Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Big Lots, Inc. (BIG)

Awarener score: 6.7

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

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: 5.5

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Big Lots, Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

  • BIG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand top-notch 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 hardly sufficient. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.3

  • Big Lots, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position 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- tended to shrink, which compares substantially worse 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: 3.0

  • BIG had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre against 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: 8.5

  • Big Lots, Inc. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks similar to competitors.
  • In the past, got very 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.4

  • BIG 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid outstanding dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared 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 mediocre against 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 a slight improvement compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a lot more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so they're paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business improves, or rewards won't keep at current pace. It still looks substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.8

  • Big Lots, Inc. 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 excellent 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 worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks more than average 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 weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment 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 more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position 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 low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are somewhat low 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 a disappointment 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.8

  • Big Lots, 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 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 worse than most similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still weak 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 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 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large 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 some money. It happens to be substantially worse 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 impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.2


BIG logos

Company at a glance: Big Lots, Inc. (BIG)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Discount Stores

Market Cap: 0.49 billions

Revenues TTM: 5.66 billions

Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a home discount retailer in the United States. The company offers products under various merchandising categories, such as furniture category that includes upholstery, mattresses, case goods, and ready-to-assemble departments; seasonal category, which comprises patio furniture, gazebos, Christmas trim, and other holiday departments; soft home category that consists of fashion and utility bedding, bath, window, decorative textile, home organization, area rugs, home décor, and frames departments; and food category that includes beverage and grocery, candy and snacks, specialty foods, and pet departments. It also provides merchandise under the consumables category, which comprises health, beauty and cosmetics, plastics, paper, and chemical departments; hard home category, including small appliances, tabletops, and food preparation and stationery products; home maintenance and organization products; toys; and accessories category consisting of apparel, electronics, jewelry, apparel, and hosiery departments. As of January 29, 2022, it operated 1,431 stores in 47 states and an e-commerce platform. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.

Awarener score: 6.7

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