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

---

Fundamental analysis: Danaher Corporation (DHR)

Awarener score: 6.2

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: 5.5

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Danaher Corporation business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 8.5

• DHR profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain impressive 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 top-notch against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain top tier when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands top tier when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 6.9

• Danaher Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a good step, which has been well ranked against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a good pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a good tempo. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a good speed. It was somewhat better than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been good, and similar to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a good rhythm in past years. It's been rather normal in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 7.7

• DHR had hardly to pay income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
• The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.2

• Danaher Corporation usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
• There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to 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: 6.0

• DHR usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands great 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 weak when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. 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 in good shape 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a slight portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could most likely increase stockholder rewards if it wished to do so. It still looks more than average in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

• Danaher Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains somewhat better 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 enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
• Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a slight portion of usual business earnings, and are very easily bearable. It stands well ranked against 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 similar to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are quite good 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.8

• Danaher Corporation looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar 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 generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked 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 great when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks slightly worse than 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 almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a 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 somewhat worse than 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 more than average in relation to industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest 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: 6.6

---

Awarener score: 6.2

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!