d, that is suitable for comparison to Reader's Digest.
             The liquidity of Reader's Digest shown a trend of getting worse from 1989 to 1992. Meredith's also worsened and is overall much worse than Reader's Digest. Cash and short-term investments have shown dramatic common size decreases during the period, which mostly accounts for the worsening liquidity. This common size decrease in the aforementioned categories is viewed as a positive for the company. The company was estimated at having too much cash and short-term investments on their books. Their liquidity is still in good shape. A current ratio of 1.946 and a quick ratio of 1.649 are good for a company such as Readers Digest.
             Reader's Digest's performance has been very consistent over the past several years. There is one exception, rate of return on net worth, which shrank from 34% in 1989, to 25% in 1992. This was mostly due to the changing capital structure of the company; it is simply not as leveraged as it had once been. This change is actually good. In comparison, Meredith has had a very erratic and mostly disappointing performance over the past four years.
             The activity of Reader's Digest is generally worse than it had once been. Reader's digest had better overall activity than Meredith did, except in its average collection period, 57 days versus 38 days respectively. Reader's Digest's average collection period has gotten worse by 15 days from 1989 to 1992. The company's average collection period of 57 days is too long and is due to an inadequate collection process. Reader's Digest's inventory turnover has gotten worse, with the biggest change occurring between '89 and '90. Since 1990, the turnover has been steady at around 15 times per year. Its total operating cycle has also gotten worse over the years. Total asset turnover has remained stable, but total asset turnover is slight...