Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: CMS Energy Corporation (CMS)

Awarener score: 6.3

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 (Average), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Lacking), 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: 6.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • CMS Energy Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 7.8

  • CMS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very good in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually very good considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.0

  • CMS Energy Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been worse than most comparable firms.
  • Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
  • In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was mediocre against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been average, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.0

  • CMS had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre 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: 7.2

  • CMS Energy Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks great when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.4

  • CMS usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is similar to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
  • Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
  • The company barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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 in a very weak position compared to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.1

  • CMS Energy Corporation has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains better than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands better than most 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks excellent in relation 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.0

  • CMS Energy Corporation looks somewhat expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be great 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 slight improvement 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still weak 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 a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks rather normal in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly worse 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 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: 6.1


CMS logos

Company at a glance: CMS Energy Corporation (CMS)

Sector, industry: Utilities, Utilities—Regulated Electric

Market Cap: 16.99 billions

Revenues TTM: 8.05 billions

CMS Energy Corporation operates as an energy company primarily in Michigan. The company operates through three segments: Electric Utility; Gas Utility; and Enterprises. The Electric Utility segment is involved in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity. This segment generates electricity through coal, wind, gas, renewable energy, oil, and nuclear sources. Its distribution system comprises 208 miles of high-voltage distribution overhead lines; 4 miles of high-voltage distribution underground lines; 4,428 miles of high-voltage distribution overhead lines; 19 miles of high-voltage distribution underground lines; 82,474 miles of electric distribution overhead lines; 9,395 miles of underground distribution lines; 1,093 substations; and 3 battery facilities. The Gas Utility segment engages in the purchase, transmission, storage, distribution, and sale of natural gas, which includes 2,392 miles of transmission lines; 15 gas storage fields; 28,065 miles of distribution mains; and 8 compressor stations. The Enterprises segment is involved in the independent power production and marketing, including the development and operation of renewable generation. It serves 1.9 million electric and 1.8 million gas customers, including residential, commercial, and diversified industrial customers. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in Jackson, Michigan.

Awarener score: 6.3

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