Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Chemung Financial Corporation (CHMG)

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Superb) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).

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: 6.5

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Chemung Financial Corporation business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 7.3

  • CHMG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand well ranked against 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 excellent. They remain in a very 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 worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 7.8

  • Chemung Financial Corporation 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 -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a good pace, which compares encouraging in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very good tempo. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a good speed. It was well ranked against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been very good, and great when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at an excellent rhythm in past years. It's been excellent in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • CHMG 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: 6.8

  • Chemung Financial Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • In the past, got barely 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: 3.9

  • CHMG 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 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 slightly better than competitors.
  • Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved in a weak position 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 reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer 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: 4.6

  • Chemung Financial Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be almost 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 well ranked against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks great 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 on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 a slight improvement 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: 7.2

  • Chemung Financial Corporation 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 a slight improvement 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 rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared 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 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 great when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly better than 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: 6.1


CHMG logos

Company at a glance: Chemung Financial Corporation (CHMG)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 0.20 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.09 billions

Chemung Financial Corporation operates as the holding company for Chemung Canal Trust Company that provides a range of banking, financing, fiduciary, and other financial services. The company provides demand, savings, and time deposits; non-interest and interest-bearing checking accounts; and insured money market accounts. It also offers commercial and agricultural loans comprising loans to small to mid-sized businesses; commercial mortgage loans; residential mortgage loans; consumer loans, including home equity lines of credit and home equity term loans; and interest rate swaps, letters of credit, wealth management, employee benefit plans, mutual fund, insurance products, and brokerage services. Further, it provides securities, insurance, and tax preparation services. Additionally, it offers guardian, custodian, and trustee services, as well as acts as an agent for pension, profit-sharing, and other employee benefit trusts; and various investment, pension, estate planning, and employee benefit administrative services. The company operates 31 branch offices located in 13 counties in New York and Bradford County in Pennsylvania. Chemung Financial Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Elmira, New York.

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Superb) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).