Switch to:
Also traded in: Germany

Latest Guru Trades with CHRW

(List those with share number changes of more than 20%, or impact to portfolio more than 0.1%)

Guru Date Action
Impact Price Range
(Average)*
Change from Average Comment Current Shares
» Interactive Charts

Peter Lynch Chart ( What is Peter Lynch Charts )

Business Description

Industry: Transportation & Logistics » Integrated Shipping & Logistics    NAICS: 488510    SIC: 4731
Compare:NAS:JBHT, NYSE:XPO, NAS:EXPD, XPAR:BOL, OCSE:DSV, SHSE:601018, LSE:RMG, TSE:9143, XSWX:KNIN, SHSE:600233, XKRX:086280, BOM:531344, XMCE:CASH, NAS:LSTR, XPAR:XPO, KUW:AGLTY, HKSE:00598, SHSE:600787, XSWX:PWTN, XMCE:LOG » details
Traded in other countries:CH1A.Germany,
Headquarter Location:USA
C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc is a non-asset-based third-party logistics provider. The company provides domestic freight brokerage services. It also operates a growing air and ocean forwarding unit and a legacy produce-sourcing operation.

C.H. Robinson is a top-tier non-asset-based third-party logistics provider with a significant focus on domestic freight brokerage (67% of 2016 net revenue), which reflects mostly truck brokerage but also rail intermodal. It also operates a growing air and ocean forwarding unit (17.5%) and a legacy produce-sourcing operation (10.5%). The remainder of net revenue reflects transportation management services and the firm's European truck brokerage operations.

Guru Investment Theses on C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc

David Rolfe Comments on C.H. Robinson - Oct 12, 2018

We purchased an initial position in C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ:CHRW) in the third quarter and made a small addition to our position soon afterward. C.H. Robinson is a transportation broker whose largest business is full truckload (TL) trucking, with smaller businesses in less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking, intermodal (generally truck trailers or ocean shipping containers carried on railcars), and other forms of transportation. Robinson does not transport goods itself but provides value by matching demand from shipping customers with supply from transportation providers, or “carriers.” In Robinson’s case, those are usually small truckers who do not run sophisticated operations of their own. We had been monitoring C.H. Robinson for a period of nearly two years, as we had foreseen a long-term imbalance developing between truckload supply and demand, and we have expected Robinson to benefit eventually.



Long-haul truckers have been experiencing difficulties in recruiting drivers for many years. There are multiple reasons for this, some of them due to the changing nature of the American workforce over time. Among the most relevant factors specific to the trucking industry, we would note the unattractive lifestyle endured by long-haul drivers, who spend long hours on the road and suffer extended periods of time away from their families and homes. Furthermore, a resurgence of heavy industry in the U.S., driven especially by the emergence of the domestic energy industry, has created competition for this pool of labor, and laws preventing young workers from getting their Commercial Drivers Licenses until 21 years of age, which in turn has siphoned off many potential truckers into other trades, as high school graduates consider employment options at 18. Compounding these problems, successive regulations restricting drivers’ “hours of service” (HOS) over the past fifteen years have further reduced the driving capacity of each existing driver.



The watershed event which focused our attention upon C.H. Robinson, however, was the requirement for all trucking companies to deploy electronic logging devices (ELDs) to track drivers’ hours, which came into effect at the end of 2017. While most large truckers had been using ELDs for some time; a very significant portion of the industry, however – perhaps as much as 80% – was not. Furthermore, our research over time has revealed that trucking companies that switched from paper logging to electronic logging in the past have found that the vast majority of their truckers (in fact, we always were told “100% of them”) had been in violation of HOS rules. This effectively meant that although the HOS regulations had not changed, companies which went from self-reported paper logs to automatic electronic logs suffered an effective loss of capacity - i.e. less hours per driver - when HOS were tracked accurately with the electronic devices. Our research has suggested that this caused a significant reduction in effective U.S. truckload capacity industry-wide, basically overnight, with our best estimate being a reduction of perhaps 5%-8%. While this may not sound like much to the casual reader, we would point out that much lower reductions in capacity of 1%-2%, due to previous HOS adjustment – which, remember, were skirted by the vast majority of the industry using paper logs – had caused major disruptions as recently as 2014. We also note that trucking comprises over 80% of domestic freight volumes, meaning that any reduction in trucking capacity is a very meaningful change for the entire US economy.



In actuality, the ELD mandate has seen companies in a broad array of industries, from retailers to consumer products companies to heavy manufacturers, suddenly scrambling to find anyone with capacity to carry their goods, while finding that their shipping costs were rising dramatically when they did secure a carrier. Throughout 2018, it has been nearly impossible to listen to any quarterly earnings call with a company shipping any sort of product without hearing complaints about difficult shipping conditions. The spot market, where customers arrange for real-time, one-off shipments as needed, has been especially hard hit, with pricing running over +20% higher year-over-year for the last few quarters, at times approaching even +30%. Contract pricing – where customers will agree routes and prices, usually for an annual period – also has been very strong, in some cases reaching double-digit percentage gains. C.H. Robinson, as a transportation broker whose largest business is in long-haul trucking, would seem to be an obvious beneficiary of these market trends.



Investors noted the rising spot pricing in the truckload industry, which actually started moving a few quarters before the ELD deadline and jumped into C.H. Robinson much earlier than we had expected, and, indeed, earlier than it made much sense. Then, as the company proceeded to badly miss reported earnings for several quarters, while trucking industry fundamentals around it seemed very strong, the market suddenly became disenchanted with the company, causing its stock to take a roughly -20% hit in an otherwise surging market. This was the point when we finally became interested, because we think the market has missed a few things about this business model.



First, as we have seen in prior periods with a sudden reduction in truckload capacity, Robinson’s pricing philosophy generally sees them taking a significant margin hit for a period of time as trucking capacity tightens, plus the concomitant rise in spot pricing. Robinson favors annual contracts with their customers, while their costs (mostly spot) rise immediately, meaning there is a mismatch between rising spot pricing they are paying to trucking providers, and the contractual pricing they are receiving from their customers. This is why the company was not able to keep up with investors’ expectations as truckload fundamentals strengthened in front of the ELD deadline. We, on the other hand, had been expecting this cost/pricing mismatch, as we had experienced it in prior cycles, as illustrated below.



Second, after a great run in most stocks across the trucking industry (despite the shorter-term pullback seen for C.H. Robinson), many investors now seem to be taking their gains, with a broad narrative about the cycle being as good as it can get. We do not believe this narrative, especially as it pertains to C.H. Robinson, for two primary reasons:







  1. We believe the most important driver of the shortage of supply vs demand in the trucking industry is not cyclical strength (i.e. demand); we believe the most important driver of the supply/demand imbalance is secular in nature (i.e. a significant and immediate reduction in supply caused by the ELD mandate, which will take years to rebalance in any meaningful way). While rising demand definitely has played a part in the imbalance, and while economic weakness would be unhelpful, we see the industrial economy strengthening in the near term, if anything. More importantly, long-haul trucking holds the vast majority of share of U.S. transportation volumes, and we believe that only small bits of this volume can find its way to other modes of transportation, such as rail or air, without a major rethinking and overhaul of domestic supply chains. In short, we believe a supply/demand imbalance is here to stay for the foreseeable future in long-haul trucking, and this should lead to pricing strength, improving margins and returns, and sustained solid earnings growth across the industry.

  2. Robinson hasn’t even enjoyed the benefits of the tightening trucking market yet; in fact, has only managed to get on the right side of the cost/pricing equation in the most recent quarter, as the table above illustrates - and the benefits will begin appearing now. As annual contracts with outdated pricing roll off and are renegotiated at higher, current market pricing, Robinson finally will see margins, earnings, and cash flow growth rebounding. Furthermore, while we expect trucking providers to continue to enjoy rising pricing power, we expect pricing to rise at a lesser rate, meaning that Robinson most likely will enjoy a period during which the pricing they are charging to customers will be rising at a significantly greater rate than the pricing they are paying to their trucking providers.







With valuation sitting only at roughly average historical levels, in comparison to the broad market trading at elevated historical levels, and with company fundamentals only inflecting positively just now and looking to remain healthy for the foreseeable future, we view C.H. Robinson is an attractive home for our clients’ capital.



From David Rolfe (Trades, Portfolio)'s Wedgewood Partners 3rd quarter 2018 shareholder commentary.

Check out David Rolfe latest stock trades

Top Ranked Articles about C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc

Jerome Dodson's Largest Sales of the 3rd Quarter Guru exits C.H. Robinson Worldwide, trims Gilead Sciences
Jerome Dodson (TradesPortfolio)'s Parnassus Investments sold shares of the following stocks during the third quarter. Read more...
David Rolfe Comments on C.H. Robinson Guru stock highlight
We purchased an initial position in C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ:CHRW) in the third quarter and made a small addition to our position soon afterward. C.H. Robinson is a transportation broker whose largest business is full truckload (TL) trucking, with smaller businesses in less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking, intermodal (generally truck trailers or ocean shipping containers carried on railcars), and other forms of transportation. Robinson does not transport goods itself but provides value by matching demand from shipping customers with supply from transportation providers, or “carriers.” In Robinson’s case, those are usually small truckers who do not run sophisticated operations of their own. We had been monitoring C.H. Robinson for a period of nearly two years, as we had foreseen a long-term imbalance developing between truckload supply and demand, and we have expected Robinson to benefit eventually.
Read more...
New Research Coverage Highlights C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Community Healthcare Trust, Essendant, Cogent Communications, EQT Midstream Partners, LP, and Stag Industrial — Consolidated Revenues, Company Growth, and Expectations for 2018
» More Articles for CHRW

Ratios

vs
industry
vs
history
PE Ratio 18.45
CHRW's PE Ratio is ranked lower than
70% of the 614 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 15.94 vs. CHRW: 18.45 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PE Ratio only.
CHRW' s PE Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 15.01  Med: 22.57 Max: 34.42
Current: 18.45
15.01
34.42
Forward PE Ratio 17.09
CHRW's Forward PE Ratio is ranked lower than
66% of the 143 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 18.08 vs. CHRW: 17.09 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Forward PE Ratio only.
N/A
PE Ratio without NRI 18.45
CHRW's PE Ratio without NRI is ranked lower than
69% of the 615 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 15.95 vs. CHRW: 18.45 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PE Ratio without NRI only.
CHRW' s PE Ratio without NRI Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 15.01  Med: 22.57 Max: 34.42
Current: 18.45
15.01
34.42
Price-to-Owner-Earnings 18.84
CHRW's Price-to-Owner-Earnings is ranked lower than
73% of the 346 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 18.41 vs. CHRW: 18.84 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Owner-Earnings only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Owner-Earnings Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 14.69  Med: 25.94 Max: 65.88
Current: 18.84
14.69
65.88
PB Ratio 7.52
CHRW's PB Ratio is ranked lower than
97% of the 734 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.26 vs. CHRW: 7.52 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PB Ratio only.
CHRW' s PB Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 5.84  Med: 8.52 Max: 11.06
Current: 7.52
5.84
11.06
PS Ratio 0.74
CHRW's PS Ratio is ranked higher than
56% of the 736 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.03 vs. CHRW: 0.74 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PS Ratio only.
CHRW' s PS Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.61  Med: 0.83 Max: 1.48
Current: 0.74
0.61
1.48
Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow 16.79
CHRW's Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow is ranked lower than
69% of the 344 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 15.37 vs. CHRW: 16.79 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 13.36  Med: 25.72 Max: 51.47
Current: 16.79
13.36
51.47
Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow 15.44
CHRW's Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow is ranked lower than
86% of the 499 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 8.64 vs. CHRW: 15.44 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 12.53  Med: 22.58 Max: 46.15
Current: 15.44
12.53
46.15
EV-to-EBIT 14.16
CHRW's EV-to-EBIT is ranked lower than
59% of the 626 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 15.49 vs. CHRW: 14.16 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful EV-to-EBIT only.
CHRW' s EV-to-EBIT Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 10.6  Med: 14.85 Max: 20.7
Current: 14.16
10.6
20.7
EV-to-EBITDA 12.80
CHRW's EV-to-EBITDA is ranked lower than
71% of the 673 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 11.14 vs. CHRW: 12.80 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful EV-to-EBITDA only.
CHRW' s EV-to-EBITDA Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 10  Med: 13.9 Max: 19.8
Current: 12.8
10
19.8
EV-to-Revenue 0.78
CHRW's EV-to-Revenue is ranked higher than
70% of the 748 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.62 vs. CHRW: 0.78 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful EV-to-Revenue only.
CHRW' s EV-to-Revenue Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.6  Med: 0.9 Max: 1.4
Current: 0.78
0.6
1.4
PEG Ratio 2.53
CHRW's PEG Ratio is ranked lower than
99.99% of the 337 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.93 vs. CHRW: 2.53 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PEG Ratio only.
CHRW' s PEG Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.65  Med: 2.35 Max: 3.85
Current: 2.53
0.65
3.85
Shiller PE Ratio 25.54
CHRW's Shiller PE Ratio is ranked lower than
72% of the 287 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 21.75 vs. CHRW: 25.54 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Shiller PE Ratio only.
CHRW' s Shiller PE Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 21.61  Med: 29.22 Max: 70.39
Current: 25.54
21.61
70.39
Current Ratio 1.92
CHRW's Current Ratio is ranked higher than
72% of the 746 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.26 vs. CHRW: 1.92 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Current Ratio only.
CHRW' s Current Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.09  Med: 1.69 Max: 1.93
Current: 1.92
1.09
1.93
Quick Ratio 1.92
CHRW's Quick Ratio is ranked higher than
76% of the 746 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.17 vs. CHRW: 1.92 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Quick Ratio only.
CHRW' s Quick Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.09  Med: 1.65 Max: 1.93
Current: 1.92
1.09
1.93
Days Sales Outstanding 47.46
CHRW's Days Sales Outstanding is ranked lower than
55% of the 723 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 47.32 vs. CHRW: 47.46 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Days Sales Outstanding only.
CHRW' s Days Sales Outstanding Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 40.78  Med: 43.99 Max: 51.89
Current: 47.46
40.78
51.89
Days Payable 23.21
CHRW's Days Payable is ranked lower than
70% of the 697 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 39.52 vs. CHRW: 23.21 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Days Payable only.
CHRW' s Days Payable Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 20.77  Med: 24.45 Max: 35.73
Current: 23.21
20.77
35.73

Dividend & Buy Back

vs
industry
vs
history
Dividend Yield % 2.21
CHRW's Dividend Yield % is ranked lower than
58% of the 1056 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 2.37 vs. CHRW: 2.21 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Dividend Yield % only.
CHRW' s Dividend Yield % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.22  Med: 2.07 Max: 2.75
Current: 2.21
1.22
2.75
Dividend Payout Ratio 0.40
CHRW's Dividend Payout Ratio is ranked lower than
60% of the 576 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 0.79 vs. CHRW: 0.40 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Dividend Payout Ratio only.
CHRW' s Dividend Payout Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.37  Med: 0.46 Max: 0.53
Current: 0.4
0.37
0.53
3-Year Dividend Growth Rate 6.20
CHRW's 3-Year Dividend Growth Rate is ranked higher than
66% of the 388 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 4.60 vs. CHRW: 6.20 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 3-Year Dividend Growth Rate only.
CHRW' s 3-Year Dividend Growth Rate Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0  Med: 15 Max: 78.3
Current: 6.2
0
78.3
Forward Dividend Yield % 2.31
CHRW's Forward Dividend Yield % is ranked lower than
62% of the 1000 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 2.66 vs. CHRW: 2.31 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Forward Dividend Yield % only.
N/A
5-Year Yield-on-Cost % 3.06
CHRW's 5-Year Yield-on-Cost % is ranked lower than
53% of the 1039 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 2.97 vs. CHRW: 3.06 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 5-Year Yield-on-Cost % only.
CHRW' s 5-Year Yield-on-Cost % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.69  Med: 2.86 Max: 3.8
Current: 3.06
1.69
3.8
3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio 1.40
CHRW's 3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio is ranked higher than
90% of the 439 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: -3.00 vs. CHRW: 1.40 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio only.
CHRW' s 3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: -0.9  Med: 0.7 Max: 3.8
Current: 1.4
-0.9
3.8

Valuation & Return

vs
industry
vs
history
Price-to-Tangible-Book 62.30
CHRW's Price-to-Tangible-Book is ranked lower than
99% of the 676 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.33 vs. CHRW: 62.30 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Tangible-Book only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Tangible-Book Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 6.8  Med: 12.27 Max: 99.99
Current: 62.3
6.8
99.99
Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF 1.74
CHRW's Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF is ranked lower than
72% of the 429 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.22 vs. CHRW: 1.74 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.3  Med: 2.1 Max: 3.23
Current: 1.74
1.3
3.23
Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) 1.48
CHRW's Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) is ranked lower than
99.99% of the 89 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 0.99 vs. CHRW: 1.48 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.61  Med: 1.02 Max: 2.04
Current: 1.48
0.61
2.04
Price-to-Median-PS-Value 0.89
CHRW's Price-to-Median-PS-Value is ranked higher than
50% of the 685 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 0.99 vs. CHRW: 0.89 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Median-PS-Value only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Median-PS-Value Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.6  Med: 1.06 Max: 1.73
Current: 0.89
0.6
1.73
Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value 2.83
CHRW's Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value is ranked lower than
99.99% of the 207 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.20 vs. CHRW: 2.83 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.06  Med: 2.07 Max: 3.53
Current: 2.83
1.06
3.53
Price-to-Graham-Number 7.15
CHRW's Price-to-Graham-Number is ranked lower than
99% of the 511 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 1.04 vs. CHRW: 7.15 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Graham-Number only.
CHRW' s Price-to-Graham-Number Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 2.75  Med: 4.06 Max: 10.44
Current: 7.15
2.75
10.44
Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % 7.06
CHRW's Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % is ranked higher than
52% of the 766 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 5.52 vs. CHRW: 7.06 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % only.
CHRW' s Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 4.8  Med: 6.7 Max: 9.5
Current: 7.06
4.8
9.5
Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % 10.77
CHRW's Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % is ranked lower than
54% of the 517 Companies
in the Global Integrated Shipping & Logistics industry.

( Industry Median: 6.61 vs. CHRW: 10.77 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % only.
CHRW' s Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 9.6  Med: 13.1 Max: 23.9
Current: 10.77
9.6
23.9

More Statistics

Revenue (TTM) (Mil) $16,631.17
EPS (TTM) $ 4.73
Beta0.87
Volatility20.10%
52-Week Range $78.83 - 101.20
Shares Outstanding (Mil)136.85

Analyst Estimate

Dec19 Dec20 Dec21
Revenue (Mil $) 17,109 17,817 18,669
EBIT (Mil $) 981 1,022 1,062
EBITDA (Mil $) 1,074 1,122 1,176
EPS ($) 5.11 5.47 5.88
EPS without NRI ($) 5.11 5.47 5.88
EPS Growth Rate
(Future 3Y To 5Y Estimate)
8.58%
Dividends per Share ($) 2.01 2.12 2.22

Piotroski F-Score Details

Piotroski F-Score: 77
Positive ROAY
Positive CFROAY
Higher ROA yoyY
CFROA > ROAY
Lower Leverage yoyN
Higher Current Ratio yoyY
Less Shares Outstanding yoyY
Higher Gross Margin yoyY
Higher Asset Turnover yoyN

Personalized Checklist

Checklist has been moved to "Checklist" tab.

Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)

GF Chat

{{numOfNotice}}
FEEDBACK