Fundamental analysis: ADMA Biologics, Inc. (ADMA)

Awarener score: 4.4

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 (Poor), the business stability (Modest) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).

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: 7.5

Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
ADMA Biologics, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 1.8

ADMA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's great when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain in good shape compared to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be extremely poor in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

ADMA Biologics, Inc. couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. It's been a disappointment 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 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: 6.3

ADMA 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 top tier when measured against competitors.
The company shows excellent business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.8

ADMA Biologics, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
In the past, got very poor 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.8

ADMA 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 encouraging in relation to 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 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 has heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, 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: 4.6

ADMA Biologics, Inc. 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains worse than most rival firms.
Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in 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 enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
On average, it takes plenty of 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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 somewhat low 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.8

ADMA Biologics, 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 weak position 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 better than most 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 great when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has largely 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 a lot 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 worse than most 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 very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks a slight improvement 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 mediocre against peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.6

Company at a glance: ADMA Biologics, Inc. (ADMA)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.91 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.15 billions

ADMA Biologics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in developing, manufacturing, and marketing specialty plasma-derived biologics for the treatment of immune deficiencies and infectious diseases in the United States and internationally. It offers BIVIGAM, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) product indicated for the treatment of primary humoral immunodeficiency (PI); ASCENIV, an IVIG product for the treatment of PI; and Nabi-HB for the treatment of acute exposure to blood containing Hepatitis B surface antigen and other listed exposures to Hepatitis B. The company also develops a pipeline of plasma-derived therapeutics, including products related to the methods of treatment and prevention of S. pneumonia infection for an immunoglobulin. In addition, it operates source plasma collection facilities. The company sells its products through independent distributors, sales agents, specialty pharmacies, and other alternate site providers. ADMA Biologics, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Ramsey, New Jersey.