Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS)

Awarener score: 6.9

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 (Good), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Lacking), 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: 6.0

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • B&G Foods, Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 6.5

  • BGS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually 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 well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.7

  • B&G Foods, Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position 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, 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

  • BGS managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been better 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: 7.8

  • B&G Foods, Inc. 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 rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.7

  • BGS usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands encouraging 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid outstanding dividends, considering the current stock price. It came top-notch against competitors.
  • In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks worse than most comparable companies.
  • The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.9

  • B&G Foods, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of 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 very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six 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 six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands mediocre 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 weak 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.1

  • B&G Foods, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better 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 almost average 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 excellent in relation 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 bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains well ranked against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. 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 excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.6


BGS logos

Company at a glance: B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Packaged Foods

Market Cap: 1.01 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.11 billions

B&G Foods, Inc. manufactures, sells, and distributes a portfolio of shelf-stable and frozen foods, and household products in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The company's products include frozen and canned vegetables, vegetables, canola and other cooking oils, vegetable shortening, cooking sprays, oatmeal and other hot cereals, fruit spreads, canned meats and beans, bagel chips, spices, seasonings, hot sauces, wine vinegar, maple syrups, molasses, salad dressings, pizza crusts, Mexican-style sauces, dry soups, taco shells and kits, salsas, pickles, peppers, tomato-based products, baking powder and soda, corn starch, cookies and crackers, nut clusters, and other specialty products. It markets its products under various brands, including Ac'cent, B&G, B&M, Back to Nature, Baker's Joy, Bear Creek Country Kitchens, Brer Rabbit, Canoleo, Cary's, Clabber Girl, Cream of Rice, Cream of Wheat, Crisco, Dash, Davis, Devonsheer, Don Pepino, Durkee, Emeril's, Grandma's Molasses, Green Giant, Joan of Arc, Las Palmas, Le Sueur, MacDonald's, Mama Mary's, Maple Grove Farms of Vermont, McCann's, Molly McButter, New York Flatbreads, New York Style, Old London, Ortega, Polaner, Red Devil, Regina, Rumford, Sa-són, Sclafani, Spice Islands, Spring Tree, Sugar Twin, Tone's, Trappey's, TrueNorth, Underwood, Vermont Maid, Victoria, and Weber and Wright's. The company also sells, markets, and distributes household products under the Static Guard brand. It sells and distributes its products directly, as well as through a network of independent brokers and distributors to supermarket chains, foodservice outlets, mass merchants, warehouse clubs, non-food outlets, and specialty distributors. The company was formerly known as B&G Foods Holdings Corp. and changed its name to B&G Foods, Inc. in October 2004. B&G Foods, Inc. was founded in 1822 and is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.

Awarener score: 6.9

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