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

---

Fundamental analysis: Celestica Inc. (CLS)

Awarener score: 6.7

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: 5.5

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Celestica Inc. business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

• CLS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be hardly 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 below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.6

• Celestica Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a good step, which has been top-notch against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very good 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, 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: 6.0

• CLS had hardly to pay income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse 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: 6.7

• CLS usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. 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 reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 impressive in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a modest portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

• Celestica Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse 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 almost average when measured against 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 below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks great 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 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 somewhat worse 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 below 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 in good shape compared 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: 7.2

• 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 excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands top-notch 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 top tier when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. 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 worse than most similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks excellent 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 better than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned good money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be great when measured against 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 a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.6

---

Awarener score: 6.7

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!