Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Culp, Inc. (CULP)

Awarener score: 5.5

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 (Average), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).

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: 3.5

  • Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Culp, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

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

Growth score: 1.1

  • Culp, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, which compares last-in-rank 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: 2.0

  • CULP had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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: 4.2

  • Culp, Inc. usually gets low 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 lacking. It ranks weak when measured against 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: 5.8

  • CULP usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands last-in-rank 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 excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came better than most competitors.
  • In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks worse than most 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 lacking 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 a slight improvement compared 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 substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.3

  • Culp, Inc. 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 roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in good shape compared 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 top-notch against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement 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 a month credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately three months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against 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 top tier when measured against 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 good shape compared 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: 5.7

  • Culp, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 excellent in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier 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 encouraging 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 has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation has been negative, as the company lost money. It ranks last-in-rank 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 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 better than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.1


CULP logos

Company at a glance: Culp, Inc. (CULP)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Textile Manufacturing

Market Cap: 0.06 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.26 billions

Culp, Inc. manufactures, sources, markets, and sells mattress fabrics, sewn covers, and cut and sewn kits for use in mattresses, foundations, and other bedding products in the United States, North America, the Far East, Asia, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Mattress Fabrics and Upholstery Fabrics. The Mattress Fabrics segment offers woven jacquard, knitted, and converted fabrics for use in the production of bedding products, including mattresses, box springs, foundations, and top of bed components. The Upholstery Fabrics segment provides jacquard woven fabrics, velvets, micro denier suedes, woven dobbies, knitted fabrics, piece-dyed woven products, and polyurethane fabrics for use in the production of residential and commercial upholstered furniture, such as sofas, recliners, chairs, loveseats, sectionals, and sofa-beds, as well as office seating and window treatment products; and installation services for customers in the hospitality and commercial industries. Culp, Inc. was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in High Point, North Carolina.

Awarener score: 5.5

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 (Average), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Very poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).