Free Essay

Proton Beam Techology

In: Science

Submitted By cb199723
Words 1114
Pages 5
More is not better
In the article “It cost more but is it worth more” Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Steven D.
Pearson is against the idea about the investment towards new proton beam treatment. The new technology will cost more than $180 million just to build a facility to use the proton beam machines. Emanuel and Pearson argue in favor of Americans because they do not believe that
Americans taxpayers should pay the excessive amount of money towards proton beam machines that lack evidence of curing cancer more effectively. The issue that arises about the topic is that there are cheaper alternatives of radiation, that cancer patients can receive for fraction of the price of proton beam therapy which can cost $50,000 a treatment. During these hard economic times it is unreasonable to follow through with the outrageous sum of money it requires and yet it does not have any significant scientific evidence it can cure cancer. Therefore the money going towards the proton beam technology is better used elsewhere. Instead of spending the outrageous sum of money on the two new proton beam treatment facilities at the Mayo Clinic which are located in Minnesota and Arizona because it will cost more than $180 million dollars each. The claim that the authors wanted to make to the public is that the proton beam technology should not be invested in because of its high risk and low reward . The benefit cost analysis of having proton beam technology compare to not having it, is pretty obvious. The

proton beam technology is inferior to other forms of radiation treatment for cancer patients even though it cost twice as much. Therefore the money invested in the technology would be better served elsewhere. There only has been one random trial with a small insignificant sample size using the proton beam radiation. With such a small number of patients showing positive results, the proton beam does not deserve the higher price cost. It is nonsense for Americans to pay the crazy amount of money for something that simply does work better than cheaper alternative for life-threatening diseases like cancer. The two authors explained the reasoning behind chaos of pushing towards the development of protons beam treatment is driven by competition. Mayo
Clinic is competing against Massachusetts General Hospital, M.D. Anderson in Texas, the
University of Pennsylvania and Loma Linda in California; all of which have the new proton beam technology. The reason behind is the proton will generate a profit for the business due to the generous reimbursement from Medicare. Emanuel and Pearson's argument is that the high risk and low reward of proton beam therapy should not be paid for by the public. The approach to the new innovation is quite disappointing due to the fact that there is no confirmation the device will save any cancer patient's life nor reduce the side effects. The financial burden is caused from the bad decisions of the United State government for not making the right decisions regarding United States health care costs. The numbers may be overwhelming because of all the careless choices United States for supporting ideas and innovation that lack evidence of effectiveness and in addition mishandling taxpayer dollars with no questions asked.

The tone and language used by Emanuel and Pearson throughout the article sounds persuasive and convincing on the subject about not implementing proton beam treatment facilities. The numbers they provided looks astounding, which will catch a lot of reader's eyes.
Due to the fact that the money figures look out of the ordinary for the proton beam treatment facilities and in additional the proton treatment does not provide benefits of constructing it.
Therefore the reader will follow logic and side with the two authors opposition about their stand against the proton beam treatment facilities. The article is informative and creates a mental outlook on the decisions that the United States regarding healthcare costs are awful. They are also careless and ineffective when using taxpayers money. Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Steven D. Pearson has provided strong support to why we should not go through with the proton beam technology. The reason being is the machines are tremendously expensive and requiring a particle accelerator encased in a football field-size building. Each session of treatment cost two times more compare to other forms of radiation for cancer patients. The proton beam therapy does have any evidence it can cure or reduced any side effects of cancer other than a handful of rare pediatric cancers. For that reasoning the innovation of proton beam therapy is a waste of money. It cannot be maximized to it's full potential because it can be only utilize for small number of cancer patients that have the handful of rare pediatric cancers which consists of brain and spinal cord cancer. For the other cancers it can treat the number of people around the world that has it is so low it would not make a difference.
Unfortunately the therapy does not cure or reduce side effects of lung, esophageal, breast, head, prostate, and neck cancers. With the supporting information along with statistics provided

Emanuel and Pearson has made a strong case for not following through with the proton beam treatment facilities. Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Steven D. Pearson used logos to appeal to the audience logically.
The two authors have factual data and statistics to appeal to the readers throughout the article. It grabs the reader’s attention when seeing the numbers such as “ $180 million” or “$50,000” in the paper. With the figures in place it will make the reader more alert and interested in the topic at hand, so the logic appeal to the audience has an positive effect. Therefore it will evoke a cognitive and rational response from reader which indeed is the purpose the two authors has in mind. For conclusion, Emanuel and Pearson has made a strong case for not implementing beam treatment facilities at the Mayo Clinic which are located in Minnesota and Arizona, at cost more than $180 million dollars each. The innovation is not worth wild since there are more preferred choices that will do more. The reasoning behind it is there is no convincing evidence it will outperform other alternatives since there is a slack of studies to acknowledge it as the successor of other forms of cancers therapy. As a reader I am on Emanuel and Pearson side of not agreeing to the way American healthcare is mishandling American taxpayers money on ineffective equipment. Therefore the United States should do more further studies before using money on any unnecessary goods that clearly benefit the public.…...

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Gaussian Beam

...Gaussian Beams Enrique J. Galvez Department of Physics and Astronomy Colgate University Copyright 2009 ii Contents 1 Fundamental Gaussian Beams 1.1 Spherical Wavefront in the Paraxial region 1.2 Formal Solution of the Wave Equation . . 1.2.1 Beam Spot w(z) . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Beam Amplitude . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Wavefront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Gouy Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Focusing a Gaussian Beam . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 6 8 8 9 10 12 15 15 17 20 21 25 25 26 26 27 29 30 31 31 33 35 35 36 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 High-Order Gaussian Beams 2.1 High-Order Gaussian Beams in Rectangular Coordinates 2.2 High-Order Gaussian Beams in Cylindrical Coordinates . 2.3 Irradiance and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Wave-front interference 3.1 General Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Interference of......

Words: 13971 - Pages: 56

Free Essay

Beam Deflection

...1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Beam Deflections 1.2 Theory - Calculations DeflectionF formula for the load given above: A determination of flexural stress yields: When rectangular it is Where; δ = Deflection (mm) E = Coefficient of Elasticity L = Span (mm) I = Inertia Factor Mb = Moment of flexure (Nmm) F1 = Load occasioned by weight Wb = Resistance to flexure (mm3) of Load Device (N) σb = Flexural Stress (N/mm2) F = Load of occasioned by additional weight (N) 1.3 Objectives * To investigate the relationship between load, span, width, height and deflection of a beam placed on two bearers and affected by a concentrated load at the center. * To ascertain the coefficient of elasticity for steel brass and aluminium 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Procedure - Experiement 1A * Investigate the relationship between load and deflection. 1) Set the bearers so that a span of 600 mm is obtained. The interval between each groove on the shafts of the apparatus is 100 mm. 2) Place a test specimen with dimensions of 4 x 25 mm, on the bearers and mount the load device in the center of the test specimen. 3) Set the testing device so that the top of the gauge is centered on the upper plane of the load device. Lower the gauge so that its small hand is at about 10 and set the gauge to zero by twisting its outer ring. 4) Load the weights as shown in the table below and read off the......

Words: 617 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Proton

...Proton Issue in Malaysia 1 Introduction This paper investigates the background, history, problems emerged and ways to improve of Proton cars in Malaysia. The objective of this paper is not only to find out the problems faced by Proton, but also to discuss the ways in order to improve the Proton reliability and retrieve the supporter’s heart to keep using Proton car in the automotive sector. However, in this competitive time where there are a lot of so-called competitors such as Hyundai, Toyota, and Perodua no matter foreign or local brand cars had caused the Proton car buyers to reduce significantly. This phenomenon occurred not merely because of the high quality of other cars; it also ascribed by Proton’s problems itself. This can be seen as the issues of Proton had been argued for a long time for its function problem, for example. Consequently, the Proton buyers tend to address dissatisfied with it, complains about the unreliable of Proton as well as do not support the Proton cars continuously. The production of a so-called ‘national car’- Proton has been concerned nowadays. They should improve their technology skill and service to gain back customers’ confidence. 2 Background Starting from 1979, Malaysia's Father of Modernization, Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, who was the Deputy Prime Minister at that time, suggested the idea of establishing an automotive assembling and manufacturing industry in our country. Tun Dr. Mahathir was......

Words: 320 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Proton

...1982. The dream was fulfilled when PROTON was officially incorporated on May 7, 1983. Our very first model, the Proton Saga was commercially launched on July 9, 1985. The name "Saga" was chosen by Ismail Jaafar, a retired military soldier, and derived from "saga" (Adenanthera pavonina), a type of seed commonly found in Malaysia. The first new market for the Proton Saga was Singapore, right across the Straits of Johor. In 1986, barely a year after our first car was launched, we celebrated the official rollout of the 10,000th Proton The following year, we launched the Proton Saga 1.5l sedan and Aeroback models. By then, over 50,000 units of the Proton Saga had been produced and sold in Bangladesh, Brunei, New Zealand, Malta and Sri Lanka. Soon after, Proton cars were distributed in the United Kingdom. In 1988, PROTON debuted at the British International Motorshow, walking away successfully with three prestigious awards for quality, coachwork and ergonomics. In 1996, we produced our 1 millionth. We progressed towards in-house engine operations in 1989. In our quest to upgrade our technological prowess, a Transmission Assembly Plant was also set up in Shah Alam. In 1996, we produced our one millionth car. This achievement was buoyed by several significant new model launches including the Proton Tiara, Proton Wira 2.0 Diesel and the two-door Proton Putra, in addition to our existing lineup of the Proton Wira, Proton Satria and Proton Perdana. In the same year,......

Words: 1071 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Beams

...Experiment 7: Deflection of beams (Effect of beam length and width) 1. OBJECTIVE The objective of this laboratory experiment is to find the relationship between the deflection (y) at the centre of a simply supported beam and the span, width. 2. MATERIALS - APPARATUS Steel Beams, Deflection measuring device, 500g weight 3. INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION The deflection of a beam, y, will depend on many factors such as: - • The applied load F (F=m•g). • The span L. • The width of the beam b, and its thickness h. Other factors such as position, method of loading, the material of which the beam is made will also influence the deflection. If we wish to find the relationship between y and one of the possible variables it is necessary to keep all the other possible variables constant throughout the experiment. 1. Length calculation In this experiment the same beam is used throughout and the centrally applied point load is kept constant. Thus keeping all possible variables other than the deflection y and the span L constant we may investigate the relationship between y and L. Let y[pic]Ln where n is to be found Then y = k•Ln where k is a constant Taking logarithms: log y = n log L + log k which is in the straight line form (y = mx + C). Thus plotting logy against log L will give a straight-line graph of slope “n” and “k” may be determined. 2. Width calculation In this experiment beams of the same material but of different width......

Words: 1561 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Proton

...MARKET SUMMARY Proton is the Malaysian national automobile manufacturer (Malay acronym for Perusahaan OTOmobil Nasional, 'National Automobile Enterprise'), which was established in 1983 under the direction of the former Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Proton Holdings Berhad, the holding company, is listed on the Bursa Malaysia. Based on technology and parts from Mitsubishi Motors, production of the first model, the Proton Saga began in September 1985 at its first manufacturing plant in Shah Alam, Selangor. Initially the components of the car were entirely manufactured by Mitsubishi but slowly local parts were being used as technologies were transferred and skills were gained. The 100,000th Proton Saga was produced in January 1989. Until the end of the 1990s, the car's logo featured the crest from Malaysia's coat of arms, featuring a crescent and a fourteen-pointed star. The new Proton logo features a stylized tiger head. In 1993, a model called Proton Wira was introduced based on the Mitsubishi Lancer/Colt. More than 220,000 units were sold between 1996 and 1998. Proton Perdana, based on the Mitsubishi Galant/Eterna, was first produced in 1995, intended for higher end market. The Proton Waja (Proton Impian in UK), which launched early 2001, is the first car model designed internally by Proton. By 2002 Proton held a market share of over 60% in Malaysia, which was reduced to barely 30% by 2005 and is expected to reduce further in 2008 when AFTA mandates reduce import...

Words: 9085 - Pages: 37

Premium Essay

Proton Therapy

...Topic: Benefits of Proton Therapy Outline Format: Topical Benefits of Proton Therapy in Cancer Patients Cancer remains the second most common cause of death in the US, accounting for nearly one of every four deaths. About 13 million Americans have cancer and more than 1 million are diagnosed every year. Although there are different treatments available that kills cancer, proton therapy provides a better quality of life during and after cancer treatment than others. Today I am here to inform you on the benefits of proton therapy in cancer patients. Proton therapy is a type of radiation treatment that uses a focused, high-energy proton beam to kill cancer cells with precision and accuracy. This way the surrounding healthy tissues are not damaged and the patient lives life to the fullest while recovering faster and having minimal to zero side effects. Proton therapy will play a crucial role in the future of cancer treatment. It is the most advanced cancer radiation treatment available till date. In a December 2008 article written by Glennda Chui published in symmetrymagazine.org, Chui quotes Dr. James Slater, in charge of radiation medicine at Loma Linda (home to the U.S.’s first hospital-based proton therapy cancer treatment center), that, “working with protons, that this was really the way to go—that X-rays had been brought to their limits and we needed a new particle.” Today I will discuss three benefits of proton therapy in cancer patients; treatment of harder to reach......

Words: 1352 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Proton

...ANNUAL REPORT Building A Global Brand What’s the value in a brand name? Everything. A brand that is reputable and stands apart from others provides competitive advantage, confirms credibility, adds value to a company and ensures long lasting customer relationships. As an organisation that has been around for more than three decades, the DRB-HICOM name is one that needs no introduction. It is an organisation that prides itself on always staying ahead of the game, in setting high standards in all its endeavours and constantly challenging the status quo. With a portfolio of more than eighty operating companies in its stable, the Group’s diversity elevates it to a brand with unique character and promise. PROTON, Alam Flora, PUSPAKOM, Pos Malaysia, MODENAS, Bank Muamalat, Glenmarie Properties – these are some of the household names that form a part of the DRB-HICOM Group. From the Automotive and Services sectors to the Property, Asset and Construction sector, DRB-HICOM’s operating companies have always had a strong presence in the local market. Helmed by bold leadership and imbued with core values, strong work ethics and a vision to be number 1, the DRB-HICOM brand is well-positioned to go a step further to become a leading global brand in the future. OUR VISION to be number 1 and continuously excel in all that we do OUR MISSION to lead in the growth of the nation in the areas of DRB-HICOM’S core businesses SHARED VALUES excellence decorum teamwork......

Words: 99565 - Pages: 399

Premium Essay

Proton

...In conclusion, Proton should analyze more on their consumers or even carry out a better research on the consumers nowadays. They should come out with a strategy of market their products. For the economic situation, their currently doing better than before, but they would have to put in much more effort to win people’s heart as Malaysia’s number one car brand. Here are a few more suggestions for myself for proton to improve. First they should hire a professional from automobile industry to give them an advance training on their innovation and designing to win people’s heart. At the same time improve the services in every Proton outlet for the consumers that had already purchase Proton to enjoy after buying services better than other automobile industry. Besides that, proton could go in other fields like giving out sponsorships to people who need them to increase Proton’s fame to create a better brand image. Lastly, use better materials to produce Proton’s automobile to create a better quality of vehicle and make Proton the best car company in Malaysia. 5.0 REFERENCES 1. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/protons-problems-lie-in-drbs-hands-maxmonster-analytics, (accessed 2015) 2. Lee W. L. (2012). “Syed Mokhtar’s Proton win raises concerns over wealth concentration.” Retrieved from http://www.tindakmalaysia.com/showthread.php/4347-Finance-DRB-Hicom-takes-over-Proton 3. William Y. (2015). “Proton is dying and Dr. M as a chairman......

Words: 266 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Proton

...faced by Proton Car Ethical issues faced by Proton Car Now a day businesses are considering ethical issues as a terms of administrative compliance to cope with legal environments and following internal organizational rules and regulations. It is also true that following business ethics not only motivate employees but also help them to perform at their level best. The impacts of different ethical issues faced by Proton Car of Malaysia are discussed below: a. Rights, conflicts and responsibilities: While Proton car was established in Malaysia, they don't have the skill and technology to run this business swiftly as a result they hired technology and skill from Mitsubishi Motors Corporation. As the technological and knowledge shifted they started to produce on their own effort. This means, Proton Car Corporation is depended on the skill of the labor. So they must give them some rights to motivate them and increase the profitability. As it engaged in global business the necessity for giving the employee rights increased much. Now Proton car have 10,300 employees to cover up its activities. This essay is an example of a student's work Disclaimer This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Essay Writing ServiceEssay Marking Service Who wrote this essayPlace an Order As over 42% of the equity is held by the Malaysian Government the employees of Proton......

Words: 3332 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

Proton

...Question 1: From a financial analysis perspective, has the Proton management done a good job? Liquidity Ratio | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Current Ratio [Current Asset / Current Liabilities] | 5,026.5 / 2,210= 2.27 | 4,431 / 2,341.1= 1.89 | 3,165.5 / 1,533.8= 2.06 | 3,446.1 / 1,639.2= 2.10 | 3,404.6 / 1,883.6 = 1.81 | Quick Ratio [(Current Asset – Inventories) / Current Liabilities] | 4,059.4 / 2,210= 1.84 | 3,042 / 2,341.1= 1.30 | 1,891.9 / 1,533.8= 1.23 | 2,345.8 / 1,639.2= 1.43 | 2,009.5 / 1,883.6= 1.07 | Liquidity ratio shows the ability of the company to repay its short term liabilities. It can be seen that Proton has current and quick ratio above 1.0 which means that Proton is having enough money to repay its short term debt. However, the current ratio was rapidly decrease by 0.47 from 2005 to 2009. For quick ratio, it can be seen that the ratio in 2009 had decrease to 1.07 compared to 1.85 in 2005. It shows that Proton is not strong in their finance and affects the ability to pay the debt with the cash assets. As a conclusion, Proton has quite poor performance in term of its liquidity during 2009. Profitability Ratio | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Net Profit Margin [Profit after tax / Revenue] | 442.4 / 8,483.3= 5.215% | 46.7 / 7,796.9= 0.599% | (589.5) / 4,687.3=(12.577)% | 184.6 / 5,621.6= 3.284% | (301.8) / 6,486.6= (4.653)% | Return on Equity [Profit after tax / Total Equity] | 442.4 / 5,860.2= 7.549% | 46.7 / 5,870.6= 0.795% |......

Words: 3646 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

Proton

...known as Proton, was incorporated in Malaysia on 7th May 1983. Proton involves in manufacture, assemble and sell motor vehicles and related product such as spare part, accessories and other components. Proton launched their first car, the Proton SAGA on 9th July 1985 by then Malaysia Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Proton has produced about fourteen models of car up to year 2009. In the case of PROTON- from SAGA to EXORA, Saiful Alawi a Chartered Accountant have been asked to review Proton and recommend on should Proton consider on collaboration with other multinational auto giant. The period under review was from the day the new Managing Director of Proton took office on 1st January 2006 till 31st October 2009. First factor to be considered is in term of quantitative factors. First is liquidity ratio which is the ability of Proton to be able to pay the debt when it is due. The current ratio of Proton from year 2005 up to year 2009 shown that the current ratio of Proton is above one which means that Proton having enough money to repay its short term debt. A quick ratio analysis of proton show that there is decreasing in their quick ration. The overall trends show the decreasing of the liquidity of Proton. Second is profitability ratio which is to measure the ability of Proton to generate profit relative to sales, asset and equity. The profitability ratio involved net profit margin, return on equity and return on assets of Proton. In year 2007 and 2009, Proton was......

Words: 826 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Proton

...demand and raw material suppliers contradictions. 2.0 PROTON Holding Berhad Background 2.1 Company Profile Name of Company : Proton Holding Berhad Founded : 7 May 1983 Founders : Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad Headquarter : Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia CEO : Datuk Abdul Harith Abdullah Type of Business : Automotive Products : Automobile, Automobile Parts Employees : More than 12, 000 peoples Website : www.proton.com.my 2.2 Background Proton Holding Berhad originally conceived by Malaysia's Prime Minister of the Malaysia, Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, PROTON Bhd was incorporated on 7th May 1983 with the aim of building a national car. After two year, there were on 9th July 1985, the Proton Saga was officially launched. At United Kingdom the Proton Saga is known as Proton MPI. It was Malaysia's first domestically produced car and is still sold in Malaysia and other countries today. The original factory plant, covering 99,400 sq m, is establishing at Shah Alam near Kuala Lumpur in central Malaysia. The site also houses an engine and transmission factory, a castings plant, R&D centre and a semi-high speed test track. The factory is currently producing 240,000 units per annum. In 2005, a state-of-the-art assembly plant was opening at Tanjung Malim, Perak, which is 60 miles north of Kuala Lumpur. This area has been named as Proton City and at there are consisting of a 500 hectare site containing the factory,......

Words: 3692 - Pages: 15

Free Essay

Proton

...BAC4674 TRI 3 YEAR 2015/2016 CASE ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS THE PROTON | REQUIREMENTS | REPORT | Group | 15 minutes presentation + written report | “The 2009 National Automotive Policy, on the whole, is said to benefit Proton”. Discuss the statement. Do you think Proton could have survived if the policy was not implemented in the first place? | Group A: | 15 minutes presentation + written report | Analyze the financial statements of Proton for the years 2007 to 2011. What can you say about the company’s efficiency and profitability? Use relevant ratios to support your answer. If you are an investor, would you invest in Proton? | Group B: | 15 minutes presentation + written report | Analyze the financial statements of Proton for the years 2007 to 2011. What can you say about the company’s efficiency and profitability? Use relevant ratios to support your answer. If you are an investor, would you invest in Proton? | Group C: | | ROLE PLAY | | 25 to 30 minutes + materials for submission | The best way for Proton to move forward is to collaborate with a foreign strategic partner such as Renault and Volkswagen. Gather the opinion from these people – Proton top management, Perodua and representative from either Renault/Volkswagen. | Group D: | 25 to 30 minutes + materials for submission | Supposed the top management from Proton and Honda attended a local car manufacturers forum in town. After the session, all of them join the afternoon tea provided to all......

Words: 274 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Proton

...financial performance, we conduct a financial ratio analysis based on the information given in the Balance Sheet as at 31st March and Income Statements for years ended 31st March. i) Liquidity Ratio • Current ratio = Current asset Current liability 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 1.807 2.102 2.064 1.893 2.274 The current ratio is a financial ratio that measures whether or not a firm has enough resources to pay its debts over the next 12 months. It compares a firm's current assets to its current liabilities. PROTON’s current ratio shows a declining from year 2005 to year 2009. This means that, the company’s assets is in a risk which they may not be able to afford company’s liabilities. In 2005 the ratio shows that PROTON can pay its current liabilities from its current assets 2.274 over. But the figure decline in 2009 which they can only pay its current liabilities from its current assets 1.807 over. This result from PROTON’s assets which is decreasing from RM 5026.5 million in 2005 to RM 3404.6 million in 2009 and their liabilities is also decreasing from RM 2.274 million in 2005 to RM 1.807 million in 2009. • Quick ratio = Current asset – Inventory Current liability 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 1.067 1.431 1.233 1.299 1.837 The quick ratio is a liquidity indicator that further refines the current ratio by measuring the amount of the most liquid current assets there are to cover current liabilities. The quick ratio is more......

Words: 1426 - Pages: 6