• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: Amalgamated Financial Corp. (AMAL)

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

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: 6.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Amalgamated Financial Corp. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.7

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

Growth score: 7.6

• Amalgamated Financial Corp. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been impressive in relation to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been top-notch against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a good pace, which compares more than average in relation to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a good tempo. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a good speed. It was well ranked against rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been average, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

• AMAL had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat worse 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: 6.5

• Amalgamated Financial Corp. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
• There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got barely 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: 4.1

• AMAL 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 part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
• Has increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved a slight improvement compared 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 neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same 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 in a 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: 5.7

• Amalgamated Financial Corp. 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 encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
• A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks great when measured against rivals.
• Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
• A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks below average 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 very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are quite good 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.6

• Amalgamated Financial Corp. has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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 slight improvement 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.
• In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
• We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks very 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 very attractive. It ranks great when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent in relation 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 slightly worse than peer firms.
• We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
• An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 6.3

---

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!