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

---

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

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: 6.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Columbia Banking System, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 9.3

• COLB profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually huge. They stand well ranked against 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 excellent. They remain in a weak position 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: 4.9

• Columbia Banking System, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been somewhat better than 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 very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and below average when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have been shrinking in the past years. It's been in a very weak position 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 worse 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: 6.0

• Columbia Banking System, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets good 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 quite good. It ranks weak 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.9

• 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is similar to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than 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.
• 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 has heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, 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.
• 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: 3.6

• 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.
• A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains worse than most rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks substantially worse when measured against 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 many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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.
• Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are low 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 in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.0

• Columbia Banking System, Inc. looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
• The company usually consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still encouraging in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a disappointment 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 slightly worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.3

---

Awarener score: 4.3

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!