Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. (AMK)

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Average), the business stability (unknown) and growth (Good), 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: 7.0

  • Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 6.7

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

Growth score: 5.9

  • AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an excellent pace, which compares top tier 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, profits -before income taxes- grew at an extremely fast speed. 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: 2.0

  • AMK had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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: 6.0

  • AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient 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 modest. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got very good 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: 5.0

  • AMK usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands more than average in relation 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 great 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 barely enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in slightly 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 close to average when 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: 6.4

  • AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains somewhat better than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks almost 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 close to average when compared 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 mostly on cash. It still ranks great 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 better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks below average 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands mediocre against 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are excellent 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.6

  • AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. looks somewhat expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates more than enough 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 might be interesting. It's still similar to 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 very weak position compared 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 somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks substantially worse 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 a slight improvement compared 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 slightly worse than 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.6


AMK logos

Company at a glance: AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. (AMK)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Asset Management

Market Cap: 1.37 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.58 billions

AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. provides wealth management and technology solutions in the United States. It offers an open-architecture product platform, as well as client advice, asset allocation options, practice management, support services, and technology to the financial adviser channel. The company provides integrated technology platform for advisers for accessing a range of automated processes, including new account opening, portfolio construction, streamlined financial planning, customer billing, investor reporting, progress to goal analysis, and client activity tracking; advisory services; and curated investment platform. It also offers SaaS-based financial planning, wellness, and client digital engagement solutions. The company also offers mutual funds; custodial recordkeeping services primarily to investor clients of registered investment advisers; and wealth management services for individual investors. It serves independent advisers who provide wealth management advice to the U.S. investors and advisers. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Concord, California. AssetMark Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Huatai International Investment Holdings Limited.

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Average), the business stability (unknown) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).