Equus Total Return Closed Fund (EQS) — Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio
Equus Total Return Closed Fund (EQS) has a Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio of -0.04x as of March 2026, meaning its operating cash flow of $-196.00K could theoretically repay 0% of its total liabilities ($4.77 Million) in one year. See free cash flow generation of Equus Total Return Closed Fund to measure how efficiently the company converts operating cash flow to free cash.
CF-to-Debt Ratio
Operating Cash Flow
Total Liabilities
Data as of
Equus Total Return Closed Fund Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio (1995–2025)
Historical debt coverage capacity for Equus Total Return Closed Fund across 31 annual periods. Also explore net asset growth rate of Equus Total Return Closed Fund to track the company's year-over-year net asset growth rate.
Annual Cash Flow-to-Debt Ratio for Equus Total Return Closed Fund (1995–2025)
Year-by-year debt coverage analysis for Equus Total Return Closed Fund. For market capitalisation and broader financial context, see Equus Total Return Closed Fund market cap and net worth.
| Year | CF-to-Debt Ratio | Operating CF (USD) | Total Liabilities | YoY Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | -0.49x | $-2.33 Million | $4.77 Million | ▼ -100.5% |
| 2024 | 89.75x | $38.23 Million | $426.00K | ▲ +8009.3% |
| 2023 | -1.13x | $-51.36 Million | $45.26 Million | ▲ +5.3% |
| 2022 | -1.20x | $-7.70 Million | $6.43 Million | ▼ -119.0% |
| 2021 | 6.30x | $21.11 Million | $3.35 Million | ▲ +541.0% |
| 2020 | 0.98x | $24.61 Million | $25.05 Million | ▲ +624.8% |
| 2019 | -0.19x | $-5.45 Million | $29.10 Million | ▲ +58.1% |
| 2018 | -0.45x | $-12.26 Million | $27.45 Million | ▼ -175.9% |
| 2017 | 0.59x | $10.71 Million | $18.20 Million | ▲ +189.8% |
| 2016 | -0.66x | $-19.92 Million | $30.41 Million | ▼ -847.0% |
| 2015 | 0.09x | $1.33 Million | $15.22 Million | ▲ +141.3% |
| 2014 | -0.21x | $-3.37 Million | $15.84 Million | ▲ +83.6% |
| 2013 | -1.30x | $-19.62 Million | $15.13 Million | ▼ -104.1% |
| 2012 | 31.55x | $12.87 Million | $408.00K | ▲ +944.0% |
| 2011 | 3.02x | $18.60 Million | $6.15 Million | ▲ +180.5% |
| 2010 | 1.08x | $16.60 Million | $15.40 Million | ▲ +162.5% |
| 2009 | 0.41x | $12.36 Million | $30.11 Million | ▲ +158.3% |
| 2008 | -0.70x | $-32.14 Million | $45.63 Million | ▼ -21.5% |
| 2007 | -0.58x | $-18.27 Million | $31.51 Million | ▼ -131.6% |
| 2006 | 1.84x | $59.93 Million | $32.63 Million | ▲ +492.8% |
| 2005 | -0.47x | $-24.03 Million | $51.38 Million | ▼ -121.2% |
| 2004 | 2.20x | $57.27 Million | $26.00 Million | ▲ +1083.2% |
| 2003 | 0.19x | $11.43 Million | $61.40 Million | ▲ +761.3% |
| 2002 | -0.03x | $-2.01 Million | $71.40 Million | ▼ -37.8% |
| 2001 | -0.02x | $-1.51 Million | $73.90 Million | ▲ +20.6% |
| 2000 | -0.03x | $-2.19 Million | $85.10 Million | ▲ +42.6% |
| 1999 | -0.04x | $-3.30 Million | $73.60 Million | ▼ -3.6% |
| 1998 | -0.04x | $-4.30 Million | $99.40 Million | ▼ -247.7% |
| 1997 | -0.01x | $-1.04 Million | $83.60 Million | ▲ +61.1% |
| 1996 | -0.03x | $-2.49 Million | $77.90 Million | ▼ -464.2% |
| 1995 | -0.01x | $-400.00K | $70.60 Million | — |