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

---

Fundamental analysis: Cerence Inc. (CRNC)

Awarener score: 5.6

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: 3.0

• Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Cerence Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

• CRNC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's great when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually good. They remain in good shape compared 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 meagre considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.7

• Cerence Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been top-notch against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very good pace, which compares encouraging 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 excellent in relation 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: 2.7

• CRNC had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume quite a bit of revenues. It's weak when measured against competitors.
• The company hardly grows despite of research and development efforts. It stands in a very weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.2

• Cerence Inc. usually gets hardly 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.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks similar 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: 3.4

• CRNC usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands more than average in relation to 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 below average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
• Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 a slight improvement 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
• The company uses a lot more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so they're paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business improves, or rewards won't keep at current pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

• Cerence Inc. 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 more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be lacking compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. 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 almost another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than 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 higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands mediocre against 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 below average 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.9

• Cerence 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 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 somewhat worse than similar companies.
• The company usually generates reasonably 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 fair. It's still great when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
• The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks mediocre 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 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 somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains well ranked against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be below average when measured against 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: 4.3

---

Awarener score: 5.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!