Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: The Cooper Companies, Inc. (COO)

Awarener score: 6.5

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 (Good), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).

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: 6.5

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

Margins score: 8.7

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

Growth score: 6.6

  • The Cooper Companies, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been close to average when compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a normal speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been extremely high, and more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at an extremely fast rhythm in past years. It's been excellent in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 9.0

  • COO managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been top-notch against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a very little portion of revenues. It's great when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.0

  • The Cooper Companies, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks great when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got excellent 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.4

  • COO usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a non-significant portion of genuine funds generation and are likely very safe. Sustainability looks top-notch against comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a slight portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could most likely increase stockholder rewards if it wished to do so. It still looks great when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.7

  • The Cooper Companies, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. 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 less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment 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 in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks similar to 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 in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands slightly better than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak 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.
  • 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 worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

  • The Cooper Companies, Inc. looks heavily 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 very weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat better than 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 encouraging in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement compared 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 is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks great 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 close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is 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 better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little 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 very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.7


COO logos

Company at a glance: The Cooper Companies, Inc. (COO)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Instruments & Supplies

Market Cap: 15.76 billions

Revenues TTM: 3.22 billions

The Cooper Companies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and markets contact lens wearers. The company operates in two segments, CooperVision and CooperSurgical. The CooperVision segment offers spherical lense, including lenses that correct near and farsightedness; and toric and multifocal lenses comprising lenses correcting vision challenges, such as astigmatism, presbyopia, myopia, ocular dryness and eye fatigues in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, Africa, and Asia Pacific. The CooperSurgical segment focuses on family and women's health care, which provides medical devices, fertility, genomics, diagnostics, and contraception to health care professionals and patients worldwide. It offers surgical and office products, including PARAGARD, uterine manipulators, retractors, closure products, point of care products, LEEP products, endosee, and illuminate and fetal pillows; fertility products and services, such as fertility consumables and equipment, and embryo options and preimplantation genetic testing. The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1958 and is headquartered in San Ramon, California.

Awarener score: 6.5

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 (Good), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).