Skip to main content

What are the disadvantages of there being too much liquidity in a business?

There are very few disadvantages to liquidity per se, but in practice (and in a competitive financial market) there are downsides that more liquid assets (such as money) have over less liquid assets (such as factories).

The most important one is return, or lack thereof; more liquid assets usually don't pay very much interest, and are usually not the sort of thing that directly earns revenue by itself. If you keep your wealth in cash instead of investing it, you bear the opportunity cost of the return you could have made on those investments.

There are also often differences in how different assets are taxed; often more liquid assets are taxed higher than less liquid assets in an effort to incentivize investment.

In businesses specifically, excess liquidity is generally a sign that the company is being too risk-averse, and failing to invest in new ventures such as research that carry risk but can also yield great rewards. Cash is a safe asset (not perfectly safe, since there is inflation and currency exchange to worry about, but safer than most other assets), but in part because of this it actually yields a negative real return (due to inflation). Businesses often liquidate their assets and hold cash during recessions, because they fear the future; but this actually tends to exacerbate recessions by taking productive assets out of use and pulling cash out of circulation.

Wise business managers maintain a balance, keeping some liquidity in case they need it but not so much that they sacrifice the opportunity for investment returns.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more