Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Berry Corporation (BRY)

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Modest), the business stability (unknown) and growth (Excellent), 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: 9.0

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Berry Corporation business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 5.8

  • BRY profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually good. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

  • Berry Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been a slight improvement 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: 1.0

  • BRY 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: 4.5

  • Berry Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.2

  • BRY usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. 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 below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved close to average when 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 somewhat worse than 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 close to average when 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 lot more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so they're paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business improves, or rewards won't keep at current pace. It still looks substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

  • Berry 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 lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be lacking 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 slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position 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 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.
  • 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 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 somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.1

  • Berry Corporation 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 impressive in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates somewhat 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, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still encouraging in relation to 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 a slight improvement compared 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 not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks impressive 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 top-notch against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some 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 close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.7


BRY logos

Company at a glance: Berry Corporation (BRY)

Sector, industry: Energy, Oil & Gas E&P

Market Cap: 0.67 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.81 billions

Berry Corporation, an independent upstream energy company, engages in the development and production of conventional oil reserves located in the western United States. It operates in two segments, Development and Production, and Well Servicing and Abandonment. The company's properties are located in the San Joaquin and Ventura basins, California; and Uinta basin, Utah. As of December 31, 2021, it had a total of 3,417 net productive wells. The company was formerly known as Berry Petroleum Corporation and changed its name to Berry Corporation in February 2020. Berry Corporation was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Modest), the business stability (unknown) and growth (Excellent), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).