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

---

Fundamental analysis: APi Group Corporation (APG)

Awarener score: 4.9

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: a result could not be reached

• Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
• APi Group Corporation business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

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

Growth score: 1.0

• APi Group Corporation has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown 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: 1.0

• APG had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against 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: 5.2

• APi Group Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.3

• APG usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands below average 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 weak 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 a disappointment 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.4

• APi Group Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge 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 somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be lacking compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
• On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands mediocre 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 very good 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 close to average when 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: 4.2

• APi Group Corporation profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be substantially worse 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 neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against 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 similar to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is 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 earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be encouraging in relation to 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 weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.6

---

Awarener score: 4.9

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!