Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: CPS Technologies Corporation (CPSH)

Awarener score: 3.4

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 (Lacking) and growth (Very poor), 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: 3.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • CPS Technologies Corporation business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

  • CPSH profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. 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 hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • CPS Technologies Corporation couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. It's been a disappointment 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: 3.0

  • CPSH had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. 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: 2.2

  • CPS Technologies Corporation usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got very poor 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.2

  • CPSH usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands last-in-rank 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 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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.
  • The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.8

  • CPS Technologies 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is 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.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare 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 quite good 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 close to average when 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 worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.6

  • CPS Technologies Corporation 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 neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against 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 very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. It ranks encouraging 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 in a 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 somewhat 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 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: 3.5


CPSH logos

Company at a glance: CPS Technologies Corporation (CPSH)

Sector, industry: Technology, Electronic Components

Market Cap: 0.04 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.01 billions

CPS Technologies Corporation produces and sells advanced material solutions to the transportation, automotive, energy, computing/internet, telecommunication, aerospace, defense, and oil and gas markets. It primarily offers metal matrix composites that are a combination of metal and ceramic, such as baseplates for various applications, including motor controllers used in electric trains, subway cars, wind turbines, and hybrid and electric vehicles; hermetic packages for use in radar, satellite, and avionics applications; baseplates and housings used in modules built with wide band gap semiconductors; and lids and heatspreaders used with integrated circuits for use in internet switches and routers. The company also assembles housings and packages for hybrid circuits. It primarily sells its products to microelectronics systems companies in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company was formerly known as Ceramics Process Systems Corporation and changed its name to CPS Technologies Corporation in March 2007. CPS Technologies Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Norton, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 3.4

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