Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. (ATCX)

Awarener score: 4.6

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 (unknown), 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: 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.
  • Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.8

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

Growth score: 2.0

  • Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been impressive in relation 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: 1.0

  • ATCX 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: 4.0

  • Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak 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 low 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.7

  • ATCX 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually not 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 it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
  • Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a slight portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks well ranked against comparable companies.
  • The company has greatly 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 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: 5.5

  • Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
  • The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against 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 roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks similar to 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 better than 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 less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent 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: 3.2

  • Atlas Technical Consultants, 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against 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 encouraging in relation to 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 a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. It looks bottom tier against 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. 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 somewhat low 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: 3.5


ATCX logos

Company at a glance: Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. (ATCX)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Engineering & Construction

Market Cap: 0.28 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.69 billions

Atlas Technical Consultants, Inc. provides professional testing, inspection, engineering, environmental, and program management and consulting services in the United States. The company provides a range of technical services that helps its clients test, inspect, plan, design, certify, and manage various projects across various end markets. It offers testing, inspection, and certification services, such as construction materials testing; non-destructive testing and evaluations, materials testing and inspection, laboratory, and geophysics; construction quality assurance; owner verification and inspection; forensic and structural investigations; and materials laboratory services. The company also provides environmental services, including environmental permitting, compliance assistance, and auditing and compliance management system implementation; air quality; water, hazardous material permitting, and registration; underground storage tank management; leak detection and repair program management; water resource management; industrial hygiene and building science; and disaster response and recovery. In addition, it offers engineering and design services comprising civil site, transportation, and geotechnical engineering; hydrogeology; water/wastewater; solid waste/landfill; land acquisition; subsurface utility engineering; surveying and mapping; and geographic information system asset inventory and assessments. Further, the company offers program management/construction management/quality management services consisting of programmatic planning and phasing; contract document preparation; bid evaluation and award analysis; alternative/value engineering; project estimating and scheduling; project cost/schedule control; contract administration; project management; community relations/affairs; asset management; construction management; quality management and assurance; and construction engineering and inspection. The company is headquartered in Austin, Texas.

Awarener score: 4.6

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 (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).