These 4 Measures Indicate That TreeHouse Foods (NYSE:THS) Is Using Debt In A Risky Way
These 4 Measures Indicate That TreeHouse Foods (NYSE:THS) Is Using Debt In A Risky Way
Warren Buffett famously said, 'Volatility is far from synonymous with risk.' When we think about how risky a company is, we always like to look at its use of debt, since debt overload can lead to ruin. We can see that TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE:THS) does use debt in its business. But the real question is whether this debt is making the company risky.
禾倫·巴菲特曾 famously 說過,『波動性遠非風險的同義詞。』當我們考慮一家公司的風險時,我們總是喜歡關注其債務的使用,因爲債務過重可能導致破產。我們可以看到,樹屋食品公司(紐交所:THS)確實在其業務中使用了債務。但真正的問題是,這種債務是否使公司變得有風險。
When Is Debt A Problem?
何時債務成爲問題?
Generally speaking, debt only becomes a real problem when a company can't easily pay it off, either by raising capital or with its own cash flow. Part and parcel of capitalism is the process of 'creative destruction' where failed businesses are mercilessly liquidated by their bankers. However, a more frequent (but still costly) occurrence is where a company must issue shares at bargain-basement prices, permanently diluting shareholders, just to shore up its balance sheet. Of course, plenty of companies use debt to fund growth, without any negative consequences. The first thing to do when considering how much debt a business uses is to look at its cash and debt together.
一般來說,債務只有在公司無法輕易償還時才會成爲真正的問題,無論是通過融資還是通過公司自己的現金流。 資本主義的一個組成部分是『創造性毀滅』,失敗的企業會被銀行毫不留情地清算。 然而,更常見(但仍然代價高昂)的情況是公司必須以抄底價格發行股票,永久稀釋股東權益,僅僅是爲了穩固其資產負債表。 當然,不少公司利用債務來資助增長,沒有任何負面後果。 在考慮企業使用多少債務時,首先要看其現金與債務的配合情況。
How Much Debt Does TreeHouse Foods Carry?
樹屋食品公司的債務有多少?
The image below, which you can click on for greater detail, shows that TreeHouse Foods had debt of US$1.41b at the end of September 2024, a reduction from US$1.55b over a year. However, it does have US$107.9m in cash offsetting this, leading to net debt of about US$1.30b.
下面的圖片可以點擊查看更詳細的信息,顯示樹屋食品截至2024年9月底的債務爲14.1億美元,較去年減少了15.5億美元。然而,它有10790萬美元的現金抵消這部分債務,導致淨債務約爲13億美元。
A Look At TreeHouse Foods' Liabilities
觀察樹屋食品的負債
According to the last reported balance sheet, TreeHouse Foods had liabilities of US$716.2m due within 12 months, and liabilities of US$1.70b due beyond 12 months. Offsetting this, it had US$107.9m in cash and US$224.7m in receivables that were due within 12 months. So its liabilities total US$2.08b more than the combination of its cash and short-term receivables.
根據最後報告的資產負債表,樹屋食品的負債爲71620萬美元,在12個月內到期,超過12個月到期的負債爲17億美元。相抵的是,它在現金方面有10790萬美元,以及到期的應收賬款22470萬美元。因此,它的負債總額比現金和短期應收賬款的總和多出20.8億美元。
Given this deficit is actually higher than the company's market capitalization of US$1.70b, we think shareholders really should watch TreeHouse Foods's debt levels, like a parent watching their child ride a bike for the first time. In the scenario where the company had to clean up its balance sheet quickly, it seems likely shareholders would suffer extensive dilution.
鑑於這一赤字實際上高於公司17億美元的市值,我們認爲股東們真的應該關注樹屋食品的債務水平,就像父母第一次看着孩子騎自行車一樣。在公司必須迅速清理其資產負債表的情況下,股東們似乎將遭受大量稀釋。
In order to size up a company's debt relative to its earnings, we calculate its net debt divided by its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) and its earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) divided by its interest expense (its interest cover). This way, we consider both the absolute quantum of the debt, as well as the interest rates paid on it.
爲了評估一家公司的債務與其收益的關係,我們計算其淨債務與息稅折舊攤銷前利潤(EBITDA)的比率,以及息稅前利潤(EBIT)與利息費用的比率(即利息覆蓋率)。通過這種方式,我們考慮了債務的絕對數量和所支付的利率。
While we wouldn't worry about TreeHouse Foods's net debt to EBITDA ratio of 4.2, we think its super-low interest cover of 1.8 times is a sign of high leverage. So shareholders should probably be aware that interest expenses appear to have really impacted the business lately. More concerning, TreeHouse Foods saw its EBIT drop by 2.5% in the last twelve months. If that earnings trend continues the company will face an uphill battle to pay off its debt. When analysing debt levels, the balance sheet is the obvious place to start. But it is future earnings, more than anything, that will determine TreeHouse Foods's ability to maintain a healthy balance sheet going forward. So if you're focused on the future you can check out this free report showing analyst profit forecasts.
雖然我們不擔心樹屋食品的淨債務與EBITDA比率爲4.2,但我們認爲其超低的利息保障倍數爲1.8倍是高槓杆的跡象。因此,股東們可能應該意識到,利息支出似乎最近嚴重影響了業務。更令人擔憂的是,樹屋食品在過去十二個月內的EBIT下降了2.5%。如果這種盈利趨勢持續下去,公司將面臨還清債務的艱難挑戰。在分析債務水平時,資產負債表顯然是一個明顯的起點。但未來的收益,勝過其他任何因素,將判斷樹屋食品維持健康資產負債表的能力。因此,如果你關注未來,可以查看這份免費的報告,了解分析師的盈利預測。
Finally, while the tax-man may adore accounting profits, lenders only accept cold hard cash. So we clearly need to look at whether that EBIT is leading to corresponding free cash flow. Over the last three years, TreeHouse Foods saw substantial negative free cash flow, in total. While that may be a result of expenditure for growth, it does make the debt far more risky.
最後,雖然稅務機關可能喜歡會計利潤,但貸方只接受冷硬的現金。因此,我們顯然需要查看EBIT是否導致了相應的自由現金流。在過去三年中,樹屋食品的自由現金流總額出現了大幅負值。雖然這可能是由於增長支出造成的,但這確實使得債務風險更大。
Our View
我們的觀點
To be frank both TreeHouse Foods's interest cover and its track record of converting EBIT to free cash flow make us rather uncomfortable with its debt levels. But at least its EBIT growth rate is not so bad. Taking into account all the aforementioned factors, it looks like TreeHouse Foods has too much debt. While some investors love that sort of risky play, it's certainly not our cup of tea. Given the risks around TreeHouse Foods's use of debt, the sensible thing to do is to check if insiders have been unloading the stock.
坦率地說,樹屋食品的利息覆蓋率和將EBIT轉化爲自由現金流的記錄讓我們對其債務水平感到相當不安。 但至少它的EBIT增長率還不錯。 考慮到上述所有因素,樹屋食品似乎債務過高。 雖然一些投資者喜歡這種風險投資,但這顯然不是我們的風格。 鑑於樹屋食品使用債務的風險,明智的做法是檢查內部人士是否正在拋售股票。
If you're interested in investing in businesses that can grow profits without the burden of debt, then check out this free list of growing businesses that have net cash on the balance sheet.
如果您有興趣投資那些能夠在沒有債務負擔的情況下增長利潤的業務,請查看這個自由名單,其中列出了在資產負債表上有淨現金的成長型企業。
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
對本文有反饋?對內容有疑慮?請直接與我們聯繫。或者,發送電子郵件至 editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com。
這篇來自Simply Wall ST的文章是一般性的。我們根據歷史數據和分析師預測提供評論,採用無偏見的方法,我們的文章並不旨在提供財務建議。它不構成對任何股票的買入或賣出建議,也未考慮到您的目標或財務狀況。我們旨在爲您提供以基本數據驅動的長期分析。請注意,我們的分析可能未考慮最新的價格敏感公司公告或定性材料。Simply Wall ST在提到的任何股票中均沒有持倉。
譯文內容由第三人軟體翻譯。