Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Mr. Cooper Group Inc. (COOP)

Awarener score: 7.1

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 (Average), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).

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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Mr. Cooper Group Inc. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 4.3

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

Growth score: 3.3

  • Mr. Cooper Group Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been in good shape compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been somewhat better than comparable firms.
  • In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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

  • COOP had hardly to pay income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat 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: 8.2

  • Mr. Cooper Group Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent 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 similar to competitors.
  • In the past, got 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.4

  • COOP 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily 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 the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to 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 in a very weak position 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: 5.3

  • Mr. Cooper Group Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier 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 worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks weak 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 somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands mediocre 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 huge 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 excellent 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.9

  • Mr. Cooper Group Inc. looks extremely cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be encouraging 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands worse than most similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes much 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 significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks extremely cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be very hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, a weak financial position, or that earnings aren't representative. If that isn't the case, the stock price could be extremely attractive. It ranks more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains slightly worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned huge money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. 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 an extreme earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be significantly undervalued. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.5


COOP logos

Company at a glance: Mr. Cooper Group Inc. (COOP)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Mortgage Finance

Market Cap: 3.23 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.94 billions

Mr. Cooper Group Inc. provides servicing, origination, and transaction-based services related to single-family residences in the United States. The company operates through two segments: Servicing and Originations. The Servicing segment performs activities for underlying mortgages, including collecting and disbursing borrower payments, investor reporting, customer service, and modifying loans. The Originations segment originates residential mortgage loans through its direct-to-consumer channel, as well as originates and purchases loans from mortgage bankers and brokers. It operates primarily under the Mr. Cooper and Xome brands. The company was formerly known as WMIH Corp. and changed its name to Mr. Cooper Group Inc. in October 2018. Mr. Cooper Group Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is based in Coppell, Texas.

Awarener score: 7.1

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 (Average), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).