Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Popular, Inc. (BPOP)

Awarener score: 7.4

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).

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: 6.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Popular, Inc. business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.2

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

Growth score: 6.8

  • Popular, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares great when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a normal tempo. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a good speed. It was top-notch against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been good, and top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a very good rhythm in past years. It's been impressive in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 4.0

  • BPOP had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly 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: 7.0

  • Popular, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.5

  • BPOP on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
  • Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against 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 a weak position 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 last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.7

  • Popular, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
  • Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
  • Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
  • A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared 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 excellent when measured against loans taken. It could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are reasonable 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.8

  • Popular, Inc. has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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 lacking compared to peers.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation to peer ventures.
  • We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks very cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be very attractive. It ranks top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent 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 worse than peer firms.
  • We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
  • An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 6.1


BPOP logos

Company at a glance: Popular, Inc. (BPOP)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 5.61 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.62 billions

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail, mortgage, and commercial banking products and services in Puerto Rico, the United States, and British Virgin Islands. The company provides savings, NOW, money market, and other interest-bearing demand accounts; non-interest bearing demand deposits; and certificates of deposit. It also offers commercial and industrial, commercial multi-family, commercial real estate, and residential mortgage loans; consumer loans, including personal loans, credit cards, automobile loans, home equity lines of credit, and other loans to individual borrowers; construction loans; and lease financing comprising automobile loans/leases. In addition, the company provides investment banking, auto and equipment leasing and financing, broker-dealer, and insurance services; debit cards; and online banking services. As of December 31, 2021, it operated 169 branches; and 616 ATMs in Puerto Rico, 23 ATMs in the Virgin Islands, and 91 ATMs in the United States Mainland. Popular, Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

Awarener score: 7.4

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).