Cash Ratio $7,195 / $152,299 = 0.05 Boot Born reported cash ratio .05 to 1. Boot Barn may have a difficulty paying its liabilities because the ratio is to low. However, Boot Barn had a net cash operation of $155,486,000.00 provided by financial activities. Boot Barn has sufficient cash to meet future financial needs. Current Ratio $203,219 / $152,299 = 1.33 Boot Barn reported a 1.33 current ratio that indicates its current possessions can cover its charges. Boot Barn will be able to pay debts and pay suppliers to continue to send stock to stores for sell. Boot Barn does good job with inventory to the needs of the consumer. Boot Barn does not have inventory just sitting around not moving with a high current ratio. Quick Ratio $26,884 = $203,219 - $176,335 …show more content…
Boot Barn shows that it can turn liquid assets into cash, which then can cover current liabilities. Boot Barn confer it has 18 cents in currency for every $1.00 in current liabilities. The .18 quick ratio shows that Boot Barn does not have to depend on the sale of all inventory to pay its current liabilities. Debt to Assets $377,836 / $539,326 = .70 Boot Barn stated .70 debt to assets which is typically high making the financial strategy risky for the company. Boot Barn ratio shows that creditors back 70 percent of the company funding. The high ratio shows that Boot Barn is being financed with debt, rather than equity. The increase could be from a result of issuing new bonds or repurchasing common stock. Receivable Turnover Ratio $4,131 + $3,863 = $7,994 / 2 = $3,997 $569,020 / $3,997 = 142.36
Suppliers are mostly concerned with a company 's ability to pay on their liabilities. Therefore, the current ratio and the quick ratio are both looked at by suppliers. The current ratio takes a company’s current assets and divides that by the company’s current liabilities. This number is
Sales growth after 2000 were only 9%, which the average annual sale growth rates range from 10% to 30% in their industry. The lack of cash is explained by the current liquidity ratio
Net working capital represents organization’s operating liquidity. In order to compute the net working capital, total current assets are divided from total current liabilities. When there is sufficient excess of current assets over current liabilities, an organization might be considered sufficiently liquid. Another ratio that helps in assessing the operating liquidity of as company is a current ratio. The ratio is calculated by dividing the total current assets over total current liabilities. When the current ratio is high, the organization has enough of current assets to pay for the liabilities. Yet, another mean of calculating the organization’s debt-paying ability is the debt ratio. To calculate the ratio, total liabilities are divided by total assets. The computation gives information on what proportion of organization’s assets is financed by a debt, and what is the entity’s ability to pay for current and long term liabilities. Lower debt ratio is better, because the low liabilities require low debt payments. To be able to lend money, an organization’s current ratio has to fall above a certain level, also the debt ratio cannot rise above a certain threshold. Otherwise, the entity will not be able to lend money or will have to pay high penalties. The following steps can be undertaken by a company to keep the debt ratio within normal
The Current Ratio is calculated by taking the current debt and dividing it by the current liabilities. It is the measurement on how a company can meet its short term liabilities with liquid assets (Loth, Rihar, 2015a).A higher ratio indicates favorable activity. A company should be able to meet it responsibilities with its
Looking at the individual ratios seen in exhibit 1 and comparing it to the industry average shown in exhibit 2 gives a sense of where this company stands. Current ratio and quick ratio are really low and have been decreasing. For 1995, the current ratio is 1.15:1, which is less than the industry average of 1.60:1, however to give a better sense of where this stands in the industry, as seen in exhibit 3, it is actually less than the average of the bottom 25% of the industry. The quick ratio is 0.61 is less than the industry is 0.90. Both these ratios serve to point out the lack of cash in this company. The cash flow has been decreasing because, it takes longer to get the money from customers, but the company still needs to pay for its purchases. Also, the company couldn’t go over the $400,000 loan limit, so they were forced to stretch their cash.
Amazon’s current ratio for the latest quarter was 1.06. This number represents the ability to pay short and long term obligations by showing the amount of current assets by the amount of current liabilities. For the most recent quarter, it can be determined that Amazon has an equivalent of 1.06 assets for every liability. The quick ratio for the company gives a better idea of the amount of liquid assets that the company holds - this includes cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments, and current receivables. In Amazon’s case, the quick ratio is 0.74 which means that there is .74 quick assets for each liability. These numbers definitely have room to grow upon and will increase with either a larger amount of quick and current assets or a smaller number of
The consistent high spending of capital equipment is the first reason why one would recommend reducing the debt to equity ratio. A company with higher levels of debt is less flexible in being able to adjust to new market demands and conditions that require the company to make new products or respond to competition. Looking at the pecking order of financing, issuing new shares to fund capital investing is the last resort and a company that has high levels of debt, must move to the equity side to avoid the risk of bankruptcy. Defaulting on loans occur when increased costs or bad economic conditions lead the firm to have lower net income than the payments on loans. The risk of defaulting on loans and the direct and indirect cost related to defaulting lead firms to prefer lower levels of debt. The financial distress caused by additional leverage can lead to lower cash flows available to all investors, lower than if the firm was financed by equity only. Additionally, the high debt ratio that Du Pont incurred also led to them dropping from a AAA bond rating to a AA bond Rating. Although the likelihood of not being able to acquire loans would be minimal, there are increased interest costs with having a lower bond rating. The lower bond rating signals to investors that the firm is more likely to default than if it had a higher (AAA) bond rating.
When comparing the debt-to-assets ratio of McDonalds and Wendys, you have to divide the firms total liabilities by their total assets. Essentially, the debt-to-assets ratio is the primary indicator of the firms debt management. As the ratio increases or decreases, it indicates the firms changing reliance on borrowed resources. The lower the ratio the more efficient the firm will be able to liquidate its assets if operations were discontinued, and debts needed to be collected. In 2005 Wendy's had $2,076,043 worth in total assets and $846,264 in total liabilities. When divided, Wendys has the lower ratio of the two competitors at 40%. This means that they would take losses of 40% if operations were shut down, and the cash received from valuable assets would still be sufficient to pay off the entire debt. It also means that 40% of Wendys assets are made through debt. McDonalds in 2005 had $12,545.3 (in millions) of total liabilities and $22,534.5 (in millions) of total assets. After doing the math, McDonalds ends up with a ratio of 56% which is higher than Wendys by sixteen percent. This means that there is more default on McDonalds liabilities, which can be a costly event from lenders perspective. McDonalds makes 56% of all its assets through debt. In reality, its not good to have a debt-to-assets ratio over 50%. Its also not good to have a debt-to-assets ratio that is too low because...
...To check how successful it has been, we calculate debtor collection period ratio. (Dyson, 2004) Fixed Asset turnover: In this ratio, we seek the amount of sales that can be generated (or the amount of fixed assets necessary to achieve a level of sales) from a given level of fixed assets. (Klein, 1998) Total asset turnover: This ratio determines that how efficiently a firm is utilizing its assets. If the asset turnover ratio is high, the firm is using its assets effectively in generating sales. If this ratio is low, the firm may not be using its assets efficiently and shall either increase sales or eliminate some of the existing assets. (Argenti, 2002) Solvency Ratio Gearing: Gearing reflects the relationship between a company’s equity capital (ordinary shares and reserves) and its other form of long-term funding (preference share, debenture, etc.) (Black, 2000)
Understanding the meaning of financial ratios is imperative to different stakeholders both within and outside of a company. Management reviews different ratios to measure how effective the strategies used to run the business are within a given time period. Money Managers and other types of investors use ratios to determine investment strategies in different types of companies. The use of the ratios helps give a consistent look at different types of businesses whether large or small and determine profitability and return on equity. The purpose of this paper is examine liquidity ratios as applied to three companies and gain understanding of how the ratios studied disclose liquidity positions.
Current ratio: This number is found by dividing the current assets by the current liabilities that is found on the balance sheet. The current ratio for 2010 was .666. This was calculated by $1550,631 / $2,326,966. The current ratio for 2011 was .905. This number was calculated by $1,543,816 / $1,705,132.
Ratios traditionally measure the most important factors such as liquidity, solvency and profitability, as well as other measures of solvency. Different studies have found various ratios to be the most efficient indicators of solvency. Studies of ratio analysis began in the 1930’s, with several studies of the concluding that firms with the potential to file bankruptcy all exhibited different ratios than those companies that were financially sound. Among the study’s findings were that the deciding factor of the predictor of bankruptcy should not be only a few ratios, as the measure of a company’s financial solvency may differ as the firm’s situations differ. The important question is to which ratios are to be used and of those ratios chosen, which ratios are given priority weight.
This is not an unusual confluence, but it does require some financial decision-making. Their current state of under financing makes a number of their ratios look poor. There are several reasons for the cash flow problems at Clarkson Lumber. One is Mr. Clarkson's decision in 1994 to buy out his partner Mr. Holtz. The note had 4 semi-annual installments of $50,000 beginning June 30, 1995 with an 11% interest rate.
Any successful business owner or investor is constantly evaluating the performance of the companies they are involved with, comparing historical figures with its industry competitors, and even with successful businesses from other industries. To complete a thorough examination of any company's effectiveness, however, more needs to be looked at than the easily attainable numbers like sales, profits, and total assets. Luckily, there are many well-tested ratios out there that make the task a bit less daunting. Financial ratio analysis helps identify and quantify a company's strengths and weaknesses, evaluate its financial position, and shows potential risks. As with any other form of analysis, financial ratios aren't definitive and their results shouldn't be viewed as the only possibilities. However, when used in conjuncture with various other business evaluation processes, financial ratios are invaluable. By examining Ford Motor Company's financial ratios, along with a few other company factors, this report will give a clear picture of how the company is doing now and should do in the future.
Working capital management is a very important component of corporate finance because it directly affects the liquidity and profitability of the company. It deals with current assets and current liabilities. Working capital management is important due to many reasons. For one thing, the current assets of a typical manufacturing firm accounts for over half of its total assets. For a distribution company, they account for even more. Excessive levels of current assets can easily result in a firm’s realizing a substandard return on investment. However firms with too few current assets may incur shortages and difficulties in maintaining smooth operations (Horne and Wachowicz, 2000). Efficient working capital management involves planning and controlling