Liquidity
Dick’s Sporting Goods liquidity dropped 46.34% in fiscal year-end 2015 after a 21.98% increase in fiscal year-end 2014. The drop in liquidity is a product of Dick’s commitment to growth. Dick’s spent over 370 million dollars in fiscal year 2015 on capital expenditures. The result of the capital expenditures was an additional 47 stores, development of the omni-channel platform, and eCommerce development. The company’s commitment to their five-year one-billion-dollar share repurchase program resulted in an over 350 million-dollar cash outflow spent on treasury stock. The plan was authorized in March of 2013 with the goal of satisfying shareholders by increasing the company’s earnings per share. Additionally, the company was able to pay out dividends in excess of 64 million dollars.
Although the company’s liquidity ratios have dropped their ratios are still outperforming their RMA industry average by 15%. The decrease in the company’s liquidity ratios is the result of their current liabilities increasing 6.5% from fiscal year 2014 and their current assets only increasing 0.7% from fiscal year 2014. The company saw a decrease in cash and equivalents, accounts receivable, and income tax receivable in 2015. While also increasing accounts payable, accrued expenses, and deferred revenue and other liabilities. The combination of the movement in these accounts result in lower liquidity ratios for fiscal year 2015.
The decrease in liquidity is not a serious cause for
Our recommendation is to take Sears Holdings Corp. (SHLD) private through a private equity buyout. After doing so, we recommend implementing a centralized management structure and recruiting retail-savvy executives for the upper management team. We then recommend focusing on increasing value by capitalizing on SHLD’s real estate holdings through leasing agreements and increasing partnerships with complementary enterprises. Also, we recommend improving employee retention rates and retaining exclusive rights to private brands. Finally, we recommend focusing on a long-term strategy to continue to maximize SHLD’s ecommerce platforms. We believe these recommendations will lead to long-term stability through increases in customer base and
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).
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
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.
JP Morgan and Chase (JPMC) is the top fanatical service of US market and the biggest bank in US. JPCM with its exceptional 5 different business segments, which are corporate and investment banking (CIB), consumer and community banking (CCB), asset and wealth management (AWM), commercial banking (CB) and corporate entity.
This paper will provide a rationale for Dick’s Sporting Goods and indicate the significant factors driving my decision as a financial manager. It will determine the profile of the investor for which the company may be a fit. A selection of at least five financial (5) ratios will be utilized. The last three years of the company’s financial data will be analyzed. A determination of the company’s financial health will be assessed. A determination of the risk level from the investor’s point of view will be assessed. Key strategies will be suggested in order to minimize the perceived risks. A recommendation will be given regarding the stock as an investment opportunity.
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.
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 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
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