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

---

Fundamental analysis: CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (CNP)

Awarener score: 4.3

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: 3.0

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• CenterPoint Energy, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 6.7

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

Growth score: 3.6

• CenterPoint Energy, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a normal step, which has been well ranked against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares top tier 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: 7.0

• CNP had hardly to pay 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: 6.0

• CenterPoint Energy, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.7

• CNP 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 last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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 a disappointment 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: 5.2

• CenterPoint Energy, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some 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 last-in-rank 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 well ranked against rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks similar 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 very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks below 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 approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 close to average when 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 worse than most rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average 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 rather normal in relation 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.8

• CenterPoint Energy, Inc. looks 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 a weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands worse 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 substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks slightly worse than 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 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 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 little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be below average when measured against 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 very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.0

---

Awarener score: 4.3

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!