Fundamental analysis: Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE)

Awarener score: 4.6

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 (Poor) and growth (Modest), 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: 4.0

Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
Clean Energy Fuels Corp. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

CLNE profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. 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 bottom tier against similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. It's been a disappointment 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

CLNE 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: 4.0

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. 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.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks substantially worse 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: 4.5

CLNE 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 some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is weak when measured against 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 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.
The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks top tier when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.9

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be almost average when measured against peer companies.
The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. 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 can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most 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 less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks top tier when measured against industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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 very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are low 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 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: 4.5

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. 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 good shape compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands worse than most 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 weak 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 weak position 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 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 a disappointment compared 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 somewhat better than peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.5

Company at a glance: Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE)

Sector, industry: Energy, Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing

Market Cap: 0.88 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.42 billions

Clean Energy Fuels Corp. provides natural gas as an alternative fuel for vehicle fleets and related fueling solutions, primarily in the United States and Canada. It supplies renewable natural gas (RNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied natural gas (LNG) for medium and heavy-duty vehicles; and offers operation and maintenance services for public and private vehicle fleet customer stations. The company also designs, builds, operates, and maintains fueling stations; and sells and services compressors and other equipment that are used in RNG production and fueling stations. In addition, it transports and sells CNG, RNG, and LNG through virtual natural gas pipelines and interconnects; sells U.S. federal, state, and local government credits, such as RNG as a vehicle fuel, including Renewable Identification Numbers and Low Carbon Fuel Standards credits; and obtains federal, state, and local credits, grants, and incentives. Further, the company focuses on developing, owning, and operating dairy and other livestock waste RNG projects. It serves heavy-duty trucking, airports, refuse, public transit, industrial, and institutional energy users, as well as government fleets. As of December 31, 2021, the company served approximately 1,000 fleet customers operating approximately 48,000 vehicles; and owned, operated, or supplied approximately 548 fueling stations in 42 states in the United States and 25 fueling stations in Canada. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.