Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (CCBG)

Awarener score: 6.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).

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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Capital City Bank Group, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 6.8

  • CCBG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand better than most 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 very good. They remain a disappointment compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.0

  • Capital City Bank Group, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a normal speed. It was somewhat better than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been average, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been in good shape compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • CCBG had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better 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: 6.2

  • Capital City Bank Group, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks below average 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.4

  • CCBG 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 last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved in good shape 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 neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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 in a weak position compared to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.5

  • Capital City Bank Group, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of 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 plenty of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks great when measured against 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 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 somewhat 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.0

  • Capital City Bank Group, Inc. 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 in a weak position 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 barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up close to average when 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 is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks weak 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 excellent in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat worse 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: 5.7


CCBG logos

Company at a glance: Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (CCBG)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 0.54 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.20 billions

Capital City Bank Group, Inc. operates as the financial holding company for Capital City Bank that provides a range of banking and banking-related services to individual and corporate clients. The company offers financing for commercial business properties, equipment, inventories, and accounts receivable, as well as commercial leasing and letters of credit; treasury management services; and merchant credit card transaction processing services. It also provides commercial and residential real estate lending products, as well as fixed- and adjustable-rate residential mortgage loans; personal, automobile, boat/RV, and home equity loans; and credit card programs. In addition, the company offers institutional banking services, including customized checking and savings accounts, cash management systems, tax-exempt loans, lines of credit, and term loans to meet the needs of state and local governments, public schools and colleges, charities, membership, and not-for-profit associations. Further, it provides consumer banking services comprising checking accounts, savings programs, interactive/automated teller machines, debit/credit cards, night deposit services, safe deposit facilities, and online and mobile banking services. Additionally, the company provides asset management for individuals through agency, personal trust, IRA, and personal investment management accounts; and various retail securities products, such as the U.S. government bonds, tax-free municipal bonds, stocks, mutual funds, unit investment trusts, annuities, life insurance, and long-term health care. As of December 31, 2021, it operated through 57 banking offices and 86 ATMs/ITMs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The company was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida.

Awarener score: 6.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).