"Personally, I prefer the less conservative definition of...

"Personally, I prefer the less conservative definition of "gearing" being just the proportional funding split between Debt and Equity Capital, i.e., Net Debt-to-Equity."

Hi Madam, any reason you prefer that method? For a residential loan it is conventional that a $1M house with a 300k loan is considered 30% geared. If we use net debt to equity the gearing would be 42.9%, which can be psychologically (although illogically) harder to swallow.

I think the same affect occurs when we look at the stated gearing of companies. It doesn't excuse the observer from actually doing some analysis but it would be useful if there was a bit more convention about this.

As an aside, I sold my GUD shares 30 years ago, having acquired them 37 years ago. They were the first company I ever owned, its always surprised me they have been through so many cycles without being acquired themselves, a true elder of the ASX.