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

---

Fundamental analysis: Barnwell Industries, Inc. (BRN)

Awarener score: 3.5

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: 5.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Barnwell Industries, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 3.8

• BRN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's weak 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 very poor in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre 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: 2.3

• Barnwell Industries, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been rather normal in relation 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: 1.0

• BRN had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier 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: 4.0

• Barnwell Industries, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
• Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against competitors.
• In the past, got low 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: 5.0

• BRN usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is more than average in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• Has recently started or restarted paying dividends to stockholders. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved impressive 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in 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 in a very weak position 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: 5.9

• Barnwell Industries, Inc. 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 double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in good shape compared to 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 better than most rival firms.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks great when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three 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 higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
• Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks great when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.5

• Barnwell Industries, Inc. looks extremely cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be top tier 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 good shape compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually consumes much more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among numerous more stockholders. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
• This company is a cash hoarder. It might be well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch 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 encouraging in relation to 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 close to average when compared 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 well ranked against 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 great when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low 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: 4.2

---

Awarener score: 3.5

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!