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

---

Fundamental analysis: Citi Trends, Inc. (CTRN)

Awarener score: 7.6

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: 5.5

• Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Citi Trends, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 5.7

• CTRN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. 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 sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 8.0

• Citi Trends, Inc. 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 an extremely fast pace, which compares top tier when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an extremely fast tempo. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. It was better than most rivals.
• In the previous years, growth trend on total net profit has been extremely high, and great when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at an extremely fast rhythm in past years. It's been excellent in relation to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

• CTRN had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been well ranked 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: 8.8

• Citi Trends, Inc. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
• The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually paramount. It ranks more than average 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.1

• CTRN usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands similar to 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 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 in a weak position 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 impressive 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 excellent in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a lot more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so they're paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business improves, or rewards won't keep at current pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.6

• Citi Trends, Inc. 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 somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be in a very 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 worse than most rival firms.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position 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 mostly on cash. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's in good shape compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a non-significant portion of usual business earnings, and are therefore extremely easily to bear. It stands better than most 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are modest 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 8.1

• Citi Trends, Inc. looks very cheap 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 rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks extremely cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be very hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, a weak financial position, or that earnings aren't representative. If that isn't the case, the stock price could be extremely attractive. It ranks top tier when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than 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 great money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.3

---

Awarener score: 7.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!