Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Crocs, Inc. (CROX)

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 (Good), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Excellent), 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: 6.5

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
  • Crocs, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 7.8

  • CROX profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand better than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. It's great when measured against 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 good in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually very good considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very good when confronted to sales. Company stands top tier when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 9.7

  • Crocs, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been impressive in relation to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been somewhat better than comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast 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 a slight improvement compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was somewhat better than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been extremely high, and more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at an extremely fast rhythm in past years. It's been a disappointment compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 10.0

  • CROX managed to get a credit on income taxes in the past years, even though it earned money. It's been top-notch against 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: 10.0

  • Crocs, Inc. usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets huge 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 paramount. It ranks top tier when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got huge 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: 5.4

  • CROX 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 investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It 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 usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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 in good shape compared 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 weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.1

  • Crocs, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge 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 last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in a weak position compared 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 bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately five 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 mediocre against 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 four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands somewhat worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks substantially worse 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.1

  • Crocs, Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be top tier 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 generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat better 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 weak when measured against 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 excellent in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most 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 top tier when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 7.5


CROX logos

Company at a glance: Crocs, Inc. (CROX)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Footwear & Accessories

Market Cap: 4.11 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.84 billions

Crocs, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes casual lifestyle footwear and accessories for men, women, and children. It offers various footwear products, including clogs, sandals, slides, flip-flops, boots, flats, wedges, platforms, socks, shoe charms, loafers, sneakers, and slippers under the Crocs brand name. The company sells its products in approximately 85 countries through wholesalers, retail stores, e-commerce sites, and third-party marketplaces. As of December 31, 2021, it had 193 outlet stores, 107 retail stores, 373 company-operated stores, 73 kiosks and store-in-stores, and 14 company-operated e-commerce sites. The company serves in the Americas, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Crocs, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado.

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 (Good), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Excellent), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).