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

---

Fundamental analysis: Cadence Bank (CADE)

Awarener score: 5.2

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: 7.5

• Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
• Cadence Bank business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 7.0

• CADE profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually excellent. They remain in a weak position compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.8

• Cadence Bank has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been worse than most comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares encouraging in relation to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have been almost stagnant in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

• CADE had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly 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: 6.5

• Cadence Bank usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got barely sufficient 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.6

• CADE on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
• Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very weak position compared 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 disappointment compared to rivals.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.1

• Cadence Bank intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
• Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains better than most rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks similar to rivals.
• Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
• A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
• We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
• Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
• Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against similar companies.
• Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been excellent when measured against loans taken. It could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks great when measured against 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.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.4

• Cadence Bank has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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 close to average when compared to peers.
• There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
• Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has largely enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among a lot more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
• We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
• An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 5.6

---

Awarener score: 5.2

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!