Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Caesarstone Ltd. (CSTE)

Awarener score: 6.5

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 (Very good), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Lacking), 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: 4.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Caesarstone Ltd. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.7

  • CSTE profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain lacking 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 mediocre against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.1

  • Caesarstone Ltd. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been worse than most comparable firms.
  • Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tended to shrink. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- tended to shrink. It was worse than most rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been negative, and substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have been shrinking in the past years. It's been in a very weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 8.0

  • CSTE had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than peers.
  • Research and development expenses hardly consume a portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
  • The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.8

  • Caesarstone Ltd. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak when measured against 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.8

  • CSTE usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than 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.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and shouldn't be at risk. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same 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: 4.4

  • Caesarstone Ltd. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking 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 substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. 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 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.6

  • Caesarstone Ltd. looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 impressive in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre against 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 below average 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 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 is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.2


CSTE logos

Company at a glance: Caesarstone Ltd. (CSTE)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Building Products & Equipment

Market Cap: 0.22 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.67 billions

Caesarstone Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and markets engineered quartz and other surfaces under the Caesarstone brand in the United States, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Israel, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company's engineered quartz slabs are primarily used as indoor and outdoor kitchen countertops in the renovation and remodeling construction end markets. Its products are also used in other applications, such as vanity tops, wall panels, back splashes, floor tiles, stairs, furniture, and other interior and exterior surfaces that are used in various residential and non-residential applications. The company also offers porcelain products under the Lioli brand for flooring and cladding applications, as well as resells natural stones, various ancillary fabrication tools, and installation accessories; and sells sinks and materials. It sells its products directly to fabricators, sub-distributors, and resellers; and through direct sales force and indirect network of independent distributors. The company was formerly known as Caesarstone Sdot Yam Ltd. and changed its name to Caesarstone Ltd. in June 2016. Caesarstone Ltd. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Menashe, Israel.

Awarener score: 6.5

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