Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT)

Awarener score: 5.6

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 (Lacking) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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 growing at a good pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Core Molding Technologies, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 4.8

  • CMT 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 sufficient. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain in a very 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 worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.9

  • Core Molding Technologies, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been a slight improvement 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: 2.0

  • CMT had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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: 5.5

  • Core Molding Technologies, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks substantially worse 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.3

  • CMT usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 lacking 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a slight portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could most likely increase stockholder rewards if it wished to do so. It still looks top tier when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.5

  • Core Molding Technologies, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 similar to 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 well ranked against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position 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 on a two-months credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands worse than most rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been very good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks great when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are modest in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.1

  • Core Molding Technologies, Inc. looks somewhat 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 in good shape compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands worse than most similar companies.
  • The company usually generates somewhat 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 reasonable. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks similar 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 impressive 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 encouraging in relation to 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 in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.4


CMT logos

Company at a glance: Core Molding Technologies, Inc. (CMT)

Sector, industry: Basic Materials, Specialty Chemicals

Market Cap: 0.14 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.36 billions

Core Molding Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a molder of thermoplastic and thermoset structural products. The company offers a range of manufacturing processes that include compression molding of sheet molding compound, resin transfer molding, liquid molding of dicyclopentadiene, spray-up and hand-lay-up, direct long-fiber thermoplastics, and structural foam and structural web injection molding. It serves various markets, including medium and heavy-duty truck, automobile, power sport, construction, agriculture, building products, and other commercial markets in the United States, Mexico, Canada, and internationally. The company was formerly known as Core Materials Corporation and changed its name to Core Molding Technologies, Inc. in August 2002. Core Molding Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1996 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.

Awarener score: 5.6

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 (Lacking) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).