Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Celestica Inc. (CLS)

Awarener score: 7.3

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 (Excellent), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).

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: 5.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Celestica Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 4.5

  • CLS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain in a weak position 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 somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.7

  • Celestica Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been close to average when compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a very good step, which has been better than most comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very good pace, which compares encouraging in relation to 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, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was top-notch 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: 5.7

  • CLS had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than peers.
  • Research and development expenses hardly consume a portion of revenues. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
  • Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.0

  • Celestica Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got 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: 7.0

  • CLS usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands below average 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 significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands impressive 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.8

  • Celestica Inc. 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands worse than most rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are excellent 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 8.1

  • Celestica Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar to 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 generated extraordinary free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands top-notch against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates plenty 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 looks to be very attractive. It's still top tier when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks 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 attractive. It ranks more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks impressive in relation 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 top-notch against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.7


CLS logos

Company at a glance: Celestica Inc. (CLS)

Sector, industry: Technology, Electronic Components

Market Cap: 1.06 billions

Revenues TTM: 5.97 billions

Celestica Inc. provides hardware platform and supply chain solutions in North America, Europe, and Asia. It operates through two segments, Advanced Technology Solutions, and Connectivity & Cloud Solutions. The company offers a range of product manufacturing and related supply chain services, including design and development, engineering, supply chain management, new product introduction, component sourcing, electronics manufacturing and assembly, testing, complex mechanical assembly, systems integration, precision machining, order fulfillment, logistics, asset management, product licensing, and after-market repair and return services. It also provides enterprise-level data communications and information processing infrastructure products, such as routers, switches, data center interconnects, edge solutions, servers, and storage-related products; capacitors, microprocessors, resistors, and memory modules; and power inverters, energy storage products, smart meters, and other electronic componentry products. The company serves aerospace and defense, industrial, energy, healthtech, capital equipment, original equipment manufacturers, cloud-based, and other service providers, including hyperscalers, and other companies in a range of industries. Celestica Inc. was incorporated in 1994 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada.

Awarener score: 7.3

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 (Excellent), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).