Fundamental analysis: Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN)

Awarener score: 4.6

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 (Lacking), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

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.
Driven Brands Holdings Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 6.3

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

Growth score: 1.0

Driven Brands Holdings 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.
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.
Profit before income tax growth was not estimated, on insufficient history. It was impossible to measure 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: 2.0

DRVN had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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

Driven Brands Holdings Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a 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 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.0

DRVN usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually 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 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 neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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 lacking 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: 4.1

Driven Brands 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be in a very 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 worse than most 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 almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's rather normal 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 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.
Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks a disappointment 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 bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

Driven Brands Holdings Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be substantially worse 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 get, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat worse than 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 substantially worse 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 lacking 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 is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks substantially worse 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 a disappointment compared to rival firms.
The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat 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 weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.1

Company at a glance: Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (DRVN)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Auto & Truck Dealerships

Market Cap: 4.82 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.03 billions

Driven Brands Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides automotive services to retail and commercial customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company offers various services, such as paint, collision, glass, vehicle repair, car wash, oil change, and maintenance services. It also distributes automotive parts, including radiators, air conditioning components, and exhaust products to automotive repair shops, auto parts stores, body shops, and other auto repair outlets; windshields and glass accessories through a network of distribution centers; and consumable products, such as oil filters and wiper blades, as well as provides training services to repair and maintenance, and paint and collision shops. The company sells its products and services under the Take 5 Oil Change, IMO, CARSTAR, ABRA, Fix Auto, Maaco, Meineke, Uniban, 1-800-Radiator & A/C, PH Vitres D'Autos, Spire Supply, and Automotive Training Institute names. As of December 25, 2021, it operated 4,412 company-operated, franchised, and independently-operated stores. Driven Brands Holdings Inc. was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.