Fundamental analysis: Traeger, Inc. (COOK)

Awarener score: 4.4

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

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: a result could not be reached

Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
Traeger, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

COOK profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain in a weak position compared 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 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: 1.0

Traeger, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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

COOK 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: 3.0

Traeger, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets meagre 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 insufficient. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
In the past, got meagre 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: 2.8

COOK usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse 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 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 a disappointment 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: 4.1

Traeger, 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 last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be a slight improvement 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 somewhat worse than 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 almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position 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 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 very good 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.7

Traeger, 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat worse than 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position 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 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 in a weak position compared to rival firms.
The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. 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 lost significant money. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat 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: 2.8

Company at a glance: Traeger, Inc. (COOK)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances

Market Cap: 0.43 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.66 billions

Traeger, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, sources, sells, and supports wood pellet fueled barbeque grills for retailers, distributors, and direct to consumers in the United States. Its wood pellet grills are internet of things devices that allow owners to program, monitor, and control their grill through its Traeger app. The company also produces a library of digital content, including instructional recipes and videos that demonstrate tips, tricks, and cooking techniques that empower Traeger owners to progress their cooking skills; and short- and long-form branded content highlighting stories, community members, and lifestyle content from the Traegerhood. In addition, it provides wood pellets that are used to fire the grills; rubs and sauces, seasonings, and marinades; covers, drip trays, bucket liners, and shelves; tools to aid in meal prep, cooking, and cleanup, including pellet storage systems, cleaning solutions, barbecue tools, and MEATER smart thermometer; replacement parts; and apparel and merchandise. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.