Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Franklin Resources, Inc. (BEN)

Awarener score: 8.2

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 (Superb), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).

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 growing at a low pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Franklin Resources, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 8.7

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

Growth score: 5.3

  • Franklin Resources, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was mediocre against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been good, and similar to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a good rhythm in past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 3.0

  • BEN had to pay a lot of 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: 8.8

  • Franklin Resources, Inc. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation 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: 5.6

  • BEN 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 more than average in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is great when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • The company usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. There could be some concerns on sustainability if business takes a dive. Sustainability looks somewhat worse than comparable companies.
  • The company usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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 in good shape compared to rivals.
  • The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.5

  • Franklin Resources, 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 slight portion of usual business earnings, and are very easily bearable. It stands slightly better than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been excellent when measured against loans taken. It could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are quite good 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 weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.9

  • Franklin Resources, Inc. looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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 weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated extraordinary free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates plenty more 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 looks to be very attractive. It's still encouraging in relation to 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
  • This company is a cash hoarder. It might be well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 excellent in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly better than 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 more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an extreme earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be significantly undervalued. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.3


BEN logos

Company at a glance: Franklin Resources, Inc. (BEN)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Asset Management

Market Cap: 13.42 billions

Revenues TTM: 8.28 billions

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and partnerships. It launches equity, fixed income, balanced, and multi-asset mutual funds through its subsidiaries. The firm invests in the public equity, fixed income, and alternative markets. Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in Calgary, Canada; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Edinburgh, United Kingdom; Fort Lauderdale, United States; Hyderabad, India; London, United Kingdom; Rancho Cordova, United states; Shanghai, China; Singapore; Stamford, United States; and Vienna, Austria.

Awarener score: 8.2

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 (Superb), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).