Talk:Solvency

Solvency is also a concept in policy debate. If this article is moved to wiktionary, there could easily be another article here... Masterdebater 07:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's ridiculous. Solvency is by far mostly used in the context of economics. The current content is being linked to by a number of finance pages and people coming here (like me) will go "uh"? Pascal.Tesson 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the policy debate page back to its original page. The page here should be expanded. Probably a rich enough subject to grow past the dictdef. Pascal.Tesson 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links to the meanings in economics and policy debate, please? I am only familiar with its use in accountancy (and finance). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I propose merging this with Insolvency. The best description for the combined page may be Solvency Will Entriken (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as these to topics are flip sides of the same coin, solvency is commonly a finance/investment issue, while insolvency is an accounting/law issue. --Voidvector (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the implications on both investment and law can be discussed in a merged article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second (third?) that. I think it'll be easier for readers to understand that the one is finance and the other is legal if the articles are merged 12.29.44.66 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Statements in Article[edit]

This article contradicts itself. At the end of the first paragraph, it states:

When a company is insolvent, it means that it can no longer operate and is undergoing bankruptcy.

But then, right at the beginning of the next paragraph, I see a contradiction:

Solvency is a different concept from profitability, which refers to the ability to earn a profit. Businesses can be profitable without being solvent (e.g. when they are expanding rapidly)

That last sentence of what I quoted seems to fly in the face of the previously quoted. If a business is expanding, and thusly per the the article "profitable without being solvent," or insolvent, how can it, in terms of the typical majority case, be "no longer operational" [sic] and "undergoing bankruptcy?"

I say the last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be deleted, or at least replaced with different, more accurate wording that synchs up with everything else. It's not consistent with the rest of the article. Either that, or it was a typo, or perhaps just phrased poorly, though what might have been intended, I can't possibly imagine. I'm not an economist, nor an economics student. If anyone thinks otherwise, please let me know. Ipso-De-Facto (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge with entry in Portuguese[edit]

This entry is the same as https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solv%C3%AAncia but they're not linked. idk how to do it. pls link them. thanks! Ultrajante (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]