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

---

Fundamental analysis: Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG)

Awarener score: 7.2

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: 4.5

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 9.2

• AMG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be huge. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually excellent. They remain lacking compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.6

• Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a normal step, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares great when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at an extremely fast tempo. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an excellent speed. It was well ranked 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: 6.0

• AMG had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly 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: 9.0

• Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. usually gets excellent returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
• There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got excellent 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.2

• AMG usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands more than average in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is similar to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a non-significant portion of genuine funds generation and are likely very safe. Sustainability looks top-notch against comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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 good shape compared to rivals.
• The company uses a moderate portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can probably be sustained for as long as business doesn't turn very sour. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.4

• Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. 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 rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position compared to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.3

• Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be great 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.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands well ranked against similar companies.
• The company usually generates plenty 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 looks to be very attractive. It's still more than average in relation to 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks extremely cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be very hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, a weak financial position, or that earnings aren't representative. If that isn't the case, the stock price could be extremely attractive. It ranks top tier 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 good shape compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat worse than 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 great when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.6

---

Awarener score: 7.2

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!