Corona Components: Is the Cash Gap Really Just Growth?
Corona Components reports FY2024 revenue of $600 million, up 20% from $500 million, and net income of $42 million versus $30 million. Operating cash flow fell to $18 million from $55 million. Accounts receivable rose from $85 million to $120 million, inventory from $60 million to $95 million, and accounts payable from $70 million to $75 million. Gross margin held at 31% both years; cost of goods sold was $414 million. Capital expenditures were $30 million, including $12 million capitalized for a new ERP system. The CFO attributes the cash gap to "growth" and expects collections to normalize next quarter. Management proposes raising the dividend 15%. The audit committee wants an independent read before it votes.
1. Compute days sales outstanding, days inventory outstanding, days payable outstanding, and the cash conversion cycle for both years. Quantify how much of the cash gap is genuinely explained by the 20% revenue increase and how much is not.
Read the worked answer
Formulas (365-day year): DSO = AR/Revenue × 365; DIO = Inventory/COGS × 365; DPO = AP/COGS × 365; CCC = DSO + DIO − DPO.
| Metric | FY2023 | FY2024 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| DSO | 85/500 × 365 = 62.1 d | 120/600 × 365 = 73.0 d | +10.9 d |
| DIO | 60/345 × 365 = 63.5 d | 95/414 × 365 = 83.8 d | +20.3 d |
| DPO | 70/345 × 365 = 74.1 d | 75/414 × 365 = 66.1 d | −8.0 d |
| CCC | 51.5 d | 90.7 d | +39.2 d |
Separating growth from deterioration: hold FY2023 efficiency constant against FY2024 volume.
- AR at 62.1 days would be 600 × 62.1/365 = $102.0M; actual is $120M → $18.0M unexplained.
- Inventory at 63.5 days would be 414 × 63.5/365 = $72.0M; actual is $95M → $23.0M unexplained.
- Payables at 74.1 days would be 414 × 74.1/365 = $84.0M; actual $75M → $9.0M of cash used by paying faster, the opposite of what a growing company normally does.
Total working-capital drag ≈ $50M, versus a $37M decline in operating cash flow (offset partly by the $12M earnings increase). Growth explains the dollar size of the balance sheet, not the day-count deterioration. Roughly $41M of the increase is not volume-driven.
2. Identify which symptoms a growth explanation cannot account for, and list the specific audit/analytical procedures you would demand before the committee relies on the CFO's explanation.
Read the worked answer
Symptoms that growth does not explain
- DPO falling while revenue grows. Growing firms normally stretch suppliers; paying eight days faster points to suppliers tightening terms (credit stress) or to window-dressing payables.
- DSO +11 days with stable gross margin. Could be a mix shift to slow-paying customers, concessionary terms extended to hit year-end volume, or revenue recognized ahead of collection (cut-off/channel issues).
- Inventory +20 days with flat margin. A 31% gross margin held flat while inventory days jump 32% is inconsistent with pure volume growth; it suggests build-ahead against optimistic forecasts, obsolete/excess SKUs, or capitalized overhead in inventory.
- CFO/NI of 0.43 (18/42) versus 1.83 last year - accruals quality has collapsed. Free cash flow is negative: 18 − 30 = −$12M.
- $12M capitalized ERP. Training, data conversion, and re-engineering costs must be expensed; only qualifying application development is capitalizable.
Procedures to demand
- AR aging by customer and subsequent cash collections through the audit report date; list of customers granted extended terms in Q4; revenue by month and by shipping date for the last two weeks of the year.
- Inventory turns by SKU, slow-moving/obsolete report, standard-cost variance analysis, and any inventory in a consignment or distributor channel.
- Returns, allowances, and credit-memo activity as a percentage of sales for both years.
- ERP cost capitalization schedule with supporting time records.
- Payables aging and confirmation of key supplier terms.
- Roll-forward of the allowance for doubtful accounts against actual write-offs.
3. Given your findings, recommend whether the board should approve the 15% dividend increase. What conditions, if any, would change your recommendation?
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: do not approve the increase now.
Reasoning:
- Free cash flow is −$12M (CFO $18M − capex $30M). A 15% increase in dividends on a roughly flat prior payout would have to be debt-funded, which raises leverage exactly when working-capital quality is deteriorating.
- Dividends are conventionally treated as sticky: cutting one later transmits a strong negative signal. Signaling confidence while cash conversion is 0.43 × earnings is a credibility bet the company does not need to make.
- ~$41M of the balance-sheet build is not explained by volume. If even half proves to be non-collectible AR or slow inventory, FY2025 reported earnings would require a write-down, and the increased dividend would be exposed.
- Dividend capacity should be measured against sustainable free cash flow, not net income. On current evidence, normalized FCF is near zero to negative.
What would change the recommendation
- Subsequent-events testing shows the Q4 AR is collected normally within 45 days, and inventory days revert toward 65–70.
- The company demonstrates DSO/DIO improvement in the first quarter after year-end.
- The ERP capitalization is verified as compliant and the cash outflow is genuinely non-recurring.
- Even then, a flat dividend with a share-repurchase authorization (executed from surplus cash only) preserves flexibility better than a committed 15% step-up.
Alternative: approve a flat dividend, create a special-dividend policy tied explicitly to annual free cash flow, and revisit after two clean quarters.