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

---

Fundamental analysis: CubeSmart (CUBE)

Awarener score: 7.4

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: 8.0

• Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• CubeSmart business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 9.3

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

Growth score: 6.1

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

Miscellaneous score: 9.0

• CUBE managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been mediocre 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: 6.8

• CubeSmart usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks similar to competitors.
• In the past, got 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.3

• CUBE usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
• Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• The company usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. There could be some concerns on sustainability if business takes a dive. Sustainability looks slightly worse than comparable companies.
• The company usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains impressive in relation 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: 6.1

• CubeSmart intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be similar to 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 very 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 worse than most rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position 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 on less than 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 many months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
• The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are excellent in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements, allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks lacking 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 better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.0

• CubeSmart looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. 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 generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
• The company usually generates reasonably 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, the current valuation might be fair. It's still almost average when measured against 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 somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks weak when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly 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 earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be almost average 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: 7.1

---

Awarener score: 7.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!