PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (WPM)
96.701.20 (1.26%)
95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
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.
48.74%
Net income growth under 50% of SAND's 177820.91%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
55.61%
Some D&A expansion while SAND is negative at -7.23%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-167.85%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SAND stands at 336.78%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
50.53%
SBC growth while SAND is negative at -3.77%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
680.22%
Well above SAND's 220.02% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
109.57%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. SAND's 602.85%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
-364.99%
Negative yoy inventory while SAND is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-41.31%
Negative yoy AP while SAND is 132.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
2108.31%
Growth well above SAND's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-644.39%
Both negative yoy, with SAND at -297.27%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
45.21%
Some CFO growth while SAND is negative at -8.51%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-396.20%
Both yoy lines negative, with SAND at -13.45%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-152781.91%
Negative yoy acquisition while SAND stands at 27640.42%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
12.62%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. SAND's 44.41%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
35189753.73%
We have some liquidation growth while SAND is negative at -41.15%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-165.36%
Both yoy lines negative, with SAND at -100.01%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-379.21%
We reduce yoy invests while SAND stands at 63.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
15.38%
We repay more while SAND is negative at -53.37%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
2091.46%
Issuance growth of 2091.46% while SAND is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
267.80%
Repurchase growth 1.25-1.5x SAND's 205.08%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm invests enough in expansions while boosting EPS.