Fundamental analysis: Duke Energy Corporation (DUK)

Awarener score: 5.5

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 (Excellent) and growth (Poor), 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: 6.0

Business has been shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
Duke Energy Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 8.3

DUK profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand well ranked against 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 excellent. They remain excellent in relation 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 similar to rivals.
Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.3

Duke Energy Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been in good shape compared to competitors.
In recent years, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was well ranked against rivals.
In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been low, and more than average in relation to peer companies.
Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been in good shape compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 9.0

DUK managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been well ranked 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: 6.5

Duke Energy Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.9

DUK 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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 in a very weak position 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: 4.4

Duke Energy Corporation 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 substantially worse when measured against 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. 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 weak 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 in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.0

Duke Energy Corporation looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 lacking 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 better 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 encouraging in relation 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 in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks encouraging in relation to peer companies.
Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains better than most peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be below average when measured against industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.1

Company at a glance: Duke Energy Corporation (DUK)

Sector, industry: Utilities, Utilities—Regulated Electric

Market Cap: 74.19 billions

Revenues TTM: 28.02 billions

Duke Energy Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an energy company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Electric Utilities and Infrastructure, Gas Utilities and Infrastructure, and Commercial Renewables. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure segment generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in the Carolinas, Florida, and the Midwest; and uses coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, oil, renewable generation, and nuclear fuel to generate electricity. It also engages in the wholesale of electricity to municipalities, electric cooperative utilities, and load-serving entities. This segment serves approximately 8.2 million customers in 6 states in the Southeast and Midwest regions of the United States covering a service territory of approximately 91,000 square miles; and owns approximately 50,259 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure segment distributes natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and power generation natural gas customers; and owns, operates, and invests in pipeline transmission and natural gas storage facilities. It has approximately 1.6 million customers, including 1.1 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, as well as 550,000 customers in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky. The Commercial Renewables segment acquires, owns, develops, builds, and operates wind and solar renewable generation projects, including nonregulated renewable energy and energy storage services to utilities, electric cooperatives, municipalities, and corporate customers. It has 23 wind, 178 solar, and 2 battery storage facilities, as well as 71 fuel cell locations with a capacity of 3,554 MW across 22 states. The company was formerly known as Duke Energy Holding Corp. and changed its name to Duke Energy Corporation in April 2005. The company was founded in 1904 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.