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

---

Fundamental analysis: Dana Incorporated (DAN)

Awarener score: 6.7

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: 4.5

• Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Dana Incorporated business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

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

Growth score: 1.9

• Dana Incorporated profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been worse than most comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- tended to shrink, which compares substantially worse when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be lacking 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: 2.0

• DAN had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre 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: 7.0

• Dana Incorporated usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks similar to competitors.
• In the past, got 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.0

• DAN usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks slightly worse than comparable companies.
• The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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 in good shape compared to rivals.
• The company uses a modest portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.8

• Dana Incorporated intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be almost average when measured against peer companies.
• The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against 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 less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks similar to 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 impressive in relation to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are modest 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.4

• Dana Incorporated 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 rather normal in relation 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 mediocre against similar companies.
• The company usually generates reasonably 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 fair. It's still similar to 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 in good shape 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 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks in good shape 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 somewhat better than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be below average when measured against 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: 4.7

---

Awarener score: 6.7

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!