Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. (AIRS)

Awarener score: 4.0

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (unknown).

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: a result could not be reached

  • Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.8

  • AIRS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand well ranked 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 meagre. They remain in a 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 weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. 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: 1.0

  • AIRS 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: 1.0

  • AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got pauper 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.7

  • AIRS remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve 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 mediocre against 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.
  • As no dividends are paid, it is useless trying to estimate their sustainability in time. Sustainability looks not applicable in regard to comparable companies.
  • Shares count analysis is unavailable, on lacking data. It remains we cannot compare it with peer enterprises.
  • We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against 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

  • AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak 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 a disappointment 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 mediocre against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement 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 huge in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements, allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.0

  • AirSculpt Technologies, 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
  • A conclusion regarding usual company rewards to stockholders was impossible to reach with data available. It came up also not enough to relate 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 better 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 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 very weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some 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: 3.2


AIRS logos

Company at a glance: AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. (AIRS)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Care Facilities

Market Cap: 0.31 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.13 billions

AirSculpt Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses on operating as a holding company for EBS Intermediate Parent LLC that provides body contouring procedure services in the United States. It offers custom body contouring using its AirSculpt procedure that removes unwanted fat in a minimally invasive procedure. The company provides fat removal procedures across treatment areas; and fat transfer procedures that use the patient's own fat cells to enhance the breasts, buttocks, hips, or other areas. Its body contouring procedures also include the Power BBL, a Brazilian butt lift procedure; the Up a Cup, a breast enhancement procedure; and the Hip Flip, an hourglass contouring procedure. As of March 10, 2022, it operated 19 centers across 15 states. AirSculpt Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Miami Beach, Florida.

Awarener score: 4.0

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (unknown).