Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: CONMED Corporation (CNMD)

Awarener score: 5.5

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 (Modest), 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: 7.0

  • Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • CONMED Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 6.2

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

Growth score: 2.4

  • CONMED 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 good step, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- tended to shrink, which compares almost average 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 close to average when compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, at least once the company lost money -before income taxes-. It was top-notch against rivals.
  • In the previous years, the firm had at least a total net loss, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • The company lost money at least once in the past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.7

  • CNMD had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been well ranked against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a slight improvement compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.2

  • CONMED Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks great 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: 4.7

  • CNMD usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands great when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
  • In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and should be reasonable 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 a slight improvement compared 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: 3.8

  • CONMED Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge 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 triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in a weak position 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 mediocre 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 few cents of 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared 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 somewhat worse than 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 almost average 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 somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.7

  • CONMED Corporation reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be almost average 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 slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better 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 more than average in relation to 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks almost 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 a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.0


CNMD logos

Company at a glance: CONMED Corporation (CNMD)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 2.57 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.04 billions

CONMED Corporation, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and sells surgical devices and related equipment for surgical procedures worldwide. It offers orthopedic surgery products, including TruShot with Y-Knot All-In-One Soft Tissue Fixation System, Y-knot All-Suture Anchors, and PopLok Knotless Suture Anchors, which provide unique clinical solutions to orthopedic surgeons for the repair of soft tissue injuries, as well as supporting products that enable surgeons to perform minimally invasive sports medicine surgeries. The company markets orthopedic surgery products under the Hall, CONMED Linvatec, Concept, and Shutt brands. It also offers general surgery products, such as clinical insufflation, smoke evacuation, electrosurgical, and endomechanical products; and endoscopic technologies, including diagnostic and therapeutic products for use in gastroenterology procedures, and products for the treatment of diseases of the biliary structures, as well as cardiac monitoring products comprising ECG and EEG electrodes, and cardiac defibrillation pads. The company markets its products directly to hospitals, surgery centers, and other healthcare institutions, as well as through medical specialty distributors. CONMED Corporation was incorporated in 1970 and is headquartered in Largo, Florida.

Awarener score: 5.5

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