Fundamental analysis: California Water Service Group (CWT)

Awarener score: 4.8

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 (Modest), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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: 6.0

Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
California Water Service Group business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 8.0

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

Growth score: 4.1

California Water Service Group profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
In recent years, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been somewhat worse than comparable firms.
Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been average, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
Earnings per share have grown at a low rhythm in past years. It's been lacking compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 8.0

CWT managed to pay little to no income taxes on profits made in the past years. It's been slightly 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: 6.5

California Water Service Group usually gets 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 weak position compared to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
In the past, got 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.8

CWT usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
In the past twelve months it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against 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 in a weak position 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 in a very weak position compared to rivals.
The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.4

California Water Service Group intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks similar to rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
The company charges its customers 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 somewhat worse than 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.
Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks close to average when 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.2

California Water Service Group looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse 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 good shape compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. Future profits need to be high enough to justify the measure, as the pie of earnings will now be split among somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks somewhat worse than 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains slightly better than peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be weak 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.8

Company at a glance: California Water Service Group (CWT)

Sector, industry: Utilities, Utilities—Regulated Water

Market Cap: 3.24 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.80 billions

California Water Service Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility and other related services in California, Washington, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Texas. The company is involved in the production, purchase, storage, treatment, testing, distribution, and sale of water for domestic, industrial, public, and irrigation uses, as well as for fire protection. It offers its services to approximately 494,500 customer connections in 100 California communities; approximately 6,200 water and wastewater customer connections on the islands of Maui and Hawaii; approximately 36,400 customer connections in the Tacoma, Olympia, Graham, Spanaway, Puyallup, and Gig Harbor areas; and approximately 8,600 water and wastewater customer connections in the Belen, Los Lunas, Indian Hills, and Elephant Butte areas in New Mexico. The company also engages in the provision of non-regulated water-related services, including operating of municipally owned water systems, privately owned water, and recycled water distribution systems; water system operation, meter reading, and billing services to private companies and municipalities; leasing of communication antenna sites on its properties to telecommunication companies; and billing of optional third-party insurance programs to its residential customers, as well as provides lab services. In addition, it offers wastewater collection and treatment services. The company was founded in 1926 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.