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 (Excellent), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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 excellent pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • ConocoPhillips business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.8

  • 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 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 very good 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 great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 9.6

  • ConocoPhillips 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 bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares similar to 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, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was bottom tier against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been extremely high, and last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at an extremely fast rhythm in 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: 9.0

  • ConocoPhillips usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent 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: 6.2

  • 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 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 some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
  • Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may 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 better 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 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: 6.6

  • 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 in good shape 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 encouraging 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 and a half 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 close to average when compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands slightly better than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been very good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, 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 a slight improvement compared 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: 6.6

  • ConocoPhillips looks cheap 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates 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, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still encouraging in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has barely more debt than 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 looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 close to average when 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 slightly 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 more than average in relation to 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: 6.8


COP logos

Company at a glance: ConocoPhillips (COP)

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

Market Cap: 147.58 billions

Revenues TTM: 66.20 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 (Excellent), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).