Fundamental analysis: Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT)

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

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: 7.0

Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
Central Garden & Pet Company business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 5.8

CENT profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's similar to competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient 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 similar to rivals.
Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.9

Central Garden & Pet Company profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been a slight improvement compared to competitors.
In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares similar to 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 low speed. It was slightly worse than rivals.
In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and below average when measured against peer companies.
Earnings per share have grown at a low rhythm in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

CENT had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly 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: 7.8

Central Garden & Pet Company usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
In the past, got very 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.3

CENT usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands similar to rival firms.
The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is almost average 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 barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal in relation 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 low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks great when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.3

Central Garden & Pet Company intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in good shape 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 worse than most rival firms.
Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against 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 in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands mediocre against 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.0

Central Garden & Pet Company looks expensive 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 in a weak position 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 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 hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 rather normal in relation 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 some 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 very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.8

Company at a glance: Central Garden & Pet Company (CENT)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Packaged Foods

Market Cap: 2.03 billions

Revenues TTM: 3.30 billions

Central Garden & Pet Company produces and distributes various products for the lawn and garden, and pet supplies markets in the United States. It operates through two segments, Pet and Garden. The Pet segment provides dog and cat supplies, such as dog treats and chews, toys, pet beds and grooming products, waste management and training pads, and pet containment; supplies for aquatics, small animals, reptiles, and pet birds, including toys, cages and habitats, bedding, and food and supplements; animal and household health and insect control products; live fish and products for fish, reptiles, and other aquarium-based pets, such as aquariums, furniture and lighting fixtures, pumps, filters, water conditioners, food, and supplements; and products for horses and livestock, as well as outdoor cushions and pillows. This segment sells its products under the Aqueon, Cadet, Comfort Zone, Farnam, Four Paws, Kaytee, K&H Pet Products, Nylabone, and Zilla brands. The Garden segment offers lawn and garden supplies products that include grass seed; wild bird feed, bird feeders, bird houses, and other birding accessories; fertilizers; decorative outdoor lifestyle products; live plants; and weed and grass, as well as other herbicides, insecticide, and pesticide products. This segment sells its lawn and garden supplies products under the AMDRO, Ferry-Morse, Pennington, and Sevin brands, as well as under Bell Nursery, Lilly Miller, and Over-N-Out other brand names. Central Garden & Pet Company was founded in 1955 and is based in Walnut Creek, California.