Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Albertsons Companies, Inc. (ACI)

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Good), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

Note: All scores range from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). Conclusions are updated daily with closing stock prices and new reported quarterly financial statements.

Revenue score: 7.0

  • Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Albertsons Companies, Inc. business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

  • ACI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 6.4

  • Albertsons Companies, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very good pace, which compares top tier when measured against peer enterprises.
  • In the previous years, the firm couldn't always make a profit -before income taxes and interests on loans taken-. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, at least once the company lost money -before income taxes-. It was bottom tier against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been extremely high, and last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at an extremely fast rhythm in past years. It's been a disappointment compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 9.0

  • ACI managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been top-notch against peers.
  • The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
  • We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 7.5

  • Albertsons Companies, Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
  • In the past, got good returns -on the tangible resources it controls-. This metric is usually related to the industry in which operates and combines profitability versus reinvestment needs. It's substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.6

  • ACI usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
  • Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks better than most comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement compared to peer enterprises.
  • Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands a slight improvement compared to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.4

  • Albertsons Companies, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands worse than most rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are reasonable in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.1

  • Albertsons Companies, Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar to competitors.
  • Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value is a fairly complex metric. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It remains a disappointment compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates reasonably more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, the current valuation might be fair. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks great when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned good money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.6


ACI logos

Company at a glance: Albertsons Companies, Inc. (ACI)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Grocery Stores

Market Cap: 13.56 billions

Revenues TTM: 80.73 billions

Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the operation of food and drug stores in the United States. The company's food and drug retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and services. It also manufactures and processes food products for sale in stores. As of February 26, 2022, it operated 2,276 stores under various banners, including Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, Pavilions, Randalls, Tom Thumb, Carrs, Jewel-Osco, Acme, Shaw's, Star Market, United Supermarkets, Market Street, Haggen, Kings Food Markets, and Balducci's Food Lovers Market; and 1,722 pharmacies, 1,317 in-store branded coffee shops, 402 adjacent fuel centers, 22 distribution centers, and 20 manufacturing facilities, as well as various digital platforms. The company was founded in 1860 and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Good), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).