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

---

Fundamental analysis: Crown Holdings, Inc. (CCK)

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: 6.5

• Business has been shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• Crown Holdings, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

• CCK profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain in a very weak position 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 sufficient considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.9

• Crown Holdings, 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, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares top tier 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: 3.0

• CCK had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre against 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

• Crown Holdings, Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
• There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to 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: 7.0

• CCK usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands below average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is great when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a slight portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks better than most comparable companies.
• The company usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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 excellent in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks almost average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.9

• Crown Holdings, 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 in a very weak position 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as close to average when compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak when measured against 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.6

• Crown Holdings, Inc. looks somewhat expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks below average 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 rather normal in relation 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 earned good money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be similar 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: 5.3

---

Awarener score: 6.9

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!