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

---

Fundamental analysis: DISH Network Corporation (DISH)

Awarener score: 5.4

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: 5.0

• Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been similar to peer companies.
• DISH Network Corporation business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.5

• DISH profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. 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 lacking compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very good in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very good considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.4

• DISH Network Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been in good shape compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been mediocre against 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 slow tempo. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and weak when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 4.0

• DISH had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse 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: 8.2

• DISH Network 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 sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• There's usually excellent 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.8

• DISH 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 top tier when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is great when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
• The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way 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.
• We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
• We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.5

• DISH Network Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be encouraging in relation to 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks similar to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar 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 roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are 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 a slight improvement 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 slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.5

• DISH Network Corporation looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost average 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 impressive in relation 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 slightly 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 drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks extremely cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be very hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, a weak financial position, or that earnings aren't representative. If that isn't the case, the stock price could be extremely attractive. It ranks top tier when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch 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 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.7

---

Awarener score: 5.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!