Switch to:
Also traded in: Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, UK

GuruFocus Financial Strength Rank measures how strong a company’s financial situation is. It is based on these factors

1. The debt burden that the company has as measured by its Interest coverage (current year).
2. Debt to revenue ratio. The lower, the better
3. Altman Z-score.

A company ranks high with financial strength is likely to withstand any business slowdowns and recessions.

Financial Strength : 7/10

vs
industry
vs
history
Cash-to-Debt 1.17
EW's Cash-to-Debt is ranked lower than
61% of the 330 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.32 vs. EW: 1.17 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Cash-to-Debt only.
EW' s Cash-to-Debt Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0  Med: 1.16 Max: 9.48
Current: 1.17
0
9.48
Equity-to-Asset 0.56
EW's Equity-to-Asset is ranked lower than
68% of the 309 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 0.63 vs. EW: 0.56 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Equity-to-Asset only.
EW' s Equity-to-Asset Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.37  Med: 0.59 Max: 0.74
Current: 0.56
0.37
0.74
Debt-to-Equity 0.38
EW's Debt-to-Equity is ranked lower than
53% of the 220 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 0.30 vs. EW: 0.38 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Debt-to-Equity only.
EW' s Debt-to-Equity Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.03  Med: 0.31 Max: 1.29
Current: 0.38
0.03
1.29
Debt-to-EBITDA 1.08
EW's Debt-to-EBITDA is ranked higher than
68% of the 158 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 1.98 vs. EW: 1.08 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Debt-to-EBITDA only.
EW' s Debt-to-EBITDA Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.13  Med: 0.63 Max: 1.02
Current: 1.08
0.13
1.02
Interest Coverage 660.73
EW's Interest Coverage is ranked higher than
58% of the 212 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 66.37 vs. EW: 660.73 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Interest Coverage only.
EW' s Interest Coverage Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 27.54  Med: 46.15 Max: 118.46
Current: 660.73
27.54
118.46
Piotroski F-Score: 5
Altman Z-Score: 9.81
Beneish M-Score: -2.94
WACC vs ROIC
6.41%
22.08%
WACC
ROIC
GuruFocus Profitability Rank ranks how profitable a company is and how likely the company’s business will stay that way. It is based on these factors:

1. Operating Margin
2. Trend of the Operating Margin (5-year average). The company with an uptrend profit margin has a higher rank.
••3. Consistency of the profitability
4. Piotroski F-Score
5. Predictability Rank•

The maximum rank is 10. A rank of 7 or higher means a higher profitability and may stay that way. A rank of 3 or lower indicates that the company has had trouble to make a profit.

Profitability Rank is not directly related to the Financial Strength Rank. But if a company is consistently profitable, its financial strength will be stronger.

Profitability & Growth : 8/10

vs
industry
vs
history
Operating Margin % 27.93
EW's Operating Margin % is ranked higher than
95% of the 312 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 1.96 vs. EW: 27.93 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Operating Margin % only.
EW' s Operating Margin % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 16.02  Med: 21.44 Max: 29.77
Current: 27.93
16.02
29.77
Net Margin % 18.50
EW's Net Margin % is ranked higher than
87% of the 312 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 1.40 vs. EW: 18.50 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Net Margin % only.
EW' s Net Margin % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 10.41  Med: 17.17 Max: 34.92
Current: 18.5
10.41
34.92
ROE % 21.22
EW's ROE % is ranked higher than
91% of the 304 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 0.95 vs. EW: 21.22 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful ROE % only.
EW' s ROE % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 15.04  Med: 21.01 Max: 43.42
Current: 21.22
15.04
43.42
ROA % 11.79
EW's ROA % is ranked higher than
89% of the 332 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: -0.26 vs. EW: 11.79 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful ROA % only.
EW' s ROA % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 9.39  Med: 13.18 Max: 26.03
Current: 11.79
9.39
26.03
ROC (Joel Greenblatt) % 87.15
EW's ROC (Joel Greenblatt) % is ranked higher than
93% of the 327 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 3.87 vs. EW: 87.15 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful ROC (Joel Greenblatt) % only.
EW' s ROC (Joel Greenblatt) % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 43.88  Med: 66.04 Max: 144.11
Current: 87.15
43.88
144.11
3-Year Revenue Growth Rate 14.10
EW's 3-Year Revenue Growth Rate is ranked higher than
76% of the 254 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 4.30 vs. EW: 14.10 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 3-Year Revenue Growth Rate only.
EW' s 3-Year Revenue Growth Rate Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: -9.7  Med: 11.6 Max: 15.1
Current: 14.1
-9.7
15.1
3-Year EBITDA Growth Rate -2.30
EW's 3-Year EBITDA Growth Rate is ranked lower than
67% of the 232 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 7.50 vs. EW: -2.30 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 3-Year EBITDA Growth Rate only.
EW' s 3-Year EBITDA Growth Rate Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: -24.2  Med: 14.4 Max: 57.8
Current: -2.3
-24.2
57.8
3-Year EPS without NRI Growth Rate -10.30
EW's 3-Year EPS without NRI Growth Rate is ranked lower than
74% of the 223 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 7.80 vs. EW: -10.30 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 3-Year EPS without NRI Growth Rate only.
EW' s 3-Year EPS without NRI Growth Rate Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0  Med: 18.75 Max: 288.2
Current: -10.3
0
288.2
GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with Edwards Lifesciences Corp EW.
More than 500,000 people have already joined GuruFocus to track the stocks they follow and exchange investment ideas.
» EW's 30-Y Financials

Financials (Next Earnings Date: 2018-10-24 Est.)


Revenue & Net Income
Cash & Debt
Operating Cash Flow & Free Cash Flow
Operating Cash Flow & Net Income

» Details

Guru Trades

Q3 2017

EW Guru Trades in Q3 2017

Joel Greenblatt 7,936 sh (New)
Ray Dalio 119,747 sh (+194.26%)
Paul Tudor Jones 26,427 sh (+175.83%)
Jim Simons 2,200,739 sh (+158.03%)
David Rolfe 1,343,047 sh (+55.92%)
Lee Ainslie 45,890 sh (+36.25%)
Steven Cohen 474,495 sh (+6.29%)
Pioneer Investments 690,472 sh (+0.83%)
Ron Baron 37,386 sh (+0.32%)
George Soros Sold Out
Frank Sands 7,236,435 sh (-5.20%)
PRIMECAP Management 525,400 sh (-6.18%)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sciences Fund 174,360 sh (-35.22%)
» More
Q4 2017

EW Guru Trades in Q4 2017

Vanguard Health Care Fund 466,355 sh (New)
Joel Greenblatt 37,541 sh (+373.05%)
Paul Tudor Jones 49,370 sh (+86.82%)
Lee Ainslie 79,460 sh (+73.15%)
Pioneer Investments 1,115,658 sh (+61.58%)
Steven Cohen 280,100 sh (unchged)
David Rolfe 1,339,762 sh (-0.24%)
Ron Baron 37,290 sh (-0.26%)
Frank Sands 6,956,035 sh (-3.87%)
PRIMECAP Management 500,000 sh (-4.83%)
Jim Simons 1,260,447 sh (-42.73%)
Ray Dalio 32,832 sh (-72.58%)
Steven Cohen 130,000 sh (-72.60%)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sciences Fund 153,061 sh (-12.22%)
» More
Q1 2018

EW Guru Trades in Q1 2018

Mario Gabelli 12,060 sh (New)
Caxton Associates 3,271 sh (New)
Steven Cohen 200,000 sh (+53.85%)
PRIMECAP Management 535,000 sh (+7.00%)
Steven Cohen 100,000 sh (unchged)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sciences Fund 153,061 sh (unchged)
Vanguard Health Care Fund Sold Out
Ray Dalio Sold Out
Joel Greenblatt Sold Out
Ron Baron 37,161 sh (-0.35%)
Pioneer Investments 1,063,524 sh (-4.67%)
Lee Ainslie 74,810 sh (-5.85%)
Frank Sands 6,522,164 sh (-6.24%)
David Rolfe 1,132,341 sh (-15.48%)
Jim Simons 1,006,900 sh (-20.12%)
Paul Tudor Jones 19,525 sh (-60.45%)
» More
Q2 2018

EW Guru Trades in Q2 2018

Lee Ainslie 101,840 sh (+36.13%)
Pioneer Investments 1,251,590 sh (+17.68%)
Caxton Associates 3,513 sh (+7.40%)
Frank Sands 6,917,432 sh (+6.06%)
Mario Gabelli 12,270 sh (+1.74%)
Ron Baron 37,201 sh (+0.11%)
PRIMECAP Management 535,000 sh (unchged)
Steven Cohen Sold Out
Paul Tudor Jones Sold Out
David Rolfe 891,410 sh (-21.28%)
Jim Simons 494,500 sh (-50.89%)
Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sciences Fund 115,916 sh (-24.27%)
» More
» Details

Insider Trades

Latest Guru Trades with EW

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

GuruDate Trades Impact to Portfolio Price Range * (?) Current Price Change from Average Current Shares
Ron Baron 2018-06-30 Add 0.11%$127.36 - $153.9 $ 153.6810%37,201
Mario Gabelli 2018-06-30 Add 1.74%$127.36 - $153.9 $ 153.6810%12,270
Ron Baron 2018-03-31 Reduce -0.35%$111.58 - $142.34 $ 153.6818%37,161
Mario Gabelli 2018-03-31 New Buy0.01%$111.58 - $142.34 $ 153.6818%12,060
Joel Greenblatt 2018-03-31 Sold Out 0.06%$111.58 - $142.34 $ 153.6818%0
Vanguard Health Care Fund 2018-03-31 Sold Out 0.11%$111.58 - $142.34 $ 153.6818%0
Vanguard Health Care Fund 2017-12-31 New Buy0.11%$101.38 - $118.18 $ 153.6840%466,355
Joel Greenblatt 2017-12-31 Add 373.05%0.05%$101.38 - $118.18 $ 153.6840%37,541
Ron Baron 2017-12-31 Reduce -0.26%$101.38 - $118.18 $ 153.6840%37,290
Ron Baron 2017-09-30 Add 0.32%$108.87 - $119.58 $ 153.6834%37,386
Joel Greenblatt 2017-09-30 New Buy0.01%$108.87 - $119.58 $ 153.6834%7,936
George Soros 2017-09-30 Sold Out 0.01%$108.87 - $119.58 $ 153.6834%0
Premium More recent guru trades are included for Premium Members only!!
Premium More recent guru trades are included for USA Subscribe Members only!!
» Interactive Charts

Peter Lynch Chart ( What is Peter Lynch Charts )

Business Description

Industry: Medical Devices » Medical Devices    NAICS: 339113    SIC: 3842
Compare:NYSE:ZBH, NAS:ALGN, LSE:SN., NYSE:BSX, NAS:ABMD, NYSE:TFX, XSWX:SOON, NYSE:VAR, SZSE:300003, OCSE:WDH, XPAR:DIM, ASX:COH, LSE:CTEC, NZSE:FPH, NYSE:GMED, OCSE:AMBU B, NAS:IART, OCSE:GN, NAS:MASI, OSTO:EKTA B » details
Traded in other countries:EWL.Germany, EW.Mexico, EW.Switzerland, 0REN.UK,
Headquarter Location:USA
Edwards Lifesciences Corp is a part of the healthcare sector. The company specializes in the treatment of structural heart disease. It manufactures heart valves and repair products used to replace or repair a patient's diseased or defective heart valve.

Spun off from Baxter International in 2000, Edwards Lifesciences designs, manufactures, and markets a range of medical devices and equipment for advanced stages of heart disease. Its key products include surgical tissue heart valves, transcatheter valve technologies, surgical clips, catheters and retractors, and monitoring systems used to measure a patient's heart function during surgery. The firm derives about 55% of its total sales from outside the U.S.

Guru Investment Theses on Edwards Lifesciences Corp

David Rolfe Comments on Edwards Lifesciences - Apr 16, 2018

Edwards Lifesciences (NYSE:EW) was our top contributor in the first quarter. Honestly, we couldn’t be much more pleased with the way fundamental developments have played out during our ownership of the Company. As you know from our earlier commentary, the primary driver for the Company is Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR), where the Company has a significant market leadership position. As a reminder, TAVR is a much less invasive alternative to open-heart surgery for the replacement of the aortic valve, in which the new valve is put into place through a catheter, typically inserted via a tiny pinprick in a patient’s leg. The aortic valve is generally replaced due to a condition known as Aortic Stenosis (AS), which is a narrowing of the valve, which restricts blood flow within the heart. TAVR has seen successive waves of growth as the procedure has been approved first for patients for whom surgery was not a viable option, then for patients at high- and medium-risk of complications from surgery. The Company is also working on approvals for low-risk patients and for patients currently showing no symptoms of AS. Our research has led us to believe, from the beginning, that the Company’s publicly-stated intermediate-term expectations for the size of the potential patient population and market opportunity were vastly understated. We believed that both physicians and patients have tended to delay addressing potential heart valve issues due to the rather traumatic prospect of open-heart surgery. With a much less invasive option now available for treatment, we have believed that the pool of potential patients would prove to be much greater than anyone could have tracked previously, especially among patients who were “less sick,” for lack of a better term. As initial approvals have been for patients already known to be the “most sick” – specifically, patients already known to be suffering from severe AS, and who have other complications that make open-heart surgery a risk – the addressable patient population in the early stages of TAVR rollout has been fairly predictable. However, as approvals move toward “less sick” patients over time, we firmly believe the addressable patient population will repeatedly surprise to the upside. Therefore, it has been gratifying to see this part of our thesis already playing out. In just the past year, the Company has increased its guidance for the total TAVR market by 2021 from $5 billion to greater than $5 billion, also noting that the opportunity beyond 2021 is significant. Specifically, they have said that they believe the prevalence of AS is larger than they previously had anticipated, meaning that treatment rates are much lower than they had anticipated. Furthermore, activity from competitors in the TAVR market has turned out to be more benevolent than we had expected. Medtronic’s CoreValve remains the #2 competitor, and it is growing slightly faster than Edwards in TAVR, since it came to market later and is capturing some share, as Edwards no longer has the market to itself. This is exactly as we have expected. We also anticipated that Boston Scientific’s Lotus valve, which has had some quality issues and has been off the market for several quarters, would reenter the market and capture modest share as a #3 option, as our research has indicated that this valve is better than the other two companies’ offerings in specific situations but is not comparable in



the majority of situations. We also assumed that pricing would decline across the TAVR space as Boston’s product came to market, because Boston would try to compensate for an inferior product with lower pricing. However, since our initial purchase, the following events have occurred: 1) Boston has repeatedly struggled to get Lotus back on the market; 2) both Medtronic and Boston have basically admitted that Edwards has the best product, and the other two will be slugging it out for second place; 3) Boston has claimed (optimistically, according to our research) that its product is just as good as Medtronic’s, so they will have no need to resort to a price war in order to capture share. These are all very positive developments in relation to our initial expectations. In rough terms, we originally had expected something like a 45-45-10 eventual market share split between Edwards, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific, and with a degradation in pricing; instead, Boston still hasn’t managed to get back on the market yet, and we could eventually be looking at something as positive as a 60-20-20 split with little or no pricing degradation, if Boston is to be believed – although, as previously noted, we are skeptical of some of Boston’s projections. Finally, we would note a couple of slightly less significant developments. First, an early ruling in some TAVR patent litigation between Edwards and Boston just went in Edwards’s favor; we see this litigation as routine for the industry and believe it is most likely to end in some fairly benign cross-licensing agreements between the companies, but this early ruling may point to a more positive outcome than we had expected. Next, although we still see significant long-term opportunity in TAVR, we are getting closer to the Company’s next growth drivers in transcatheter mitral and tricuspid valve repair and replacement, areas estimated by the Company to be at least a $3 billion market opportunity by 2025. The Company expects to launch at least one new product in these areas in each of the next three years. Looking specifically at the stock, although investors with shorter-term time horizons have occasionally fretted over minor decelerations in TAVR growth rates—which have been nothing more than a function of mathematical realities, when the Company has lapped periods of the unleashing of pent-up demand after launching new patient populations in high-risk and intermediate-risk situations—we have focused on the long-term growth opportunities and have been able to build our position at attractive prices. As we say with pretty much every one of our positions in the current market, the stock’s valuation clearly is not cheap; in the tenth year of a valuation-agnostic bull market, very little is, by any reasonable historical standards. However, in a market where most stocks trade beyond the top end of historical valuation ranges, Edwards at least is trading firmly within the middle of its normal range during the current bull market, in the mid-to-high 20s on a forward P/E basis. Edwards also is generating very healthy double-digit percentage revenue growth (16% in 2017) as well as improving profitability, with consistent EPS growth over 20%. We continue to view this as good value.

From David Rolfe (Trades, Portfolio)'s Wedgewood Partners first quarter 2018 shareholder letter.

Check out David Rolfe latest stock trades

David Rolfe Comments on Edwards Lifesciences - Apr 14, 2017

We established a new position in Edwards Lifesciences (NYSE:EW) in the first quarter. Edwards is a pioneer in heart valve surgery, with nearly 90% of its revenues tied to heart valve replacement, by virtue of its best-in-class portfolio of intellectual property, backed by a relatively lengthy history of clinical data and successful outcomes. Heart disease is the world’s leading killer, and the incidence of heart disease grows with age, meaning that the aging of populations across the developed world is directly leading to a rise in the occurrence of heart problems. Over half of the Company’s business is tied to the rapidly-growing TAVR, or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, category. TAVR—as opposed to SAVR, which is Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement, which is generally a type of open-heart surgery—is a fairly recent technological advancement, with the first human procedure occurring in 2002; the first market approval in Europe in 2007; and US approval in 2011. We view TAVR, which replaces a heart valve using a small incision, usually in a patient’s leg, as clearly superior to traditional open-heart surgery, with similar clinical results at a comparable price, but without the need to crack open a patient’s chest. As the market for TAVR has developed, it was first approved for patients for whom traditional surgery was too risky to be a viable option, followed by patients for whom surgery was considered a high risk. 2016 saw a surge in procedures as TAVR was approved for patients for whom surgery is an intermediate risk, and clinical trials are underway to seek approval for low-risk patients, as well.

EW is the clear market leader in the TAVR segment of the market, and we expect its TAVR solutions to continue to gain significant share industry-wide over time as the procedure spreads into the low-risk patient population, especially as regulatory issues constraining the growth of the procedure ease over time, and as the industry invests in patient and physician education to expand the overall valve-replacement population, well beyond prior expectations. In addition, there are a significant amount of underserved populations among patients not yet showing symptoms and patients who might not have considered treatment previously, when the only option was to have their chests cracked open. We believe, over time, that TAVR’s superior, much less invasive treatment option could lead to earlier screening of asymptomatic patients, as well as to patients proactively inquiring about therapy.

On the valuation front, the stock looks attractive in relation to peers and the broader market, having pulled back almost a third from its highs, down to the middle of its historical valuation range, after the past few quarters of earnings results slightly underperformed versus very high expectations. Specifically, there was a temporary issue with France running out of money in its budget for TAVR reimbursement, as the budget had not anticipated the tremendous growth in TAVR procedures for intermediate-risk patients. We view this as a non-issue, longer-term. Further, the sequential growth rate for TAVR revenues slowed in the second half of 2016, despite a continuation of extremely healthy year-over-year growth, which registered nearly 30% globally and nearly 40% in the US in the fourth quarter, for example. We view this as very attractive growth and understand that there will be fits and starts in sequential growth rates around product approval cycles. Longer-term, we view Edwards as an attractive growth opportunity, as aging populations lead to increasing heart disease, and as TAVR takes share within the valve-replacement market. We see opportunities for growth within the established patient population, in addition to current estimates of the patient population that we think are significantly understated, meaning that the market’s long-term growth expectations are also understated. We believe the under-appreciated growth opportunities, the secular shift towards less invasive procedures, and the reasonable valuation makes EW an attractive long-term holding.

From David Rolfe (Trades, Portfolio)'s Wedgewood Partners first-quarter 2017 shareholder letter.

Check out David Rolfe latest stock trades

Baron Opportunity Fund Comments on Edwards - Feb 21, 2017

Edwards (NYSE:EW) is the world’s leading manufacturer of tissue heart valves and repair products, which are used to replace or repair a patient’s diseased or defective heart valve. Edwards has leveraged the knowledge and experience from its surgical tissue heart valve business to develop transcatheter heart valve replacement technologies, designed to treat heart valve disease using catheter-based approaches as opposed to open surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an innovative procedure in which a valve is inserted through a catheter and implanted within the diseased aortic valve. The procedure is significantly less invasive than surgery, takes about 90 minutes and recovery can be as short as a few days. TAVR is transforming the market because it provides a new, less invasive treatment option for patients ineligible for surgery or at high surgical risk. Edwards believes there are about 650,000 aortic stenosis patients addressable with TAVR–over twice their prior view of the addressable market–only a fraction of which are being treated with TAVR today. Edwards is also investing in transcatheter valve technologies to treat patients with mitral and tricuspid diseases–which present large, untapped addressable markets (2.5 million for mitral and 1.5 million for tricuspid)–and have the potential to open up significant new growth opportunities for the company.



From Baron Funds' Baron Opportunity Fund fourth quarter 2016 commentary.



Check out Ron Baron latest stock trades

Ratios

vs
industry
vs
history
PE Ratio 50.22
EW's PE Ratio is ranked lower than
78% of the 180 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 30.17 vs. EW: 50.22 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PE Ratio only.
EW' s PE Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 11.18  Med: 33.8 Max: 54.75
Current: 50.22
11.18
54.75
Forward PE Ratio 30.03
EW's Forward PE Ratio is ranked lower than
69% of the 52 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 25.06 vs. EW: 30.03 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Forward PE Ratio only.
N/A
PE Ratio without NRI 50.22
EW's PE Ratio without NRI is ranked lower than
78% of the 179 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 30.17 vs. EW: 50.22 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PE Ratio without NRI only.
EW' s PE Ratio without NRI Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 11.18  Med: 33.8 Max: 54.75
Current: 50.22
11.18
54.75
Price-to-Owner-Earnings 42.71
EW's Price-to-Owner-Earnings is ranked lower than
60% of the 104 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 32.03 vs. EW: 42.71 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Owner-Earnings only.
EW' s Price-to-Owner-Earnings Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 7.88  Med: 37.38 Max: 572.5
Current: 42.71
7.88
572.5
PB Ratio 10.16
EW's PB Ratio is ranked lower than
86% of the 310 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 3.06 vs. EW: 10.16 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PB Ratio only.
EW' s PB Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 2.9  Med: 6.3 Max: 10.16
Current: 10.16
2.9
10.16
PS Ratio 9.32
EW's PS Ratio is ranked lower than
77% of the 294 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 3.15 vs. EW: 9.32 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PS Ratio only.
EW' s PS Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 2.31  Med: 5.59 Max: 9.42
Current: 9.32
2.31
9.42
Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow 42.89
EW's Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow is ranked lower than
62% of the 107 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 26.44 vs. EW: 42.89 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow only.
EW' s Price-to-Free-Cash-Flow Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 7.82  Med: 39.71 Max: 517.1
Current: 42.89
7.82
517.1
Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow 34.26
EW's Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow is ranked lower than
68% of the 127 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 20.01 vs. EW: 34.26 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow only.
EW' s Price-to-Operating-Cash-Flow Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 7.33  Med: 28.83 Max: 48.87
Current: 34.26
7.33
48.87
EV-to-EBIT 31.15
EW's EV-to-EBIT is ranked lower than
55% of the 174 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 24.76 vs. EW: 31.15 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful EV-to-EBIT only.
EW' s EV-to-EBIT Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 6.8  Med: 23.7 Max: 39.7
Current: 31.15
6.8
39.7
EV-to-EBITDA 28.89
EW's EV-to-EBITDA is ranked lower than
69% of the 188 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 18.14 vs. EW: 28.89 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful EV-to-EBITDA only.
EW' s EV-to-EBITDA Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 6.4  Med: 21.4 Max: 33.5
Current: 28.89
6.4
33.5
EV-to-Revenue 9.01
EW's EV-to-Revenue is ranked lower than
73% of the 309 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 3.73 vs. EW: 9.01 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful EV-to-Revenue only.
EW' s EV-to-Revenue Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 2.2  Med: 5.4 Max: 9.2
Current: 9.01
2.2
9.2
PEG Ratio 2.80
EW's PEG Ratio is ranked lower than
57% of the 77 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.53 vs. EW: 2.80 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful PEG Ratio only.
EW' s PEG Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.45  Med: 2.5 Max: 5.35
Current: 2.8
0.45
5.35
Shiller PE Ratio 73.08
EW's Shiller PE Ratio is ranked lower than
67% of the 58 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 49.95 vs. EW: 73.08 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Shiller PE Ratio only.
EW' s Shiller PE Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 34.67  Med: 63.95 Max: 118.59
Current: 73.08
34.67
118.59
Current Ratio 2.28
EW's Current Ratio is ranked lower than
71% of the 324 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.71 vs. EW: 2.28 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Current Ratio only.
EW' s Current Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.89  Med: 2.67 Max: 5.4
Current: 2.28
0.89
5.4
Quick Ratio 1.80
EW's Quick Ratio is ranked lower than
68% of the 324 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.03 vs. EW: 1.80 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Quick Ratio only.
EW' s Quick Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.49  Med: 2.09 Max: 4.69
Current: 1.8
0.49
4.69
Days Inventory 214.42
EW's Days Inventory is ranked lower than
69% of the 294 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 143.61 vs. EW: 214.42 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Days Inventory only.
EW' s Days Inventory Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 132.4  Med: 174.96 Max: 208.39
Current: 214.42
132.4
208.39
Days Sales Outstanding 44.37
EW's Days Sales Outstanding is ranked higher than
85% of the 276 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 69.21 vs. EW: 44.37 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Days Sales Outstanding only.
EW' s Days Sales Outstanding Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 44.79  Med: 54.46 Max: 69.95
Current: 44.37
44.79
69.95
Days Payable 97.97
EW's Days Payable is ranked lower than
57% of the 261 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 58.34 vs. EW: 97.97 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Days Payable only.
EW' s Days Payable Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 33.96  Med: 45.59 Max: 63.34
Current: 97.97
33.96
63.34

Buy Back

vs
industry
vs
history
3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio 0.90
EW's 3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio is ranked higher than
93% of the 244 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: -5.70 vs. EW: 0.90 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful 3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio only.
EW' s 3-Year Average Share Buyback Ratio Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: -1.2  Med: 0.7 Max: 2.1
Current: 0.9
-1.2
2.1

Valuation & Return

vs
industry
vs
history
Price-to-Net-Current-Asset-Value 185.16
EW's Price-to-Net-Current-Asset-Value is ranked lower than
99.99% of the 207 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 7.79 vs. EW: 185.16 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Net-Current-Asset-Value only.
EW' s Price-to-Net-Current-Asset-Value Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 10.47  Med: 18.37 Max: 568
Current: 185.16
10.47
568
Price-to-Tangible-Book 20.35
EW's Price-to-Tangible-Book is ranked lower than
90% of the 276 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 4.50 vs. EW: 20.35 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Tangible-Book only.
EW' s Price-to-Tangible-Book Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 5.58  Med: 10.09 Max: 199.7
Current: 20.35
5.58
199.7
Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF 2.99
EW's Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF is ranked lower than
64% of the 121 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.44 vs. EW: 2.99 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF only.
EW' s Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-Projected-FCF Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.35  Med: 2.1 Max: 3.76
Current: 2.99
1.35
3.76
Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) 1.76
EW's Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) is ranked higher than
63% of the 27 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.06 vs. EW: 1.76 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) only.
EW' s Price-to-Intrinsic-Value-DCF (Earnings Based) Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.43  Med: 1.26 Max: 4.64
Current: 1.76
0.43
4.64
Price-to-Median-PS-Value 1.67
EW's Price-to-Median-PS-Value is ranked lower than
82% of the 237 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 1.02 vs. EW: 1.67 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Median-PS-Value only.
EW' s Price-to-Median-PS-Value Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.22  Med: 0.57 Max: 1.64
Current: 1.67
0.22
1.64
Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value 4.55
EW's Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value is ranked lower than
72% of the 47 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.05 vs. EW: 4.55 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value only.
EW' s Price-to-Peter-Lynch-Fair-Value Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 0.59  Med: 1.95 Max: 5.03
Current: 4.55
0.59
5.03
Price-to-Graham-Number 6.74
EW's Price-to-Graham-Number is ranked lower than
90% of the 133 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 2.11 vs. EW: 6.74 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Price-to-Graham-Number only.
EW' s Price-to-Graham-Number Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 1.82  Med: 3.71 Max: 53.27
Current: 6.74
1.82
53.27
Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % 3.21
EW's Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % is ranked higher than
72% of the 332 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 0.74 vs. EW: 3.21 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % only.
EW' s Earnings Yield (Greenblatt) % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 2.5  Med: 4.2 Max: 14.7
Current: 3.21
2.5
14.7
Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % 12.84
EW's Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % is ranked higher than
68% of the 125 Companies
in the Global Medical Devices industry.

( Industry Median: 6.60 vs. EW: 12.84 )
Ranked among companies with meaningful Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % only.
EW' s Forward Rate of Return (Yacktman) % Range Over the Past 10 Years
Min: 8.4  Med: 16.3 Max: 24.1
Current: 12.84
8.4
24.1

More Statistics

Revenue (TTM) (Mil) $3,548.50
EPS (TTM) $ 3.06
Beta0.58
Volatility25.72%
52-Week Range $100.20 - 156.87
Shares Outstanding (Mil)209.39

Analyst Estimate

Dec18 Dec19
Revenue (Mil $) 3,814 4,233
EBIT (Mil $) 1,193 1,316
EBITDA (Mil $) 1,294 1,430
EPS ($) 4.66 5.05
EPS without NRI ($) 4.66 5.05
EPS Growth Rate
(Future 3Y To 5Y Estimate)
18.06%
Dividends per Share ($)

Piotroski F-Score Details

Piotroski F-Score: 55
Positive ROAY
Positive CFROAY
Higher ROA yoyN
CFROA > ROAY
Lower Leverage yoyY
Higher Current Ratio yoyN
Less Shares Outstanding yoyY
Higher Gross Margin yoyN
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}}