Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Coty Inc. (COTY)

Awarener score: 3.1

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

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: 2.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Coty Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

  • COTY profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very poor in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.1

  • Coty Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been impressive 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.
  • 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: 1.0

  • COTY had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier 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: 3.8

  • Coty Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got low 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.3

  • COTY 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks worse than most comparable companies.
  • The company usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.3

  • Coty Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains somewhat worse than 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 few cents 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 somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks top tier 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 impressive in relation to similar companies.
  • Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Business has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are reasonable 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 weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.1

  • Coty Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be below average 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat better than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. 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 encouraging 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 a slight improvement 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 well ranked against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.1


COTY logos

Company at a glance: Coty Inc. (COTY)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Household & Personal Products

Market Cap: 6.75 billions

Revenues TTM: 5.32 billions

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates through Prestige and Consumer Beauty segments. The company provides fragrance, color cosmetics, and skin and body care products. It offers Prestige products primarily through prestige retailers, including perfumeries, department stores, e-retailers, direct-to-consumer websites, and duty-free shops under the Burberry, Bottega Veneta, Calvin Klein, Cavalli, Chloe, Davidoff, Escada, Gucci, Hugo Boss, Jil Sander, Joop!, Kylie Jenner, Lacoste, Lancaster, Marc Jacobs, Miu Miu, Orveda, philosophy, SKKN BY KIM, and Tiffany & Co. brands. The company provides Consumer Beauty products primarily through hypermarkets, supermarkets, drug stores, pharmacies, mid-tier department stores, traditional food and drug retailers, and e-commerce retailers under the Adidas, Beckham, Biocolor, Bozzano, Bourjois, Bruno Banani, CoverGirl, Jovan, Max Factor, Mexx, Monange, Nautica, Paixao, Rimmel, Risque, Sally Hansen, and 007 James Bond brands. Coty Inc. also sells its products through third-party distributors to approximately 120 countries and territories. The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York. Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Cottage Holdco B.V.

Awarener score: 3.1

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