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

---

Fundamental analysis: Aterian, Inc. (ATER)

Awarener score: 3.0

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: 5.5

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
• Aterian, Inc. business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 2.7

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

Growth score: 1.0

• Aterian, Inc. couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. It's been a disappointment 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: 6.0

• ATER 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 sparse portion of revenues. It's weak when measured against competitors.
• The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.2

• Aterian, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment 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 pauper 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.6

• ATER 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 last-in-rank 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 heavily 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 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: 5.4

• Aterian, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains better than most rival firms.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks great 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 close to average when 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 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: 4.4

• Aterian, 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 rather normal in relation 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 much 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 significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank 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 a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• This company is sitting in a mountain of cash. It's very well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains better than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of money. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.5

---

Awarener score: 3.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!