What does negative Total Equity means in McDonald's balance sheet?
"what does negative Total Equity means in McDonald's balance sheet? It means that their liabilities exceed their total assets.  Usually is means that a company has accumulated losses over time, but that's just one explanation.   But, isn't McDonald a very healthy company, and never lost money? Just because a company has ""always"" money does not mean it's a healthy company.  It may have borrowed a lot of money in order to operate, and now the growth is not able to keep up with the debt load. In McDonald's case, the major driver in the equity change is the fact that they have bought back over $20 Billion in stock over the past few years, which reduces assets and equity.  If they had instead paid off debt, their equity would not be negative, but their debt may be so cheap (in terms of interest rate) that it made more financial sense to buy back stock instead of paying off debt.  There are too many variables to assess that in this forum."
"This seems to be a very emotional thing for people and there are a lot of conflicting answers.  I agree with JoeTaxpayer in general but I think it's worth coming at it from a slightly different angle. You are in Canada and you don't get to deduct anything for your mortgage interest like in the US, so that simplifies things a bit.  The next thing to consider is that in an amortized mortgage, the later payments include increasingly more principal.  This matters because the extra payments you make earlier in the loan have much more impact on reducing your interest than those made at the end of the loan. Why does that matter?  Let's say for example, your loan was for $100K and you will end up getting $150K for the sale after all the transaction costs.  Consider two scenarios: If you do the math, you'll see that the total is the same in both scenarios.  Nominally, $50K of equity is worth the same as $50K in the bank. ""But wait!"" you protest, ""what about the interest on the loan?""  For sure, you likely won't get 2.89% on money in a bank account in this environment.  But there's a big difference between money in the bank and equity in your house: you can't withdraw part of your equity.  You either have to sell the house (which takes time) or you have to take out a loan against your equity which is likely going to be more expensive than your current loan. This is the basic reasoning behind the advice to have a certain period of time covered.  4 months isn't terrible but you could have more of a cushion.  Consider things like upcoming maintenance or improvements on the house.  Are you going to need a new roof before you move?  New driveway or landscape improvements?  Having enough cash to make a down-payment on your next home can be a huge advantage because you can make a non-contingent offer which will often be accepted at a lower value than a contingent offer. By putting this money into your home equity, you essentially make it inaccessible and there's an opportunity cost to that.  You will also earn exact 0% on that equity.  The only benefit you get is to reduce a loan which is charging you a tiny rate that you are unlikely to get again any time soon. I would take that extra cash and build more cushion.  I would also put as much money into any tax sheltered investments as you can.  You should expect to earn more than 2.89% on your long-term investments.  You really aren't in debt as far as the house goes as long as you are not underwater on the loan: the net value of that asset is positive on your balance sheet.  Yes you need to keep making payments but a big account balance covers that.  In fact if you hit on hard times and you've put all your extra cash into equity, you might ironically not being able to make your payments and lose the home. One thing I just realized is that since you are in Canada, you probably don't have a fixed-rate on your mortgage.  A variable-rate loan does make the calculation different.  If you are concerned that rates may spike significantly, I think you still want to increase your cushion but whether you want to increase long-term investments depends on your risk tolerance." From my memory of CFA Level 2 accounting:  * If Company A buys 50% or more of company B, they must consolidate 100% of Company B on their financial statements. The % of the business they don't own is multiplied by net income every year, and the resulting number is added to minority interest on the balance sheet. * If Company A buys more than 20% but less than 50%, use the equity method of accounting. This involves creating an asset for the purchase price paid for the stake in Company B. The asset increases in value by dividends received, that's it. * If Company A buys 20% or less, the investment is held in Marketable securities or something similar on the balance, and is marked-to-market. I don't see balance sheet in what you're looking at, and I'd definitely suggest learning how to read a balance sheet and looking at it, if you're going to buy stock in a company, unless you know that the recommendations you're buying on are already doing that and you're willing to take that risk.  Also, reading past balance sheets and statements can give you an idea about how accurate the company is with their predictions, or if they have a history of financial integrity. Now, if you're going the model portfolio route, which has become popular, the assumption that many of these stock buyers are making is that someone else is doing that for them.  I am not saying that this assumption is valid, just one that I've seen; you will definitely find a lot of skeptics, and rightly so, about model portfolios.  Likewise, people who trade based on what [Person X] does (like Warren Buffett or David Einhorn) are assuming that they're doing the research.  The downside to this is if you follow someone like this.  Yeah, oops. I should also point out that technical analysis, especially high probability TA, generally only looks at history.  Most would define it as high risk and there are many underlying assumptions with reading the price movements by high probability TA types. "To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying:  The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest.  It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind.  One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value).  The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo,  A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more.   Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan.  You and your parents are co-investing in real estate.  Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property.  A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership.  Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off.  With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders).  However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...?  A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan.  Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start.   It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them.  (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described.  I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance.  Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do).   Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees.  I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing.  Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be.  Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other).  If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation.  If not, you might need a lawyer.   I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents.  Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a ""buy out"" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates.  It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated.  -- Erik" "Look, as my final comment.  You're overthinking this.  Companies routinely have waaaay more cash on their books than they ""need"" because they keep a rainy day fund.  Yes, there are extreme examples like Apple that has about 60 billion more than they need but practically all companies are going to maintain excess cash for emergencies, acquisitions, etc.  As I said in another comment, the common theme between a DCF and an EV multiple is that they are both capital structure independent.    Even here there are going to be differences, companies with a really shitty capital structure (read: too much debt) will trade publicly at a lower enterprise value multiple because of the risk that they go bankrupt.  In an acquisition, this (probably) would not be the case.  In the case of a DCF, you would probably raise your discount rate to account for the risk of bankruptcy." I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450.  Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price.  The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x.  If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't.      The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction. "Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down.  This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. ""Investing"" can mean a lot of different things.  Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company.  A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation.  When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever.  If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%.  In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time.   If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed.  If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected.  In that case it's not really ""inflation"" that affected the stock returns, though." "I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash &amp; Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash &amp; Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive ""Money Account Value"" (let's say +$1,100).  The ""Money Account"" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called ""ML Direct Deposit Program"". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my ""Money Account"" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have ""sold"" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my ""Money Account"". Hope that all makes sense.  TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of "" ML Direct Deposit Program""?  Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases."