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

---

Fundamental analysis: The Walt Disney Company (DIS)

Awarener score: 5.7

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: 5.5

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• The Walt Disney Company business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 7.0

• DIS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually good. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be good in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.9

• The Walt Disney Company profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been top-notch against 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.
• 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: 4.0

• DIS had to pay substantial 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

• The Walt Disney Company usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got very 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.5

• DIS usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a weak position 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 usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in 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 close to average when 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: 4.5

• The Walt Disney Company intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
• The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. 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 well ranked against rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month 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 mediocre against 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 in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands somewhat better than 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are somewhat low 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 a weak position 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

• The Walt Disney Company looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. 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 very weak position 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 similar to 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 close to average when 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 huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks weak when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a three or four 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 somewhat high. 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 a little money. It happens to be similar 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: 5.0

---

Awarener score: 5.7

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!