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

---

Fundamental analysis: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY)

Awarener score: 7.5

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: 6.0

• Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 8.0

• BMY profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain in a weak position 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 worse than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very good considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.9

• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been excellent in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a good step, which has been better than most comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares top tier 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: 4.3

• BMY had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
• Research and development expenses consume some portion of revenues. It's weak when measured against competitors.
• The company grows modestly in relation to research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.2

• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.5

• BMY usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
• Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved lacking compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks better than most comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly enlarges 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
• The company uses a significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.7

• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 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 somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be in a weak position 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 might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another 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 roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's in good shape compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are quite good 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.5

• Bristol-Myers Squibb Company looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked against similar companies.
• The company usually generates much more 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, at the current price the share might be very interesting. It's still more than average in relation to 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 a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. 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 below average 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 rather normal in relation 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 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 modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.8

---

Awarener score: 7.5

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!