Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Ames National Corporation (ATLO)

Awarener score: 7.0

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).

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 growth has been almost stagnant. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Ames National Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 7.5

  • ATLO profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually huge. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.8

  • Ames National Corporation has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a low rhythm in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • ATLO had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better than 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: 6.8

  • Ames National Corporation usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • In the past, got barely 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: 3.5

  • ATLO 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 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 it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
  • In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 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: 5.8

  • Ames National Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be similar to peer companies.
  • Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
  • Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains better than most rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
  • Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
  • A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
  • We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
  • Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
  • Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against 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.
  • There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are modest 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.2

  • Ames National Corporation has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up rather normal in relation to peer ventures.
  • We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 rather normal in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly worse than peer firms.
  • We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
  • An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 5.8


ATLO logos

Company at a glance: Ames National Corporation (ATLO)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 0.20 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.07 billions

Ames National Corporation operates as a multi-bank holding company that provides banking products and services primarily in Boone, Clarke, Hancock, Marshall, Polk, Story, and Union counties in central, north-central, and south-central Iowa. The company accepts a range of deposits, including checking and savings accounts; and time deposits, such as money market accounts and certificates of deposit. It also provides loans, such as short-term and medium-term commercial and agricultural real estate, residential real estate loans, equipment, vehicle, and home improvement loans; personal loans and lines of credit; agricultural and business operating loans and lines of credit; and originates mortgage loans for sale into the secondary market. In addition, the company offers cash management, merchant credit card processing, safe deposit box, wire transfer, direct deposit of payroll and social security check, and automated/video teller machine access services; and automatic drafts for various accounts, as well as wealth management services. Further, it provides farm management, investment, and custodial services for individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations; and online, mobile, and private banking services. Ames National Corporation was founded in 1903 and is based in Ames, Iowa.

Awarener score: 7.0

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very good).