Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd. (009415) — Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio

Latest as of March 2026: -0.01x

Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd. (009415) has a Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio of -0.01x as of March 2026, meaning its operating cash flow of ₩-47.04 Billion could theoretically repay 0% of its total liabilities (₩3.15 Trillion) in one year. See 009415 FCF to total liabilities ratio to measure the company's free cash flow as a share of total liabilities.

CF-to-Debt Ratio

-0.01x
Operating CF / Total Liabilities

Operating Cash Flow

₩-47.04 Billion
KRW

Total Liabilities

₩3.15 Trillion
KRW

Data as of

Mar 2026
Most recent filing

Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd. Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio (2014–2025)

Historical debt coverage capacity for Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd. across 12 annual periods. For the full cash flow conversion analysis, see cash flow conversion of Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,.

Annual Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio for Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd. (2014–2025)

Year-by-year debt coverage analysis for Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd.. Check Taeyoung Engineering & Construction Co., (009415) cash flow quality to evaluate the quality of earnings relative to operating cash generation.

Year CF-to-Debt Ratio Operating CF (KRW) Total Liabilities YoY Change
2025 0.03x ₩115.09 Billion ₩3.48 Trillion ▲ +103.5%
2024 0.02x ₩61.61 Billion ₩3.80 Trillion ▲ +131.4%
2023 -0.05x ₩-302.29 Billion ₩5.84 Trillion ▼ -29.7%
2022 -0.04x ₩-144.53 Billion ₩3.62 Trillion ▼ -121.7%
2021 0.18x ₩557.00 Billion ₩3.03 Trillion ▼ -39.0%
2020 0.30x ₩950.77 Billion ₩3.15 Trillion ▲ +3549.7%
2019 0.01x ₩35.91 Billion ₩4.34 Trillion ▼ -75.0%
2018 0.03x ₩114.99 Billion ₩3.48 Trillion ▲ +306.6%
2017 0.01x ₩26.99 Billion ₩3.32 Trillion ▲ +117.2%
2016 -0.05x ₩-105.48 Billion ₩2.23 Trillion ▼ -240.6%
2015 0.03x ₩58.85 Billion ₩1.75 Trillion ▲ +1267.6%
2014 0.00x ₩4.02 Billion ₩1.63 Trillion
Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio = Operating Cash Flow / Total Liabilities. Higher is better for debt service capacity.