• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. (ALEX)

Awarener score: 5.3

Conclusion

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: 2.5

• Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 5.7

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

Growth score: 1.4

• Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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, the firm had at least a total net loss, and last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The company lost money at least once in the past years. It's been a disappointment compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 1.0

• ALEX had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier 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: 4.8

• Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got barely sufficient 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.0

• ALEX usually uses a sparse portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is modest. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks somewhat worse than comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent in relation to peer enterprises.
• Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands excellent in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a lot more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so they're paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business improves, or rewards won't keep at current pace. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.9

• Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be similar to 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 very weak position compared to similar firms.
• A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
• On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are huge in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements, allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.8

• Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against 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 rather normal in relation to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually generates somewhat 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 reasonable. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.0

---

Awarener score: 5.3

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!