• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: Arcosa, Inc. (ACA)

Awarener score: 6.9

Conclusion

Note: All scores range from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). Conclusions are updated daily with closing stock prices and new reported quarterly financial statements.

Revenue score: 8.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Arcosa, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 6.5

• ACA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's below average when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually good. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 8.4

• Arcosa, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been somewhat better than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an excellent tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an excellent speed. It was slightly better than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been excellent, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at an excellent rhythm in past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

• ACA had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat worse than peers.
• The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
• We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 7.8

• Arcosa, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got very good returns -on the tangible resources it controls-. This metric is usually related to the industry in which operates and combines profitability versus reinvestment needs. It's below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.2

• ACA usually uses a sparse portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is modest. It stands below average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved lacking compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a slight portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks well ranked against comparable companies.
• The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal in relation to peer enterprises.
• Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands a slight improvement compared to rivals.
• The company uses a slight portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could most likely increase stockholder rewards if it wished to do so. It still looks more than average in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

• Arcosa, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
• The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
• On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been very good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are low in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.9

• Arcosa, Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost average when measured against competitors.
• Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value is a fairly complex metric. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It remains a disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
• The company usually generates reasonably more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, the current valuation might be fair. It's still below average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
• The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. It ranks almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
• We have not enough information on the relation between current stock price and accounting book value. The company remains a mystery against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned good money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.6

---

Awarener score: 6.9

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!