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

---

Fundamental analysis: ConocoPhillips (COP)

Awarener score: 8.1

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: 5.0

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

Margins score: 8.0

• COP profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand worse than most 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 excellent. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against 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 great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 7.3

• ConocoPhillips profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been excellent in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares below average 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 rather normal in relation to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was better than most rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been extremely high, and top tier 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: 2.0

• COP had to pay too much 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: 9.5

• ConocoPhillips usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.1

• COP usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands great 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 weak when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
• Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks slightly worse than comparable companies.
• The company usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 slight improvement compared to rivals.
• The company uses a significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.8

• 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 on a month credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
• The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a slight portion of usual business earnings, and are very easily bearable. It stands well ranked against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been excellent when measured against loans taken. It could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.3

• 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 lacking compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
• The company usually generates much more 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, at the current price the share might be very interesting. It's still encouraging in relation to 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 impressive in relation 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 slightly 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 lacking compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly 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 worse than 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.6

---

Awarener score: 8.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!