Now the company has over 129 years of productive history and 8,400 of only researchers working for it.

             In order to compare financial performance of both companies and thus draw conclusions which of them increases the shareholders' wealth that should be the main goal for both of them, we shall review the following financial efficiency ratios. The first ratio is the receivable turnover which equals to annual credit sales divided by average accounts receivables and thus reflects the company ability to use credits in promoting their sales and also the company ability to collect debts. The receivable turnovers ratio for Johnson & Johnson is 6,9 while it is only 4,4 for Eli Lilly. High receivable turnover ratio implies a tight company credit policy and thus fewer credit systems offered, predominance of cash operation by company or good efficient debt management policy and few bad debts, short-term debts or favorable credit conditions which allow customers to pay out their debts in shorter periods. In contrary, low receivable turnovers ratio is suggestive of poor credit collection policy, thus the amount of goods sold in credit to the customers exceeds several times the average receivable fund from them. Usually corporate financial statements report only on the total amounts of sales not distinguishing between cash and credit sales. This can mislead not proficient in finance clients and small investors as the total sales volume must be compared with amount of goods sold in cash and in credit and even more importantly the recovery of these credits from the clients. Not using credit instruments in sales promotion is not most efficient use of corporate opportunities for sales growth, but implementing credit policy requires working out efficient debt management system which is the major tool to make credit policy have positive affect on total company performance and not just increases in sales volumes.