Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: AECOM (ACM)

Awarener score: 5.7

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 (Average), the business stability (Good) and growth (Bottom), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).

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: 4.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • AECOM business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 4.5

  • ACM profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. 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 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 below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.6

  • AECOM profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. 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.
  • In past years, the company couldn't always turn a profit -available to repay debt and purchase properties-, 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: 6.0

  • ACM had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to 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: 5.5

  • AECOM usually gets 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 modest. 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.0

  • ACM usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. 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 significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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 a slight improvement compared to rivals.
  • The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks weak when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

  • AECOM intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 substantially worse 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar 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 slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation 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 more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands mediocre against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks below average 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 a slight improvement 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 slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.2

  • AECOM looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse 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 below average when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks slightly 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 weak 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 rather normal in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be almost average 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 close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.9


ACM logos

Company at a glance: AECOM (ACM)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Engineering & Construction

Market Cap: 9.55 billions

Revenues TTM: 13.08 billions

AECOM, together with its subsidiaries, provides professional infrastructure consulting services for governments, businesses, and organizations in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through three segments: Americas, International, and AECOM Capital. The company offers planning, consulting, architectural and engineering design, construction and program management, and investment and development services to commercial and government clients. It also invests in and develops real estate projects. In addition, the company provides construction services, including building construction and energy, and infrastructure and industrial construction. It serves transportation, water, government, facilities, environmental, and energy sectors. The company was formerly known as AECOM Technology Corporation and changed its name to AECOM in January 2015. AECOM was incorporated in 1980 and is headquartered Dallas, Texas.

Awarener score: 5.7

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 (Average), the business stability (Good) and growth (Bottom), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).