Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: BBQ Holdings, Inc. (BBQ)

Awarener score: 5.6

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 (Very poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).

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: 6.0

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • BBQ Holdings, Inc. business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 5.3

  • BBQ profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain close to average when 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.6

  • BBQ Holdings, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been impressive in relation to competitors.
  • In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, 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: 8.0

  • BBQ managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than 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: 6.8

  • BBQ Holdings, Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average when measured against 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.6

  • BBQ 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 almost average 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 below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way 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 usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very weak position 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 close to average when 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: 5.2

  • BBQ Holdings, 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be rather normal in relation 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 slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared 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 before a month from the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a slight portion of usual business earnings, and are very easily bearable. It stands well ranked against 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 almost average when measured against 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 a slight improvement 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 somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.9

  • BBQ Holdings, Inc. looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be great 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 generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat better 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among numerous more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks great 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 in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is 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 better 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 great when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest 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: 5.4


BBQ logos

Company at a glance: BBQ Holdings, Inc. (BBQ)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Restaurants

Market Cap: 0.19 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.27 billions

BBQ Holdings, Inc. develops, owns, operates, and franchises casual and fast dining restaurants under the Famous Dave's, Village Inn, Clark Crew BBQ, Granite City, Tahoe Joe's Steakhouse, Bakers Square, and Real Urban Barbecue names in the United States, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates. It offers smoked, barbequed, and grilled meats, as well as entrée items, and side dishes and appetizers. The company operates full-service and counter-service restaurants. As of March 14, 2022, it had 100 company owned locations and approximately 200 franchised locations, including ghost kitchens operating out of the kitchen of another restaurant location or shared kitchen space. BBQ Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 1994 and is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

Awarener score: 5.6

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 (Very poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).