Sentences with phrase «ratios have less money»

Stocks with high payout ratios have less money to invest in growth.

Not exact matches

So if the Current Asset: Current Liability ratio is less than 1, chances are, the company isn't doing very well — they can't pay back all the money they owe with the cash they'll have on hand and will have to start selling long - term assets, or look at refinancing the company, in order to pay their short - term bills.

On a basic level, for those of us with less free time (or spending money) than we'd like, and with a seemingly endless array of films always being released, there's always an element of benefit - cost ratio involved in our assessment of the films we drop our cash on and park our asses in a dark theater for two hours to see.

When a company's payout ratio is high, it tends also to mean the company has less money retained to weather the storms that come from time to time.

Since your debt - to - income ratio is much higher, banks will see you as having less money to pay off your other debts, like credit cards or student loans.

Perhaps there is a case of money illusion here is, stocks aren't «holding up, p / e ratio have compressed significantly over the past 7/8 years.Another point, you are comparing apples and oranges by taking s & p prices levels against yield bond spread.Try this: s & p earning yield less t - bills against the yield bond spread.

Smaller expense ratios mean more money staying in your pocket, and the biggest and most efficient ETF providers have expense ratios for their funds that can be less than 0.1 %.

For example, Vanguard, which has the lowest fees in the industry, has an average expense ratio of 0.14 percent on its money market funds, a $ 20 annual fee on accounts with less than $ 10,000 and requires a $ 3,000 minimum investment.

Less so about Lomborg, not converting, because he has always been AGW - lite, but uping the ante, as it were; this new desire to spend completely contradicts his conclusions in his 2nd book, Cool It, at page 41, Figure 11, where Lomborg compares, in a cost / benefit analysis, all the various approaches to dealing with AGW; the most sensible, in that it is the only one in which the money worth of the benefits exceeds the costs, is option 1, the optimal, that is, doing nothing; the other options have a progressively worse cost / benefit ratio as the effort to «solve» AGW increases with the worse being an attempt to keep temperature increase to 1.5 C above what it is now which would cost $ A 85 TRILLION and have benefits worth $ A 11 TRILLION.

The LG G6 may not run vanilla Android, which many consumers do not like, but it is a better - looking device, has the 18:9 display ratio, and all the other things listed above and all for less money.

Since the cheapest money to borrow has historically been for loans of at least 10 years, the repurposed use must demonstrably show that the net operating income (NOI) will support the debt payments and achieve a loan - to - value (LTV) ratio of usually 70 percent or less over the life of the loan, plus the years following to allow for refinancing.