Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Chicos FAS, Inc. (CHS)

Awarener score: 4.3

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 (Modest), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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: 3.5

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Chicos FAS, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

  • CHS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand top-notch against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's great when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain excellent in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.9

  • Chicos FAS, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been in a weak position 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

  • CHS 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: 3.8

  • Chicos FAS, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got low 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: 3.7

  • CHS usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position 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 usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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 a slight improvement 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: 4.7

  • Chicos FAS, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's lacking 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 earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured 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 disappointment 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 bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.2

  • Chicos FAS, Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates somewhat 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, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks mediocre against 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. 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 somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned good 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 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: 3.6


CHS logos

Company at a glance: Chicos FAS, Inc. (CHS)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Apparel Retail

Market Cap: 0.75 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.11 billions

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White House Black Market (WHBM)and Soma brands. The Chico's brand primarily sells private branded clothing focusing on women with moderate to high household income levels. The WHBM brand sells everyday basics and denim, polished casual apparel, relaxed workwear, black and white pieces, feminine all-occasion dresses, shoes, belts, scarves, handbags, and jewelry for women. The Soma brand sells private branded lingerie, sleepwear, and loungewear products. As of January 29, 2022, it operated 1,266 stores in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands; and 59 international franchise locations in Mexico and 2 domestic airport locations. The company also sells its products through retail stores and catalogs; and through chicos.com, chicosofftherack.com, whbm.com, and soma.com, as well as through third party channels. Chico's FAS, Inc. was incorporated in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida.

Awarener score: 4.3

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 (Modest), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).