Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK)

Awarener score: 4.7

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 (Bottom) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).

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: 4.0

  • Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Chesapeake Energy Corporation business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 2.8

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

Growth score: 1.0

  • Chesapeake Energy Corporation couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. 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: 1.0

  • CHK had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier 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: 10.0

  • Chesapeake Energy Corporation usually gets huge 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 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.0

  • CHK usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands substantially worse 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks somewhat better than comparable companies.
  • The company has greatly 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks great when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.7

  • Chesapeake Energy Corporation has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly better than 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 below average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of 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 extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most 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.
  • On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks below average 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 very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Business has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank 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 lacking compared 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 somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.9

  • Chesapeake Energy Corporation looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. 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 slight improvement compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands worse than most similar companies.
  • The company usually generates much more 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 very interesting. It's still more than average in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks very 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 very attractive. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two 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 somewhat better 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 weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low 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: 4.6


CHK logos

Company at a glance: Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK)

Sector, industry: Energy, Oil & Gas E&P

Market Cap: 12.61 billions

Revenues TTM: 7.24 billions

Chesapeake Energy Corporation, an independent exploration and production company, engages in the acquisition, exploration, and development of properties for the production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids from underground reservoirs in the United States. The company holds interests in natural gas resource plays in the Marcellus Shale in the northern Appalachian Basin in Pennsylvania and the Haynesville/Bossier Shales in northwestern Louisiana; and the liquids-rich resource play in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas. As of December 31, 2021, it owned interests in approximately 8,200 gross productive wells, including 6,500 wells with working interest and 1,700 wells with an overriding or royalty interest; and had estimated proved reserves of 661 million barrels of oil equivalent. The company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Awarener score: 4.7

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 (Bottom) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).