Filing Flows › Companies › Amazon.com › Earnings quality
Amazon.com earnings quality score
How much of the reported profit is backed by cash, and how many markers of managed earnings the filings show
Score52 / 100 · grade C · rank 842 of 1027
Amazon.com (AMZN) scores 52 of 100 for earnings quality, grade C: rank 842 of 1027 companies and 121 of 141 in consumer-disc. It loses the most points on Montier C-score 6 of 6 checks failed, Beneish M-score -1.79: in the grey zone, accruals of -3.6% of assets, higher than 56% of companies (profit backed by cash). It earns full or near-full marks for discretionary accruals of -0.3% of assets (modified Jones), smaller than most, adjusted earnings 1% above GAAP, profit about as variable as cash flow (smoothness 1.08).
What earned and lost points
| Component | What the filings show | Points | Of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accruals | accruals of -3.6% of assets, higher than 56% of companies (profit backed by cash) | 9 | 20 |
| Beneish M-score | Beneish M-score -1.79: in the grey zone | 0 | 15 |
| Dechow F-score | Dechow F-score 1.23 (above normal) | 13 | 15 |
| Montier C-score | Montier C-score 6 of 6 checks failed | 0 | 15 |
| Discretionary accruals | discretionary accruals of -0.3% of assets (modified Jones), smaller than most | 10 | 10 |
| Piotroski F-score | Piotroski F-score 5 of 9 | 6 | 10 |
| Non-GAAP gap | adjusted earnings 1% above GAAP | 10 | 10 |
| Earnings smoothness | profit about as variable as cash flow (smoothness 1.08) | 5 | 5 |
How the score is built
Eight published measures, each scored against the whole universe or on its own scale and weighted: accruals 20, discretionary accruals 10, Beneish M 15, Dechow F 15, Montier C 15, Piotroski F 10, the non-GAAP gap 10, smoothness 5. A measure that cannot be computed (Beneish for a bank, say) drops out and the rest is rescaled, so every company is scored on what applies to it.
Every company ranked → The full quality workbench, live → Amazon.com: cash flow →
Computed from the companies’ own XBRL filings (latest fiscal year) by published formulas; a statistical screen, not an audit or an accusation. A low score means the reported profit shows more of the markers of managed or low-quality earnings than its peers. Not investment advice.