Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Casa Systems, Inc. (CASA)

Awarener score: 5.2

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Good), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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: 3.0

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Casa Systems, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 6.2

  • CASA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand better than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.1

  • Casa Systems, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very 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: 3.7

  • CASA had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume some 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 lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.8

  • Casa Systems, Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.1

  • CASA usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak 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.
  • Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
  • The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a lot more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so they're paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business improves, or rewards won't keep at current pace. It still looks substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.4

  • Casa Systems, 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than 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 enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average 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 somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.8

  • Casa Systems, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates somewhat 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 reasonable. It's still similar to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant 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 very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.9


CASA logos

Company at a glance: Casa Systems, Inc. (CASA)

Sector, industry: Technology, Communication Equipment

Market Cap: 0.31 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.31 billions

Casa Systems, Inc., a communications technology company, provides solutions for next-generation physical, virtualized, and cloud native architectures for cable broadband, fixed-line broadband, and wireless networks in North America, Latin America, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. It offers converged cable access platforms; wireless network core products, such as virtual evolved packet and 5G core products, as well as small cell solutions, axyom element management system, and fixed wireless access devices; and virtual, centralized, and distributed deployment, and bandwidth capacity expansion systems. The company also provides optical access solutions, virtualized broadband network gateway router and multiservice router, fiber extension, and residential broadband gateways; and machine-to-machine and industrial internet of things routers. The company was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Andover, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 5.2

Conclusion

The higher the Awarener score, the more bang you get for the buck. It measures how much genuine funds the company generates for the stock price paid (Good), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).