Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Peabody Energy Corporation (BTU)

Awarener score: 4.6

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 (Poor) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).

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 fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Peabody Energy Corporation business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

  • BTU profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain in a weak position 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 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 weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.1

  • Peabody Energy Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent 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: 1.0

  • BTU 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: 4.2

  • Peabody Energy Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse 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: 4.4

  • BTU 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 the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved excellent in relation 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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 weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.2

  • Peabody Energy 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 double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be a slight improvement 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher 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 last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak 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 rather normal in relation 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 somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.1

  • Peabody Energy Corporation looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost average 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 a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than 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 great when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position 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 somewhat worse than 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 almost average 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 a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly better than 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 more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.0


BTU logos

Company at a glance: Peabody Energy Corporation (BTU)

Sector, industry: Energy, Thermal Coal

Market Cap: 3.99 billions

Revenues TTM: 3.96 billions

Peabody Energy Corporation engages in coal mining business in the United States, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, India, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, South Korea, and internationally. The company operates through Seaborne Thermal Mining, Seaborne Metallurgical Mining, Powder River Basin Mining, and Other U.S. Thermal Mining segments. It is involved in mining, preparation, and sale of thermal coal primarily to electric utilities; mining bituminous and sub-bituminous coal deposits; and mining metallurgical coal, such as hard coking coal, semi-hard coking coal, semi-soft coking coal, and pulverized coal injection coal. The company supplies coal primarily to electricity generators, industrial facilities, and steel manufacturers. As of December 31, 2021, it owned interests in 17 coal mining operations located in the United States and Australia; and had approximately 2.5 billion tons of proven and probable coal reserves and approximately 450,000 acres of surface property through ownership and lease agreements. The company also engages in direct and brokered trading of coal and freight-related contracts, as well as provides transportation-related services. Peabody Energy Corporation was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

Awarener score: 4.6

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 (Poor) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).