Fundamental analysis: Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. (DNB)

Awarener score: 5.9

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Average), the business stability (unknown) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).

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: 7.0

Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.7

DNB profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.4

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been impressive in relation to competitors.
In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares top tier 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: 1.0

DNB had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier 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: 5.8

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.8

DNB 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre 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.
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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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.
We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.7

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge 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 last-in-rank 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has 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 encouraging 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 somewhat better than peers.
On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's in good shape compared to similar companies.
Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most rival firms.
Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are excellent 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 low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.3

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than 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 last-in-rank 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 a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks bottom tier against 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 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 impressive in relation 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 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 mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.5

Company at a glance: Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. (DNB)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Financial Data & Stock Exchanges

Market Cap: 4.68 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.22 billions

Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. provides business decisioning data and analytics in North America and internationally. It offers finance and risk solutions, including D&B Finance Analytics, an online application that offers clients real time access to its information, comprehensive monitoring, and portfolio analysis; D&B Direct, an application programming interface (API) that delivers risk and financial data directly into enterprise applications for real-time credit decision making; D&B Small Business, a suite of powerful tools that allows SMBs to monitor and build their business credit file; D&B Enterprise Risk Assessment Manager, a solution for managing and automating credit decisioning and reporting; and InfoTorg, an online SaaS application. The company also provides risk and compliance solutions, such as D&B Supplier Risk Manager that provides insights to help certify, monitor, analyze, and mitigate risk across the supply chain; D&B Onboard to provide comprehensive insights into businesses to facilitate KYC/AML compliance, as well as to minimize financial, legal, and reputational risk exposure; and D&B Beneficial Ownership that offers risk intelligence on ultimate beneficial ownership. It offers sales and marketing solutions, including D&B Connect, a self-service data management platform; D&B Optimizer, an integrated data management solution; D&B Rev.Up ABX, an open and agnostic platform that aligns marketing and sales teams to deliver an optimal and coordinated buying; D&B Hoovers, a sales intelligence solution; D&B Audience Targeting, which helps clients to reach the right audiences with the right messages; D&B Visitor Intelligence that turns web visitors into leads; and D&B Direct, an API-enabled data management solution that delivers valuable customer insights into CRMs, marketing automation, and other marketing applications for on-demand business intelligence. The company was founded in 1841 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.