Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: CSI Compressco LP (CCLP)

Awarener score: 3.6

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).

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: 3.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • CSI Compressco LP business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.3

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

Growth score: 3.6

  • CSI Compressco LP profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a very good step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares below average 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: 1.0

  • CCLP had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier 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: 5.3

  • CSI Compressco LP usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.6

  • CCLP usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands encouraging in relation to 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 encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a weak position 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 has heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.1

  • CSI Compressco LP has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with 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.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak when measured against 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 slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to 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 somewhat better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is reasonable 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: 3.3

  • CSI Compressco LP 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 neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still below average when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • We have not enough information on the relation between current stock price and accounting book value. The company remains a mystery against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little 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 mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.6


CCLP logos

Company at a glance: CSI Compressco LP (CCLP)

Sector, industry: Energy, Oil & Gas Equipment & Services

Market Cap: 0.20 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.36 billions

CSI Compressco LP provides contract services for natural gas compression and treating in the United States, Latin America, Canada, Egypt, and internationally. The company offers natural gas compression services through low-, medium-, and high-horsepower compressor packages for oil and natural gas production, gathering, artificial lift, transmission, processing, and storage. It also provides treating services for natural gas producers and midstream companies, such as providing equipment for lease or sale, equipment installation services, and the operation of equipment for removal of contaminants from a natural gas stream, and natural gas cooling to reduce the temperature of produced gas and liquids; well monitoring and sand separation services; and operation, maintenance, overhaul, and reconfiguration services for compression equipment. In addition, the company sells engine parts, compressor package parts, and other parts manufactured by third-party suppliers. CSI Compressco GP LLC serves as the general partner of CSI Compressco LP. The company was formerly known as Compressco Partners, L.P. and changed its name to CSI Compressco LP in December 2014. CSI Compressco LP was incorporated in 2008 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.

Awarener score: 3.6

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).