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

---

Fundamental analysis: Core Laboratories N.V. (CLB)

Awarener score: 4.8

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: 3.5

• Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Core Laboratories N.V. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

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

Growth score: 2.4

• Core Laboratories N.V. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very 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.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares great 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: 3.0

• CLB had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre 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: 7.0

• Core Laboratories N.V. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves top tier when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got very 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.2

• CLB usually uses a sparse portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is modest. It stands top tier when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks somewhat worse than comparable companies.
• The company somewhat enlarges 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.
• The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.5

• Core Laboratories N.V. 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 last-in-rank 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when 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 somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as close to average when compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than 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 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.
• Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands slightly better than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average 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 close to average when 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: 4.4

• Core Laboratories N.V. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some 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 similar to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up rather normal in relation to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks weak 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 in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against 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 almost average when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.3

---

Awarener score: 4.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!