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

---

Fundamental analysis: Brunswick Corporation (BC)

Awarener score: 7.1

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 growth has been almost stagnant. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Brunswick Corporation business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 6.3

• BC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand well ranked against 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 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 somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 6.1

• Brunswick Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a good step, which has been better than most comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares great when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an extremely fast tempo. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was top-notch 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: 7.0

• BC had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a very little portion of revenues. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 9.0

• Brunswick Corporation usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
• There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.0

• BC usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
• Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved lacking compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and should be reasonable safe. 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 in good shape compared 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 below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.8

• Brunswick Corporation 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 last-in-rank 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against 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 almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation 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 in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands worse than most rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against 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 in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good 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: 6.8

• Brunswick Corporation looks cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre against 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 substantially worse 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 a slight improvement 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 looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks weak 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 a weak position 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 mediocre against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great 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 very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.5

---

Awarener score: 7.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!