Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Crawford & Company (CRD-B)

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (Very good), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).

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: 5.5

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Crawford & Company business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

  • CRD-B profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain in a weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still mediocre against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually 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 weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.4

  • Crawford & Company profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been worse than most comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares more than average in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an excellent tempo. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. 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: 2.0

  • CRD-B had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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

  • Crawford & Company usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got very 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.2

  • CRD-B usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands below average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
  • Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • The company usually uses some portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects take a nosedive. Sustainability looks worse than most comparable companies.
  • The company usually significantly 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 excellent 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 substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

  • Crawford & Company intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be close to average when 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 bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar 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 very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation 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 before a month since the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are very good in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks close to average when 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.8

  • Crawford & Company looks very expensive 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 a disappointment 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 mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually generates more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still similar to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement 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 worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 excellent in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than 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 great when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a very good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.3


CRD-B logos

Company at a glance: Crawford & Company (CRD-B)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Insurance Brokers

Market Cap: 0.30 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.19 billions

Crawford & Company provides claims management and outsourcing solutions for carriers, brokers, and corporations in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, Australia, and internationally. The company's Crawford Loss Adjusting provides claims management services to insurance companies and self-insured entities risk including property, public liability, automobile, and marine insurances. Its Crawford TPA Solutions segment provides claims and risk management services for corporations in the self-insured or commercially-insured marketplace; desktop claim adjusting and claims evaluation services; initial loss reporting services for claimants; and loss mitigation and risk management information services, as well as administers loss funds established to pay claims. This segment also offers third party administration for workers' compensation, auto and liability, disability absence and medical management, and accident and health products. The company's Crawford Platform Solutions segment offers insurance through service lines, such as Contractor Connection and Networks, including losses caused by natural disasters, such as fires, hailstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, as well as man-made disasters, such as oil spills, and chemical releases. It also provides customer-centric solutions for various loss types comprising high-frequency and low-complexity claims to large complex repairs; and outsourced contractor management services to personal and commercial insurance carriers and consumer markets. The company was founded in 1941 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (Very good), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).