Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Black Hills Corporation (BKH)

Awarener score: 5.7

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 (Good) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).

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 growth has been almost stagnant. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Black Hills Corporation business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 8.0

  • BKH profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand slightly worse than 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 lacking compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very good in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually very good considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.4

  • Black Hills Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been close to average when compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares great when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was slightly worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been almost null, and weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have been shrinking in the past years. It's been in a very weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 9.0

  • BKH managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been well ranked 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: 6.8

  • Black Hills Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.6

  • BKH usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, 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 better than competitors.
  • Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved in good shape 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 usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very 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 in a very weak position 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: 4.5

  • Black Hills Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some 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 somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be close to average when 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 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 extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. 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 substantially worse 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 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.1

  • Black Hills Corporation looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands better than most similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough 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 hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. 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 some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. 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 good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.9


BKH logos

Company at a glance: Black Hills Corporation (BKH)

Sector, industry: Utilities, Utilities—Diversified

Market Cap: 4.58 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.32 billions

Black Hills Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates as an electric and natural gas utility company in the United States. It operates in two segments, Electric Utilities and Gas Utilities. The Electric Utilities segment generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to approximately 218,000 electric utility customers in Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming; and owns and operates 1,481.5 megawatts of generation capacity and 8,892 miles of electric transmission and distribution lines. The Gas Utilities segment distributes natural gas to approximately 1,094,000 natural gas utility customers in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming; owns and operates 4,732 miles of intrastate gas transmission pipelines; 41,644 miles of gas distribution mains and service lines; six natural gas storage sites; and approximately 50,000 horsepower of compression and 515 miles of gathering lines. The company also constructs and maintains gas infrastructure facilities for gas transportation customers; and provides appliance repair services to residential utility customers, as well as electrical system construction services to large industrial customers. In addition, it produces electric power through wind, natural gas, and coal-fired generating plants; and coal at its coal mine located near Gillette, Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1941 and is headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota.

Awarener score: 5.7

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 (Good) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).