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

---

Fundamental analysis: Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX)

Awarener score: 6.5

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: 6.0

• Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Becton, Dickinson and Company business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 7.2

• BDX profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand somewhat 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 very 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 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 encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.7

• Becton, Dickinson and Company profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been close to average when 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- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been low, and similar to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 7.0

• BDX managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
• The company grows sparsely in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.0

• Becton, Dickinson and Company usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
• The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks similar to 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.1

• BDX usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
• Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved close to average when compared to similar firms.
• The company usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects are challenged. Sustainability looks worse than most comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains impressive 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 impressive 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: 5.8

• Becton, Dickinson and Company has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• The relation between debt and assets is unknown to us. It remains undisclosed against rival firms.
• We have not enough inputs to assess how quickly assets can be turned into cash and equivalents. It looks we are not able to reach a conclusion in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands somewhat better than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it to similar firms.
• We did not reach a conclusion regarding total assets turnover, as not enough data is currently available. It's still unable to match with peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.2

• Becton, Dickinson and Company looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost average when measured against competitors.
• We have not enough data to conclude on the relationship of price versus tangible book value for this company. It remains therefore unknown 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
• The company usually generates somewhat 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, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still great when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation to peer ventures.
• The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks slightly worse 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 almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks rather normal in relation to rival firms.
• We have not enough information on the relation between current stock price and accounting book value. The company remains a mystery against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be similar to 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: 6.1

---

Awarener score: 6.5

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!