Forum Archive Index - May 2001

[jerrold poh <pohj@ihug.co.nz>]

tony,

that's strange, i was expecting atleast one person to reply to this message,
but either no-one has any idea what you're going on about, or people have just
overlooked this email?  anyway, i'll respond to it.

i remember analysing this company awhile ago (when the dividends were still
high), and saw the exact thing that you saw.  i dunno ... but during the time i
was doing 7th form accounting, and i'm not sure now .. but i remember them
teaching me that  didn't they say that for a company to be still trading, it
has to pass a liquidity test .. which was a current (or was that liquid)
ratio of over one?  

am i mistaken?


jerrold.


On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:24:38PM +1200, Tony wrote:
> After many years of just glancing over "the theory" I have begun building a
> complete set of financial ratios from my text book and applied them to TEL(a
> nnual report 2000), to start with.
> 
> I note that in the Measures of Liquidity section, TEL's current ratio (cur a
> ssets/cur liabs) is less than 1 and its net working capital (cur assets - cu
> r liabs)is negative for 1999 and 2000.
> 
> Can anyone explain why the nature of TEL's business allows this when the lit
> erature considers the above as not good?
> 
> TonyDB


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.