In this section, vital financial ratios of Target Corporation is computed to evaluate its financial performance. Also, it will explain how the principal of finance “Market price reflects information” is justified through the explanation of Target’s ratio analysis. (The evaluated ratios are compared with 2015 ratios to better understand the specific ratio’s although the company would publish its financial statement for 2015 in coming April). • 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). • The inventory turnover ratio is essential to
As discussed earlier, the liquidity and solvency ratios show that, although Target holds large amounts of free cash flow to deal with risk and possible acquisition, it still has a high debt to asset ratio.
ACC/291 March 25,2012 Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio: Current Assets/Current Liabilities 2005 $14,555,092/ $6,974,752= 2.09:1 2004 $14,643,456/ $6,029,696=2.43:1 Acid Test Ratio: Cash+ Short-Term Investments + Receivables (Net)/ Current Liabilities 2005 $305,563 + $283,583 +$6,133,663/ $6,974,752= .96:1 2004 $357,216 + $133,504 + $5,775,104/ $6,029,696=1.04:1 Receivables Turnover: Net Credit Sales/ Average Net Receivables 2005 $50,823,685/ ($6,133,663 + 5,775,104/2) $50,823,685/ $5,954,384= 8.54 times 2004 $46,044,288/($5,775,104+6,569,344/2) $46,044,288/ $6,172,224=7,46 times Inventory Turnover: Cost of Goods Sold/ Average Inventory 2005 $42,037,624/ ($7,850,970+$7,854,112/2) $42,037,624/$7,852,541=5.35 times
Ratio analysis is a very useful tool when it comes to understanding the performance of the company. It highlights the strengths and the weaknesses of the company and pinpoints to the mangers and their subordinates as to which area of the company requires their attention be it prompt or gradual. The return on shareholder’s fund gives an estimate of the amount of profit available to be shared amongst the ordinary shareholders; where as the return on capital employed measures an organization 's profitability and the productivity with which its capital is utilized. Return on total assets is a profitability ratio that measures the net income created by total assets amid a period.
Financial data from past periods of a company, provides a perspective for future outcomes. Investors give proper attention to different ratios. In this report I am analyzing the financial position and financial performance of AT & T, a US. Telecommunication Company. The objective and conclusion of this analysis will be, if is either good or not to invest in the company.
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 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
Liquidity is an important factor in financial statement analysis since an entity that can not meet its short term obligations may be forced into liquidation. The focus of this aspect of analysis is on working capital, or some computer of working capital.
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
Lawsons 2010 and 2011 current ratio are above the industry average (1.8:1) however in 2012 the current ratio falls below the industry average at 1.55:1 and than again in 2013 to 1.02:1. This indicates that the company’s ability to pay its debts is
These ratios help company in determining its capability to pay short-term debts. Liquidity ratios inform about, how quickly a firm can obtain cash by liquidating its current assets in order to pay its liabilities. General liquidity ratios are: current ratio and quick ratio. Current ration can be obtain by dividing company’s current assets by its’ current liabilities. Generally a current ratio of two is considered as good (Cleverley et al., 2011). Quick ratio also known as acid test determines company’s liabilities that need to be fulfilled on urgent basis. Quick ratio can be obtained by dividing quick assets by current liabilities. Quick ratio is considered as stricter because it excludes inventories from current assets. Generally a quick ratio of 1:1 is considered as good for the company. Higher quick
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
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.