Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Bridgford Foods Corporation (BRID)

Awarener score: 6.5

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 (Good), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).

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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Bridgford Foods Corporation business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

  • BRID profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand slightly worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's below average when measured against 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 sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.6

  • Bridgford Foods Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. 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: 4.0

  • BRID had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been well ranked against 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: 8.5

  • Bridgford Foods Corporation usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment 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 very 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.2

  • BRID usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way 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 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.
  • We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.7

  • Bridgford Foods Corporation has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands slightly better than 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are modest 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 impressive in relation 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 top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 8.2

  • Bridgford Foods Corporation looks extremely cheap in relation to profits and financial position. 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 in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands worse than most similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up close to average when 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 well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks extremely cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be very hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, a weak financial position, or that earnings aren't representative. If that isn't the case, the stock price could be extremely attractive. 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 rather normal in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned huge money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.6


BRID logos

Company at a glance: Bridgford Foods Corporation (BRID)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Packaged Foods

Market Cap: 0.13 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.26 billions

Bridgford Foods Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, and distributes frozen, refrigerated, and snack food products in the United States. It operates in two segments, Frozen Food Products and Snack Food Products. The company primarily offers biscuits, bread dough items, roll dough items, and dry sausage and beef jerky products. It provides approximately 130 frozen food products to food service and retail customers through wholesalers, cooperatives, and distributors; and 170 snack food items to supermarkets, and mass merchandise and convenience retail stores through customer-owned distribution centers, as well as a direct store delivery network. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Bridgford Foods Corporation is a subsidiary of Bridgford Industries Incorporated.

Awarener score: 6.5

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 (Good), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).