I need industry ratios from current ratio all the way thru sustainable growth performed on the ROE decomposition then line graphs instead of bar graphs within the actual paper and some sentences in reference to the industries ratio affect on the company within the paper.

Comcast Corp. Abstract Financial ratios are very important for both the owners, stakeholders and investors bidding in the stock market. When the financial ratios show that the firm is facing serious financial problems, the managers would be in position to determine which best decisions to make in order to solve the problem. This paper analyses financial liquidity of Comcast Corp, Debt & Coverage and Sustainable Growth and comparing them with those of the major competitors; Windstream Holding Inc. , and AT&T Inc. Charts are used to show the differences and the position of the company in the market. As it shall be found, there are some exceptional years when the company is worse and there are other periods when it's performing well. This paper will therefore draw evidence to show why the company is experiencing such difference and trend. 1. Liquidity Table of Figures 1.1. What is Liquidity? 1.2. How do you measure liquidity? 1.3. Market Liquidity. 1.4. Comparing the Liquidity of Comcast to that of its competitors. 1.1. What is liquidity? Liquidity is a measure of the ability and ease with which assets can be converted to cash. Examples of liquid assets include cash, central bank reserves, and inventories, among others. (Fed, 2014). In order for a firm to remain solvent, a firm's current assets must exceed its current liabilities. When investors are bidding on stocks, they usually consider [Type text] Page 1 this ratio as one of the most essential factors to determine whether it's investment would be profitable or they may incur insignificant losses just in case of bankruptcy. Tobias and Hyun, (2008) founded that in financial system where balance sheets are continuously marked to market, changes in asset prices show up immediately and have an instant impact on the net worth of all constituents of the financial system. Evidence also shows that there is a strong relationship between changes in leverage and changes in balance sheet size. Companies would thus struggle to adjust their balance sheets in such a way the leverage is high during the high seasons and low during busts. \"Financial liquidity is an elusive notion, yet of paramount importance for the well-functioning of the financial system.\" (Kleopatra, 2009)Liquidity is thus an important financial analysis concept as far as the progress of any company is concerned. It can be categorized into three; central bank liquidity, market liquidity and funding liquidity. Lastly, a resilient market is one where price fluctuations from trades are quickly dissipated and imbalances in order-flow are quickly adjusted. (p. 15) Another term that comes up is illiquidity. As defined by Aswath, (n.d) illiquidity is the costs of reversing an asset trade almost instantaneously after you make a trade. He thus argued that large companies are usually very liquid while small one usually do not face, but firms do not always remain liquid. This causes a price impact. With this in mind, we can be able to understand why there are certain periods when our company in discussion is very liquid and in other periods it's not. 1.2. How to Measure Liquidity To measure liquidity, the firm can employ the use of financial ratios like the current ratio and the quick ratio. Carsten and Sergey, (2011) noted that while measuring a firm's liquidity, it's very important to evaluate the stock market structure and data description as this affects the prices, then it's also important to use a technique known as LOT, measure of transaction costs. This is an information efficient technique. (pp. 8-20) [Type text] Page 2 1.3. Market Liquidity Kleopatra, (2009) argued that the notion of market liquidity has been around for at least since Keynes (1930). The definition that has now been fully developed for market liquidity is the ability to trade an asset at short notice, at low cost and with little impact on its price. Market liquidity therefore incorporates key elements of volume, time and transaction costs. It can be defined in three dimensions, depth, breadth (tightness), and resiliency. A deep market is one where a number of transactions can occur without affecting the price. This means the number of investors is large. A tight market is one where transaction prices do not divert from mid-market 1.4. Comparing the Liquidity of Comcast to that of its competitors. When we compare Comcast's liquidity, the company is falling below its competitors. This would lead to serious setbacks, which may take years to repair. This can be illustrated by the graph below. Current Ratio 700.00% 600.00% 500.00% 400.00% CMCSA T WIN 300.00% 200.00% 100.00% 0.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig. 1. Current Ratio. From the chart, we can see that the firm's general current ratio over those 10 years is very poor as compared to that of Windstream, but not so bad when compared with that of [Type text] Page 3 AT&T Inc. The company however had a very high current ratio is 2011 as shown in the graph. Quick Ratio 160.00% 140.00% 120.00% 100.00% CMCSA T WIN 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig. 2. Current Ratio The figure above shows that the company's ability to convert current assets into cash quickly is poorer as compared to the others, only best in 2010, and 2012. The Windstream Company seems to be overpowering the two, Comcast and AT&T are. [Type text] Page 4 2. Financial Leverage. Table of Contents 2.1. Financial leverage 2.2. Debt Ratio 2.3. Debt to capital ratio 2.4. Interest coverage 2.5. Comparison of Comcast's financial Leverage to its competitors 2.1. Financial Leverage. According to Rosemary Peavler, (2014), financial leverage refers to debt or borrowing to finance the purchase of a firm's assets. The owners of the firm can either use debt or equity to fund the business or to buy the company's assets. She argued that when the leverage is too high, it increases the company's risks of bankruptcy. In other words, financial leverage is good when it's low. 2.2. Debt-to-asset ratio In simple terms, is the relationship between the total liabilities and the total assets. This is the ratio used to tell the amount of debt used to finance the company's assets. (Cara Scatizzi, (2010, p. 20). A lower debt ratio indicates that a company relies less on borrowing as compared to equity for financing assets. Larger companies can take on more debts to fund its assets and still have a favorable debt ratio. This could mean that the size of the firm matters so much such that small companies are advised to maintain a very low debt-to-asset ratio. [Type text] Page 5 Debt to Assets Ratio 120.00% 100.00% 80.00% CMCSA T WIN 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig. 3. Debt-to-assets-ratio From the figure above, it's noted that the firm's debt to asset ratio is not very high as compared to that of its competitors. The firm is however showing a very high debt-toasset ratio in 2014 which is a bit problematic. 2.3. Debt to Total Capital ratio Cara Scatizzi, (2010), founded out that this ratio is used for long-term debts as compared to a firm's structure. A firm's structure refers to all sources of long-term financing. This ratio can be determined by dividing long-term debts by long-term debt plus shareholder's equity. A higher ratio indicates higher risks of high debts. (p.20) [Type text] Page 6 3500.00% 3000.00% 2500.00% 2000.00% CMCSA T WIN 1500.00% 1000.00% 500.00% 0.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig. 4. Debt to Total Capital ratio From the above chart, the company's capital ratio is generally higher than that of its competitors. This indicates higher risks as Cara argues. 2.4. Interest coverage This ratio is also called times interest earned; it measures a company's ability to pay interest on its outstanding debt. Since interest must be paid no matter the amount, a higher number shows the company is healthy. A ratio below one shows that the company is not generating many earnings through paying its interest accrued. Investors and bond holders use this ratio to determine whether payments can be done when the company runs into financial problems. Cara Scatizzi, (2010, pp. 20-21) [Type text] Page 7 3500.00% 3000.00% 2500.00% 2000.00% CMCSA T WIN 1500.00% 1000.00% 500.00% 0.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fig.5. Interest coverage. The figure above shows that the company's interest coverage generally above 1 but lower than that of its competitors. Again, this shows that the company is performing poorly as compared to its competitors. This shows that investors and bond holders would not take chances to invest in this organization. The price of the company's stock is thus affected. Tot [Type text] Page 8 al3. Sustained Growth Rate 3.1. What is sustained growth? 3.2. Comparison of the sustained growth rates of the three competitors. 3.1. What is sustained growth? Sundra Wathen, (2014) defines sustainable growth rate as a company's maximum growth rate in sales using internal financial resources, and without having to increase debt or issue new equity. It is given by earnings retention (1-dividend rate) multiplied by total asset turnover, net profit margin and financial leverage. Sundra, (2014) further argued that in order to increase the growth rates by increasing the assets turnover ratio, profit margin, asset equity ratio or the retention rate. (When there are no dividends, the rate is taken to be 100% for the dividends as is the case with Comcast.) [Type text] Page 9 Sustained Growth Rate 200.00% 150.00% 100.00% CMCSA T WIN 50.00% 0.00% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 -50.00% Fig.6. Sustained growth rate. 3.3. Comparison of the sustained growth rates of the three competitors. From the above chart, Comcast and AT&T are having a very low general sustained growth rate as compared to Windstream, with that of AT&T being slightly better as compared to Comcast's. This would mean that the company is facing some strategic management skills, which is a threat to the firm's future existence. Given the fact that new entrants do enter the market with even better technological advancements, quality, and innovations, this would be an added threat to the progress of the company. Generally, investors would not like to invest in a company where the sustainable growth rate is very poor. [Type text] Page 10 Conclusion By comparing the above ratios, the company is found to have higher risks of liquidity, financial leverage and sustained growth rate. This is a major setback for the company as investors and bond holders would be scared away. Ratio analysis is an important aspect in the management of financial information which is very essential for decision making purposes. By making this comparisons and analysis, the company is able to determine the best strategies that can be able to take the company into the next level. [Type text] Page 11 References Aswath Demodaran, (n.d). What is illiquidity: The cost of illiquidity. Source people.stern.nyu.edu/adomar/pdffiles/country/illiquidity.pdf Cara Scatizzi, (2010). Analyzing debt ratios. p. 20-21. Retrieved from https://www.aaii.com/computerrizedinvesting/article/fundamental-focus-analyzingdebt-ratios.pdf Carsten Burshop, and Sergey Gelman, (2011). Liquidity measures, liquidity drivers and expected returns on an early call auction market. Kurt-Schumacher. Max Planck Society. Federal Reserve System, (2014). What is the difference between a bank's liquidity and its capital. Retrieved from www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/cat_21427.html Kleopatra Nikolaou, (2009). Liquidity (risk) concepts concepts and interactions. Working paper No. 1008. European Central Bank. Rosemary Peavler, (2014). What is leverage. Retrieved from bzfinance.about.com/od/pricingyourproduct/qt/what-is-leverage-and-businessfinancial-risk.html Sundra Wathen, (2014). Sustained growth rate. Retrieved from strategiccfo.com/wikicfo/sustainable-growth-rate/ Tobias Adrian, and Hyun Song Shin, (2008). Liquidity and leverage. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. [Type text] Page 12 CMCSA (in millions) Net Income Sales Net Profit Margin (ROS) Total Assets Asset Turnover Return on Assets Shareholders Equity Financial Leverage Return on Equity 2005 T (in millions) Net Income Sales Net Profit Margin (ROS) Total Assets Asset Turnover Return on Assets Shareholders Equity Financial Leverage Return on Equity 2005 WIN (in millions) Net Income Sales Net Profit Margin (ROS) Total Assets Asset Turnover Return on Assets Shareholders Equity Financial Leverage Return on Equity 2005 Net Profit Margin (ROS) CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Asset Turnover CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Financial Leverage CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Return on Common Equity CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Return on Total Assets CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Gross Profit Margin CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Operating Working Capital Turnover CMCSA 2005 2006 928 22255 4.17% 103146 0.22 1% 40219 2.56 2.31% 2007 2533 24966 10.15% 110405 0.23 2% 41167 2.68 6.15% 2006 2008 2587 30895 8.37% 113417 0.27 2% 41340 2.74 6.26% 2007 2009 2547 34256 7.44% 113017 0.30 2% 40450 2.79 6.30% 2008 2010 3638 35756 10.17% 112733 0.32 3% 42811 2.63 8.50% 2009 2011 3635 37937 9.58% 118534 0.32 3.07% 44434 2.67 8.18% 2010 2012 4160 55842 7.45% 157818 0.35 2.64% 47655 3.31 8.73% 2011 2013 6203 62570 9.91% 164971 0.38 3.76% 49796 3.31 12.46% 2012 2014 6816 64657 10.54% 158813 0.41 4.29% 51058 3.11 13.35% 2013 8380 68775 12.18% 159339 0.43 5.26% 53068 3.00 15.79% 2014 4786 7356 11951 12867 12535 19864 3944 72664 18249 6224 43862 63055 118928 124028 123018 124280 126723 127434 128752 132447 10.91% 11.67% 10.05% 10.37% 10.19% 15.98% 3.11% 57.02% 14.17% 4.70% 145632 270634 275644 265245 268752 268488 270344 272315 27787 292829 0.301183806 0.232989942 0.431455065 0.467597881 0.457737989 0.462888472 0.468747226 0.467965408 4.633533667 0.4523015139 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 7% 1% 27% 66% 2% 54690 115540 115367 96347 102325 111950 105797 92695 91482 86924 2.662863412 2.342340315 2.38927943 2.753017738 2.626454923 2.398284949 2.555308752 2.937752845 0.303742813 3.3687934287 8.75% 6.37% 10.36% 13.35% 12.25% 17.74% 3.73% 78.39% 19.95% 7.16% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 381.7 445.6 917.1 434.9 334.5 310.7 172.4 168.7 235 -39.5 2923.5 3033.3 3247.5 3171.5 2996.6 3712 4285.7 6156.3 5988.1 5829.5 13.06% 14.69% 28.24% 13.71% 11.16% 8.37% 4.02% 2.74% 3.92% -0.68% 4929.7 8030.7 8009.3 9145.4 11353.7 14392.1 13982 1344.6 12713.4 12713.4 0.593038116 0.377713026 0.405466146 0.346786363 0.263931582 0.257919275 0.30651552 4.578536368 0.471006969 0.4585319427 8% 6% 11% 5% 3% 2% 1% 13% 2% 0% 3489.2 469.8 699.8 252.3 260.7 830.6 1498.1 1104.8 840.2 224.8 1.412845351 17.09386973 11.44512718 36.24811732 43.5508247 17.32735372 9.33315533 1.21705286 15.13139729 56.554270463 10.94% 94.85% 131.05% 172.37% 128.31% 37.41% 11.51% 15.27% 27.97% -17.57% 2006 4.17% 10.91% 13.06% 2007 10.15% 11.67% 14.69% 2006 0.22 0.30 0.59 8.37% 10.05% 28.24% 2007 0.23 0.23 0.38 2006 2.56 2.66 1.41 2006 2006 64% 56.00% 51.00% 2007 64% 57.00% 58.00% 2006 2008 64% 61.00% 65.00% 2007 2009 61% 60.00% 64.00% 2008 2010 2009 2011 2010 2011 15.79% 7.16% -17.57% 2014 4.29% 65.67% 1.85% 2013 32% 57.00% 53.00% 2012 2014 2013 2012 3.00 3.37 56.55 13.35% 19.95% 27.97% 3.76% 26.68% 12.55% 33% 55.00% 58.00% 2014 2013 2012 0.43 0.45 0.46 3.11 0.30 15.13 12.46% 78.39% 15.27% 2.64% 1.46% 1.23% 60% 58.00% 62.00% 2013 2012 2011 2014 0.41 4.63 0.47 3.31 2.94 1.22 8.73% 3.73% 11.51% 3.07% 7.40% 2.16% 60% 59.00% 63.00% 2012 2011 2010 2013 0.38 0.47 4.58 3.31 2.56 9.33 8.18% 17.74% 37.41% 3.23% 4.66% 2.95% 2012 2011 2013 2014 10.54% 12.18% 14.17% 4.70% 3.92% -0.68% 9.91% 57.02% 2.74% 0.35 0.47 0.31 2.67 2.40 17.33 2010 2009 2.25% 4.85% 4.76% 2011 2010 8.50% 12.25% 128.31% 2012 7.45% 3.11% 4.02% 0.32 0.46 0.26 2.63 2.63 43.55 2009 2008 2.28% 4.34% 11.45% 2010 2009 6.30% 13.35% 172.37% 2011 9.58% 15.98% 8.37% 0.32 0.46 0.26 2.79 2.75 36.25 2008 2007 2.29% 2.72% 5.55% 2009 2008 6.26% 10.36% 131.05% 2010 10.17% 10.19% 11.16% 0.30 0.47 0.35 2.74 2.39 11.45 2007 6.15% 6.37% 94.85% 0.90% 3.29% 7.74% 2008 2007 2006 2009 7.44% 10.37% 13.71% 0.27 0.43 0.41 2.68 2.34 17.09 2.31% 8.75% 10.94% 2008 5.26% 2.13% -0.31% 2014 33% 60.00% 55.00% 2013 34% 53.00% 50.00% 2014 T WIN Industry Inventory Turnover CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Current Ratio CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Quick Ratio CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Operating Cash Flow Ratio CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Debt to Assets CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Total Debt/Common Equity CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 Interest Coverage CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 205.00% 224.00% 245.00% 283.00% 332.00% 379.00% 434.00% 483.00% 530.00% 579.00% 3085.00% 447.00% 260.00% 275.00% 240.00% 22.00% 181.00% 153.00% 160.00% 99.00% 429.00% 437.00% 555.00% 570.00% 522.00% 520.00% 441.00% 368.00% 850.00% 360.00% Sustainable Growth Rate CMCSA T WIN Industry 2005 41.00% 58.00% 109.00% 70.00% 63.00% 128.00% 2006 30.00% 58.00% 109.00% 46.00% 63.00% 78.00% 2007 59.00% 7 63.00% 128.00% 6 42.00% 53.00% 107.00% 2008 34.00% 63.00% 75.00% 2010 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 44.00% 105.00% 648.00% 120.00% 74.00% 78.00% 66.00% 59.00% 72.00% 71.00% 68.00% 86.00% 205.00% 76.00% 104.00% 66.00% 82.00% 49.00% 2009 32.00% 53.00% 100.00% 2011 2010 33.00% 66.00% 148.00% 2011 96.00% 59.00% 70.00% 46.00% 75.00% 104.00% 2012 2013 2014 107.00% 62.00% 62.00% 71.00% 66.00% 86.00% 60.00% 82.00% 49.00% 5 2006 79.00% 50.00% 2620.00% Current Ratio 4 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 CMCSA T 89.00% 111.00% 114.00% 154.00% 136.00% 108.00% 89.00% 75.00% 97.00% 3 WIN 39.00% 87.00% 80.00% 9.30% 103.00% 113.00% 123.00% 99.00% 84.00% 2 164.00% 161.00% 162.00% 158.00% 11.00% 84.00% 8.00% 105.00% 72.00% 1 2006 61.00% 62.00% 3.00% 0 63.00% 57.00% 94.00% 2006 38.99% 37.55% 70.78% 2008 5 4 6 2009 7 64.00% 64.00% 58.00% 64.00% 91.00% 97.00% 3 2007 37.29% 42.69% 5.85% 2006 2.31% 8.75% 10.94% 20072 1 2008 36.45% 41.85% 8.74% 2007 6.15% 6.37% 94.85% 6.26% 2.41% 131.05% 8 9 2010 10 62.00% 62.00% 10.00% 2009 35.79% 36.32% 2.76% 2008 6.30% 13.35% 172.37% 11 2011 12 66.00% 58.00% 93.00% 2010 37.98% 38.07% 2.30% 2009 8.50% 12.25% 128.31% 2012 69.00% 61.00% 90.00% 2011 37.49% 41.70% 5.77% 2010 72.00% 66.00% 92.00% 2012 30.20% 39.13% 10.71% 2011 8.18% 17.74% 37.41% 2013 68.00% 67.00% 94.00% 2013 30.18% 34.04% 82.17% 2012 8.73% 3.73% 11.51% 2014 2014 32.15% 329.23% 6.61% 2013 12.46% 78.39% 15.27% 90.00% 70.00% 98.00% 33.31% 29.68% 1.77% 2014 13.35% 19.95% 27.97% 15.79% 7.16% -17.57%