LUG (WAR:LUG) Piotroski F-Score : 4 (As of Apr. 05, 2025)

LUG Piotroski F-Score Chart

LUG Annual Data
	Trend	Dec15	Dec16	Dec17	Dec18	Dec19	Dec20	Dec21	Dec22	Dec23	Dec24
Piotroski F-Score		Get a 7-Day Free Trial					8.00	6.00	6.00	8.00	4.00

LUG Quarterly Data
	Mar20	Jun20	Sep20	Dec20	Mar21	Jun21	Sep21	Dec21	Mar22	Jun22	Sep22	Dec22	Mar23	Jun23	Sep23	Dec23	Mar24	Jun24	Sep24	Dec24
Piotroski F-Score	Get a 7-Day Free Trial															8.00	9.00	7.00	5.00	4.00

Competitive Comparison of LUG's Piotroski F-Score

For the Electrical Equipment & Parts subindustry, LUG's Piotroski F-Score, along with its competitors' market caps and Piotroski F-Score data, can be viewed below:

* Competitive companies are chosen from companies within the same industry, with headquarter located in same country, with closest market capitalization; x-axis shows the market cap, and y-axis shows the term value; the bigger the dot, the larger the market cap. Note that "N/A" values will not show up in the chart.

LUG's Piotroski F-Score Distribution in the Industrial Products Industry

For the Industrial Products industry and Industrials sector, LUG's Piotroski F-Score distribution charts can be found below:

* The bar in red indicates where LUG's Piotroski F-Score falls into.

How is the Piotroski F-Score calculated?

* For Operating Data section: All numbers are indicated by the unit behind each term and all currency related amount are in USD.
* For other sections: All numbers are in millions except for per share data, ratio, and percentage. All currency related amount are indicated in the company's associated stock exchange currency.

*Note: If the latest quarterly/semi-annual/annual total assets data is 0, then we will use previous quarterly/semi-annual/annual data for all the items in the balance sheet.

Profitability

Question 1. Return on Assets (ROA)

Net income before extraordinary items for the year divided by Total Assets at the beginning of the year.

Score 1 if positive, 0 if negative.

LUG's current Net Income (TTM) was -6.8. ==> Negative ==> Score 0.

Question 2. Cash Flow Return on Assets (CFROA)

Net cash flow from operating activities (operating cash flow) divided by Total Assets at the beginning of the year.

Score 1 if positive, 0 if negative.

LUG's current Cash Flow from Operations (TTM) was 31.4. ==> Positive ==> Score 1.

Question 3. Change in Return on Assets

Compare this year's return on assets (1) to last year's return on assets.

Score 1 if it's higher, 0 if it's lower.

LUG's return on assets of this year was -0.02962616. LUG's return on assets of last year was 0.03746796. ==> Last year is higher ==> Score 0.

Question 4. Quality of Earnings (Accrual)

Compare Cash flow return on assets (2) to return on assets (1)

Score 1 if CFROA > ROA, 0 if CFROA <= ROA.

LUG's current Net Income (TTM) was -6.8. LUG's current Cash Flow from Operations (TTM) was 31.4. ==> 31.4 > -6.8 ==> CFROA > ROA ==> Score 1.

Funding

Question 5. Change in Gearing or Leverage

Compare this year's gearing (long-term debt divided by average total assets) to last year's gearing.

Score 0 if this year's gearing is higher, 1 otherwise.

LUG's gearing of this year was 0.03118576. LUG's gearing of last year was 0.07990386. ==> This year is lower or equal to last year. ==> Score 1.

Question 6. Change in Working Capital (Liquidity)

Compare this year's current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) to last year's current ratio.

Score 1 if this year's current ratio is higher, 0 if it's lower

LUG's current ratio of this year was 0.9509718. LUG's current ratio of last year was 1.08636724. ==> Last year's current ratio is higher ==> Score 0.

Question 7. Change in Shares in Issue

Compare the number of shares in issue this year, to the number in issue last year.

Score 0 if there is larger number of shares in issue this year, 1 otherwise.

LUG's number of shares in issue this year was 7.199. LUG's number of shares in issue last year was 7.199. ==> There is smaller number of shares in issue this year, or the same. ==> Score 1.

Efficiency

Question 8. Change in Gross Margin

Compare this year's gross margin (Gross Profit divided by sales) to last year's.

Score 1 if this year's gross margin is higher, 0 if it's lower.

LUG's gross margin of this year was 0.39275601. LUG's gross margin of last year was 0.39932964. ==> Last year's gross margin is higher ==> Score 0.

Question 9. Change in asset turnover

Compare this year's asset turnover (total sales for the year divided by total assets at the beginning of the year) to last year's asset turnover ratio.

Score 1 if this year's asset turnover ratio is higher, 0 if it's lower

LUG's asset turnover of this year was 0.96841265. LUG's asset turnover of last year was 1.35914989. ==> Last year's asset turnover is higher ==> Score 0.

Evaluation

Good or high score = 7, 8, 9
Bad or low score = 0, 1, 2, 3

LUG has an F-score of 4 indicating the company's financial situation is typical for a stable company.

LUG  (WAR:LUG) Piotroski F-Score Explanation

The developer of the system is Joseph D. Piotroski is relatively unknown accounting professor who shuns publicity and rarely gives interviews.

He graduated from the University of Illinois with a B.S. in accounting in 1989, received an M.B.A. from Indiana University in 1994. Five years later, in 1999, after earning a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Michigan, he became an associate professor of accounting at the University of Chicago.

In 2000, he wrote a research paper called "Value Investing: The Use of Historical Financial Statement Information to Separate Winners from Losers" (pdf).

He wanted to see if he can develop a system (using a simple nine-point scoring system) that can increase the returns of a strategy of investing in low price to book (referred to in the paper as high book to market) value companies.

What he found was something that exceeded his most optimistic expectations.

Buying only those companies that scored highest (8 or 9) on his nine-point scale, or F-Score as he called it, over the 20 year period from 1976 to 1996 led to an average out-performance over the market of 13.4%.

Even more impressive were the results of a strategy of investing in the highest F-Score companies (8 or 9) and shorting companies with the lowest F-Score (0 or 1).

Over the same period from 1976 to 1996 (20 years) this strategy led to an average yearly return of 23%, substantially outperforming the average S&P 500 index return of 15.83% over the same period.

LUG Piotroski F-Score Related Terms

Thank you for viewing the detailed overview of LUG's Piotroski F-Score provided by GuruFocus.com. Please click on the following links to see related term pages.

LUG Business Description