Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO)

Awarener score: 5.4

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 (Average), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), 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: a result could not be reached

  • Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • Mission Produce, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

  • AVO 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 hardly sufficient. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: could not be analyzed

  • Mission Produce, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown against peer enterprises.
  • We were not able to provide an estimate for EBIT growth, because of lacking data. It turns to be not yet known in relation to similar stocks.
  • Profit before income tax growth was not estimated, on insufficient history. It was impossible to measure against rivals.
  • Net income growth could not be estimated, and so it is unknown against peer companies.
  • There was not enough input data to estimate EPS trend. It's been an impossibility to compare it with industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 3.0

  • AVO had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre 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: 7.0

  • Mission Produce, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.8

  • AVO usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is similar to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to comparable companies.
  • The company barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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 in a very weak position 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: 6.0

  • Mission Produce, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains somewhat better than 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 weak when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat 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 approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank 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 a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands well ranked against 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 low 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: 5.2

  • Mission Produce, Inc. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below 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 lacking 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 hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough 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 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 weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks below 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 lacking compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be almost average 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.1


AVO logos

Company at a glance: Mission Produce, Inc. (AVO)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Food Distribution

Market Cap: 1.05 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.04 billions

Mission Produce, Inc. engages in sourcing, producing, packaging, and distributing avocados in the United States and internationally. The company operates through two segments, Marketing and Distribution, and International Farming. It also provides value-added services, including ripening, bagging, custom packing, and logistical management. The company serves retail, wholesale, and foodservice customers. The company was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Oxnard, California.

Awarener score: 5.4

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 (Average), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).