Oshkosh Corp. reported a backlog of $14.75 billion in its latest quarter, a figure that reflects average year-over-year declines of 3.3% over the past two years. The metric, which represents the value of outstanding orders not yet executed or delivered, indicates that the company is not securing new orders at a pace sufficient to offset existing deliveries. StockStory analysts note that this performance suggests increasing competition or market saturation within the Heavy Transportation Equipment sector.
The company's unit economics have also drawn criticism. Oshkosh averaged a gross margin of 16.3% over the last five years, meaning the firm paid $83.70 in supplier costs for every $100 in revenue. This margin profile is considered low for an industrials business and signals that Oshkosh operates in a competitive market where pricing power is limited. In contrast, analysts typically prefer high gross margin businesses as they indicate differentiated products and the potential for higher operating profits.
Profitability trends further complicate the investment case. Over the last two years, Oshkosh's earnings per share (EPS) declined by 11.9% annually, even as revenue grew by 1.2%. This divergence suggests the company became less profitable on a per-share basis despite top-line expansion. The stock has underperformed the broader market over the same six-month period, recording a 4.4% loss while holding steady at $131.59 per share. During that timeframe, the S&P 500 index gained 21.1%.
| Metric | Value/Period | Attribution |
|---|---|---|
| Backlog | $14.75 billion | Latest quarter |
| Backlog Trend | 3.3% average annual decline | Last two years |
| Gross Margin | 16.3% average | Last five years |
| EPS Trend | 11.9% annual decline | Last two years |
| Revenue Trend | 1.2% annual growth | Last two years |
| Stock Performance | 4.4% loss | Past six months |
| S&P 500 Performance | 21.1% gain | Past six months |
StockStory analysts characterize the current valuation as fair but argue that the potential upside does not warrant the risk relative to other investments in their coverage universe. The firm maintains a lack of confidence in the stock, stating that it does not meet their investment criteria despite not being a fundamentally broken business.