Accounting Measures of Corporate Liquidity, Leverage and Costs of Financial Distress

The liquidity of firm can be measured by computing certain ratio’s such as current ratio and acid ratio. For measuring Target Corporation’s 2014 liquidity; the firm’s current ratio and the acid ratio is computed. The company’s current ratio is 0.91 times which is computed by comparing current asset ($11, 573,000) with current liabilities ($12,777, 000) of the year 2014 (TGT Company Financial, n.d). The firm’s acid ratio is 0.26 times which is computed by deducting inventory ($8,278,000) from current assets. The inventory is deducted from current assets because the company has not received any money for the unfinished good or from unsold inventory worth ($8,278,000). To analyze the Target Corporation’s liquidity trend in 2014; the current ratio and acid ratio of 2014 is compared with the 2015’s ratios. In 2015, the firm’s current ratio was 1.20 times and the acid ratio was 0.45 times. These liquidity ratios reflect that the firm’s liquidity was better in 2015 than 2014. (See Table 1).

Two-year decrease of liquidity measures including current ratio and quick ratio reveals the problems concerning company’s short-term solvency and liquidity. Butler Lumber Company’s current ratio decreased to 145.05% in 1990 from the level of 180.00% in 1988. The same decrease happened to quick ratio (decreased from 88.08% in 1988 to 66.92% in 1990). As the short-term lender, Northrop National Bank should have noticed that Butler Lumber Company’s ability to pay its bills over the short run without undue press needs to be carefully examined. The decrease of current ratio also implies the decreasing level of company’s net working capital, which is another sign of lower level of liquidity.

37. A company is said to be liquid if it has sufficient cash to pay currently maturing debts.

Analysis and modification of both LTD and shareholder’s equity is needed for a clear identification of leverage. Exhibit 4 shows the major contributing factors to each company’s shareholder’s equity: common stock, additional paid-in capital, retained earnings, treasury

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.

Liquidity ratios measure the short term ability of a company to pay its obligations and meet their needs for maintaining cash. According to Cagle, Campbell & Jones (2013), “A good assessment of a company’s liquidity is important because a decline in liquidity leads to a greater risk of bankruptcy” (p. 44). Creditors, investors and analysts alike are all interested in a company’s liquidity. After computing liquidity

Liquidity ratios measure the ability of a firm to meet its short-term obligations. A company that is not able

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

The liquidity position of a company can be evaluated using several ratios which evaluate short-term assets and liabilities and a firm’s ability to settle short-term debts (Gibson, 2011). These ratios can provide insight into a firm’s ability to repay its debts in the short term (Gibson, 2011). In turn they suggest a firm’s capacity for debt-satisfying capabilities into the future (Gibson, 2011). This paper will use financial statement data as cited in Gibson (2011) from 3M Company (3M) to better understand liquidity measures to evaluate a firm’s total liquidity position. The following paper will focus on various liquidity calculations, their meaning, and their interpretation relative to 3M. Finally, an overall view of 3M’s liquidity

In comparing the companies to each other it is important to take into account the liquidity or ability of a firm to meet its current obligations, and solvency

Review and Evaluation on ‘Do Investment-Cash Flow Sensitivities Provide Useful Measures of Financing Constraints’ by Kaplan and Zingales (QJE,1997)

Capacity expansions could stretch liquidity. The company was zero-debt until March 31, 2013, a result of robust cash flows and prudent fund management. The company enjoys significant working capital limits, which remain largely unutilised.But according to the concall scripts it was found that the company is planning for capital expenditure of Rs 550,600 and 300 crores respectively in next three years mainly for capacity expansion.

Interest Rate Risk - In the process of FIs performing their asset-transformation function, FIs are exposed to Interest Rate Risk, from Mismatched Maturity/Duration: Borrowing Short, Lending Long.  The risk that an investment 's value will change due to a change in the absolute level of interest rates, in the

All of these above mentioned facts indicate towards a very positive environment for investment, therefore it is very common for firms to search for better credit offers which can help them establish

Harris and Reviv (1990) gave one more reason of using debt in capital structure. They say that management will hide information from shareholders about the liquidation of the firm even if the liquidation will be in the best interest of shareholders because managers want the perpetuation of their service. Similarly, Amihud and Lev (1981) suggest that mangers have incentives to pursue strategies that reduce their employment risk. This conflict can be solved by increasing the use of debt financing since bondholders will take control of the firm in case of default as they are powered to do so by the debt indentures. Stulz (1990) said when shareholders cannot observe either the investing decisions of management or the cash flow position in the firm, they will use debt financing. Managers, to maintain credibility, will over-invest if it has extra cash and under-invest if it has limited cash. Stulz (1990) argued that to reduce the cost of underinvestment and overinvestment, the amount of free cash flow should be reduced to