Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (AGM)

Awarener score: 7.5

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 (Very good), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Very good), 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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.7

  • AGM profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually huge. They remain impressive in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still top-notch against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain top tier when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands top tier when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.3

  • Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was mediocre against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • AGM had to pay some 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: 6.2

  • Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks similar to 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: 7.1

  • AGM usually uses a sparse portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is modest. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually not replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid outstanding dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a non-significant portion of genuine funds generation and are likely very safe. Sustainability looks somewhat better than comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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 close to average when 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: 3.4

  • Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 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 lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
  • We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
  • Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
  • Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against similar companies.
  • Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch 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.
  • Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it to similar firms.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still bottom tier against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.5

  • Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 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 in good shape compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated extraordinary free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better than most similar companies.
  • The company usually generates much more 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, at the current price the share might be very interesting. It's still similar to 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 a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks similar to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than 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 a little 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 modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.6


AGM logos

Company at a glance: Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (AGM)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Credit Services

Market Cap: 1.11 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.38 billions

Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation provides a secondary market for various loans made to borrowers in the United States. It operates through four segments: Farm & Ranch, USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Guarantees, Rural Utilities, and Institutional Credit. The Farm & Ranch segment purchases and retains eligible mortgage loans that are secured by first liens on agricultural real estate; securitizes eligible mortgage loans, and guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on securities representing interests in or obligations secured by pools of mortgage loans; and issues long-term standby purchase commitments (LTSPC) on designated eligible mortgage loans. The USDA Guarantees segment purchases portions of certain agricultural and rural development loans guaranteed by the USDA. The Rural Utilities segment purchases and guarantees securities that are backed by loans for electric or telecommunications facilities by lenders organized as cooperatives to borrowers; and purchases eligible rural utilities loans and guarantees of securities backed by those loans, as well as LTSPCs for pools of eligible rural utilities loans. The Institutional Credit segment guarantees and purchases general obligations of lenders and other financial institutions that are secured by pools of loans eligible under the Farmer Mac's Farm & Ranch, USDA Guarantees, or Rural Utilities lines of business. Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia.

Awarener score: 7.5

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