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

---

Fundamental analysis: CONMED Corporation (CNMD)

Awarener score: 5.8

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: 6.0

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

Margins score: 5.8

• CNMD profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. 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 more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.9

• 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 low step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- tended to shrink, which compares substantially worse when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a normal tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation 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: 5.7

• CNMD had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's great when measured against competitors.
• The company grows modestly in relation to research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.5

• CONMED Corporation usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets 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 more than average in relation to 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: 4.3

• 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 low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. 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 shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks slightly better than comparable companies.
• The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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: 3.6

• 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 double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. 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 almost another 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 very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. 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 somewhat 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 plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. 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 below 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 in good shape compared 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 slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.9

• CONMED Corporation reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 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 barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. 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 last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really 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 a little money. 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 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: 4.8

---

Awarener score: 5.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!