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. Explore Equus Total Return Closed Fund long-term investment allocation to see how much of total assets are deployed in long-term investments.
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 how large is Equus Total Return Closed Fund's balance sheet for the complete picture of this company's asset base.
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 EQS company 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 | — |