Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Blue Bird Corporation (BLBD)

Awarener score: 4.2

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

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: 3.5

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Blue Bird Corporation business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 4.7

  • BLBD profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.1

  • Blue Bird Corporation 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.
  • 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: 8.0

  • BLBD managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat worse than 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: 1.0

  • Blue Bird Corporation usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves great 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 pauper 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.7

  • BLBD usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands great when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier 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.
  • 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 close to average when 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 substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.4

  • Blue Bird Corporation 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 somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. 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 a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as close to average when compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from 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 rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are huge 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

  • Blue Bird 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 mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes 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 business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still almost average when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. 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 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 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 lost significant money. It happens to be similar to 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 a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.9


BLBD logos

Company at a glance: Blue Bird Corporation (BLBD)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Auto Manufacturers

Market Cap: 0.28 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.53 billions

Blue Bird Corporation designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells school buses and related parts in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Bus and Parts. The company offers Type C, Type D, and specialty buses; and alternative fuel applications through its propane powered, gasoline powered, compressed natural gas powered, and electric powered school buses. Blue Bird Corporation sells its products through a network of dealers, as well as directly to fleet operators, the United States government, and state governments; and maintains a parts distribution center. Blue Bird Corporation was formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. The company was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Macon, Georgia.

Awarener score: 4.2

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