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

---

Fundamental analysis: Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. (CVR)

Awarener score: 6.8

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: 3.5

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

Margins score: 5.7

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

Growth score: 2.6

• Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been lacking 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.
• 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.
• 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: 7.0

• CVR had hardly to pay income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than 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

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

Usage of Funds score: 6.0

• CVR 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 weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is similar to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid 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 lacking 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 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 lacking 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: 5.4

• Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. 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 a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar firms.
• All resources are company owned, with virtually no financial debt. Financial position is outstanding. The company could significantly borrow money if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains top-notch against rival firms.
• Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks great when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's impressive in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare against rival firms.
• There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are somewhat 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 in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 8.5

• Chicago Rivet & Machine Co. looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be top tier 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 a slight improvement compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent 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 slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up close to average when compared to peer ventures.
• The company has substantial 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 looks very cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be very attractive. It ranks top tier when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared 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 somewhat better than 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 top tier 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 impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.7

---

Awarener score: 6.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!