Fundamental analysis: Bloomin Brands, Inc. (BLMN)

Awarener score: 6.1

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

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: 4.0

Business has been shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
Bloomin Brands, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.2

BLMN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain close to average when compared 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 worse than similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

Bloomin Brands, 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- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares more than average in relation to 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: 10.0

BLMN managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been better 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: 6.8

Bloomin Brands, Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks similar 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.1

BLMN 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 almost average when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and should be reasonable safe. Sustainability looks better than most comparable companies.
The company barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
The company uses a moderate portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn very sour. It still looks great when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.8

Bloomin Brands, Inc. 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 substantially worse when measured against 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.
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 slightly better than rival firms.
Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak 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 worse than most similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
On average, it takes close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's excellent in relation 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 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 similar to 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 slight improvement 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 well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.5

Bloomin Brands, Inc. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below 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 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 better than most 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 great when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation to peer ventures.
The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks mediocre against 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 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 really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business earned good money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest 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: 5.6

Company at a glance: Bloomin Brands, Inc. (BLMN)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Restaurants

Market Cap: 2.22 billions

Revenues TTM: 4.52 billions

Bloomin' Brands, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates casual, upscale casual, and fine dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. The company operates through two segments, U.S. and International. Its restaurant portfolio has four concepts, including Outback Steakhouse, a casual steakhouse restaurant; Carrabba's Italian Grill, a casual Italian restaurant; Bonefish Grill; and Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar, a contemporary steakhouse. As of December 26, 2021, the company owned and operated 1,013 full-service restaurants and franchised 157 restaurants across 47 states; and 156 full-service restaurants and franchised 172 restaurants across 17 countries and Guam. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Tampa, Florida.