Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: City Holding Company (CHCO)

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).

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: 6.0

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • City Holding Company business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.8

  • CHCO profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand worse than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually huge. They remain in good shape compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain top tier when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands top tier when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.4

  • City Holding Company 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.
  • Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • CHCO had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better 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: 7.5

  • City Holding Company usually gets sufficient 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.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks great when measured 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.1

  • CHCO on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands top tier when measured against 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 similar to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved lacking 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 usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 weak position compared to rivals.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.4

  • City Holding Company intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
  • All resources are company owned, with virtually no financial debt. Financial position is outstanding. The company could significantly borrow money if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains top-notch against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
  • A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks similar to 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.
  • There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are modest 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.8

  • City Holding Company has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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 in a very weak position 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 significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation 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 might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a disappointment compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is 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.
  • We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
  • An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 5.8


CHCO logos

Company at a glance: City Holding Company (CHCO)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 1.33 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.22 billions

City Holding Company operates as a holding company for City National Bank of West Virginia that provides various banking, trust and investment management, and other financial solutions in the United States. The company offers checking, savings, and money market accounts, as well as certificates of deposit and individual retirement accounts. It also provides commercial and industrial loans that consist of loans to corporate and other legal entity borrowers primarily in small to mid-size industrial and commercial companies; commercial real estate loans comprising commercial mortgages, which are secured by nonresidential and multi-family residential properties; residential real estate loans to consumers for the purchase or refinance of residence; first-priority home equity loans; consumer loans that are secured and unsecured by automobiles, boats, recreational vehicles, certificates of deposit, and other personal property; and demand deposit account overdrafts. In addition, the company offers mortgage banking services, including fixed and adjustable-rate mortgages, construction financing, land loans, production of conventional and government insured mortgages, secondary marketing, and mortgage servicing. Further, it provides deposit services for commercial customers comprising treasury management, lockbox, and other cash management services; merchant credit card services; wealth management, trust, investment, and custodial services for commercial and individual customers; and corporate trust and institutional custody, financial and estate planning, and retirement plan services, as well as automated-teller-machine, interactive-teller-machine, mobile banking, interactive voice response systems, and credit and debit card services. The company operates through a network of 94 branches and 905 full-time equivalent associates in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. City Holding Company was founded in 1957 and is headquartered in Charleston, West Virginia.

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).