Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Carters, Inc. (CRI)

Awarener score: 7.7

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

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: 5.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Carters, Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.0

  • CRI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's great when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain impressive in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be good in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.1

  • Carters, Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a normal step, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a normal tempo. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a normal speed. It was mediocre against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been low, and weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.0

  • CRI had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than 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: 9.2

  • Carters, Inc. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.1

  • CRI usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands top tier when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks well ranked against 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 a large portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks similar to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.0

  • Carters, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks almost average 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.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands somewhat worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are reasonable 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 excellent in relation 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.9

  • Carters, Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates much more 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 very interesting. It's still more than average in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. It ranks below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking 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 good 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 an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.4


CRI logos

Company at a glance: Carters, Inc. (CRI)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Apparel Retail

Market Cap: 2.76 billions

Revenues TTM: 3.36 billions

Carter's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, sources, and markets branded childrenswear under the Carter's, OshKosh, Skip Hop, Child of Mine, Just One You, Simple Joys, Carter's My First Love, little planet, and other brands in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Retail, U.S. Wholesale, and International. Its Carter's products include babies and young children products, such as bodysuits, pants, dresses, knit sets, blankets, layette essentials, bibs, booties, sleep and play products, rompers, and jumpers; and OshKosh brand products comprise playclothes, such as denim apparel products with multiple wash treatments and coordinating garments, overalls, woven bottoms, knit tops, and bodysuits. The company also provides products for playtime, travel, mealtime, bathtime, and homegear, as well as kid's bags and diaper bags under the Skip Hop brand. In addition, it offers bedding, cribs, diaper bags, footwear, gift sets, hair accessories, jewelry, outerwear, paper goods, socks, shoes, swimwear, and toys. The company operates 18,800 wholesale locations, including department stores, national chain stores, and specialty stores. As of December 31, 2021, it operated 980 retail stores. The company also sells its products through its eCommerce websites, such as carters.com, oshkoshbgosh.com, oshkosh.com, and skiphop.com, as well as other international wholesale accounts and licensees. Carter's, Inc. was founded in 1865 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Awarener score: 7.7

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