A Financial Ratio Quarterly Trend Analysis of Apple, Inc.

A reason for this slight decline could be that there has been an increase in their short-term debt. In this case their current liabilities did actually increase.

The working capital also has a direct relationship with the company’s current assets and current liabilities. The working capital should be positive in order to be considered good. To determine the working capital the current liabilities are subtracted from the current assets. As in the current ratio example the same pattern will show in the working capital. It will decline from 2010 to 2011 and then will become negative in 2012. This pattern shows a decline in Tesla Motors ability to use current resources to repay its debts.

The current ratio measures the company’s ability to pay its short term obligations with its short term assets. Between Coca Cola and PepsiCo, PepsiCo has a higher current ratio implying that is more capable of paying its obligations. The debt management policies of Coca-Cola in conjunction with share repurchase program and investment activity resulted in current liabilities exceeding current assets. From the ratio Pepsi Co suddenly had to pay all its short-term

Quick Ratio: This ratio is decreasing slightly per year, with an average of a 4% loss.

First of which, is the current ratio. It has been rapidly declining since 2000. To me this indicates that there is a liquidity issue. Each year their trade debt increase exceeds the increase of net income for the company. As a result, the working capital has taken a nosedive from $58,650 in 2002 to only $5,466 in 2003.

The return on shareholders’ fund, capital employed, total assets all have gone down during this period. The ability of the company to pay its short term debt hasn’t varied much, but the administrative expenses have gone up by a very large amount.

Increase in current liabilities Substantial increase in current liabilities weakened the company’s liquidity position. Its current liabilities were US$2,063.94 million at the end of FY2010, a 48.09% increase compared to the previous year. However, its current assets recorded a marginal increase of 25.07% - from US$1,770.02 million at the end of FY2009 to US$2,213.72 million at the end of FY2010. Following this, the company’s current ratio declined from 1.27 at the end of the FY2009 to 1.07 at the end of FY2010. A lower current ratio indicates that the company is in a weak financial position, and it may find it difficult to meet its day-to-day obligations.

* Current ratio of 3.53 shows that Adidaz is in a healthy situation and has the ability to pay off future debt. (Increase of 0.45).

Liquidity ratio. The firm’s liquidity shows a downward trend through time. The current ratio is decreasing because the growth in current liabilities outpaces the growth of current assets. The quick ratio is also declining but not as fast as the current ratio. From 1991 to 1992, it only decreased 0.35 units while the current ratio decreased 0.93 units. Looking at the common size balance sheet, we also see that the percentage of inventory is growing from 33% to 48% indicating Mark X could not convert its inventory to cash.

The liquidity ratios of the firm are slightly below the industry averages. This is due to inventory and accounts receivable making up a significantly larger portion of the current assets than cash and marketable securities. This may be indicative of a problem with inventory management and/or collection on accounts.

Liquidity In analyzing liquidity of the company, the current ratio is not very telling of a falling company. The company increased its ratio throughout the period of the income statement thus building upon its company assets and allowing for a 6-1 ratio of assets over its liabilities. This implies the company is still able to operate sufficiently even though it did not make its optimum current ratio of about 8-1. However, when one takes the inventory out of the equation with the quick ratio, the numbers show the true strength of short term liquidity. The numbers are still good, and do not indicate failure – but are

Based on pro forma figures, stock price is expected to be almost $3 higher at a debt ratio of 70%. Given that most of our stockholders are institutional investors, a $3 increase is extremely significant when hundreds of thousands or millions of shares are owned.

Apple, Inc. (formerly known as Apple Computer, Inc.) was incorporated in the State of California in 1977. Apple currently designs, manufactures, and markets a variety of computer and personal electronic products, including Macintosh computers, and the iPod digital music player. AppleÕs key markets are consumers, creative professionals, educational institutions, and business users.

Microsoft’s times interest earned ratio is 87.7, showing that this firm is very successful especially before any interest or tax is deducted from its overall earnings. Apple’s times interest earned ratio could not be calculated due to the fact that their data didn’t indicate a specific interest expense to complete the equation. Another solvency ratio is the debt to equity ratio (I); taking the firms total liabilities and dividing that total by owners’ equity. Currently Microsoft’s debt to equity ratio is 0.8, showing that there is less risk among the firm’s financials. This also means that the company doesn’t rely too much on external lenders. Apple’s debt to equity ratio seems to also be within good standing because it is .5, so it doesn’t rely too much on external lenders either. Overall, both liquidity and solvency ratios represent how financially stable this company is within converting its current debt into cash as well as its long-term debt. In most cases Apple Inc. falls behind Microsoft Corp. within its short and long term debt solvency.

The long-term liquidity risk ratio such as LT debt/Equity, D/E, and Total Liabilities to Total Assets all show a decline from year 2005 due to the repayment of debts. The interest coverage ratio also shows a healthy number of 29.45 in comparison to the industrial average of 15.04 indicating a high ability to pay out its interest expense. Such a low relative risk is not surprising due to the nature of its business depending heavily in R&D development and large intangible assets.