Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: BP p.l.c. (BP)

Awarener score: 5.4

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 (Lacking) and growth (Bottom), 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: 2.5

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • BP p.l.c. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 4.7

  • BP profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's similar to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain lacking compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre 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 meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.9

  • BP p.l.c. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been close to average when compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a good step, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares weak 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: 2.0

  • BP had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse 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: 4.8

  • BP p.l.c. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly 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 lacking. It ranks almost average when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got barely sufficient 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.1

  • BP usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands below 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 similar to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
  • In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • The company usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. There could be some concerns on sustainability if business takes a dive. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.8

  • BP p.l.c. 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 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 weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very 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 cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than three 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 great 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.
  • Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands worse than most rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are 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 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.5

  • BP p.l.c. 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates 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, at the current price the share might be 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 impressive in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks mediocre against 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 impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.1


BP logos

Company at a glance: BP p.l.c. (BP)

Sector, industry: Energy, Oil & Gas Integrated

Market Cap: 89.03 billions

Revenues TTM: 172.45 billions

BP p.l.c. engages in the energy business worldwide. It operates through Gas & Low Carbon Energy, Oil Production & Operations, Customers & Products, and Rosneft segments. It produces and trades in natural gas; offers biofuels; operates onshore and offshore wind power, and solar power generating facilities; and provides de-carbonization solutions and services, such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The company is also involved in the convenience and mobility business, which manages the sale of fuels to retail customers, convenience products, aviation fuels, and Castrol lubricants; and refining and trading of oil products, as well as operation of electric vehicle charging facilities. In addition, it produces and refines oil and gas; and invests in upstream, downstream, and alternative energy companies, as well as in advanced mobility, bio and low carbon products, carbon management, digital transformation, and power and storage areas. The company was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.

Awarener score: 5.4

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