PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
238.00 - 242.07
140.53 - 242.25
26.77M / 38.44M (Avg.)
25.64 | 9.39
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
2.22%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 35.41%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
12.19%
D&A growth well above PINS's 0.12%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-439.58%
Negative yoy deferred tax while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
1.87%
SBC growth while PINS is negative at -3.99%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
422.16%
Well above PINS's 60.28% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
34.20%
AR growth well above PINS's 51.65%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-58.45%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with PINS at -8.51%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
283.08%
Lower AP growth vs. PINS's 1298.46%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
405.35%
Growth well above PINS's 8.40%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
27.57%
Some yoy increase while PINS is negative at -98.68%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
16.67%
Operating cash flow growth below 50% of PINS's 58.13%. Michael Burry would see a serious shortfall in day-to-day cash profitability.
-24.07%
Negative yoy CapEx while PINS is 12.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
15.91%
Acquisition growth of 15.91% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-40.90%
Negative yoy purchasing while PINS stands at 0.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
46.81%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x PINS's 20.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
1586.96%
Growth well above PINS's 644.52%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-10.76%
We reduce yoy invests while PINS stands at 528.26%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
17.43%
Debt repayment growth of 17.43% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.45%
Buyback growth of 1.45% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.