Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Carpenter Technology Corporation (CRS)

Awarener score: 5.0

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 (Average), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).

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 at a fast pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Carpenter Technology Corporation business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 4.5

  • CRS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still mediocre against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

  • Carpenter Technology Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been in good shape 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.
  • In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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: 10.0

  • CRS 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: 5.0

  • Carpenter Technology Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks below average when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got barely 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.7

  • CRS usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands below average when measured against 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 it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
  • In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks worse than most comparable companies.
  • The company barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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: 4.6

  • Carpenter Technology Corporation 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 almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks below average 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 roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very 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 two months after the purchase. It ranks below 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 very 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 worse than most 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 low 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 a disappointment 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: 4.9

  • Carpenter Technology Corporation 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 slight improvement compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve 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 barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up rather normal in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks slightly worse than 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 lacking compared 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 somewhat better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be weak 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.9


CRS logos

Company at a glance: Carpenter Technology Corporation (CRS)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Metal Fabrication

Market Cap: 1.69 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.84 billions

Carpenter Technology Corporation engages in the manufacture, fabrication, and distribution of specialty metals in the United States, Europe, the Asia Pacific, Mexico, Canada, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Alloys Operations and Performance Engineered Products. The company offers specialty alloys, including titanium alloys, powder metals, stainless steels, alloy steels, and tool steels, as well as additives, and metal powders and parts. It serves aerospace, defense, medical, transportation, energy, industrial, and consumer markets. The company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Awarener score: 5.0

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 (Average), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).