Fundamental analysis: Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation (BGFV)

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (Very good), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).

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 weak when measured against peer companies.
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

BGFV profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain lacking 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: 2.6

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking compared 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 excellent pace, which compares great 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: 4.0

BGFV had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse 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: 7.5

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
There's usually excellent 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: 6.4

BGFV 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 almost average when measured against 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid outstanding dividends, considering the current stock price. It came better than most competitors.
Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved excellent in relation to similar firms.
The company usually uses some portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects take a nosedive. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a 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: 5.3

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
Normally has approximately six 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 in a weak position compared to similar companies.
Net interest expenses consume a non-significant portion of usual business earnings, and are therefore extremely easily to bear. It stands better than most rival firms.
Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against 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 lacking 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.1

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below average 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 excellent in relation to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
The company usually generates much 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 might be very interesting. It's still great when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has 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 drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks very 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 very attractive. It ranks great when measured against peer companies.
Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains better than most peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be below average 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 a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.4

Company at a glance: Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation (BGFV)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Specialty Retail

Market Cap: 0.17 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.00 billions

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation operates as a sporting goods retailer in the western United States. The company's products include athletic shoes, apparel, and accessories. It also offers a selection of outdoor and athletic equipment for team sports, fitness, camping, hunting, fishing, tennis, golf, and winter and summer recreation, as well as home recreation. The company also provides private label items, such as shoes, apparel, camping equipment, fishing supplies, and snow sport equipment. It sells private label merchandise under its own trademarks comprising Golden Bear, Harsh, Pacifica, and Rugged Exposure. As of May 03, 2022, the company operated 431 stores. It also operates an e-commerce platform under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name. The company was founded in 1955 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California.