Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. (CPS)

Awarener score: 3.6

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

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: 4.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 3.7

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

Growth score: 1.1

  • Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared 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

  • CPS 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

  • Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.0

  • CPS on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands weak 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 almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way compared to similar firms.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to 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 in a 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: 4.9

  • Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant 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 more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's in good shape compared 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 earnings have usually been very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are somewhat 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.0

  • Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 excellent in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands worse than most similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up close to average when compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against 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 in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.3


CPS logos

Company at a glance: Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. (CPS)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Auto Parts

Market Cap: 0.11 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.35 billions

Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc., through its subsidiary, Cooper-Standard Automotive Inc., designs, manufactures, and sells sealing, fuel and brake delivery, and fluid transfer systems. The company's sealing systems include obstacle detection sensor systems, dynamic seals, variable extrusion systems, static seals, specialty sealing products, encapsulated glasses, stainless steel trims, FlushSeal systems, and textured surfaces with cloth appearance. Its fuel and brake delivery systems comprise chassis and tank fuel lines and bundles, direct injection and port fuel rails, metallic brake lines and bundles, tube coatings, quick connects, low oligomer multi-layer convoluted tubes, and brake jounce lines. The company's fluid transfer systems consist of heater/coolant hoses, turbo charger hoses, quick connects, charged air cooler ducts/assemblies, DPF and SCR emission lines, secondary air hoses, degas tanks, brake and clutch hoses, air intake and charge systems, transmission oil cooling hoses, and multilayer tubing for glycol thermal management. Its products are primarily used in passenger vehicles and light trucks that are manufactured by automotive original equipment manufacturers and replacement markets. The company operates in the United States, Mexico, China, Poland, Canada, Germany, France, and internationally. Cooper-Standard Holdings Inc. was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Northville, Michigan.

Awarener score: 3.6

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