Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Allied Motion Technologies Inc. (AMOT)

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 (Excellent) and growth (Average), 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: 7.5

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Allied Motion Technologies Inc. business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 6.0

  • AMOT profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually sufficient considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.9

  • Allied Motion Technologies Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings growth -on operations- have been almost stagnant, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was mediocre against rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.7

  • AMOT had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a sparse portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a very weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 8.0

  • Allied Motion Technologies Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually abundant 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.7

  • AMOT usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands great when measured against 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 below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
  • Has significantly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects probably have improved. The company has behaved close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a slight portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks top-notch against comparable companies.
  • The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a weak position compared to 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: 4.3

  • Allied Motion Technologies 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.
  • A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • Net interest expenses consume a portion of usual business earnings, but are bearable. It stands slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks substantially worse 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 in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

  • Allied Motion Technologies Inc. looks heavily 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 free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates reasonably 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, the current valuation might be fair. It's still almost average 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 indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is very high. A lot of improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is risky. It ranks weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains slightly better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.8


AMOT logos

Company at a glance: Allied Motion Technologies Inc. (AMOT)

Sector, industry: Technology, Electronic Components

Market Cap: 0.57 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.47 billions

Allied Motion Technologies Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and sells precision and specialty controlled motion components and systems that are used in a range of industries worldwide. The company offers brush and brushless DC motors, brushless servo and torque motors, coreless DC motors, integrated brushless motor-drives, gearmotors, gearing, modular digital servo drives, motion controllers, optical encoders, active, and passive filters. It also provides electronic power steering, drive-by-wire applications, drive systems and pumps, automated and remotely guided power steering, and HVAC systems, and construction and agricultural equipment. The company sells its products to end customers and original equipment manufacturers in vehicle, medical, aerospace and defense, and industrial markets through direct sales force, as well as authorized manufacturers' representatives, agents, and distributors. Allied Motion Technologies Inc. was incorporated in 1962 and is headquartered in Amherst, New York.

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 (Excellent) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).