Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. (CHPT)

Awarener score: 3.1

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 (Lacking), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).

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: a result could not be reached

  • Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 2.3

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

Growth score: 1.0

  • ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 3.7

  • CHPT had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a substantial portion of revenues. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.5

  • ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got meagre 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: 2.6

  • CHPT 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 replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is similar to 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 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 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: 4.5

  • ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains top-notch against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's impressive in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's in a 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 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.7

  • ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. 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 in a very weak position 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 bottom tier against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a huge 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 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 worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat 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: 2.8


CHPT logos

Company at a glance: ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. (CHPT)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Specialty Retail

Market Cap: 5.21 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.33 billions

ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. provides electric vehicle (EV) charging networks and charging solutions in the United States and internationally. It offers a portfolio of hardware, software, and services for commercial, fleet, and residential customers. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Campbell, California.

Awarener score: 3.1

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 (Lacking), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).