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

---

Fundamental analysis: CoStar Group, Inc. (CSGP)

Awarener score: 5.9

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: 8.5

• Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
• CoStar Group, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 8.7

• CSGP profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand better than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be excellent. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain in good shape compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very good in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.0

• CoStar Group, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been rather normal in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a low step, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was mediocre against rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and weak when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.3

• CSGP had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been well ranked against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a low portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
• The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 7.0

• CoStar Group, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got very 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.3

• CSGP usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands great when measured against 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 weak 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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 non-significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could greatly boost stockholder rewards if it wished so. It still looks top tier when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 7.1

• CoStar Group, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
• The company has plenty short-term resources to face short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar firms.
• A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month 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 close to one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks encouraging 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 rather normal in relation 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 good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are reasonable 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 somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.0

• CoStar Group, Inc. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be weak 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 weak position 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 slightly better than 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 similar 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 lacking compared to peer ventures.
• The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks weak when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks a disappointment compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be similar 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.5

---

Awarener score: 5.9

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!