Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (CPK)

Awarener score: 4.7

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 (Modest) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

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: 3.5

  • Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Chesapeake Utilities Corporation business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 7.7

  • CPK 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 very good. They remain excellent in relation 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 very good considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.0

  • Chesapeake Utilities Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been close to average when compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares encouraging in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was slightly better than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been almost null, and similar to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have been almost stagnant in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • CPK had to pay some 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: 7.8

  • Chesapeake Utilities Corporation usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks great when measured against 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.4

  • CPK usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands more than average in relation to 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 it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
  • Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against 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 in a very weak position compared to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.7

  • Chesapeake Utilities Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be below average 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains well ranked against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks substantially worse 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 in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands well ranked against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
  • Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.0

  • Chesapeake Utilities Corporation looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still more than average in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up in a weak position 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 better than most similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is high. Substantial improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is somewhat risky. It ranks weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a very weak position 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 worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.4


CPK logos

Company at a glance: Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (CPK)

Sector, industry: Utilities, Utilities—Regulated Gas

Market Cap: 2.23 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.63 billions

Chesapeake Utilities Corporation operates as an energy delivery company. The company operates through two segments, Regulated Energy and Unregulated Energy. The Regulated Energy segment engages in the natural gas distribution operations in central and southern Delaware, Maryland's eastern shore, and Florida; regulated natural gas transmission in the Delmarva Peninsula and Florida; and regulated electric distribution in northeast and northwest Florida. The Unregulated Energy segment engages in the propane operations in the Mid-Atlantic region, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida; unregulated natural gas transmission/supply operation in central and eastern Ohio; generation of electricity and steam; and provision of compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and renewable natural gas transportation and pipeline solutions primarily to utilities and pipelines in the eastern United States. This segment also provides other unregulated energy services, such as energy-related merchandise sales; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning services; and plumbing and electrical services. The company was founded in 1859 and is headquartered in Dover, Delaware.

Awarener score: 4.7

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 (Modest) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).