PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Texas Instruments Incorporated (TXN)
205.980.01 (0.00%)
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-10.20%
Negative revenue growth while MCHP stands at 2.50%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-13.82%
Negative gross profit growth while MCHP is at 2.57%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-14.40%
Negative EBIT growth while MCHP is at 5.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-16.11%
Negative operating income growth while MCHP is at 6.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-19.40%
Negative net income growth while MCHP stands at 10.33%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.33%
Negative EPS growth while MCHP is at 10.91%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.46%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MCHP is at 11.01%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.22%
Slight or no buybacks while MCHP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.22%
Slight or no buyback while MCHP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.05%
Dividend reduction while MCHP stands at 6.99%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-47.14%
Negative OCF growth while MCHP is at 39.99%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-129.77%
Negative FCF growth while MCHP is at 47.80%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
45.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 257.35%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
5.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 62.88%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-13.52%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP stands at 58.81%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
161.49%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MCHP's 336.48%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-5.20%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP is at 183.43%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-44.30%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MCHP stands at 79.88%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
169.54%
Below 50% of MCHP's 512.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-6.31%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MCHP is 1510.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-36.13%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MCHP is 390.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
89.97%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 152.60%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
105.71%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 15.05%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
69.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 12.85%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
332.40%
10Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MCHP's 116.63%. David Dodd checks if the firm's robust cash flows justify outpacing the competitor's increases.
68.60%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of MCHP's 110.85%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging policy in mid-term shareholder returns.
27.51%
Below 50% of MCHP's 110.01%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-6.49%
Firm’s AR is declining while MCHP shows 12.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.10%
Inventory growth well above MCHP's 0.87%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
7.84%
Asset growth above 1.5x MCHP's 0.76%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
0.29%
Under 50% of MCHP's 5.22%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
20.36%
We have some new debt while MCHP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.91%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MCHP's 0.07%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.88%
SG&A growth well above MCHP's 0.05%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.