I want to use the terms in bold, to illustrate how these aquatic expressions can be used to a student of mine who is a trader. Obviously, I've exaggerated and greatly simplified the theme but I would like to ask your opinions as to whether the terms have been used correctly. And if there are other liquid metaphors, equally appropriate in the field of finance, which I may have left out.
Liquid assets can be turned into cash which you can channel into a business; if that venture is particularly successful, investors will pour funds in, and, if the cash continues to flow, you'll find yourself riding on the crest of a wave and swimming in money. But there are certain drawbacks. Primarily, an overflow of cash can lead to CEOs being careless and overly greedy. Foolish investments and extravagant spending could drain resources, and create a significant gulf. Consequently, the company might have to liquidate their creditors, and if the economy hits a rocky period, the source of their revenue could run, literally, dry overnight. In the most dramatic cases, (the dot-com bubble) companies will sink without trace
In reality; however, the vast majority of businesses will experience the ebb and flow or typical fluctuations that exist in a company's economic cycle. Some companies will decide to merge, and the new company will be able to draw on a huge pool of resources. The most successful businesses will have no shortage of floating assets, and will wisely plough back their profits.
I realize this question might be closed for being off topic; perhaps POB (primarily opinion based) and proofreading; but I'm willing to take the risk, and besides I really do need to know if I have used these terms correctly.
Financial English is a new territory for me, I need help!