Filing Flows › Companies › Laureate Education › Earnings quality
Laureate Education earnings quality score
How much of the reported profit is backed by cash, and how many markers of managed earnings the filings show
Score66 / 100 · grade B · rank 511 of 1027
Laureate Education (LAUR) scores 66 of 100 for earnings quality, grade B: rank 511 of 1027 companies and 112 of 287 in industrials. It loses the most points on accruals of -4.2% of assets, lower than 51% of companies (profit backed by cash), discretionary accruals of -4.0% of assets (modified Jones), larger than most, adjusted earnings 4% above GAAP. It earns full or near-full marks for profit steadier than cash flow (smoothness 0.62).
What earned and lost points
| Component | What the filings show | Points | Of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accruals | accruals of -4.2% of assets, lower than 51% of companies (profit backed by cash) | 18 | 36 |
| Discretionary accruals | discretionary accruals of -4.0% of assets (modified Jones), larger than most | 7 | 18 |
| Piotroski F-score | Piotroski F-score 8 of 9 | 16 | 18 |
| Non-GAAP gap | adjusted earnings 4% above GAAP | 16 | 18 |
| Earnings smoothness | profit steadier than cash flow (smoothness 0.62) | 8 | 9 |
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 → Laureate Education: 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.