• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: Campbell Soup Company (CPB)

Awarener score: 5.9

Conclusion

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: 4.0

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Campbell Soup Company business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 7.2

• CPB profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat better 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 very good in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.1

• Campbell Soup Company profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a very low step, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares great when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an extremely fast tempo. It turns to be impressive in relation 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: 5.3

• CPB had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse than peers.
• Research and development expenses hardly consume a portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• Business has been shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands in a weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 9.5

• Campbell Soup Company usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks great when measured against 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.5

• CPB 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 great 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 almost average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
• In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks worse than most 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 somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.3

• Campbell Soup Company 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 lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. 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 in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as close to average when compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands slightly better than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it 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 somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.2

• Campbell Soup Company looks somewhat expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to 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 get, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
• The company usually generates somewhat 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 reasonable. It's still almost average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks slightly better 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 encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two 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 is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against 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 in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.5

---

Awarener score: 5.9

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!