BackNEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF Overview

NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF Receivables

Latest receivables for XQQI: $210M.

Get informed when a big investor buys or sells

+ Follow
Receivables
$213.48M
14.57% YoYΔ $27.15M vs prior year quarter

Peer trimmed avg / median

Loading

NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF Receivables History

Loading

NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF vs. peers: Receivables Comparison

Loading

NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF Receivables Growth (YoY per quarter)

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

Loading

NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (XQQI) FAQ

NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF posts a receivables of $210M as of January 2018. That compares with $190M in the prior-year period — up 14.6% 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, NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF's receivables was $190M. The latest reading is $210M — a 14.6% year-over-year increase (period ending January 2018). Use the history and growth charts on this page for a longer lookback.

Receivables is one piece of NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF's financial statement story. At $210M, 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 XQQI'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; NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF's other metric pages and overview cover the third.

Judging NEOS Boosted Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF 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 $210M here, then scan peer and history charts to see if the gap is persistent.