Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT)

Awarener score: 4.7

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

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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Ceragon Networks Ltd. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 5.2

  • CRNT profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's similar to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain a slight improvement 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 somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.9

  • Ceragon Networks Ltd. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position 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.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares almost average 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: 3.7

  • CRNT had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a low portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Business has been shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands in a very weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.8

  • Ceragon Networks Ltd. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets 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 modest. It ranks similar to competitors.
  • In the past, got sufficient 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.0

  • CRNT usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is more than average in relation to 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 a slight improvement compared to peer enterprises.
  • We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.9

  • Ceragon Networks Ltd. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks great when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks top tier 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 weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands mediocre against 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 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

  • Ceragon Networks Ltd. 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 excellent in relation 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.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough 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 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. 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 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 excellent in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. 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 some 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 modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.4


CRNT logos

Company at a glance: Ceragon Networks Ltd. (CRNT)

Sector, industry: Technology, Communication Equipment

Market Cap: 0.17 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.29 billions

Ceragon Networks Ltd. provides wireless backhaul and fronthaul solutions that enable cellular operators and other wireless service providers. Its solutions use microwave and millimeter wave radio technology to transfer telecommunication traffic between base stations, small/distributed cells, and the core of the service provider's network. The company also uses microwave technology for ultra-high speed, ultra-low latency communication for wireless 5G and 4G, 3G, and other cellular base stations. In addition, it provides IP-20 all-outdoor solutions, such as IP-20C, IP-20C-HP, IP-20S, IP-20E, and IP-20V; IP-20 split-mount/all-indoor solutions comprising IP-20N/IP-20A, IP-20F, and IP-20G; and IP-50 disaggregated solutions, including IP-50E, IP-50C, IP-50S, and IP-50FX for various short-haul, long-haul, fronthaul, and enterprise access applications. Further, the company offers network management system; and network and radio planning, site survey, solutions development, installation, network auditing and optimization, maintenance, training, and other services. It provides its services to oil and gas companies; public safety organizations; business and public institutions; broadcasters; energy utilities; and private communications networks. The company sells its products through direct sales, original equipment manufacturers, distributors, and system integrators. It operates in North America, Europe, Africa, the Asia Pacific, the Middle East, India, and Latin America. The company was formerly known as Giganet Ltd. and changed its name to Ceragon Networks Ltd. in September 2000. Ceragon Networks Ltd. was incorporated in 1996 and is headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.

Awarener score: 4.7

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