Gemini's Liquidity Ratios

Quick ratio is another measure of liquidity. In quick ratio we consider only liquid assets and its standard ratio is 1:1. Quick ratio of Peyton Approved is 7.63. Thus, there is no doubt that the company has got excellent liquidity. Company has enough liquid assets to pay off current liabilities.

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 unhealthy financial state of the company could be due to the split from the monopoly. Round 0 financial statements demonstrate last year’s results. The company should look into the future because there is room for growth and financial success. For instance, the company can decide to take long term debt to invest it back into the company. The company can also focus drastically on sales to increase their customer base and obtain a higher market share. If the company takes the right direction of growth, it will quickly become a healthier

A more tell tale sign is the quick ratio, or acid test, which has increased year after year. Debt to total assets has decreased over 5% since 2001, indicating less financing of current and long term debt and more company assets. Their cash debt coverage far surpasses the ideal 20%, indicating a high level of solvency with sufficient funds and assets to satisfy all debtors. Asset turnover has more or less maintained at right around 1.6, signifying a turnover rate of just less than 180 times per year.

In order to increase liquidity it needs to increase its cash by converting assets into cash (sales). Additionally, as a quick sell retail company, JBH does not give large credit sales to its customers, instead most of sales are made by cash or cash equivalent. This gives the company less account receivables and bad debts. As such a lower quick ratio than industry average is common and should not raise any liquidity issues.

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.

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 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.

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

The gross profit margin for CC is right around the industry average. Although the numbers seems to be decent, the costs of goods sold are too high. Next, looking at the operating profit margin, the numbers don’t look as great as they should. The numbers are low compared to the industry average in years 2001, 2004, and 2005. This may indicate that CC should look into their prices and costs. In 2001 the net profit margin was very low compared to the industry average. I am assuming this is due to the major expansion. It is also important to look more deeply into the numbers though because the net profit margin is lower compared to the industry average in all of the years. Once again CC should look into their costs and how efficient they are converting sales into actual profit.

These numbers come out to be lower than what is considered average for a normal manufacturing company in which a satisfactory current ratio is 2.0 while a good quick ratio is considered 1.5. However according to my research on the industry those numbers seem to be the norm.

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.

It’s noticeable how the company’s operations have been deteriorating as they are having a more difficult time translating sales into cash. Their A/R turnover is not where it needs to be, and in line with that, their liabilities are increasing as well. The company has also been inefficient with the use of their assets as their current activity ratios are not up to par with the industry standards.