Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (AGTC)

Awarener score: 1.3

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Very poor) and growth (Bottom), 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: 1.5

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 1.0

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

Growth score: 1.0

  • Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 1.7

  • AGTC 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 very large portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Business has been shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.2

  • Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.0

  • AGTC 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 similar to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is below average when measured against 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 rather normal 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 disappointment 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: 5.0

  • Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation 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 roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in a very weak position compared 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.
  • A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks below average 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 very weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks encouraging in relation to 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.
  • 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.
  • The company didn't have revenues in the past twelve months. It must start having income to take advantage of used resources. It looks close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • The firm has yet to start reporting any sales. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

  • Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation looks heavily expensive in relation to profits and financial position. 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 consumed lots of funds. Either it reinvested heavily in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank 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.
  • This company is sitting in a mountain of cash. It's very well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch against 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 huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains well ranked against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned huge money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be top tier when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.4


AGTC logos

Company at a glance: Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation (AGTC)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.03 billions

Revenues TTM: unavailable

Applied Genetic Technologies Corporation, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, develops transformational genetic therapies for patients suffering from rare and debilitating diseases. Its advanced product candidates include three ophthalmology development programs across two targets, including X-linked retinitis pigmentosa, which is in the Phase 1/2 clinical trials; and achromatopsia that is in Phase 1/2 clinical trials. It is also developing an optogenetic product candidate to treat advanced retinal disease. In addition, the company has initiated one preclinical program in otology; preclinical program in dry age-related macular degeneration; and two preclinical programs in targeting central nervous system disorders, including frontotemporal dementia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It has collaboration agreements with University of Florida; Bionic Sight, Inc.; and Otonomy, Inc. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Alachua, Florida.

Awarener score: 1.3

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