The Mark X Company (A)
Case 1
We must analyze past data and provide expected data for the next two years to assess Mark X Company's financial position. Upon reviewing the data, we will make recommendations for both Mark X Company as well as Karen Dennison of Wells Fargo Bank. Senior management needs compelling evidence that shows the current difficulties faced by the company are not permanent.. It must also be accessed if Mark X can retire all of its outstanding loans by the end of 1993. A sensitivity analysis should also be conducted since the future of this company is very dependent on its performance in 1993 and 1994.
Mark X Company is a manufacturer of farm and specialty tailors. Over 85% of sales come from the western part of the
…show more content…
Liquidity Ratios: The Pro Forma statement shows the current ratio decreasing from 1990 and 1992 to 1.75. Although current assets have increased between 1990 and 1992, current liabilities have increased even more. This is due to the significant increase in short-term bank loans and accounts payable, as described in the problem. According to this ratio, Mark X Company needs to increase its liquidity. The quick ratio shows that a huge component of Mark X’s current assets is made up of inventory which is the least liquid asset. Therefore, Mark X Company cannot cover its liabilities without its inventory since this ratio is less than one. Both of these liquidity ratios are below the industry average which putting the Mark X Company in a weak financial position.
Leverage Ratios: Debt ratio measures total liabilities as a percentage of total assets; the higher this ratio, the greater the debt. Although 1990 and 1991 have debt ratios below the industry average, the ratio in 1992 is almost 10% above the average. This high ratio is another weakness and proves they are holding too much debt. Again, this high ratio can be accounted in part due to the high quantities of short-term bank loans and accounts payable. The TIE ratio helps determine how many times a company can cover its interest expense. In 1992, this ratio is only 1.42 compared to the industry average of 7.7. This is because
Liquidity ratios measure the capability of a business to cover expenses and meet its current and long-term responsibility. These ratios are imperative in order to keep the business alive. Lending institutions are typically unwilling to loan money to a business that finds itself in a cash flow jam, because that is often a sign of poor management. The liquidity is measured with 3 different ratios; current ratio, turnover – of – cash ratio and debt- to equity ratio.
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).
This ratio indicates whether it can respond to the current liabilities by using current assets. As many times, we can cover short-term obligations, as better for the company. This indicates that significant and high improvement in the liquidity. The increase in the current ratio 11.5 % will result in an increase in current assets where the current liabilities increased by 2.1%.
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.
Liquidity ratios measure how well a company is able to meet its short term obligations without relying on selling inventory (David, Fred). Starbucks three main components in these current categories are cash, inventory and accrued liabilities. The current ratio indicates that if Starbucks needed to liquidate they would be able to cover their current liabilities. They would be unable to meet their outside obligations without selling off inventory to
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 represents a company’s ability to pay its short-term obligations. In the following schedule is the calculation of the ratios that are indicators of the liquidity position of a 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 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
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 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.
Debt ratio helps in comparing total assets and total liabilities. If you have more liabilities it means you have lesser equity and therefore an increased leverage position.