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

---

Fundamental analysis: Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation (BIPC)

Awarener score: 2.4

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: a result could not be reached

• Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
• Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 7.8

• BIPC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually huge. They stand top-notch against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be huge. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be good in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
• There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
• In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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: 2.0

• BIPC had to pay too much 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: 4.0

• Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
• Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against competitors.
• In the past, got low 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.1

• BIPC on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came top-notch against competitors.
• Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
• The company has significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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 a disappointment compared to rivals.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.9

• Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation 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.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
• On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
• The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's impressive in relation to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.2

• Brookfield Infrastructure Corporation 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 consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually consumes much more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has greatly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks slightly worse than 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 high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
• There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4

---

Awarener score: 2.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!