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

---

Fundamental analysis: Barnes Group Inc. (B)

Awarener score: 6.4

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: 5.0

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Barnes Group Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 7.0

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

Growth score: 2.3

• Barnes Group 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 shrinking, which has been worse than most comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- tended to shrink, which compares substantially worse when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tended to shrink. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- tended to shrink. It was worse than most rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been almost null, and weak when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have been almost stagnant in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 2.0

• B had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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

• Barnes Group Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks below average when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got excellent 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.8

• B usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands similar to rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came better than most competitors.
• Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks slightly better than comparable companies.
• The company usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 excellent in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks almost average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

• Barnes Group 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 below average when measured against peer companies.
• The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be a slight improvement 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 better than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
• On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands slightly better 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 modest 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 a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.1

• Barnes Group Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be substantially worse 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 very weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat better than similar companies.
• The company usually generates 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, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still great when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement 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 well ranked against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. 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 good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.0

---

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!