Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Air Industries Group (AIRI)

Awarener score: 4.1

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 (Very good) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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 growth has been almost stagnant. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Air Industries Group business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 3.5

  • AIRI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand worse than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain substantially worse 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: 2.0

  • Air Industries Group profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been excellent in relation 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

  • AIRI 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: 3.2

  • Air Industries Group 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 insufficient. It ranks substantially worse 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: 2.2

  • AIRI 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very 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.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.0

  • Air Industries Group intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging in relation to 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 a month and a half credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot 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 encouraging in relation to 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 in a weak position 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 reasonable 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 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.3

  • Air Industries Group looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be below average 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 excellent in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than 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 substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a weak position 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 might be more or less reasonable, but hardly cheap. It ranks more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains better than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be similar to 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 a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.5


AIRI logos

Company at a glance: Air Industries Group (AIRI)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Aerospace & Defense

Market Cap: 0.02 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.06 billions

Air Industries Group, an aerospace and defense company, designs, manufactures, and sells structural parts and assemblies for mission-critical aerospace and defense applications, and a prime contractor to the U.S. Department of Defense in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Complex Machining and Turbine and Engine Component. The Complex Machining segment offers aircraft landing and arresting gears, engine mounts, flight controls, throttle quadrants, and other components. Its products are deployed on a range of military and commercial aircraft, including Sikorsky's UH-60 Blackhawk, Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Northrop Grumman E2D Hawkeye, the US Navy F-18, and USAF F-16 and F-15 fighter aircraft. The Turbine and Engine Component segment makes components and provides services for aircraft jet engines and ground-power turbines. Its jet engine components are used on the USAF F-15 and F-16, the Airbus A-330, the Boeing 777, and others, as well as ground-power turbine applications. The company's products are used by original equipment manufacturers in the manufacture of fixed wing aircraft, helicopters jet turbine engines, and other complex aerospace and defense products. Air Industries Group was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Bay Shore, New York.

Awarener score: 4.1

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 (Very good) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).