Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. (APEN)

Awarener score: 2.8

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 (Poor), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).

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: 3.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 3.3

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

Growth score: 1.4

  • Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been in a weak position compared 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: 3.7

  • APEN had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
  • Research and development expenses consume a moderate portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
  • The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

  • Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
  • Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against competitors.
  • In the past, got very poor 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.8

  • APEN 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 below average when measured against 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 last-in-rank 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 has significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when compared 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 very 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: 4.8

  • Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be in good shape 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.
  • A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant 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 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.1

  • Apollo Endosurgery, 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks somewhat better than 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 high 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 is really 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 worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant 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 low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.0


APEN logos

Company at a glance: Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. (APEN)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 0.21 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.07 billions

Apollo Endosurgery, Inc., a medical technology company, focuses on the design, development, and commercialization of medical devices. The company offers OverStitch and OverStitch Sx Endoscopic Suturing Systems that enable advanced endoscopic procedures by allowing physicians to sutures and secure the approximation of tissue through a flexible endoscope. It also provides Orbera, an intragastric balloon system that reduces stomach capacity causing patients to consume less following the procedure, as well as delays gastric content emptying under the Orbera Intragastric Balloon System, BIB, and Orbera365 Managed Weight Loss System brands. Additionally, the company offers X-Tack Endoscopic HeliX Tacking System, a suture-based device for closing and healing defects in the lower and upper gastrointestinal tract. The company sells its products to medical services providers; and hospitals, outpatient surgical centers, clinics, and physicians in the United States, Australia, Costa Rica, and other European countries. Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.

Awarener score: 2.8

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 (Poor), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).