Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (ATEC)

Awarener score: 4.1

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

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: 6.5

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Alphatec Holdings, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 4.0

  • ATEC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand somewhat better than 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 in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.8

  • Alphatec Holdings, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured 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: 2.5

  • 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 heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very weak position 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: 4.0

  • Alphatec Holdings, Inc. 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 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.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. 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 very weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most 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 in a very weak position 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 in a weak position compared 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: 2.6

  • 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 consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands somewhat worse than 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 almost average when measured against 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 in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. 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 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 extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. It happens to be weak 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 close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.6


ATEC logos

Company at a glance: Alphatec Holdings, Inc. (ATEC)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 1.01 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.29 billions

Alphatec Holdings, Inc., a medical technology company, designs, develops, and advances technologies for the surgical treatment of spinal disorders. The company offers SafeOp Neural InformatiX System, an Alpha InformatiX product platform designed to reduce the risk of intraoperative nerve injury; Sigma transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion pedicle-based access system that provides direct visualization of anatomical landmarks; Sigma PTP Access and Patient Positioning System; squadron lateral retractor designed to maximize patient outcomes; Invictus Spinal Fixation System, a thoracolumbar fixation system to treat a range of pathologies; and Invictus MIS SingleStep System that provides minimally invasive pedicle screw placement. It also provides Invictus Modular Fixation Systems designed to increase adaptability with the power of screw modularity; OsseoScrew system to restore the integrity of the spinal column; Arsenal spinal fixation system, a comprehensive thoracolumbar fixation platform to fix a range of degenerative to deformity pathologies and surgical procedures; Aspida Anterior Lumbar Plating System, a fixation system for anterior lumbar interbody fusion; AMP Anti-Migration Plate; OCT Spinal Fixation System; trestle luxe anterior cervical plate system; and Insignia Anterior Cervical Plate System. In addition, the company offers IdentiTi Porous Ti, Transcend Lateral, and Battalion Posterior Interbody Implants; and biologics consisting of Cervical Structural Allograft Spacers, 3D ProFuse Demineralized Bone Scaffold, Neocore Osteoconductive Matrix, Alphagraft Demineralized and Cellular Bone Matrix, and Amnioshield Amniotic Tissue Barrier, as well as EOS imaging products. It sells its products through a network of independent distributors and direct sales representatives in the United States. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Carlsbad, California.

Awarener score: 4.1

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