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

---

Fundamental analysis: Crexendo, Inc. (CXDO)

Awarener score: 4.8

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: 6.5

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
• Crexendo, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 4.3

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

Growth score: 2.0

• Crexendo, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been excellent in relation 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: 6.0

• CXDO had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
• The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 4.5

• Crexendo, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks below average when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got low 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: 4.1

• CXDO on average doesn't generate genuine funds, so to buy or replace property, plants and equipment must either burn existing cash or increase debt. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came mediocre against competitors.
• Has recently started or restarted paying dividends to stockholders. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved impressive in relation 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 significantly enlarges 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 in a very weak position compared to 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

• Crexendo, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be almost average 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 rather normal in relation 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 better than most rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks weak when measured against 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 almost another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's close to average when compared to similar companies.
• Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
• Business has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are very good 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.1

• Crexendo, 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 in a very weak position 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 consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks well ranked 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 more than 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 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 lost significant money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.6

---

Awarener score: 4.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!