Key Takeaways
- Simple financial ratios, such as Debt to Equity and Debt to EBITDA, are a logical starting point for solvency screening but are insufficient for comprehensive risk assessment without crucial context.
- EBITDA is a notoriously poor proxy for the cash flow available to service debt; true resilience is better measured by Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield and a rigorous analysis of capital expenditure and working capital demands.
- Sectoral norms are paramount. A leverage ratio that is standard for a capital intensive utility company would signal extreme distress for an asset light software firm.
- The structure of a company’s debt, including its maturity profile, covenants, and exposure to floating rates, is often more indicative of risk than the headline leverage amount, especially in a volatile interest rate environment.
In an environment of persistent inflation and structurally higher interest rates, the market’s focus has rightly returned to the balance sheet. A simple framework for assessing financial fortitude, such as the one popularised by the analyst behind the account ‘thexcapitalist’, suggests screening for companies with a Debt to Equity ratio above one, Debt to EBITDA below five, and a Return on Equity exceeding fifteen percent. These thresholds provide a useful, if coarse, filter for identifying firms ostensibly buffered from bankruptcy risk. Yet, relying on this triumvirate of ratios in isolation is a perilous exercise. True financial analysis begins, rather than ends, with these metrics, demanding a deeper probe into the quality of earnings, the nature of liabilities, and the overarching industry context.
A Necessary but Insufficient Triumvirate
At first glance, the logic is sound. Eliminating companies on a path to insolvency is the most effective first step in risk management. Each ratio in the framework attempts to capture a different dimension of financial health: leverage, coverage, and profitability. However, each comes with significant caveats that can mislead the unwary investor.
The Ambiguity of Leverage and Profitability
The Debt to Equity ratio is perhaps the most straightforward measure of leverage, yet its interpretation is anything but. A ratio above one simply indicates that a company is financed more by creditors than by its owners. For a capital intensive business like a utility or infrastructure operator, this is entirely normal. For a software company with few tangible assets, it could be a signal of profound distress. Furthermore, the ‘equity’ portion can be distorted by years of share buybacks or the carrying value of intangible assets from past acquisitions, making comparisons fraught with difficulty.
Similarly, a Return on Equity (ROE) above 15% appears robust. It suggests the management is generating strong profits from shareholders’ capital. However, ROE can be artificially inflated by the very leverage we seek to scrutinise. A company can boost its ROE simply by taking on more debt, a financial sleight of hand that increases risk while creating the illusion of efficiency. The DuPont analysis, which deconstructs ROE into its components, reveals that high returns driven by financial leverage are of far lower quality than those driven by operational margin or asset turnover.
The Problem with EBITDA
The most problematic metric of the three is arguably Debt to EBITDA. While widely used as a proxy for a company’s ability to service its debt, EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortisation) is a measure of profitability that has little to do with actual cash flow. It famously ignores payments for taxes and interest, and crucially, it excludes the cash required for capital expenditures (capex) and changes in working capital. A business can report glowing EBITDA figures while simultaneously haemorrhaging cash, a path that has led many seemingly healthy companies to ruin.
The Framework Under Stress: A Sectoral Case Study
To illustrate the importance of context, consider three listed UK companies from disparate sectors, measured against the proposed framework. The data highlights how a one size fits all approach to financial ratios is fundamentally flawed.
| Company (Ticker) | Sector | Debt/Equity | Net Debt/EBITDA | Return on Equity (ROE) | Pass/Fail on Framework |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Grid plc (NG.L) | Utilities | 2.51 | 5.9x | 14.8% | Fail |
| The Sage Group plc (SGE.L) | Software | 0.58 | 1.2x | 27.5% | Partial Pass |
| ASOS plc (ASC.L) | Retail (Apparel) | -1.84 (Negative Equity) | Negative EBITDA | N/A (Negative Equity) | Fail |
Note: Financial data is based on trailing twelve months as of late 2023/early 2024 and is for illustrative purposes. Ratios can fluctuate significantly.
National Grid, a regulated utility, fails on two of the three metrics. Its high leverage is a structural feature of its business model, which is predicated on stable, predictable cash flows backed by regulatory frameworks. Investors accept this leverage in exchange for reliable dividends. To dismiss it based on these ratios would be to misunderstand the entire sector.
Sage Group, a successful software business, easily passes the leverage and coverage tests but technically fails the Debt to Equity screen by being *too* conservative. Its stellar ROE reflects a highly profitable, asset light model, not financial engineering. It is a prime example of a financially robust company that does not fit neatly into the framework.
ASOS provides a cautionary tale. Its negative equity and negative EBITDA mean the ratios are not even meaningful, signalling a company in deep financial distress where such surface level analysis is irrelevant. The focus here shifts to cash burn, liquidity runways, and the viability of its turnaround strategy.
Beyond the Ratios: Where the Real Risk Hides
A more sophisticated analysis must look past the headline numbers and into the fine print of financial statements. The true determinants of solvency lie in areas that simple ratios cannot capture.
- Debt Structure: Is the debt fixed or floating rate? In a rising rate environment, a company with floating rate liabilities faces an immediate increase in interest expense, eroding cash flow. What is the maturity profile? A large ‘maturity wall,’ where a significant portion of debt comes due in a single year, presents immense refinancing risk if credit markets are tight.
- Covenants: Loan agreements contain covenants that companies must adhere to, often based on metrics like the very ones in this framework. A breach can trigger default, forcing a company into the hands of its creditors even if it is still generating positive cash flow.
- Cash Flow Conversion: The ultimate measure of a company’s ability to service its obligations is free cash flow (FCF), the cash left over after all expenses and investments. Assessing a company’s ability to convert accounting profit into cash is far more revealing than looking at EBITDA. A high FCF yield is one of the most reliable indicators of financial health.
Conclusion and a Forward Looking Hypothesis
Financial ratio frameworks provide an essential discipline for investors, forcing a systematic check of a company’s vital signs. They are an effective tool for filtering a broad universe of stocks down to a manageable watchlist. However, they are a map, not the territory. To rely on them as a definitive guide to investment is to invite unwelcome surprises.
As we navigate a world where the cost of capital is no longer negligible, a speculative hypothesis emerges: the next wave of corporate distress may not come from the companies that fail these simple leverage tests; they are already being monitored. Instead, it could originate from firms that appear healthy on the surface but possess two hidden vulnerabilities: a debt structure heavily skewed towards near term, floating rate liabilities, and a business model whose valuation was predicated on the zero interest rate policies of the last decade. The true risk is not in simple leverage, but in the market’s slow realisation that both duration and credit quality have been systemically mispriced.
References
thexcapitalist. (2024, October 1). *Look for strong financial performance. He insisted on a strong balance sheet…* [Post]. Retrieved from https://x.com/thexcapitalist/status/1910672079260709243
thexcapitalist. (2024, September 1). *Debt/EBITDA is an incomplete measure of leverage…* [Post]. Retrieved from https://x.com/thexcapitalist/status/1901754175039361465
thexcapitalist. (2024, May 1). *The quality of earnings is more important than the quantity…* [Post]. Retrieved from https://x.com/thexcapitalist/status/1824176423243751505
British Business Bank. (n.d.). *What level of debt is healthy for a business?* Retrieved from https://www.british-business-bank.co.uk/business-guidance/guidance-articles/finance/what-level-of-debt-is-healthy-for-business
BDC. (n.d.). *Financial ratios: 4 ways to assess your business*. Retrieved from https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/money-finance/manage-finances/financial-ratios-4-ways-assess-business
Corporate Finance Institute. (n.d.). *Leverage Ratios*. Retrieved from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/leverage-ratios/
Investopedia. (2023). *Debt-to-Equity (D/E) Ratio: Formula and How to Interpret It*. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtequityratio.asp
