Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cadre Holdings, Inc. (CDRE)

Awarener score: 6.4

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 (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

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: a result could not be reached

  • Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • Cadre Holdings, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 5.7

  • CDRE profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. 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 hardly sufficient. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: could not be analyzed

  • Cadre Holdings, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown against peer enterprises.
  • We were not able to provide an estimate for EBIT growth, because of lacking data. It turns to be not yet known in relation to similar stocks.
  • Profit before income tax growth was not estimated, on insufficient history. It was impossible to measure against rivals.
  • Net income growth could not be estimated, and so it is unknown against peer companies.
  • There was not enough input data to estimate EPS trend. It's been an impossibility to compare it with industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 10.0

  • CDRE managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been top-notch 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: 8.2

  • Cadre Holdings, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks weak when measured against 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.0

  • CDRE remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
  • Has recently started or restarted paying dividends to stockholders. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to comparable companies.
  • The company usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement compared to peer enterprises.
  • We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.9

  • Cadre Holdings, Inc. 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 roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in 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 roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks almost average 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 slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are very good 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

  • Cadre Holdings, Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. 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.
  • 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 slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks last-in-rank 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 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 lost some money. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.6


CDRE logos

Company at a glance: Cadre Holdings, Inc. (CDRE)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Aerospace & Defense

Market Cap: 0.86 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.44 billions

Cadre Holdings, Inc. manufactures and distributes safety and survivability equipment that provides protection to users in hazardous or life-threatening situations in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Products and Distribution. It primarily provides body armor product, such as concealable, corrections, and tactical armor under the Safariland and Protech Tactical brands; survival suits, remotely operated vehicles, specialty tools, blast sensors, accessories, and vehicle blast attenuation seats for bomb safety technicians; bomb suits; duty gear, including belts and accessories; and other protective and law enforcement equipment comprising communications gear, forensic and investigation products, firearms cleaning solutions, and crowd control products. The company also offers third-party products, such as uniforms, optics, boots, firearms, and ammunition. It serves first responders, such as state and local law enforcement, fire and rescue, explosive ordnance disposal technicians, emergency medical technicians, fishing, and wildlife enforcement and departments of corrections, as well as federal agencies including the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Corrections, and various foreign government agencies. The company was founded in 1964 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

Awarener score: 6.4

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 (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).