Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. (CHEF)

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 (Modest), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Very good), 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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 4.5

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

Growth score: 1.9

  • The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been rather normal 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: 1.0

  • CHEF had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against 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: 5.5

  • The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got sufficient 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: 5.7

  • CHEF 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is weak 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 very 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a non-significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could greatly boost stockholder rewards if it wished so. It still looks substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

  • The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be excellent in relation 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 bottom tier against rival firms.
  • 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 roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's impressive in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than three 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 great when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are excellent 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.4

  • The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands worse than most similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. 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 in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks weak 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 in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly 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 lost a little 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 mediocre 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: 4.2


CHEF logos

Company at a glance: The Chefs Warehouse, Inc. (CHEF)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Food Distribution

Market Cap: 1.16 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.20 billions

The Chefs' Warehouse, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in distribution of specialty food products in the United States and Canada. The company's product portfolio includes approximately 50,000 stock-keeping units, such as specialty food products, such as artisan charcuterie, specialty cheeses, unique oils and vinegars, truffles, caviar, chocolate, and pastry products. It also offers a line of center-of-the-plate products, including custom cut beef, seafood, and hormone-free poultry, as well as food products, such as cooking oils, butter, eggs, milk, and flour. The company serves menu-driven independent restaurants, fine dining establishments, country clubs, hotels, caterers, culinary schools, bakeries, patisseries, chocolatiers, cruise lines, casinos, and specialty food stores. It markets its center-of-the-plate products directly to consumers through a mail and e-commerce platform. The company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Ridgefield, Connecticut.

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