Same companies, different 3D-graphs: GSK and AstraZeneca revisited.

Last time a mix of companies was presented, taken from another blog, offering a selection that inspired me. In the 3D-graph, the giant BP made the two pharmaceuticals look like dwarfs. So I decided to have another look.

This time however, I won’t stick to the usual RPEA sequence (Revenue, Profit, Equity, Assets), which is the standard for AnRep3D. Although we had to pick some standards for the manual, all kinds of values are allowed (remember I visualised the energy-usage of countries in AnRep3D graphs!).

For the first value I used the raw sales/turnover and instead of the net profit after tax, I took the gross margin (sales minus cost of sales).  (Total) Assets were replaced by (Total) Liabilities and Equity remains the same. Liabilities will be presented as a positive amount.

To obtain the numbers I went back to the annual reports 2016 and saw they presented 2014, 2015 and 2016. Only for GSK’s 2014 balance I had to look at their 2014 Annual Report as well. To illustrate how values look in the Anual Report, I present a small screenshot of the Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) Annual Report (some empty space removed between text and numbers).

Because the values are in GBP (GSK) and USD (AstraZeneca), I converted them to EUR first. All GBP or all USD would have been fine, but as our company is in Europe I refer EUR. For the Profit & Loss I took a weighted average of the exchange-rates for every year and for the balance I took the exchange-rate at the end of the year. The used exchange-rates for the calculations were derived from http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=2Y# again, like last time. The resulting table is shown below.

This time I didn’t export my Excel to a .csv, but copied the values into Notepad directly and rounded the numbers (still millions of EUR, but not relevant in comparison). Two companies and three years should be mentioned in the parameter-line, then a scaling of 1000, 20% extra spacing and font-size 4. The input-file is shown below (as a screenshot – mail me at anrep3d@gmail.com for the real values).

In the end the result is a 3D-graph, of course. To be honest I messed up a couple of times at first. I got this very strange graph and discovered I had left the minus-signs in for the Liabilities (only profit can be negative, as it will be subtracted from the revenue to create the graph). After removing the minus-signs, the graph looked normal but wasn’t completely right as I had mentioned 3 companies and 2 years in the parameter-line. The third attempt was not really wrong, but I had switched equity and liabilities and as a result the graph cannot be viewed easily as the buildings will be rather broad. It’s better to have the smaller value (equity) to determine the width. Finally a nice graph came up and shows the (financial) differences between the two pharmaceuticals clearly. By the way: the errors were not really annoying as a graph is generated within seconds and adjusting the input-file is easy. About a minute after the first attempt the right graph was available! Below a screenshot is presented. Double-click to view the real 3D-graph in your browser.

Remember: clicking the right mouse-button, moving the mouse up and down will zoom the graph in and out. Clicking left and moving the mouse will tilt the graph in different directions (or move the observer’s viewpoint around a fixed graph – it’s relative of course). Double clicking in the graph translates it and moves the centre at the same time. As a result the way the graph tilts will change. Just try it. If you don’t know how to get the normal position back, just refresh the graph.

From this angle the ratios of revenue (building heigth) to equity (width) and gross margin (green top) to equity are clearly visible. For AstraZeneca the gross margin is a higher percentage of the total sales (height of building) and it became better through the years (this time 2016 is to the rear). Compared to the equity however, GSK has a higher ratio for both sales and gross margin.

When we tilt the graph, we can look at the bottoms. This time they show the real gearing:  the liabilities (building depth) to equity (width) ratio. In 2016 the gearing was higher for both companies, although it was always higher for GSK. Different financial strategies, it seems. It’s up to you to draw conclusions from the graphs. We only provide a tool to visualise financial properties for different companies over the years. If you like the tool, please have a look at our website and download the free 3D-graph generator package (no registration needed!).