Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Chatham Lodging Trust (CLDT)

Awarener score: 4.8

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Very poor) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

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: 4.0

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Chatham Lodging Trust business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

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

Growth score: 2.4

  • Chatham Lodging Trust profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been close to average when 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- tended to shrink, which compares substantially worse 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

  • CLDT 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: 5.0

  • Chatham Lodging Trust usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks almost average when measured against 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.9

  • CLDT usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands below average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is great when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
  • Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved in good shape 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 worse 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 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 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: 8.6

  • Chatham Lodging Trust has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has plenty short-term resources to face short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be impressive in relation to 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 better than most rival firms.
  • Most resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is best for liquidity. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of 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 plenty of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's a slight improvement 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 slightly worse than rival firms.
  • There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
  • Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.0

  • Chatham Lodging Trust 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 impressive in relation 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 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 in a very weak position 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 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 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 lacking compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains better than most 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: 4.5


CLDT logos

Company at a glance: Chatham Lodging Trust (CLDT)

Sector, industry: Real Estate, REIT—Hotel & Motel

Market Cap: 0.53 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.23 billions

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly traded real estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale, extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels. At September, 30, 2020, The company owns interests in 86 hotels totaling 12,040 rooms/suites, comprised of 40 properties it wholly owns with an aggregate of 6,092 rooms/suites in 15 states and the District of Columbia and a minority investment in the Innkeepers joint ventures that owns 46 hotels with an aggregate of 5,948 rooms/suites.

Awarener score: 4.8

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Very poor) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).