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

---

Fundamental analysis: Clarus Corporation (CLAR)

Awarener score: 6.8

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: 6.0

• Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
• Clarus Corporation business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

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

Growth score: 3.1

• Clarus Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been a slight improvement compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a very low step, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tended to shrink. It turns to be in a very weak position 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

• CLAR 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: 5.8

• Clarus Corporation usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got good 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.9

• CLAR 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 almost average 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
• Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved in good shape compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks better than most comparable companies.
• The company usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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: 4.2

• Clarus Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
• On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are very good 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.4

• Clarus Corporation 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 close to average when compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked against 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 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 lacking compared to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks somewhat worse than 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 not far from one-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 might be 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.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be similar to industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 4.5

---

Awarener score: 6.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!