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

---

Fundamental analysis: Cushman & Wakefield plc (CWK)

Awarener score: 5.5

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 has been slightly shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• Cushman & Wakefield plc business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

• CWK profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's similar to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.7

• Cushman & Wakefield plc profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been in a 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.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares more than average in relation to 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

• CWK 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: 5.8

• Cushman & Wakefield plc usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly 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 modest. It ranks almost average 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.3

• CWK 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.
• The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a slight portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could most likely increase stockholder rewards if it wished to do so. It still looks great when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

• Cushman & Wakefield plc 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to 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 rather normal in relation 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.6

• Cushman & Wakefield plc looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost 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 free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
• The company usually generates somewhat 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 reasonable. It's still similar to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up close to average when 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 worse than most similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation might be reasonable. 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 might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned good money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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 a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.5

---

Awarener score: 5.5

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!