Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: ConocoPhillips (COP)

Awarener score: 6.8

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 (Very good), the business stability (Very poor) and growth (Very good), 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: 5.0

  • Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • ConocoPhillips business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 8.2

  • COP 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 excellent. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually excellent. They remain in good shape compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.9

  • ConocoPhillips profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been better than most comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an extremely fast tempo. It turns to be excellent in relation 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: 3.0

  • COP had to pay a lot of 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: 10.0

  • ConocoPhillips usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves top tier when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain impressive in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks top tier when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got huge 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.9

  • COP usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands top tier when measured against 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • The company usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects are challenged. Sustainability looks somewhat worse than comparable companies.
  • The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal 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 somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 7.3

  • ConocoPhillips 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.
  • The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are easily bearable. It stands somewhat better than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks top tier when measured 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.1

  • ConocoPhillips looks cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 very weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates reasonably 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 fair. It's still similar 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 in good shape compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. It ranks weak when measured against 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 in a weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.4


COP logos

Company at a glance: ConocoPhillips (COP)

Sector, industry: Energy, Oil & Gas E&P

Market Cap: 150.19 billions

Revenues TTM: 54.06 billions

ConocoPhillips explores for, produces, transports, and markets crude oil, bitumen, natural gas, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and natural gas liquids worldwide. It primarily engages in the conventional and tight oil reservoirs, shale gas, heavy oil, LNG, oil sands, and other production operations. The company's portfolio includes unconventional plays in North America; conventional assets in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia; various LNG developments; oil sands assets in Canada; and an inventory of conventional and unconventional exploration prospects. ConocoPhillips was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Awarener score: 6.8

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