Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: First Majestic Silver Corp. (AG)

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Excellent), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (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: 6.5

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • First Majestic Silver Corp. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 3.3

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

Growth score: 1.0

  • First Majestic Silver Corp. 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: 1.0

  • AG had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against 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: 3.8

  • First Majestic Silver Corp. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks weak 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.1

  • AG usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most 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 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: 5.7

  • First Majestic Silver Corp. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly worse 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 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 rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against 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 excellent in relation 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 earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against 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 in a very weak position 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.2

  • First Majestic Silver Corp. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. 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 rather normal in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands worse than most 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 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 slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. 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 somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.7


AG logos

Company at a glance: First Majestic Silver Corp. (AG)

Sector, industry: Basic Materials, Silver

Market Cap: 2.27 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.64 billions

First Majestic Silver Corp. engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of mineral properties with a focus on silver and gold production in North America. It holds 100% interests in the San Dimas Silver/Gold Mine covering an area of 71,868 hectares located in Durango and Sinaloa states; the Santa Elena Silver/Gold Mine covering an area of 102,244 hectares located in Sonora; Jerritt Canyon gold mine that covers an area of approximately of 30,821 hectares located in Elko County, Nevada; and the La Encantada Silver Mine covering an area of 4,076 hectares situated in Coahuila, as well as surface land ownership of 1,343 hectares. The company also holds 100% interests in the La Parrilla Silver Mine that covers an area of 69,478 hectares located in Durango; the Del Toro Silver Mine consisting of 3,815 hectares of mining concessions and 219 hectares of surface rights located in Zacatecas; the San Martin Silver Mine includes 33 mining concessions covering an area of 12,795 hectares located in Jalisco; and the La Guitarra Silver Mine that covers an area of 39,714 hectares located in Mexico. In addition, it holds interest in the Springpole project, a gold and silver project covering an area of approximately 41,913 hectares in Ontario, Canada. The company was formerly known as First Majestic Resource Corp. and changed its name to First Majestic Silver Corp. in November 2006. First Majestic Silver Corp. was incorporated in 1979 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.

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