Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Comcast Holdings Corp. (CCZ)

Awarener score: 9.1

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 (Superb), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (unknown).

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: 8.0

  • Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
  • Comcast Holdings Corp. business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 8.5

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

Growth score: 2.1

  • Comcast Holdings Corp. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- tended to shrink, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tended to shrink. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was mediocre against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been negative, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have been shrinking in the past years. It's been lacking compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • CCZ had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse 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: 9.0

  • Comcast Holdings Corp. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape 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 excellent 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.7

  • CCZ usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • There was no available information regarding dividend yield. It came unknown against competitors.
  • Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and should be reasonable safe. Sustainability looks somewhat better than comparable companies.
  • The company usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very weak position 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 modest portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

  • Comcast Holdings Corp. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains well ranked against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks weak 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 quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks more than average in relation 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 in a weak position 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: 9.6

  • Comcast Holdings Corp. looks cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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 extraordinary free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates plenty 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 looks to be very attractive. It's still top tier when measured against industry firms.
  • A conclusion regarding usual company rewards to stockholders was impossible to reach with data available. It came up also not enough to relate 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 looks extremely cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be very hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, a weak financial position, or that earnings aren't representative. If that isn't the case, the stock price could be extremely attractive. It ranks top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against 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 encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an extreme earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be significantly undervalued. It's still impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.8


CCZ logos

Company at a glance: Comcast Holdings Corp. (CCZ)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Entertainment

Market Cap: unavailable

Revenues TTM: 148.42 billions

Sorry, no description available

Awarener score: 9.1

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 (Superb), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (unknown).