PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
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.
11.87%
Net income growth under 50% of PINS's 85.86%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
0.95%
Less D&A growth vs. PINS's 6.49%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
195.17%
Deferred tax of 195.17% while PINS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
1.13%
Less SBC growth vs. PINS's 44.81%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
89.36%
Slight usage while PINS is negative at -328.53%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-267.21%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with PINS at -298.10%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
215.79%
Inventory growth well above PINS's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
26.22%
A yoy AP increase while PINS is negative at -541.38%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
204.02%
Some yoy usage while PINS is negative at -97.84%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
146.58%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. PINS's 25592.78%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
28.48%
Operating cash flow growth similar to PINS's 27.77%. Walter Schloss would see parallel improvements or market conditions in cash generation.
-24.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -93.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-433.67%
Negative yoy acquisition while PINS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
21.74%
Purchases well above PINS's 26.57%. Michael Burry would see major cash outflow into securities vs. competitor’s approach, risking near-term FCF.
49.68%
We have some liquidation growth while PINS is negative at -34.26%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-5.13%
Both yoy lines negative, with PINS at -170.17%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
1866.36%
We have mild expansions while PINS is negative at -158.50%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
25.54%
Debt repayment growth of 25.54% 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.
-49.06%
We cut yoy buybacks while PINS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.