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

---

Fundamental analysis: Douglas Elliman Inc. (DOUG)

Awarener score: 6.9

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.
• Douglas Elliman Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.7

• DOUG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain lacking 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• Douglas Elliman Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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: 6.7

• DOUG managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been top-notch against peers.
• Research and development expenses hardly consume a portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
• Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.8

• Douglas Elliman Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar 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.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got 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: 4.5

• DOUG on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. 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 it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
• The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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: 6.5

• Douglas Elliman Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some 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 triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be rather normal in relation 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 worse than most rival firms.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's lacking 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 quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks encouraging in relation 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.2

• Douglas Elliman 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 close to average when compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
• In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough 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 rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks mediocre 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.0

---

Awarener score: 6.9

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!