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

---

Fundamental analysis: Columbus McKinnon Corporation (CMCO)

Awarener score: 5.2

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: 3.5

• Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Columbus McKinnon Corporation business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

• CMCO profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand top-notch against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 7.4

• Columbus McKinnon Corporation 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 normal step, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a good pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an excellent tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an excellent speed. It was better than most rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been excellent, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a very good rhythm in past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 7.0

• CMCO had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a very little portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
• The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.8

• Columbus McKinnon Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking 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 very good 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.6

• CMCO usually uses a sparse portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is modest. It stands great when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved lacking compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks somewhat better than 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 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: 4.3

• Columbus McKinnon Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two 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 close to average when compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks below average 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 mediocre against 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are very good 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.3

• Columbus McKinnon Corporation looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
• The company usually generates reasonably 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 fair. It's still similar to 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 weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks below average when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-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 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 earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be below average when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.7

---

Awarener score: 5.2

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!