Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. has been engaged in the manufacture and sale confectionery products since 1896 when Austrian-born Leo Hirshfield opened a tiny candy shop in New York City. Hirshfield handcrafted a variety of products, including an individually wrapped, oblong, chewy, chocolate candy that quickly became a customer favorite. The hand wrapping – believed to be an industry first – enabled Hirshfield’s product to stand out among the competitor’s candy-counter offerings, which were sold by the scoop from jars (St. James Press, 1996). Sold at a penny apiece and affectionately named after Hirshfield’s five-year old daughter, Clara, whose nickname was “Tootsie,” Tootsie Rolls propelled Hirshfield’s modest corner store into burgeoning candy enterprise that has evolved in little more than a century into the multinational corporation, Tootsie Roll Industries. The Tootsie Roll Industry main head quarter and production plant is located in Chicago, Illinois. Its operations are also in Illinois; Massachusetts; Tennessee; Wisconsin; Mexico City, Mexico; and Concord, Ontario. Today they employee around 2200 employees.
The company’s website is www.tootsie.com. Its three top competitors are listed as The Hershey Company (Ticker Symbol HSY), Nestle S.A. (shares are traded at SIX Swiss Exchange symbol NESN.VX (Nestle , 2011), and Mars Inc (privately held company). The board of Directors has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC as the independent registered public accounting firm for its 2011 fiscal year. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC has been the company’s independent auditors since 1968 (Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., 2011). In 1905, Hirshfield realized that he would need more capital to promote and expand his candy business to meet demand. Within the year he merged his operations with a local candy manufacturer, Sterg & Staalberg. In 1917 the company was renamed to Sweets Company of America. Sweets Company of American registered on the New York Stock Exchange in 1922 (Victory Seed Company, 1998). Its SIC code is 2064 which is Candy & Other Confectionary Products. Its Ticker Symbol is TR. Hirshfield left the company in 1920 to start another candy venture called the Mells of Candy Corporation. This corporation went bankrupt in 1924. According to his obituary, On January 13, 1922 Hirshfield shot himself in a hotel and died the same day (Samira Kawash, 2010). While the economy was forcing many candy companies to suspend production during WWII, business was booming for Sweets Company of America. Tootsie Rolls were included in G.I. rations because of its “quick energy” properties and its ability to stay fresh for long periods of time. While the company’s involvement in the war effort resulted in gains on its balance sheet, it also contributed to the company’s enduring status as an American icon (St. James Press, 1996). In 1948, William B. Rubin becomes President of the Sweets Company of America. With his appointment he wanted to focus more on marketing and advertising. In 1950, he placed an advertisement in Life magazine that featured a beaming 18-year-old woman, Rubin’s daughter and future company President, Ellen Gordon (St. James Press, 1996). Under Rubin’s leadership the company experienced 15 consecutive years of record growth. In 1962, Melvin Gordon took over Chief Executive duties. In 1966, the company changed its name to Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. In 1978, Ellen Gordon is named President of Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. At this time, she is the second woman to be elected president of a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. In 2009 Chairman Melvin Gordon was honored with the Kettle Award, the candy industry’s highest award, in recognition of his lifetime achievements and dedication to the industry. Halloween has always been the one of the largest selling season for the company and 2009 did not disappoint. Its third quarter sales nearly doubled those of any other quarter in the year. Some of this increase can be contributed to its increase of several popular lines. Since the early seventies the question has been “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop.” The company promoted this long-standing message through campaigns on several children’s channels on cable television in 2009. Expanding on this the company launched a How Many Licks Sweepstakes that encouraged applicants to guess the correct number of licks it would take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop. Its conclusion after evaluating thousands of entrants is that “the world may never know!” Other whimsical notes, in 2009 Tootsie Roll was featured as its own category on the long running game show Jeopardy. Its profile was also on the Travel Channel’s special interest program Extreme Mega Factories. Also in 2009, the Orthodox Union approved placement of Kosher symbol on packages of Tootsie Roll products (Orthodox Union, 2009). Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc has many strengths and weaknesses as shown in the following SWOT Analysis.
Location of Factor Type of Factor Favorable Unfavorable
Internal Strengths Weaknesses • High market share (50%)
• Strong brand equity and company legacy
• Technology and process leader “ ahead of state of the art”
• Low cost producer
• Leverage existing and common resources to develop flavors and recipes.
• Total Quality Management program (TQM)
• Horizontal integration (sells complimentary products)
• Excellent tactical operations management
• Financial strength, good revenue growth • No succession plans.
• Control, ownership centralized in 2 people (Gordon Family over 80%).
• Dependence on seasonal, holiday sales.
• Packaging and suppliers.
External Opportunities Threats • Global expansion
- Sales and production facilities
• Develop viable succession plan for top management.
• Develop strategic roadmap for product diversification and potential acquisition.
• Leverage low cost production to develop high margin “specialty” candies.
• Advertise complimentary brands and product lines. • Primary focus on US market >90% sales (show growth).
• Changing consumer tastes, nutrition, health- conscious trends (reduce growth).
• Low margins can be reduced by supply shock or sudden change in consumption (i.e. Tylenol poison scare)
• Crude oil, sugar, soybean and edible oils, cocoa and dairy products markets

A substantial internal threat to Tootsie Roll Industries Inc lies with upper management. In 2008 Gene Marcial, a Columnist with Business Week’s Inside Wall Street, proclaimed that Tootsie Roll is a buyout candidate. He has listed several reasons for this potential buyout. One of those reason is, “Tootsie Roll’s chairman and CEO is now 88, and his wife, the company’s president and chief operating officer, is 76. They control some 76% of the class B voting stock and 54% of the common shares of the Chicago-based company, so the question of a hostile or unsolicited takeover at the Chicago-based company seems out of the question” (Sullivan, 2008). A takeover is the perfect way to solve the succession plan problem. The biggest strength that Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc has is an extremely strong brand name and the distinctive quality of its products. The trademark packaging of its products stands as an American classic. Tootsie Roll has neither diluted the quality of its products nor failed to deliver consistency in its brand. This also leads into one of the company’s largest weaknesses, which is the decline of the initial parental loyal base. Subsequent parental groups may not be able to communicate the special quality of the “Roll” to their children. This parental group may not posses the positive and familiar images of the predecessors. The strength of the brand could lessen as its uniqueness is lessened through a reduction of brand and name awareness. One threat to the Tootsie Roll success is if another company is able to produce a comparable product and make it more attractive to the new generation. This threatens the Tootsie Roll name and loyalty base. The new generations were not around when the cute and adorable naked boy asked the owl, “How many likes it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop.” Another risk that the company is exposed to is related to commodity prices. The volatility in crude oil, sugar, corn, soybean and edible oils, cocoa and dairy products markets impacts the company’s ability to forecast the direction and scope of changes to its major input costs. Several things influence the prices of these commodities. They are influenced by changes in global demands, changes in weather and crops yields, fluctuations in the US dollar, and changes in government farm policies, including mandates for bio-fuels and environmental matters (Tootsie Roll Industries Inc, 2009 ). In order to combat these risks the company periodically reviews each item in its product line to ascertain if price increase, weight reduction or other actions may need to be taken. Starting in the 1960, the company began exploring foreign markets, establishing a subsidiary in Mexico, where the candy became known as “Tutsi.” In 1969 Tootsie Roll Industries Inc was able to negotiate a licensing agreement in the Philippines and then branched into Canada in 1971. Tootsie Roll always has its eye open for way to expand. One way it has accomplished this is through acquisitions. In 1972, the company purchased Mason and Bonomo division of the Candy Corporations of America. This added some well-established names to its repertoire including Mason Dots, Mason Licorice Crows, Mason Mints, Bonomo Turkish Taffy and Bonomo Sour Balls. In 1985, the company purchased Cella’s Confections, Inc. Three years later the company invested another $65 million on the acquisition of the Charms Company. In 1993, the company acquired the caramel and chocolate brands of Warner-Lambert company which included Junior Mints, Sugar Daddy, Sugar Babies and Charleston Chews. In 2000, Tootsie Roll acquired O’TEC Industries. With this acquisition Tootsie Roll began to manufacture Fluffy Stuff Cotton Candy as well as Andes Candies. In 2004, the company made the largest acquisition in its history, integrating Concord Confections of Toronto, Canada. Concord Confections were sold primarily under the name Dubble Bubble but also included Razzle, Cry Baby, and Nik-L-Nip candies (Victory Seed Company, 1998). Net earnings in 2009 were $53,475,000 compared to $38,777,000 in 2008. With a net gain of $14,698,000 in 2009 over 2008 the company has continued to be profitable. When comparing the last five years, Tootsie Roll has had a time of downward shifts in percentage of net product sales. Starting in 2005 when its net earnings were 15.8% of net product sales to 2008 where it had fallen to 7.9%. The company has seen a rebound in 2009 with its net earnings being 10.8% of net product sales (Tootsie Roll Industries Inc, 2009 ). Even with these numbers varying the way it has the company was profitable every year between 2005 and 2009. This can be contributed to the fact that the company has no long-term debt except $7.5 Million in Industrial Development Bonds. The company has had enough cash flow to reinvest in the company when funds are needed. This also reduced its interest liability. I would expect the company’s future earnings would continue to fluctuate year to year. As long as the commodity price risk exists, Tootsie Roll Industries will have to continue to adjust business strategies to accommodate for rising input costs. Although its management seeks to recover these rising cost over the long-term by passing it along to the consumer, the risk is that the price increases or weight decreases will negatively affect customer acceptance and result in lower sales volume. The company has contracted Compensation Strategies Inc to provide advice and assistance to both management and the Board regarding its executive compensation practices. Its compensation program includes salary, annual cash incentives, annual awards under the Company’s Career Achievement Plan, participation in the Excess Benefit Plan, a Supplemental Savings Plan, and split dollar life insurance coverage. The objective of its compensation program is to; (1) Encourage and reward individual effort and teamwork in order to improve the Company’s financial performance, and (2) Attain the Company’s principal long-term objective of profitability building the Company’s well-known brands (Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., 2011). None of Tootsie Roll Industries employees receive stock options, restricted stock or any other form of equity compensation. The Board does not grant equity compensation to the CEO or COO because of their significant equity stake in the Company.
The Board periodically reviews compensation levels for similarly situated executives of a group of industry peers. Each element of compensation as well as total compensation is reviewed to determine if its competitive in the market. In 2010 such a review was conducted and was found that Tootsie Roll Industries Inc was 13% above the market median for similarity situated peer group companies.

Name and Principal Position Y ear Salary Bonus (1) All Other Compensation (2) Totals

Melvin J Gordon 2010 $999,000 $1,569,500 $1,547,630 $4,116,130
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 2009 $999,000 $1,569,500 $1,588,060 $4,156,560 2008 $999,000 $1,285,000 $1,017,495 $3,301,495 Ellen R Gordon 2010 $999,000 $1,459,500 $1,507,450 $3,965,950
President and Chief Operating Officer 2009 $999,000 $1,459,500 $1,545,880 $4,004,380 2008 $999,000 $1,188,000 $1,004,109 $3,191,109 G. Howard Ember, Jr. 2010 $797,000 $258,500 $296,766 $1,325,266
Vice President/Finance 2009 $781,000 $285,500 $294,538 $1,334,038 2008 $751,000 $191,500 $243,213 $1,185,713 John W. Newlin, Jr. 2010 $999,000 $344,500 $499,624 $1,843,124
Vice President/Manufacturing 2009 $999,000 $344,500 $477,529 $1,821,029 2008 $999,000 $255,000 $382,586 $1,636,586 Thomas E Corr 2010 $999,000 $364,500 $423,839 $1,787,339
Vice President/Marketing and Sales 2009 $999,000 $364,500 $403,318 $1,766,818 2008 $999,000 $270,000 $322,485 $1,582,485

(1) Reflects amounts earned under the MIP
(2) Reflects the following benefits for 2010:
a. $27,722 for each named executive officers with respect to the company’s tax qualified contribution plans;
b. With respect to the EBP
i. Mr. Gordon - $320,643 ii. Mrs. Gordon - $305,463 iii. Mr. Ember - $112,062 iv. Mr. Newlin - $152,484
v. Mr. Carr - $154,635
c. With respect to CAP
i. Mr. Gordon - $525,000 ii. Mrs. Gordon - $500,000 iii. Mr. Ember - $145,000 iv. Mr. Newlin - $308,000
v. Mr. Corr - $308,000
d. The shared use of a company owned apartment by Mr. and Mrs. Gordon when there are working at the company’s headquarters in the amount of $66,812 for each Mr. Gordon and Mrs. Gordon.
e. The shared use of the company’s aircraft by Mr. and Mrs. Gordon to travel between corporate headquarters and other locations where they maintain executive offices and personal residents in the amount of $549,856 for each Mr. Gordon and Mrs. Gordon. There are several elements that the Board looks at annually when reviewing executive officer’s base salary. These include:
• Individual performance and contribution to the company;
• Comparative compensation levels of other companies;
• Overall competitive environment for executives and the level of compensation considered necessary to attract and retain executive talent;
• Historical compensation and performance levels for the company;
• Length of service;
• A desire to adhere to Section 162(m) Internal Revenue Code regulations on deductible compensation. This maximizes the company’s ability to receive federal income tax deductions (Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., 2011).
All executive officers are eligible to participate in the Management Incentive Plan (MIP). The MIP is designed to recognize and reward officers for their contribution to the company’s overall financial performance as well as the attainment of individual and company goals. If the company has net earnings of greater than $35 million during the applicable period, each executive officer is deemed to have earned an award equal to $ 3.5 million. The committee then has the discretion to reduce the award based on its consideration and assessment of the following factors:
• Net earnings and earnings per share;
• Increase in sales core brands and total sales;
• Net earnings as percentage of sales;
• Performance in accomplishing cost saving and operational improvements;
• Performance in accomplishing and integrating successful acquisitions, and
• Other strategic objectives that may be determined from time to time.
To date, the company has not paid the $3.5 million maximum available under the MIP to any named executive officers (Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., 2011). All the named officers were eligible to receive annual Career Achievement Plan (CAP) awards in 2010. The CAP is designed to provide executive officers an incentive to achieve both short-term and long-term financial and other goals. It is also intended as an incentive for the named executive officers to remain with the company on a long-term basis. The Board determines the amount of CAP award given to each named executive officers based on the company’s performance and each named executive officers contribution the company’s long-term growth and success. Awarded amounts are credited to an account held by the company on behalf of each named executive officers. Participants vest in each annual award by 20% annually over five years, provided the company continuously employs them. In order to receive a distribution the named executive officer must sign a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement. Melvin J. Gordon, Tootsie Roll’s chairman and chief executive officer, and Ellen R. Gordon, the company’s president and chief operating officer, share an apartment owned by the company. Last year the apartment cost the company slightly less than $10,500 a month. The yearly cost of $125,954 is divided evenly between the two executives. This is not the only perk given to the executives. At a cost of nearly $1.2 million yearly, the couple rely on the corporate jet to transport them between their Chicago apartment and their home. These sorts of commuting expenses are considered a perk under Securities and Exchange Commission rules. I think that the salary compensation for the executive officers is adequate to keeping them at the company. I believe that there are controls and goals set in place so that the Board has something to review when looking at yearly compensation for its executive officers. As long as the goals are being meet and the company stay profitable I see no reason the executive officers should not be rewarded for their service.
Section 4: Capital Structure
A. Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity Total
Liabilities Total
Stockholders’ equity
2010: Dec. 31 $191,429,000 $668,954,000
2009: Dec. 31 $185,762,000 $652,485,000
2008: Dec. 31 $177,322,000 $634,770,000
The company used equity more than debt in these three years.
We use debt-equity ratio to analyze.
Debt-equity ratio = Total Liabilities / Total Stockholder’s Equity 185,762,000 / 652,485,000 = 28%

Debt-equity ratio
2010: Dec. 31 28.62%
2009: Dec. 31 28.47%
2008: Dec. 31 27.93%
2007: Dec. 31 27.34%
2006: Dec. 31 25.52%
Its debt-equity ratio accumulates every year from 2006 to 2010. The debt-equity ratio in 2010 is more than before. It means that the company used more and more liabilities. The more debt-equity ratio represents the more liabilities. The current liability was increase not very much so that debt-equity ratio was increase a little.

B. Capital stock: Preferred stock Common stock shares issued Common stock
2010 Dec. 31 No 56,523 $39,252,000
2009 Dec. 31 No 55,721 $38,695,000
Treasury stock: Treasury stock shares Treasury stock
2010 Dec. 31 69 $(1,992,000)
2009 Dec. 31 67 $(1,992,000)
Stock market prices: Stock market prices
2010 Dec. 31 $28.13
2009 Dec. 31 $25.81
2008 Dec. 31 $23.44

The company’s inventories are stated at cost. The cost of all domestic inventories has been determined by the last in, first out (LIFO) method. December 31, 2009 its inventory cost was $53,724,000. This is an increase from 2008 by $167,000. The cost of foreign inventories has been determined by the first in, first out (FIFO) method. On December 31, 2009 the company had foreign inventories that totaled $2,663,000. This was an increase over 2008 by $636,000. Any rebates or discounts related to inventory purchases that a vendor offers and the company is able to take advantage of is reflected as a reduction in the cost of the related inventory item. Therefore, the reduction is reflected in cost of sales when the related inventory item is sold. Tootsie Roll Industries Inc had an Inventory Turnover Ratio of 5.7 times in 2009. This means that the company turns its inventory an average of 5.7 times in a year which averages about 64 days between the time the company purchases inventory and the time it sells that inventory. Comparatively The Hershey Company has an Inventory Turnover Ratio of 6.1 times in 2009. This tells investors that The Hershey Company is able to turn over its inventory faster than Tootsie Roll Industries. The company computes depreciation expense using the straight-line method. Buildings are computed using a useful life of 20 to 35 years and machinery or equipment is computed with a useful life of 5 to 20 years. December 31, 2009 depreciation expense was $17,862,000. This was an increase of $826,000 deprecation expense from 2008. 2009 2008 Current Assets $211,878,000 $188,588,000 Long-Term Assets $405,648,000 $407,309,000 Total Assets $838,247,000 $813,525,000

Long-term assets has decline from 2008 to 2009. Part of this decline is because the company ascertained that certain trademarks were impaired and recorded a pre-tax charge of $14,000. Based on an increase in the buildings, land, and machinery and equipment asset totals and an increase in accumulated depreciation I would say that the company bought some assets during 2009. Based on the Statement of Liabilities and Shareholder’s Equity I would conclude that the company financed these purchases internally. There were no substantially large increases in current or long-term liabilities and no notable change in Shareholder’s Equity.
Section 6: Cash Flows
Total for each of three categories for 3 years:
2010: For the ended Dec. 31 $24,986,000
2009: For the ended Dec. 31 $22,082,000
2008: For the ended Dec. 31 $11,302,000
A. Operating cash flows
2010: For the ended Oct. 02 $82,805,000
2009: For the ended Dec. 31 $76,994,000
2008: For the ended Dec. 31 $57,533,000 B. Investing cash flows
2010: For the ended Dec. 31 $(16,808,000)
2009: For the ended Dec. 31 $(16,364,000)
2008: For the ended Dec. 31 $(7,565,000)

C. Financing cash flows
2010: For the ended Dec. 31 $(41,011,000)
2009: For the ended Dec. 31 $(38,548,000)
2008: For the ended Dec. 31 $(38,666,000)

With Tootsie Roll being in business now for over 110 years it is no surprise they have turned from a small New York candy store to a world wide house hold name. Whether you are enjoying a Tootsie Roll or sucking on a Tootsie pop you can taste Tootsie Roll Industries commitment to quality products and customer satisfaction. I would be comfortable investing in Tootsie Roll Industries Inc because I am a conservative investor. Tootsie Roll Industries has a .01 Debt/Equity Ratio compared to the industry Debt/Equity Ratio of 1.81. The lower ratio tells me that the company is being able to maintain growth without financing it with debt. Also, with a Pre-Tax Margin of 14.2% (compared to the industry average of 13.9%) shows that the company has been able to keep its operating costs low, while being able to pull in strong earnings. Based on these estimates and calculations I would say that Tootsie Roll Industries Inc is a strong company that knows when to invest and when to lay low and “go with the flow.” It may have a lot of ups and down in the stock market but for someone like me who is comfortable riding it out I think this is a good company to look into investing in.

Bibliography
Nestle . (2011, January 1). Shares, ADR, and Bonds. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from Nestle: www.nestle.com
Orthodox Union. (2009, December 02). Tootsie Roll Goes Kosher. Retrieved March 23, 2011, from Orthodox Union: www.ou.org
Samira Kawash, P. (2010, February 3). Tootsie Roll Tragedy: The Real Hirschfeld Story. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from Candy Professor: www.candyprofessor.com
St. James Press. (1996). International Directory of Company Histories (Vol. 12). Farmington Hills, Michigan: St James Press.
Sullivan, T. (2008, June 26). Hershey: Weighing a Sweet Deal with Tootsie. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from Seeking Alpha: www.seekingalpha.com
Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. (2009 ). Annual Report 2009. Chicago: Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. .
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (2011). Proxy Statement Pusuant to Section 14(a) of the SEC Act of 1934. Chicago: Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. .
Victory Seed Company. (1998, January 1). The Victory Old-Time Candy Store. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from Vintage Veggies: www.vintageveggies.com