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

---

Fundamental analysis: Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (CPK)

Awarener score: 3.9

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: 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 worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 7.8

• CPK profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand mediocre against 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 very good. 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 well ranked against 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: 4.4

• Chesapeake Utilities Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a very 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 similar to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was slightly better than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have been shrinking in the past years. It's been in a very weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 3.0

• CPK 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: 8.8

• Chesapeake Utilities Corporation usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain impressive in relation to similar companies.
• There's usually abundant 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

• CPK usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position 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 has greatly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, 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 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: 6.7

• Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 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 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.
• 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 better than most rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak 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 extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two 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 a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it 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 somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

• Chesapeake Utilities Corporation looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be encouraging 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 consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands slightly better 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 encouraging in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 well ranked against 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 a disappointment 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 mediocre against 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 almost 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: 5.2

---

Awarener score: 3.9

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!