Filing Flows › Companies › Darling Ingredients › Earnings quality
Darling Ingredients earnings quality score
How much of the reported profit is backed by cash, and how many markers of managed earnings the filings show
Score87 / 100 · grade A · rank 9 of 1027
Darling Ingredients (DAR) scores 87 of 100 for earnings quality, grade A: rank 9 of 1027 companies and 1 of 48 in consumer-staples. It loses the most points on accruals of -9.8% of assets, lower than 83% of companies (profit backed by cash), Montier C-score 1 of 5 checks failed. It earns full or near-full marks for Piotroski F-score 8 of 9, discretionary accruals of +0.3% of assets (modified Jones), smaller than most, profit about as variable as cash flow (smoothness 2.74).
What earned and lost points
| Component | What the filings show | Points | Of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accruals | accruals of -9.8% of assets, lower than 83% of companies (profit backed by cash) | 28 | 33 |
| Montier C-score | Montier C-score 1 of 5 checks failed | 20 | 25 |
| Discretionary accruals | discretionary accruals of +0.3% of assets (modified Jones), smaller than most | 16 | 17 |
| Piotroski F-score | Piotroski F-score 8 of 9 | 15 | 17 |
| Earnings smoothness | profit about as variable as cash flow (smoothness 2.74) | 8 | 8 |
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 → Darling Ingredients: 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.