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

---

Fundamental analysis: Camping World Holdings, Inc. (CWH)

Awarener score: 7.7

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: 6.5

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
• Camping World Holdings, Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 5.5

• CWH profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's more than average in relation to 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 somewhat worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.1

• Camping World Holdings, Inc. 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 an extremely fast step, which has been top-notch against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very good pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an excellent tempo. It turns to be in good shape 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: 6.0

• CWH had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been better 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: 8.0

• Camping World Holdings, Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
• Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.6

• CWH 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 almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid outstanding dividends, considering the current stock price. It came top-notch against competitors.
• Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved excellent in relation to similar firms.
• The company usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to pay dividends. Dividend payments should be safe, unless business prospects are challenged. Sustainability looks mediocre against 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 impressive in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn sour. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.8

• Camping World Holdings, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 close to average when 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 bottom tier against 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 few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks similar to peers.
• Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
• On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks below average 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 a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks weak 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is excellent 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: 6.2

• Camping World Holdings, Inc. looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below average 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 disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than 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 similar to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation 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 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 encouraging in relation to 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 relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be below average 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: 6.1

---

Awarener score: 7.7

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!