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

---

Fundamental analysis: Douglas Emmett, Inc. (DEI)

Awarener score: 6.6

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: 6.5

• Business has been shrinking. It's been similar to peer companies.
• Douglas Emmett, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 9.0

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

Growth score: 6.0

• Douglas Emmett, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking 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- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a normal tempo. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an excellent speed. It was somewhat better than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been very good, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at an excellent rhythm in past years. It's been excellent in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 10.0

• DEI managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been somewhat better than 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: 5.8

• Douglas Emmett, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.6

• DEI 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 weak 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 more than average in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
• In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved lacking compared to similar firms.
• The company usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. There could be some concerns on sustainability if business takes a dive. Sustainability looks slightly worse than comparable companies.
• The company barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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 large portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks almost average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.5

• Douglas Emmett, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be almost average 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 in a very weak position 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 worse than most rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks substantially worse 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 a month and a half credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank 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 very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands mediocre against 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are huge 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.2

• Douglas Emmett, Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. 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 weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against 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 below average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up close to average when compared to peer ventures.
• The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is high. Substantial improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is somewhat risky. It ranks below average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks rather normal in relation to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. 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 good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.6

---

Awarener score: 6.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!