A Report On The Liquidity Ratio Essay

In the past few years, they have experienced a significant increase in inventory days. Not having attractive inventory leads to a decrease in sales and an increase in discounts and write offs leading to further decreases in EBITDA Margins. In 2009, the inventory turnover took 215 days. This is significantly above Le Chateaus competitors, for example Reitman’s inventory took only 72 days (Annual Report 2010). This means it takes Le Chateaus three times as long to sell inventory compared to their competitors. To make matters worse, this trend has been exacerbated in recent years. Le Chateau’s turnover has ballooned to a staggering 341 days while Reitman’s has kept inventory turnover stable at only 76 days.

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.

Rapid cash collections are indicative of high turnover; however, loss of customers to rival firms and tight credit levels arise from extremely high accounts receivable turnover level, (Horngren, 2013, p. 805).The accounts receivable turnover for Harry Jones in 2014 was 7.93 times. This figure decreased to 5.63 times in 2015. Both figures are less than the industry average of 9 times. Low inventory turnover levels might be attributed to reduced accounts receivable turnover levels throughout both 2014 and 2015. Inventory levels can be increased in the future to achieve higher accounts receivable turnover, (Horngren, 2013, p. 805).

This ratio is similar to current ratio, except that it excludes inventory from current assets. Inventory is subtracted because it is considered to be less liquid than other current assets, that is, it cannot be easily used to pay for the company’s current liabilities. A company having a quick ratio of at least 1.0, is considered to be financially stable. It has sufficient liquid assets and hence, it will be able to pay back its debts easily (Qasim Saleem et al., 2011).

Overall regards to liquidity ratios, the higher the number the better; however, a too high also indicates that the firms were not using their resources to their full potential. Current ratio of 1.0 or greater shows that a company can pay its current liabilities with its current assets. JWN’s ratio increased from 2.06 in 2007 to 2.57 in 2010, and slightly decreased to 2.16 in 2011. JWN’s cash ratio increased significantly from 22% in 2007 to 80% in 2010. JWN has a cash ratio of 73% in 2011, which is useful to creditors when deciding how much debt they would be willing to extend to JWN. In addition, JWN also has moderate CFO ratio of 46%, indicating the companies’ ability to pay off their short term liabilities with their operating cash

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.

With this company the inventory management ratios further indicate that there may be an issue with inventory and inventory controls. The inventory turnover ratio is lower than the industry average and the days’ sales in inventory are high. A company wants to turn inventory quickly to reduce storage costs, and

Inventory turnover in days is an assistant figure of inventory turnover. The shorter of the days, the faster of the inventory turning to cash, and the better use of short-term capital. This figure of the firm was very high in 2001 and began to fell down from 2002,then lower than industry in 2004 and 2005.This indicates the management of the firm became better.

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

Accounts receivable turnover is the second method by which a company’s trade receivables’ liquidity can be evaluated (Gibson, 2011). Žager et al. (2012) noted turnover ratios should be as high as possible as this indicates a firm’s ability to convert its assets more often. 3M’s accounts receivable turnover for years 2007 and 2008 is shown in Exhibit 2. In 2007, 3M turned its accounts receivable over 7.12 times and 7.70 times in 2008. This calculates into a turnover of its accounts receivable every 51.28 days in 2007 and 47.38 days in 2008. The increase in accounts receivable turnover times per year (decrease in number of days to turnover accounts receivables) from 2007 to 2008 is a positive trend for 3M. It suggests, along with the prior calculation, the management of receivables is likely to be improving in efficiency.

The financial statements included tend to combine cash and marketable securities into a category labeled “cash and cash equivalents”. If the cash ratio is recalculated using this value instead of simply cash than the ratio improves to 1.10, which shows much stronger liquidity capabilities.

The quick ratio reflects on a company’s ability to meet its current liabilities without liquidating inventories that could require markdowns. It is a more stringent test of liquidity than the current ratio and may provide more insight into company liquidity in some cases. For Colgate-Palmolive, the quick ratio has declined from 0.73 in 2008 to 0.58 in 2010. While this does not necessarily mean a problem, a higher current ratio and quick ratio analysis will mean that the company will not have difficulty in meeting its short-term obligations from its operations and not by liquidating its assets.

The quick ratio of 1.46 is a further analysis into the actual monetary values that are highly liquid and excluding fixed assets as part of the assets. The CFO/Avg. current liabilities also show a healthy 73%, 28% in 2004, on average of which is still higher than the industry.

Inventory turnover for Company A (3.08x) is higher than Company B (0.93x), that means inventories are sold and replaced faster than Company B. Company A has higher turnover because those institutions, especially hospitals “consume” health products faster and more. Lastly its show Company A has deep pipeline of its ethical pharmaceuticals.

Reviewing Exhibit 1 it is indicative that each year their actual inventory ratio continued to increase as opposed to decreasing. Keeping inventory in stock is good for clients but bad for capital when it remains on the shelves and doesn’t sell as quickly as you are producing it.