Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Booking Holdings Inc. (BKNG)

Awarener score: 6.3

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 poor) and growth (Good), 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: 4.5

  • Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Booking Holdings Inc. business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 8.2

  • BKNG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand somewhat 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 impressive in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still top-notch against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain top tier when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands top tier when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.1

  • Booking Holdings 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.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was worse than most rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been very good, and substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a very good rhythm in past years. It's been in a very weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 7.7

  • BKNG had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
  • Research and development expenses hardly consume a portion of revenues. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows excellent business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 9.8

  • Booking Holdings Inc. usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves top tier when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.2

  • BKNG 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 top tier 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 weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way compared to similar firms.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to 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 in good shape 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: 6.5

  • Booking Holdings Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be rather normal in relation 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 slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks great when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks top tier 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.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are very good in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.7

  • Booking Holdings Inc. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 reasonably 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 fair. It's still more than average in relation to 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 excellent in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very 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.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to 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 excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.3


BKNG logos

Company at a glance: Booking Holdings Inc. (BKNG)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Travel Services

Market Cap: 66.30 billions

Revenues TTM: 14.65 billions

Booking Holdings Inc. provides travel and restaurant online reservation and related services worldwide. The company operates Booking.com, which offers online accommodation reservations; Rentalcars.com that provides online rental car reservation services; Priceline, which offer online travel reservation services, and consumers hotel, flight, and rental car reservation services, as well as vacation packages, cruises, and hotel distribution services. It also operates Agoda that provides online accommodation reservation services, as well as flight, ground transportation and activities reservation services. In addition, the company operates KAYAK, an online price comparison service that allows consumers to search and compare travel itineraries and prices, comprising airline ticket, accommodation reservation, and rental car reservation information; and OpenTable for booking online restaurant reservations. Further, it offers travel-related insurance products, and restaurant management services to consumers, travel service providers, and restaurants. The company was formerly known as The Priceline Group Inc. and changed its name to Booking Holdings Inc. in February 2018. The company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut.

Awarener score: 6.3

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