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

---

Fundamental analysis: The Dixie Group, Inc. (DXYN)

Awarener score: 3.8

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: 3.5

• Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The Dixie Group, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

• DXYN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. 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 worse than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.1

• The Dixie Group, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared 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: 1.0

• DXYN 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: 3.8

• The Dixie Group, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got low 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: 3.0

• DXYN 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against 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 reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer 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 in a weak position compared to rivals.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

• The Dixie Group, Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
• The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in good shape 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against 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.
• Revenues are reasonable 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

• The Dixie Group, 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 impressive in relation to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands worse than most similar companies.
• The company usually consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. 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 drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
• The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat low 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: 3.2

---

Awarener score: 3.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!