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

---

Fundamental analysis: CDW Corporation (CDW)

Awarener score: 7.3

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: 8.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
• CDW Corporation business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

• CDW profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's almost average when measured against 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 sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.4

• CDW Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been a slight improvement compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a normal tempo. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was slightly better than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been low, and similar to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been rather normal in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 4.0

• CDW had to pay substantial 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: 9.8

• CDW Corporation usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain impressive in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks top tier when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got huge 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: 6.9

• CDW 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 more than average in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved rather normal in relation 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 significantly 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.
• We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

• CDW Corporation 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 lacking 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 take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse 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 largely bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are huge 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 huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.4

• CDW Corporation looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar 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 some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than 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 almost average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is high. Substantial improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is somewhat risky. It ranks similar to peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than 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 extremely 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 some 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 a good 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: 6.3

---

Awarener score: 7.3

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!