Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. (CHCI)

Awarener score: 4.8

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

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: 3.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

  • CHCI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain a disappointment 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 bottom tier against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

  • Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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: 10.0

  • CHCI managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. 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: 6.0

  • Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation 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 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

  • CHCI usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way compared 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 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 in a very weak position 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: 6.4

  • Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be top tier 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. 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 close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands bottom tier against 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are reasonable 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 very weak position 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 worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.4

  • Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. looks cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost 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 lacking 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 slightly 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks almost average when measured against 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 lacking compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.3


CHCI logos

Company at a glance: Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. (CHCI)

Sector, industry: Real Estate, Real Estate—Diversified

Market Cap: 0.04 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.04 billions

Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. develops, operates, and manages of mixed-use and transit-oriented properties primarily in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The company operates a portfolio of 34 operating assets, which include 14 commercial assets totaling approximately 2.2 million square feet; 6 multifamily assets totaling 1,636 units; and 14 commercial garages with approximately 11,000 parking spaces. It also has 18 development pipeline assets consisting of approximately 2.0 million square feet of additional planned commercial development; approximately 1,900 multifamily units; and 2 hotel assets. In addition, the company provides real estate development and management services. It primarily serves private and institutional owners; investors in commercial, residential, and mixed-use real estate; and various governmental bodies. The company was formerly known as Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc. and changed its name to Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. in June 2012. Comstock Holding Companies, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

Awarener score: 4.8

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