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

---

Fundamental analysis: Salesforce, Inc. (CRM)

Awarener score: 5.8

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: 6.0

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
• Salesforce, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 6.7

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

Growth score: 5.7

• Salesforce, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been excellent in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent 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 extremely fast 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 top-notch 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: 8.0

• CRM managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been well ranked against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a moderate portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.0

• Salesforce, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.0

• CRM usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal in relation to peer enterprises.
• Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands close to average when compared to rivals.
• The company uses a modest portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained. It still looks similar to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.8

• Salesforce, 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
• The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a weak position 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 slightly worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks top tier when measured against industry peers.
• The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's impressive in relation to similar companies.
• To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable 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: 4.2

• Salesforce, Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be substantially worse 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 in a very weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better than most similar companies.
• The company usually generates somewhat 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, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still more than average in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up a slight improvement 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 somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when 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 slightly better than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be more than average in relation to industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.9

---

Awarener score: 5.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!