Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Columbia Banking System, Inc. (COLB)

Awarener score: 5.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Superb) and growth (Lacking), 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 has been slightly shrinking. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Columbia Banking System, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 7.5

  • COLB profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually excellent. They remain lacking compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still mediocre against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.8

  • Columbia Banking System, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was slightly worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been low, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • COLB had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better 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: 6.2

  • Columbia Banking System, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks below average when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got barely 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.2

  • COLB on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands weak 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came better than most competitors.
  • Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved close to average when 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 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 a disappointment compared to rivals.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.0

  • Columbia Banking System, 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.
  • Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
  • Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains somewhat better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
  • A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
  • Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
  • We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
  • Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
  • Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against similar companies.
  • Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
  • There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown 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.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.2

  • Columbia Banking System, Inc. has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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 lacking compared to peers.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure 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 very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks similar to 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 might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
  • We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
  • An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 5.8


COLB logos

Company at a glance: Columbia Banking System, Inc. (COLB)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 2.36 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.68 billions

Columbia Banking System, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Columbia State Bank that provides a range of banking services to small and medium-sized businesses, professionals, and individuals in the United States. It offers personal banking products and services, including noninterest and interest-bearing checking, savings, money market, and certificate of deposit accounts; home mortgages for purchases and refinances, home equity loans and lines of credit, and other personal loans; debit and credit cards; and digital banking services. The company also provides business banking products and services, such as checking, savings, interest-bearing money market, and certificate of deposit accounts; agricultural, asset-based, builder, and other commercial real estate loans, as well as loans guaranteed by the small business administration; and professional banking, treasury management, merchant card, and international banking services. In addition, it offers wealth management solutions that include financial planning services, such as asset allocation, net worth analysis, estate planning and preservation, education funding, and wealth transfer; long-term care, and life and disability insurance solutions; individual retirement solutions comprising retirement planning, retirement income strategies, and traditional and Roth individual retirement accounts; and business solutions, which comprise business retirement plans, key person insurance, business succession planning, and deferred compensation plans to individuals, families, and professional businesses. Further, the company provides fiduciary, investment, and administrative trust services, such as personal and special needs trusts, estate settlement, and investment agency and charitable management. It operates a network of 153 branch locations, including 68 in the state of Washington, 59 in Oregon, 15 in Idaho, and 11 in California. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Tacoma, Washington.

Awarener score: 5.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Superb) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).