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

---

Fundamental analysis: Centerspace (CSR)

Awarener score: 6.0

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: 6.5

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Centerspace business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 7.7

• CSR profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually excellent. They remain in a weak position compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very good considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

• Centerspace profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been rather normal in relation 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 very low 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: 10.0

• CSR 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: 5.2

• Centerspace usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.1

• CSR usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually not replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came better than most competitors.
• In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• The company usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects are challenged. Sustainability looks well ranked against comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very weak position 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks great when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.7

• Centerspace has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
• The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks similar to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks similar to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's lacking 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 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.8

• Centerspace looks somewhat expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be great 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 good shape compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better than most similar companies.
• The company usually generates 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, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still more than average in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among numerous more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. It ranks top tier 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 impressive 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 earned some 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 modest 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: 5.9

---

Awarener score: 6.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!