What Is Absolute Advantage?

Absolute advantage is the ability of an individual, company, region, or country to produce a greater quantity of a good or service with the same quantity of inputs per unit of time, or to produce the same quantity of a good or service per unit of time using a lesser quantity of inputs, than its competitors.

Absolute advantage can be accomplished by creating the good or service at a lower absolute cost per unit using a smaller number of inputs, or by a more efficient process.

Understanding Absolute Advantage

The concept of absolute advantage was developed by 18th-century economist Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations to show how countries can gain from trade by specializing in producing and exporting the goods that they can produce more efficiently than other countries. Countries with an absolute advantage can decide to specialize in producing and selling a specific good or service and use the generated funds to purchase goods and services from other countries.

Smith argued that specializing in the products that they each have an absolute advantage in and then trading the products can make all countries better off, as long as they each have at least one product for which they hold an absolute advantage over other nations.

Absolute advantage explains why it makes sense for individuals, businesses, and countries to trade with each other. Since each has advantages in producing certain goods and services, both entities can benefit from the exchange.

This mutual gain from trade forms the basis of Smith’s argument that specialization, the division of labor, and subsequent trade lead to an overall increase in prosperity from which all can benefit. This, Smith believed, was the root source of the eponymous “Wealth of Nations.”

Absolute Advantage vs. Comparative Advantage

Absolute advantage can be contrasted with comparative advantage, which is when a producer has a lower opportunity cost to produce a good or service than another producer. An opportunity cost is the potential benefits an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another.

Absolute advantage leads to unambiguous gains from specialization and trade only in cases where each producer has an absolute advantage in producing some good. If a producer lacks any absolute advantage, then Adam Smith’s argument would not necessarily apply.

However, the producer and its trading partners might still be able to realize gains from trade if they can specialize based on their respective comparative advantages instead. In his book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, David Ricardo argued that even if a country has an absolute advantage over trading many kinds of goods, it can still benefit by trading with other countries if that have different comparative advantages.

Assumptions of the Theory of Absolute Advantage

Both Smith’s theory of absolute advantage, and Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, rely on certain assumptions and simplifications in order to explain the benefits of trade.

Barriers to Trade

Both theories assume that there are no barriers to trade. They do not account for any costs of shipping or additional tariffs that a country might raise on another’s imported goods. In the real world, though, shipping costs impact how likely both the importer and exporter are to engage in trade. Countries can also leverage tariffs to create advantages for themselves or disadvantages for competitors.

Factors of Production

Both theories also assume that the factors of production are immobile. In these models, workers and businesses do not relocate in search of better opportunities. This assumption was realistic in the 1700s.

In modern trade, however, globalization has now made it easy for companies to move their factories abroad. It has also increased the rate of immigration, which impacts a country’s available workforce. In some industries, businesses will work with governments to create immigration opportunities for workers that are essential to their business operations.

Consistency and Scale

More crucially, these theories both assume that a country’s absolute advantage is constant and scales equally. In other words, it assumes that producing a small number of goods has the same per-unit cost as a larger number and that countries are unable to change their absolute advantages.

In reality, countries often make strategic investments to create greater advantages in certain industries. Absolute advantage can also change for reasons other than investment. Natural disasters, for example, can destroy farmland, factories, and other factors of production.

Pros and Cons of Absolute Advantage

One advantage of the theory of absolute advantage is its simplicity: The theory provides an elegant explanation of the benefits of trade, showing how countries can benefit by focusing on their absolute advantages.

However, the theory of comparative advantage does not fully explain why nations benefit from trade. This explanation would later fall to Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage: Even if one country has an absolute advantage in both types of goods, it will still be better off through trade. In other words, if one country can produce all goods more cheaply than its trading partners, it will still benefit by trading with other countries.

Also, as explained earlier, the theory also assumes that absolute advantages are static—a country cannot change its absolute advantages, and they do not become more efficient with scale. Actual experience has shown this to be untrue: Many countries have successfully created an absolute advantage by investing in strategic industries.

In fact, the theory has been used to justify exploitative economic policies in the postcolonial era. Reasoning that all countries should focus on their advantages, major bodies like the World Bank and IMF have often pressured developing countries to focus on agricultural exports, rather than industrialization. As a result, many of these countries remain at a low level of economic development.

Example of Absolute Advantage

Consider two hypothetical countries, Atlantica and Pacifica, with equivalent populations and resource endowments, with each producing two products: guns and bacon. Each year, Atlantica can produce either 12 tubs of butter or six slabs of bacon, while Pacifica can produce either six tubs of butter or 12 slabs of bacon.

Each country needs a minimum of four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon to survive. In a state of autarky, producing solely on their own for their own needs, Atlantica can spend one-third of the year making butter and two-thirds of the year making bacon, for a total of four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon.

Pacifica can spend one-third of the year making bacon and two-thirds making butter to produce the same: four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon. This leaves each country at the brink of survival, with barely enough butter and bacon to go around. However, note that Atlantica has an absolute advantage in producing butter and Pacifica has an absolute advantage in producing bacon.

If each country were to specialize in their absolute advantage, Atlantica could make 12 tubs of butter and no bacon in a year, while Pacifica makes no butter and 12 slabs of bacon. By specializing, the two countries divide the tasks of their labor between them.

If they then trade six tubs of butter for six slabs of bacon, each country would then have six of each. Both countries would now be better off than before, because each would have six tubs of butter and six slabs of bacon, as opposed to four of each good which they could produce on their own.

The Bottom Line

The theory of absolute advantage represents Adam Smith’s explanation of why countries benefit from trade, by exporting goods where they have an absolute advantage and importing other goods. While the theory is an elegant and simple illustration of the benefits of trade, it did not fully explain the benefits of international trade. That would later fall to David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantages.

What Is the Acid-Test Ratio?

The acid-test ratio, commonly known as the quick ratio, uses a firm’s balance sheet data as an indicator of whether it has sufficient short-term assets to cover its short-term liabilities.

Understanding the Acid-Test Ratio

In certain situations, analysts prefer to use the acid-test ratio rather than the current ratio (also known as the working capital ratio) because the acid-test method ignores assets such as inventory, which may be difficult to quickly liquidate. The acid test ratio is thus a more conservative metric.

Companies with an acid-test ratio of less than 1 do not have enough liquid assets to pay their current liabilities and should be treated with caution. If the acid-test ratio is much lower than the current ratio, it means that a company’s current assets are highly dependent on inventory.

This is not a bad sign in all cases, however, as some business models are inherently dependent on inventory. Retail stores, for example, may have very low acid-test ratios without necessarily being in danger. The acceptable range for an acid-test ratio will vary among different industries, and you’ll find that comparisons are most meaningful when analyzing peer companies in the same industry as each other.

For most industries, the acid-test ratio should exceed 1. On the other hand, a very high ratio is not always good. It could indicate that cash has accumulated and is idle, rather than being reinvested, returned to shareholders, or otherwise put to productive use.

Some tech companies generate massive cash flows and accordingly have acid-test ratios as high as 7 or 8. While this is certainly better than the alternative, these companies have drawn criticism from activist investors who would prefer that shareholders receive a portion of the profits.

Calculating the Acid-Test Ratio

The numerator of the acid-test ratio can be defined in various ways, but the main consideration should be gaining a realistic view of the company’s liquid assets. Cash and cash equivalents should definitely be included, as should short-term investments, such as marketable securities.

Accounts receivable are generally included, but this is not appropriate for every industry. In the construction industry, for example, accounts receivable may take much more time to recover than is standard practice in other industries, so including it could make a firm’s financial position seem much more secure than it is in reality.

The formula is:

$\begin{aligned} &\text{Acid Test} = \frac{ \text{Cash} + \text{Marketable Securities} + \text{A/R} }{ \text{Current Liabilities} } \\ &\textbf{where:} \\ &\text{A/R} = \text{Accounts receivable} \\ \end{aligned}$​Acid Test=Current LiabilitiesCash+Marketable Securities+A/R​where:A/R=Accounts receivable​

Another way to calculate the numerator is to take all current assets and subtract illiquid assets. Most importantly, inventory should be subtracted, keeping in mind that this will negatively skew the picture for retail businesses because of the amount of inventory they carry. Other elements that appear as assets on a balance sheet should be subtracted if they cannot be used to cover liabilities in the short term, such as advances to suppliers, prepayments, and deferred tax assets.

The ratio’s denominator should include all current liabilities, which are debts and obligations that are due within one year. It is important to note that time is not factored into the acid-test ratio. If a company’s accounts payable are nearly due but its receivables won’t come in for months, that company could be on much shakier ground than its ratio would indicate. The opposite can also be true.

Acid-Test Ratio Example

A company’s acid-test ratio can be calculated using its balance sheet. Below is an abbreviated version of Apple Inc.’s (AAPL) balance sheet as of Jan. 27, 2022, showing the components of the company’s current assets and current liabilities (all figures in millions of dollars):

What Is an Acquisition?

An acquisition is when one company purchases most or all of another company’s shares to gain control of that company. Purchasing more than 50% of a target firm’s stock and other assets allows the acquirer to make decisions about the newly acquired assets without the approval of the company’s other shareholders. Acquisitions, which are very common in business, may occur with the target company’s approval, or in spite of its disapproval. With approval, there is often a no-shop clause during the process.

We mostly hear about acquisitions of large well-known companies because these huge and significant deals tend to dominate the news. In reality, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) occur more regularly between small- to medium-size firms than between large companies.

Understanding Acquisitions

Companies acquire other companies for various reasons. They may seek economies of scale, diversification, greater market share, increased synergy, cost reductions, or new niche offerings. Other reasons for acquisitions include those listed below.

As a Way to Enter a Foreign Market

If a company wants to expand its operations to another country, buying an existing company in that country could be the easiest way to enter a foreign market. The purchased business will already have its own personnel, a brand name, and other intangible assets, which could help to ensure that the acquiring company will start off in a new market with a solid base.

As a Growth Strategy

Perhaps a company met with physical or logistical constraints or depleted its resources. If a company is encumbered in this way, then it’s often sounder to acquire another firm than to expand its own. Such a company might look for promising young companies to acquire and incorporate into its revenue stream as a new way to profit.

To Reduce Excess Capacity and Decrease Competition

If there is too much competition or supply, companies may look to acquisitions to reduce excess capacity, eliminate the competition, and focus on the most productive providers.

To Gain New Technology

Sometimes it can be more cost-efficient for a company to purchase another company that already has implemented a new technology successfully than to spend the time and money to develop the new technology itself.

Acquisition, Takeover, or Merger?

Although technically, the words “acquisition” and “takeover” mean almost the same thing, they have different nuances on Wall Street.

In general, “acquisition” describes a primarily amicable transaction, where both firms cooperate; “takeover” suggests that the target company resists or strongly opposes the purchase; the term “merger” is used when the purchasing and target companies mutually combine to form a completely new entity. However, because each acquisition, takeover, and merger is a unique case, with its own peculiarities and reasons for undertaking the transaction, the exact use of these terms tends to overlap in practice.

Acquisitions: Mostly Amiable

Friendly acquisitions occur when the target firm agrees to be acquired; its board of directors (B of D, or board) approves of the acquisition. Friendly acquisitions often work toward the mutual benefit of the acquiring and target companies. Both companies develop strategies to ensure that the acquiring company purchases the appropriate assets, and they review the financial statements and other valuations for any obligations that may come with the assets. Once both parties agree to the terms and meet any legal stipulations, the purchase proceeds.

Takeovers: Usually Inhospitable, Often Hostile

Unfriendly acquisitions, commonly known as “hostile takeovers,” occur when the target company does not consent to the acquisition. Hostile acquisitions don’t have the same agreement from the target firm, and so the acquiring firm must actively purchase large stakes of the target company to gain a controlling interest, which forces the acquisition.

Even if a takeover is not exactly hostile, it implies that the firms are not equal in one or more significant ways.

Mergers: Mutual, But Creates a New Entity

As the mutual fusion of two companies into one new legal entity, a merger is a more-than-friendly acquisition. Mergers generally occur between companies that are roughly equal in terms of their basic characteristics—size, number of customers, the scale of operations, and so on. The merging companies strongly believe that their combined entity would be more valuable to all parties (especially shareholders) than either one could be alone.

Evaluating Acquisition Candidates

Before making an acquisition, it is imperative for a company to evaluate whether its target company is a good candidate.

• Is the price right? The metrics investors use to value an acquisition candidate vary by industry. When acquisitions fail, it’s often because the asking price for the target company exceeds these metrics.
• Examine the debt load. A target company with an unusually high level of liabilities should be viewed as a warning of potential problems ahead.
• Undue litigation. Although lawsuits are common in business, a good acquisition candidate is not dealing with a level of litigation that exceeds what is reasonable and normal for its size and industry.
• Scrutinize the financials. A good acquisition target will have clear, well-organized financial statements, which allows the acquirer to exercise due diligence smoothly. Complete and transparent financials also help to prevent unwanted surprises after the acquisition is complete.

Example of Acquisitions

AOL and Time Warner and AT&T

AOL Inc. (originally America Online) was the most publicized online service of its time, and had been extolled as “the company that brought the internet to America.” Founded in 1985, by the year 2000 AOL had grown to become the United States’ largest internet provider. Meanwhile, the legendary media conglomerate, Time Warner, Inc. was being labeled an “old media” company, given its range of tangible businesses like publishing, and television, and an enviable income statement.

In 2000, in a masterful display of overweening confidence, the young upstart AOL purchased the venerable giant Time Warner (TWX) for $165 billion; this dwarfed all records and became the biggest merger in history. The vision was that the new entity, AOL Time Warner, would become a dominant force in the news, publishing, music, entertainment, cable, and Internet industries. After the merger, AOL became the largest technology company in America.

However, the joint phase lasted less than a decade. As AOL lost value and the dot-com bubble burst, the expected successes of the merger failed to materialize, and AOL and Time Warner dissolved their union:

• In 2009, AOL Time Warner dissolved in a spin-off deal.
• From 2009 to 2016, Time Warner remained an entirely independent company. 
• In 2015, Verizon Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VZ) acquired AOL for $4.4 billion.

Then, in October 2016, AT&T (NYSE: T) and Time Warner (TWX) announced a deal in which AT&T will buy Time Warner for $85.4 billion, morphing AT&T into a media heavy-hitter. In June 2018, after a protracted court battle, AT&T completed its acquisition of Time Warner.

Certainly, the AT&T-Time Warner acquisition deal of 2018 will be as historically significant as the AOL-Time Warner deal of 2000; we just can’t know exactly how yet. These days, 18 years equals numerous lifetimes—especially in media, communications, and technology—and much will continue to change. For the moment, however, two things seem certain:

1. The consummation of the AT&T-Time Warner merger already has begun to reshape much of the media industry.
2. M&A enterprise is still alive and well.

What Is an Abnormal Return?

An abnormal return describes the unusually large profits or losses generated by a given investment or portfolio over a specified period. The performance diverges from the investments’ expected, or anticipated, rate of return (RoR)—the estimated risk-adjusted return based on an asset pricing model, or using a long-run historical average or multiple valuation techniques.

Returns that are abnormal may simply be anomalous or they may point to something more nefarious such as fraud or manipulation. Abnormal returns should not be confused with “alpha” or excess returns earned by actively managed investments.

Understanding Abnormal Returns

Abnormal returns are essential in determining a security or portfolio’s risk-adjusted performance when compared to the overall market or a benchmark index. Abnormal returns could help to identify a portfolio manager’s skill on a risk-adjusted basis. It will also illustrate whether investors received adequate compensation for the amount of investment risk assumed.

An abnormal return can be either positive or negative. The figure is merely a summary of how the actual returns differ from the predicted yield. For example, earning 30% in a mutual fund that is expected to average 10% per year would create a positive abnormal return of 20%. If, on the other hand, in this same example, the actual return was 5%, this would generate a negative abnormal return of 5%.

Cumulative Abnormal Return (CAR)

Cumulative abnormal return (CAR) is the total of all abnormal returns. Usually, the calculation of cumulative abnormal return happens over a small window of time, often only days. This short duration is because evidence has shown that compounding daily abnormal returns can create bias in the results.

Cumulative abnormal return (CAR) is used to measure the effect lawsuits, buyouts, and other events have on stock prices and is also useful for determining the accuracy of asset pricing models in predicting the expected performance.

The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is a framework used to calculate a security or portfolio’s expected return based on the risk-free rate of return, beta, and the expected market return. After the calculation of a security or portfolio’s expected return, the estimate for the abnormal return is calculated by subtracting the expected return from the realized return.

Example of Abnormal Returns

An investor holds a portfolio of securities and wishes to calculate the portfolio’s abnormal return during the previous year. Assume that the risk-free rate of return is 2% and the benchmark index has an expected return of 15%.

The investor’s portfolio returned 25% and had a beta of 1.25 when measured against the benchmark index. Therefore, given the amount of risk assumed, the portfolio should have returned 18.25%, or (2% + 1.25 x (15% – 2%)). Consequently, the abnormal return during the previous year was 6.75% or 25 – 18.25%.

The same calculations can be helpful for a stock holding. For example, stock ABC returned 9% and had a beta of 2, when measured against its benchmark index. Consider that the risk-free rate of return is 5% and the benchmark index has an expected return of 12%. Based on the CAPM, stock ABC has an expected return of 19%. Therefore, stock ABC had an abnormal return of -10% and underperformed the market during this period.