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

---

Fundamental analysis: Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited (CLWT)

Awarener score: 3.6

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: 4.5

• Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

• CLWT profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's similar to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain almost 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: 1.1

• Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited 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.
• 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

• CLWT 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: 4.8

• Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.0

• CLWT remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The relationship between capital expenditures and depreciation is not known, because of not enough inputs, which is a big question mark in relation to industry peers.
• There was no available information regarding dividend yield. It came unknown 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal in relation to peer enterprises.
• We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
• We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.8

• Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be weak when measured against peer companies.
• The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains somewhat better than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in 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 roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation 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 worse than most 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are huge 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 top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.4

• Euro Tech Holdings Company Limited 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 rather normal 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.
• A conclusion regarding usual company rewards to stockholders was impossible to reach with data available. It came up also not enough to relate to peer ventures.
• This company is a cash hoarder. It might be well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks better than most 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly better than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be similar to 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 4.2

---

Awarener score: 3.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!