. But in view of the volatility and uncertainty in premature handheld wireless communication industry, it might still need more time to find the final champion.
V. Clarity and Conformity
One crucial problem against GAAP principle of "conservative" is PLMO, as a party to quite a few lawsuits involving technology propriety, IPO and competition issues, didn't list estimation for its potential litigation loss in the future, even with acknowledgement that "an unfavorable resolution of these lawsuits could materially adversely affect Palm's business, results of operations and financial condition." Contrarily, RIM recorded $58 million as "current and estimated future cost" for its loss in lawsuit with NTP, although it is still in appeal. Since GAAP's conservatism constraint requires that special care be taken to avoid 1) overstating assets and revenues and 2) understating liabilities and expenses, RIM's practice is highly preferred.
Appendix I: Calculation of ratio:
I. Test of Profitability
1. Gross Margin % = Gross profit / Revenues
2. Dividend payout ratio = Annual dividends on common shares / (Net income-Preferred share dividends)
3. Return on Equity (ROE) = Income / Average Owner's Equity
* Dupont Analysis, ROE = Net Profit Margin x Asset Turnover x Financial Leverage
4. Return on Assets (ROA) = Income + Interest Expense (net of tax) / Average Total Assets
* ROA = Net Profit Margin x Asset Turnover
5. Financial Leverage percentage = ROE - ROA
6. Earning per Share = Income Available to Common Shareholders / Weighted-Average Number of Common Shares Outstanding
7. Quality of Income = Cash Flows from Operating Activities / Net Income
8. Profit Margin = Income (before extraordinary items) / Net Income
9. Fixed Asset Turnover ratio = Net Sales Revenue / Average Net Fixed Assets
palmOne (May. 31) RIM (Mar. 1)
Key financial data 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Revenue 871,946.00 1,030,831.00 1,559,312.00 306,732.00 294,053.00 221,327.00
Gross profit 280,617.00 385,454.00 226,338.00 140,117.00 98,560.00 87,475.00
Interest expenses 2,129.00 938.00 41,881.00 852.00 779.00 456.00
Total assets 576,626.00 989,096.00 1,297,251.00 861,655.00 946,958.00 968,706.00
Average total assets 782,861.00 1,143,173.50 904,306.50 957,832.00
shareholders' equity 255,786.00 690,848.00 734,152.00 706,780.00 874,068.00 901,576.00
Average owners' equity 473,317.00 712,500.00 790,424.00 887,822.00
Income available to common shareholders (442,582.00) (82,168.00) (356,476.00) (148,858.00) (28,231.00) (7,568.00)
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding 29,230.00 28,960.00 28,360.00 77,247.00 78,866.00 78,346.00
cash flow from operating activities (63,900.00) (252,588.00) (164,360.00) 2,790.00 17,705.00 (15,666.00)
net income (442,582.00) (82,168.00) (356,476.00) (148,858.00) (28,231.00) (7,568.00)
Income (before extraordinary items) (442,582.00) (82,168.00) (356,476.00) (148,858.00) (28,231.00) (7,568.00)
Net sales revenue 871,946.00 1,030,831.00 1,559,312.00 306,732.00 294,053.00 221,327.00
Average net fixed assets 153,089.00 217,489.00 157,209.00 119,685.50
Net profit margin (0.51) (0.08) (0.49) (0.10)
Total assets turnover 1.11 0.90 0.34 0.31
Dividend payout ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gross margin 0.322 0.374 0.457 0.335
Return on equity (0.94) (0.12) (0.19) (0.03)
Return on assets (1.54) (0.16) (0.34) (0.06)
Financial leverage % 0.61 0.05 0.16 0.03
Earning per share (15.14) (2.84) (1.93) (0.36)
Quality of income 0.14 3.07 (0.02) (0.63)
Profit margin (0.51) (0.08) (0.49) (0.10)
Fixed Asset Turnover 5.70 4.74 1.95 2.46
* Necessary data for ratio calculation.
Exhibit 1 - A
Exhibit 1 - B
Exhibit 1 - C
II. Tests of Liquidity
10. Cash Ratio = Cash + Cash Equivalents / Current Liabilities
11. Current Ratio = Current Assets / Current Liabilities
12. Quick Ratio (Acid Test) = Quick Assets / Current Liabilities
* Quick Asset = Cash / Cash Equivalents + Short-term Investments + Accounts Receivable (net of the allowance for doubtful accounts)
13. Receivable turnover = Net Credit Sales / Average Net Trade Receivables
14. Inventory Turnover = Cost of Good Sold / Average Inventory
palmOne (May. 31) RIM (Mar. 1)
Liquidity 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Fixed assets 94,622.00 211,556.00 223,422.00 162,575.00 151,843.00 87,528.00
Cash + cash equivalents 242,432.00 278,547.00 513,769.00 340,681.00 340,476.00 508,822.00
Current liabilities 237,346.00 232,998.00 553,485.00 149,099.00 59,538.00 60,802.00
Current assets 371,023.00 478,179.00 904,153.00 424,937.00 737,318.00 862,844.00
Quick assets 339,869.00 360,068.00 629,111.00 386,022.00 693,117.00 786,089.00
Net credit sales 871,946.00 1,030,831.00 1,559,312.00 306,732.00 294,053.00 221,327.00
Net trade receivable 97,437.00 63,551.00 114,342.00 40,803.00 42,642.00 50,268.00
Average net trade receivables 80,494.00 88,946.50 41,722.50 46,455.00
COGS 591,329.00 745,525.00 1,060,878.00 166,615.00 195,493.00 133,853.00
Inventory 22,748.00 55,004.00 107,813.00 31,275.00 37,477.00 68,044.00
Average inventory 38,876.00 81,408.50 34,376.00 52,760.50
Cash ratio 1.02 1.20 0.93 2.28 5.72 8.37
Current ratio 1.56 2.05 1.63 2.85 12.38 14.19
Quick assets 1.43 1.55 1.14 2.59 11.64 12.93
Receivable turnover 10.83 11.59 7.35 6.33
Inventory turnover 15.21 9.16 4.85 3.71
Exhibit 2 - A
Exhibit 2 - B
Exhibit 2 - C
III. Tests of Solvency and Equity Position
15. Times Interest Earned Ratio = Net Income + Interest + Income Tax Expense / Interest Expense
16. Cash Coverage Ratio = Cash Flows from Operating Activities (before interest and tax expense) / Interest Paid
17. Debt-to-Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities / Owner's Equity
PLMO (May. 31) RIM (Mar. 1)
Solvency and equity position 2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Income tax expense 224,998.00 (25,737.00) (167,715.00) 3,513.00 7,058.00 4,720.00
Net income + interest expense + income tax expense (219,713.00) (106,967.00) (482,310.00) (144,493.00) (20,394.00) (2,392.00)
cash flow from operating activities (63,900.00) (252,588.00) (164,360.00) 2,790.00 17,705.00 (15,666.00)
Total liabilities 300,840.00 298,248.00 563,099.00 154,875.00 71,412.00 67,130.00
shareholders' equity 255,786.00 690,848.00 734,152.00 706,780.00 874,068.00 901,576.00
Times interest earned ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cash coverage ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Debt-to-equity ratio 1.18 0.43 0.77 0.22 0.08 0.07
Exhibit 3 - A
Exhibit 3 - B
IV Market Tests
18. Price/earning Ration = Current Market Price per Share / Earning per Share
19. Dividend Yield Ratio = Dividends per Share / Market Price per Share
Market test PLMO (May. 31) RIM (Mar. 1)
2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Current market price per share (Nov.) 14.80 44.79
Retained earnings (868,789.00) (426,207.00) (344,039.00) (169,643.00) (18,005.00) (11,919.00)
Dividends per share N/A N/A
Price/earning ratio N/A N/A N/A
Dividend yield ratio N/A N/A
Exhibit 4 - A
* PLMO: 1:20 reverse stock split on Oct. 15, 2002
V. Miscellaneous Ratio
20. Book Value per Share = Equity
Miscellaneous PLMO (May. 31) RIM (Mar. 1)
2003 2002 2001 2003 2002 2001
Equity applicable to common shares 255,786.00 690,848.00 734,152.00 706,780.00 874,068.00 901,576.00
Book value per share 8.75 23.86 25.89 9.15 11.08 11.51