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 0.00x as of March 2026, meaning its operating cash flow of $7.00K could theoretically repay 0% of its total liabilities ($5.74 Million) in one year. See EQS financial flexibility index to measure the company's free cash flow as a share of total liabilities.
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. For the full cash flow conversion analysis, see Equus Total Return Closed Fund operating cash flow efficiency.
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. Check Equus Total Return Closed Fund earnings quality ratio to evaluate the quality of earnings relative to operating cash generation.
| 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 | — |