Why does ExxonMobil's balance sheet show more liabilities than assets?
"You are reading the balance sheet wrong. Everything Joe says is completely correct, but more fundamentally you have missed out on a huge pile of assets. ""Current assets"" is only short term assets. You have omitted more than $300B in long-term assets, primarily plant and equipment. The balance sheet explicitly says: Net tangible Assets (i.e. surplus of assets over liabilities) $174B" Exxon Mobil is one of the most profitable corporations in the world.  Their annual earnings are typically in the $10s of billions of dollars.  They have revenues in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.  They also return $10+ billion dollars to their stockholders each year in dividends and stock purchases.  That's with $300bn market capitalization - meaning they return 3% of their total market cap each year to their shareholders, aside from any movement in the stock itself. On the other hand, their total current liabilities are around $175bn.  That's what, six months' revenue?  Who'd you rather lend to, Exxon, or ... anyone else?  AAPL and GOOG maybe better risks, but not by much.  Almost every other company on the planet is a more dangerous risk. Judging them solely by Assets is silly - they don't exactly sit on the oil they extract.  They take it out of the ground and sell it to people. Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow.  Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care.  They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth.  Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference. I believe you are missing knowledge of how to conduct a ratio analysis. Understanding liquidity ratios, specifically the quick or acid-test ratio will be of interest and help your understanding. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acidtest.asp Help with conducting a ratio analysis. http://www.demonstratingvalue.org/resources/financial-ratio-analysis Finally, after working through the definitions, this website will be of use. https://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Exxon-Mobil-Corp/Ratios/Liquidity
"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis.  Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents).  This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense.  I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must.  You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow.  This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal ""indirect"" form of the statement of cash flows.  That's what this statement is for.  Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section).  It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities.  Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter.  What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows.  Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF." ... can someone explain to me why vanguard of all companies would be asking for this? If they're a company based on broad index funds, then whether or not exxon or Chevron or whoever else has climate change risk is irrelevant to that model, right? I've worked on numerous restructurings in the o&amp;g space. I assure you that bankruptcy is not a magical process of wiping away debt. It's been extremely common over the last 3 years in the energy industry. It'd be far more aggressive to say that a business is valued at $5 billion when in reality they have $5 billion in debt that traded at pennies on the dollar. "Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being ""what my stuff is worth"" and equity and liabilities together as being ""who owns it."" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)" "IANAL (or an accountant), but there is a useful notion of ""technical insolvency"" which you it sounds like you probably meet, and which is a distinct concept from actual insolvency. Couple of choice quotes from that link: If a company (or person) is technically insolvent that merely means   that it has a negative net asset value; its liabilities are greater   than its assets.   The significance of technical insolvency depends on circumstances: it   may be an indicator of serious problems that may lead to actual   insolvency, or it may be perfectly acceptable. ... A technically insolvent company is free to keep trading as long as the   directors reasonably believe that the company will be able to pay its   debts, and, again, as long as an upaid creditor does not use the   courts to force a liquidation. which is basically what @keshlam's comment on your question is saying." Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest.    Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents.    EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation.   This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning? Expense accounts are closed into equity.  Same with revenue.   So an increase in an expense means lower equity (lower retained earnings since there is more expense). Ergo, decrease equity and increase a liability. Increase a liability since it was accrued, which is usually used specifically to refer to things that kind of just happen in the background. Aka the firm most likely didn't pay cash for that right then and there so increase a payable. I mean isn't it implied that cash flows increase by the amount of the benefit of the investment each year? I'm a little shaky on cash flows tbh. My scope may be limited compared to yours I've never taken a financial management class but just from financial accounting knowledge since I recently finished that, it seems like cash flows would be increased if revenues are increased. Unless the revenue increase is for some reason solely in the form of accounts receivable or some asset other than cash. At the heart of this issue is an accounting disagreement that BIS has with current accounting standards.  So basically, foreign investors want to invest in lucrative American Dollar investment products but they don't want to have to buy American Dollars in order to do so because of foreign exchange risk (the risk that by the time your investment is realized, any gains are adversely effected by the change in currency values). So instead, they trade in a series of (currency) swaps that allow them to mitigate that foreign exchange risk. In doing so, they are only required by current accounting standards to record such transactions at fair value = 0, thus skipping over the balance sheet and only hitting the footnotes. BIS believes these transactions should be recorded at gross values and on the balance sheet as opposed to the footnotes.  The debt is hidden insofar as global dollar debt is calculated using liabilities on balance sheets and not the footnotes. That being said, in no way are these transactions truly hidden as (1) any good analyst values footnotes as much as the financial statements themselves and (2) exposure isn't really the same as debt.  TL:DR BIS (as reputable as they are) wants to change currently accepted accounting standards and screaming $14 TRILLION DOLLARS is their way of doing it. Enron did a wide range of dodgy financial accounting, using tricks to severely mis-represent their financial situation. They then used these doctored accounts to fool lenders and stock-buyers that the company had more money, and fewer debts or problems, than it really had. Eventually they ran out of money and went bankrupt, leaving the lenders and stock-buyers with nothing. "SEC filings do not contain this information, generally. You can find intangible assets on balance sheets, but not as detailed as writing down every asset separately, only aggregated at some level (may be as detailed as specifying ""patents"" as a separate line, although even that I wouldn't count on). Companies may hold different rights to different patents in different countries, patents are being granted and expired constantly, and unless this is a pharma industry or a startup - each single patent doesn't have a critical bearing on the company performance." Dividends and interest are counted under operations for the purpose of this tweet. This is pretty much entirely a non-story. I'm not sure exactly how they're dividing it up, but it looks like they're only counting stock appreciation as capital gains and counting things revenue from sales (from their subsidiaries as well) under operating income.   This is just from a quick glance over their statement of earning, but that's what it looks like to me. Maybe his accountant not taking care of things meant that there was a miscommunication about his debts. He could've had outstanding loans, back taxes, etc and he didn't have a clear enough picture about what his cash balance would be after his transaction. I upvoted you as I think your story is important to tell. However, commodities and futures accounts have never been protected under SIPC. The use of your money to pay debts sounds illegal or perhaps it was legal under a document you signed when you opened your account. Bankruptcy was not a way to screw you over.  The bigger point is that bankruptcy is a way to restructure debts and is beneficial in the long run to the benefits of society. While we often look at people or corporations who have to file bankruptcy as being irresponsible (and what I am about to say may reflect negatively on you, for that I apologize) the people or corporations who lent to a bankrupt entity should be scorned just as much.  Right now, the EU is going through a period where we are hoping bankruptcy is off the table. Increasingly though, the only way to do that is to try and paper over debts that will never be repaid for a long enough time period for growth to resume. But the question remains, what if growth never comes back. This is why restructuring and bankruptcy is the only option for Greece and likely Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. "Hi, accounting major here!  A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and ""cheap"" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate).  Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!"