Like-for-like sales
One way of making meaningful year-on-year comparisons, especially with retail stocks, is by looking at 'like-for-like' sales growth.
When you look at a company's performance from one year to another, it is often difficult to see real gains or losses at a glance. A company might say that its turnover is up 10% on last year, but if it has doubled the amount of stores it owns or made bolt-on acquisitions since then, this may not best represent the state of the underlying business.
One way of making meaningful year-on-year comparisons, especially with retail stocks, is by looking at 'like-for-like' sales growth. This means excluding from the most recent numbers sales made in new stores or stores gained from acquisitions over the previous financial year - and adding back in any that might have come from stores disposed of over the same year. What you have left is a figure that shows how well the company's previously existing business has done over the period.
In the year 2001 to 2002, for example, pub operator JD Wetherspoon's opened 87 pubs and overall sales rose 24%. However, if you discount the new revenue streams (from the 87 new pubs), you will see that like-for-like sales - ie, those at its previously existing outlets - increased by only 5%.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
-
Copycat banking websites on the rise - how to spot one
Over 2,000 banking copycat websites were reported as phishing scams in 2023, according to Which? But how do you know if the banking site you're about to use is real?
By Oojal Dhanjal Published
-
Saving for retirement: ISAs vs. SIPPs
Features SIPPs offer more generous tax breaks overall, but ISAs are more flexible. So, which is better?
By Marc Shoffman Last updated