and its table. There seems to be a tendency for the larger companies to 
make a slightly better showing. If a ratio of .32 be taken as marking a 
dividing line, the proportion of cases above that point will be as follows: 
Size, 50 i 
Size, 5-9 Size, 10-49 millions 
millions millions and over 
Percentage of cases 
above a ratio of 32... 41% 49% 54% 
The same showing appears in the averages (modes) which are, .20, 
29, and .35, respectively, for the three sizes of companies. 
In addition to these characteristics there are two other points 
worthy of note. The first has to do with the concentration in an interval 
of 24 per cent (.08 to .32) in the small companies of some 55 per cent of 
the small company cases. On the other hand a 24 per cent interval for 
the other companies extends from the ratio .24 to .48—much higher in 
the scale—and includes about 50 per cent of the cases. The other point 
is the relatively large proportion of cases (13%) for the largest com- 
panies which falls in the lowest ratio-group. This unusual condition in 
the first ratio-group tends to prevent the modal average from satisfac- 
torily expressing the total number of cases in a typical figure. 
THE RATIO BY YEARS 
Judging by the general outlines of the bars in Chart 2d, the effect 
of different years upon the distribution of the ratios along the scale 
TT Bomenu or Geuness Resgancn 
Lnwersirr or lipimors -2d 
“= YT RAGE 
LY 
or a i, 
3" 13 NS 54 SAB 8B SR 82854 4 + & 
§ ¢ 3 38% 3X I RR JeARYIZY se, ER 
19/7 19/9 1927 192% 
_ Ratios Lxpressed as Rercentages 
Cuart 2d—FreqQuENcy DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE REVENUE-TO-NET-WORTH 
Ratios oF Pusric UriLity CoMPANIES BY SAMPLE YEARS 
[ 19 1