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

---

Fundamental analysis: Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation (BVH)

Awarener score: 5.7

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: 4.0

• Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 6.2

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

Growth score: 1.9

• Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been close to average when 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: 2.0

• BVH had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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: 6.5

• Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks similar to competitors.
• In the past, got 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.8

• BVH 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 replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is similar to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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 a disappointment 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: 4.5

• Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some 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 encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains somewhat better than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
• Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks great 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 very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are huge in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements, allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks impressive 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.0

• Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually consumes 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 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 slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. 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 top tier 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 excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains slightly worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great 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 very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 4.2

---

Awarener score: 5.7

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!