Fundamental analysis: CMS Energy Corporation (CMS)

Awarener score: 6.2

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 (Very good) 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: 6.0

Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
CMS Energy Corporation business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 8.0

CMS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand well ranked 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 lacking 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 almost average when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.7

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

Miscellaneous score: 8.0

CMS managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been slightly worse than 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 almost average when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.4

CMS usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is great when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved in good shape 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 rather normal 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 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: 5.9

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 more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be impressive 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 well ranked against rival firms.
Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks great when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks similar to peers.
Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks top tier when measured against industry peers.
The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's impressive in relation to similar companies.
Net interest expenses consume a non-significant portion of usual business earnings, and are therefore extremely easily to bear. It stands better 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 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.5

CMS Energy Corporation looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation 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 rather normal in relation 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 better than most 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 almost average 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 better than most 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 three or four 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 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 similar 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 excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.2

Company at a glance: CMS Energy Corporation (CMS)

Sector, industry: Utilities, Utilities—Regulated Electric

Market Cap: 17.02 billions

Revenues TTM: 8.60 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.