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

---

Fundamental analysis: Cars.com Inc. (CARS)

Awarener score: 5.6

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: 5.0

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Cars.com Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

• CARS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand top-notch against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain a disappointment compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very poor in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.3

• Cars.com Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position compared to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank when measured against peer enterprises.
• In the previous years, the firm couldn't always make a profit -before income taxes and interests on loans taken-. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, at least once the company lost money -before income taxes-. It was bottom tier against rivals.
• In the previous years, the firm had at least a total net loss, and last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The company lost money at least once in the past years. It's been a disappointment compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 4.7

• CARS had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a very little portion of revenues. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.5

• Cars.com Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got very poor 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.3

• CARS usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
• The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way compared to similar firms.
• As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to 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 close to average when 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 slight improvement compared to rivals.
• The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks more than average in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

• Cars.com Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation to similar companies.
• Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
• Business has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are excellent in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements, allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks in good shape 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 worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.7

• Cars.com Inc. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
• The company usually generates much more 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, at the current price the share might be very interesting. It's still encouraging in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks somewhat better than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.0

---

Awarener score: 5.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!