BackPennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 Overview

PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 Receivables

Track PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24's receivables ($30M) with charts, peers, and YoY trends.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow
Receivables
$29.66M
544.72% YoYΔ $25.06M vs prior year quarter

Peer trimmed avg / median

Loading

PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 Receivables History

Loading

PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 vs. peers: Receivables Comparison

Loading

PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 Receivables Growth (YoY per quarter)

Latest change versus the prior comparable period (same company).

Loading

PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 (PNNTG) FAQ

PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 posts a receivables of $30M as of June 2026. That compares with $4.6M in the prior-year period — up 544.7% year over year. Comparing that reading with peers and prior periods is usually more useful than looking at the number in isolation.

In the prior comparable period, PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24's receivables was $4.6M. The latest reading is $30M — a 544.7% year-over-year increase (period ending June 2026). Use the history and growth charts on this page for a longer lookback.

Receivables is one piece of PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24's financial statement story. At $30M, it should be interpreted next to related metrics — for example revenue with costs, assets with liabilities, or income with margins. Stockcircle links those related pages so you can move from this number to the surrounding context quickly.

Context for PNNTG's receivables usually means three checks: (1) trend versus prior periods, (2) level versus peers, and (3) consistency with growth and profitability. This page covers the first two; PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24's other metric pages and overview cover the third.

Judging PennantPark Investment 5.5 % Notes 2019-15.10.24 against Finance peers is usually better than using a market-wide rule of thumb. Business models inside Finance are more comparable, which makes gaps in receivables easier to interpret. Start with $30M here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.