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

---

Fundamental analysis: Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (ATEC)

Awarener score: 4.7

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: 7.0

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
• Alphatec Holdings, Inc. business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 3.8

• ATEC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand well ranked against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's similar to 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 very poor in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

• Alphatec Holdings, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been in good shape 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: 5.3

• ATEC 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 low portion of revenues. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands excellent in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

• Alphatec Holdings, 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.7

• ATEC 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 almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to 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 lacking 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.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.9

• Alphatec Holdings, 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 roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in a weak position 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.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
• Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's lacking 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 somewhat low 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.5

• Alphatec Holdings, 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 get, it reinvested in the business, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
• In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still similar to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up close to average when compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks worse than most 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 very high 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.
• 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 similar to 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.7

---

Awarener score: 4.7

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!