Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Conagra Brands, Inc. (CAG)

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (Very good), the business stability (Good) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).

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: 6.5

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Conagra Brands, Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 6.8

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

Growth score: 4.0

  • Conagra Brands, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been almost null, and weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have been shrinking in the past years. It's been in a very weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.0

  • CAG had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than 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: 8.2

  • Conagra Brands, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • In the past, got huge 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.8

  • CAG usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands more than average in relation to 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 it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
  • Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • The company usually uses some portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects take a nosedive. Sustainability looks somewhat better 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 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 moderate portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn very sour. It still looks similar to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.4

  • Conagra Brands, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against 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 significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank 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 extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than 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 roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands somewhat worse than 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are reasonable 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 reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.6

  • Conagra Brands, Inc. looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below 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 disappointment compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates reasonably 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 fair. It's still encouraging in relation to 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 indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is high. Substantial improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is somewhat risky. It ranks similar to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking 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 worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to 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 in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.9


CAG logos

Company at a glance: Conagra Brands, Inc. (CAG)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Packaged Foods

Market Cap: 17.62 billions

Revenues TTM: 12.04 billions

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a consumer packaged goods food company in North America. The company operates in four segments: Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice. The Grocery & Snacks segment primarily offers shelf stable food products through various retail channels in the United States. The Refrigerated & Frozen segment provides temperature-controlled food products through various retail channels in the United States. The International segment offers food products in various temperature states through retail and foodservice channels outside of the United States. The Foodservice segment offers branded and customized food products, including meals, entrees, sauces, and various custom-manufactured culinary products packaged for restaurants and other foodservice establishments in the United States. The company sells its products under the Birds Eye, Duncan Hines, Healthy Choice, Marie Callender's, Reddi-wip, Slim Jim, Angie's BOOMCHICKAPOP, Duke's, Earth Balance, Gardein, and Frontera brands. The company was formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc. and changed its name to Conagra Brands, Inc. in November 2016. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (Very good), the business stability (Good) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).