Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation (BVH)

Awarener score: 4.5

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 (Average), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (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: 3.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 5.8

  • 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 hardly sufficient. They remain in a weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain more than average 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: 9.0

  • BVH managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been better 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 similar 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 almost average when measured against 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.9

  • 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 below 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 similar to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved close to average when 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 barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly 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: 4.8

  • Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains better than most rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak 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 a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre 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 three months after the purchase. It ranks top tier 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 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are very good 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: 6.3

  • Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation looks very 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 close to average when 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 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. 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 great 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 might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat 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 top tier 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 impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.1


BVH logos

Company at a glance: Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation (BVH)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Resorts & Casinos

Market Cap: 0.33 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.81 billions

Bluegreen Vacations Holding Corporation operates as a vacation ownership company. It markets and sells vacation ownership interests (VOI); and manages resorts in leisure and urban destinations, including Orlando, Las Vegas, Myrtle Beach, Charleston and New Orleans, and others. The company also provides resort management, mortgage, title, reservation, and construction design and development services; and financing to qualified VOI purchasers, as well as management services to the vacation club and homeowners' associations. Its resort network includes 45 club resorts and 23 club associate resorts, as well as 128 Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's stores. The company was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.

Awarener score: 4.5

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