Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND)

Awarener score: 5.0

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

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: 10.0

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • Beyond Meat, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

  • BYND profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand slightly worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain in a very weak position 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 worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

  • Beyond Meat, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been impressive 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: 5.7

  • BYND had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a low portion of revenues. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.5

  • Beyond Meat, Inc. usually gets meagre 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: 3.6

  • BYND 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way 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 usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a weak position 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 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: 4.3

  • Beyond Meat, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks great when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's impressive in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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 has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank 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 a disappointment 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 bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.4

  • Beyond Meat, Inc. 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 in a very weak position 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 worse than most 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 substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. 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 three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a disappointment compared to rival firms.
  • There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of 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 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: 4.3


BYND logos

Company at a glance: Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Packaged Foods

Market Cap: 1.02 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.46 billions

Beyond Meat, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells plant-based meat products in the United States and internationally. The company sells a range of plant-based meat products across the platforms of beef, pork, and poultry. It sells its products through grocery, mass merchandiser, club store, convenience store and natural retailer channels, and direct-to-consumer, as well as various food-away-from-home channels, including restaurants, foodservice outlets, and schools. The company was formerly known as Savage River, Inc. and changed its name to Beyond Meat, Inc. in September 2018. Beyond Meat, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California.

Awarener score: 5.0

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