Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Autoliv, Inc. (ALV)

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Average), the business stability (Average) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).

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: 4.5

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Autoliv, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 5.7

  • ALV profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand slightly worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.7

  • Autoliv, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a normal step, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares substantially worse when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a good tempo. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a good speed. It was worse than most rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been good, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a good rhythm in past years. It's been rather normal in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • ALV had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse than peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.0

  • Autoliv, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
  • In the past, got very 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.2

  • ALV 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 encouraging in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
  • Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared 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 worse 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 rather normal 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.3

  • Autoliv, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak 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 very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks weak 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 higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.6

  • Autoliv, Inc. looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost average 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still below average when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared 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 slightly worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be similar to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.6


ALV logos

Company at a glance: Autoliv, Inc. (ALV)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Auto Parts

Market Cap: 7.06 billions

Revenues TTM: 8.63 billions

Autoliv, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and supplies passive safety systems to the automotive industry in Europe, the Americas, China, Japan, and rest of Asia. It offers passive safety systems, including modules and components for frontal-impact airbag protection systems, side-impact airbag protection systems, seatbelts, steering wheels, inflator technologies, and battery cut-off switches, as well as anti-whiplash systems and pedestrian protection systems, and connected safety services and solutions for riders of powered two wheelers. The company primarily serves car manufacturers. Autoliv, Inc. was founded in 1953 and is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Average), the business stability (Average) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).