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

---

Fundamental analysis: Community Healthcare Trust Incorporated (CHCT)

Awarener score: 7.4

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: 8.5

• Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
• Community Healthcare Trust Incorporated business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 9.2

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

Growth score: 7.3

• Community Healthcare Trust Incorporated profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been in good shape compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a good tempo. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was well ranked against rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been excellent, and similar to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a good rhythm in past years. It's been lacking compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 9.0

• CHCT managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been somewhat 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: 6.2

• Community Healthcare Trust Incorporated usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient 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 modest. It ranks weak when measured against 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.6

• CHCT usually uses a sparse portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is modest. It stands top tier 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 almost average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
• In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks somewhat worse than comparable companies.
• The company has significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more 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 rather normal 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: 5.8

• Community Healthcare Trust Incorporated 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.
• 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.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks last-in-rank when measured against 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 mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to 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 well ranked against peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands somewhat better than rival firms.
• There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
• Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.7

• Community Healthcare Trust Incorporated profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
• The company usually generates 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, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still almost average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch 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 almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks a disappointment 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 mediocre against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. 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 a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.9

---

Awarener score: 7.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!