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

---

Fundamental analysis: Krispy Kreme, Inc. (DNUT)

Awarener score: 5.0

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: a result could not be reached

• Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
• Krispy Kreme, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

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

Growth score: 1.0

• Krispy Kreme, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
• There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
• EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown against peer enterprises.
• We were not able to provide an estimate for EBIT growth, because of lacking data. It turns to be not yet known in relation 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

• DNUT 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: 5.2

• Krispy Kreme, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks weak 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.0

• DNUT usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• The company usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects are challenged. 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 in a weak position 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 below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.9

• Krispy Kreme, 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.
• 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 mediocre against 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 few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks top tier when measured against industry peers.
• The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's impressive in relation 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 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 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 very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.7

• Krispy Kreme, 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 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks somewhat worse than 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 roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains slightly worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against 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 in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.7

---

Awarener score: 5.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!