skills/finance/analyzing-financial-ratios/SKILL.md
Computes and interprets liquidity, profitability, leverage, and efficiency ratios with peer benchmarking. Use when analyzing financial statements, building comparable analyses, or evaluating company health metrics.
npx skillsauth add casemark/skills analyzing-financial-ratiosInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Computes, normalizes, and interprets financial ratios across four categories — liquidity, profitability, leverage, and efficiency — with mandatory peer benchmarking and time-series context. Produces analyst-ready output suitable for equity research reports, credit assessments, and comparable company analyses.
Do not use for pure valuation (DCF, multiples-based pricing) — this skill feeds into valuation but does not produce one.
Before computing any ratio, confirm every item below. Pause and ask if any are missing.
| Input | Details Required | |---|---| | Subject company | Legal name, ticker (if public), sector, sub-industry, fiscal year-end | | Analysis period | Fiscal years (e.g., FY2022–FY2024), quarterly, and/or TTM; specify if calendar-year aligned | | Peer group | 4–8 comparable companies with rationale for inclusion (size, geography, business mix) | | Data sources | SEC filings, Bloomberg, CapIQ, company IR — specify which; note any data gaps | | Purpose | Equity initiation, credit review, M&A screening, portfolio monitoring, or other — this affects which ratio categories to emphasize | | Accounting standards | US GAAP vs. IFRS; note any recent standard changes affecting comparability (ASC 842, IFRS 16) [VERIFY] | | Known adjustments | One-time charges, discontinued operations, restatements, fiscal year changes in peer group |
Anti-hallucination rule: Never fabricate financial data. If a data point is unavailable, insert [DATA NEEDED: source]. If a filing has not been released, state that explicitly.
1A. Pull raw financial data for the subject and each peer from the three core statements:
1B. Normalize for comparability — apply these adjustments consistently across subject and all peers:
| Adjustment | When to Apply | Method | |---|---|---| | Operating leases | Comparing pre/post ASC 842 periods or GAAP vs. IFRS peers [VERIFY] | Capitalize remaining lease payments at incremental borrowing rate; add to debt and assets | | Goodwill & intangibles | ROA, ROIC, or asset-based ratios | Compute both with and without; flag if goodwill > 30% of total assets | | Stock-based compensation | Profitability margins, ROIC | Show GAAP and adjusted (add back SBC); note dilution impact separately | | One-time items | Any margin or return metric | Remove restructuring, litigation, asset impairments, gain/loss on sale; document each | | Pension obligations | Leverage ratios for companies with DB plans | Add unfunded pension to debt for adjusted leverage | | Minority interest | Net income, equity | Use income attributable to parent; adjust equity accordingly |
Every adjustment must be documented with dollar amount and source filing reference.
1C. Align time periods:
Flag any peer with a fiscal year change during the analysis period.
Compute all ratios below for the subject and each peer across all periods.
Liquidity:
| Ratio | Flags | |---|---| | Current Ratio | < 1.0 potential liquidity stress; > 3.0 may indicate inefficient capital deployment | | Quick Ratio | Strips inventory; critical for manufacturing, retail | | Cash Ratio | Most conservative; relevant for distressed or early-stage companies |
Profitability:
| Ratio | Flags | |---|---| | Gross Margin | Declining trend = pricing pressure or input cost inflation; compare within sub-industry | | Operating Margin (EBIT) | Show both GAAP and adjusted; SBC treatment matters significantly for tech | | Net Margin | Influenced by capital structure and tax jurisdiction; less useful for cross-border comps | | ROE | Decompose via DuPont (Step 3); high ROE from leverage ≠ high ROE from operations | | ROA | Use average total assets; compare with and without goodwill | | ROIC | The single most important return metric; must exceed WACC for value creation |
Leverage:
| Ratio | Flags | |---|---| | Debt / Equity | > 2.0x warrants deeper investigation; meaningless if equity is negative | | Total Debt / EBITDA | Market-standard leverage metric; include operating leases for adjusted version | | Net Debt / EBITDA | Adjusts for cash; negative net debt = net cash position | | Interest Coverage (EBIT / Interest) | < 3.0x raises credit concern; < 1.5x is distress territory | | Fixed Charge Coverage | Adds lease payments and mandatory debt repayment to denominator | | DSCR | CFO / (principal repayment + interest); critical for project finance and credit |
Efficiency:
| Ratio | Flags | |---|---| | Asset Turnover | Higher = more efficient; compare only within same industry | | Inventory Turnover | Low = potential obsolescence; very high = potential stockout risk | | DSO | Growing faster than revenue = collection deterioration or channel stuffing | | DPO | Increasing = supplier leverage or liquidity management; watch for coercive practices | | Cash Conversion Cycle | DSO + DIO − DPO; negative = company funded by suppliers |
Decompose ROE into three drivers for the subject across all periods:
ROE = Net Profit Margin × Asset Turnover × Equity Multiplier
= (Net Income / Revenue) × (Revenue / Avg Assets) × (Avg Assets / Avg Equity)
| Period | Net Margin | × Asset Turnover | × Equity Multiplier | = ROE | |---|---|---|---|---| | FY20XX | X.X% | X.Xx | X.Xx | X.X% |
Interpretation:
4A. Comparable table for the most recent period (TTM or latest FY):
| Metric | Subject | Peer 1 | Peer 2 | … | Peer Median | Peer Mean | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Revenue ($M) | | | | | | | | Gross Margin | | | | | | | | Operating Margin (adj.) | | | | | | | | Net Margin | | | | | | | | ROE | | | | | | | | ROIC | | | | | | | | Debt / EBITDA | | | | | | | | Net Debt / EBITDA | | | | | | | | Interest Coverage | | | | | | | | DSO | | | | | | | | Cash Conversion Cycle | | | | | | | | Current Ratio | | | | | | |
Use median as the primary benchmark (resistant to outliers). Flag any metric where the subject deviates > 1 standard deviation from peer median.
4B. Time-series trend for the subject across all analysis periods. Highlight:
Systematically check for these warning signals:
| Red Flag | Detection Method | |---|---| | Declining ROIC with increasing leverage | ROIC trend vs. Debt/EBITDA trend; value destruction signal | | DSO growing faster than revenue | DSO % change vs. revenue % change; potential revenue quality issue | | Negative working capital trend | Current ratio declining toward 1.0x with tightening quick ratio | | Gross margin compression | Multi-period gross margin decline; pricing power erosion | | Interest coverage deterioration | Coverage approaching 2.0x with upcoming maturities | | EBITDA adjustments > 20% of reported EBITDA | Adjusted vs. GAAP gap; management credibility concern | | Capex consistently below D&A | Under-investment; unsustainable margin improvement | | Inventory build outpacing revenue growth | Demand weakness or obsolescence risk | | Leverage through the cycle | Debt/EBITDA at cycle peak vs. trough; assess sustainability in downturn |
Every red flag must cite the specific data points that triggered it and a severity assessment: watch / concern / critical.
Write a structured narrative covering:
# Financial Ratio Analysis: [COMPANY NAME] ([TICKER])
## Analysis Period: [PERIOD] | Peer Group: [LIST]
## Date: [DATE] | Analyst: [NAME]
### Executive Summary
[2–3 sentence overall assessment]
### Adjustments Applied
| Adjustment | Amount ($M) | Periods Affected | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
### Ratio Dashboard
[Comparable table from Step 4A]
### Time-Series Analysis
[Trend table from Step 4B]
### DuPont Decomposition
[Table and interpretation from Step 3]
### Red Flags & Watchlist Items
[Findings from Step 5, ranked by severity]
### Narrative Analysis
[Structured commentary from Step 6]
### Data Sources & Limitations
[List all sources; note any data gaps or estimation methods]
### Disclaimer
This analysis is based on publicly available financial data and is intended
for informational purposes. It does not constitute investment advice.
All financial data should be independently verified against primary sources.
| Criterion | Verification |
|---|---|
| Arithmetic accuracy | Every ratio is independently calculable from the stated inputs; no circular references |
| Adjustment consistency | Same adjustments applied identically across subject and all peers; documented in table |
| Period alignment | All companies compared on same time basis; FYE differences noted |
| Source traceability | Every data point traceable to a specific filing, page, or database field |
| Interpretation validity | No ratio interpreted without industry context; no standalone numbers presented as good/bad |
| Completeness | All four ratio categories covered; DuPont decomposition included; red flag scan completed |
| Anti-hallucination | No fabricated data; all gaps marked [DATA NEEDED]; no assumed filing data |
| GAAP vs. adjusted clarity | Clear labeling of which metrics are GAAP and which are adjusted; no mixing |
| Outlier treatment | Peer outliers flagged and explained, not silently excluded |
| Disclaimer present | Analysis includes appropriate disclaimer language |
Escalate to human review when: subject company has negative equity, recent restatement, going concern opinion, or complex multi-segment structure requiring allocation judgments.
Standing rules:
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| references/RATIO-DEFINITIONS.md | Complete ratio definitions, exact formulas, input definitions, and interpretation guidance for all ratio categories |
development
name: automated-contract-summary language: en description: Generates structured executive summaries of contracts using ML — captures key terms, party obligations, risk allocations, and compliance requirements in a standardized format. Optimized for high-volume review where speed and consistency matter. tags: - summarization - agreement - corporate --- # Automated Contract Summarization Produces standardized executive summaries of contracts using machine learning, capturing essential term
tools
Extracts regulatory obligations from dense regulations across jurisdictions. Breaks down multi-level regulations into clear article-level obligations, classifies applicability to a business, and prioritizes by risk level. Use when translating regulations into actionable compliance requirements.
development
Continuously monitors regulatory landscapes for changes relevant to a specific business. Ingests global regulatory updates, filters by relevance, summarizes impact, and produces an actionable change advisory. Use when tracking regulatory developments affecting a particular product or market.
testing
Compares an organization's existing compliance controls, policies, and procedures against extracted regulatory obligations to identify coverage gaps. Produces a remediation plan with prioritized actions. Use when assessing compliance maturity or preparing for regulatory audits.