Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN)

Awarener score: 7.1

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 (Good), the business stability (Very poor) and growth (Excellent), 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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
  • Churchill Downs Incorporated business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 8.3

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

Growth score: 4.7

  • Churchill Downs Incorporated profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares below average 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 in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, at least once the company lost money -before income taxes-. It was mediocre 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: 5.0

  • CHDN had to pay some 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: 9.2

  • Churchill Downs Incorporated usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain impressive in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks top tier when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got excellent 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.2

  • CHDN usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands great when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
  • Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a slight portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
  • The company usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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 a slight improvement 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 substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

  • Churchill Downs Incorporated intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in a very weak position compared 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 worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks almost average 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 in a weak position 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 less than a month credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands slightly better than 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 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.2

  • Churchill Downs Incorporated looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat worse than 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 below average 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 excellent in relation 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 somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high 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.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, 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 earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest 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: 6.3


CHDN logos

Company at a glance: Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Gambling

Market Cap: 8.21 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.69 billions

Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, online wagering, and gaming entertainment company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Live and Historical Racing, TwinSpires, and Gaming. As of December 31, 2021, the company owned and operated three pari-mutuel gaming entertainment venues with approximately 3,050 historical racing machines (HRMs) in Kentucky; TwinSpires, an online wagering platform for horse racing, sports, and iGaming; nine retail sportsbooks; and casino gaming in eight states with approximately 11,000 slot machines and video lottery terminals, and 200 table games. It also offers streaming video of live horse races, replays, and an assortment of racing and handicapping information; and provides the Bloodstock Research Information Services platform for horse racing statistical data. In addition, the company manufactures and operates pari-mutuel wagering systems for racetracks, off-track betting facilities, and other pari-mutuel wagering businesses. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1875 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky.

Awarener score: 7.1

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