Fundamental analysis: Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (ATSG)

Awarener score: 6.8

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 (Average) and growth (Very good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Excellent).

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 a very good pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
Air Transport Services Group, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 6.3

ATSG profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand better than most rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be good. It's great when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain excellent in relation to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.4

Air Transport Services Group, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been in a weak position 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.
Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares below average 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: 4.0

ATSG had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat worse 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: 7.2

Air Transport Services Group, Inc. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks top tier when measured against competitors.
In the past, got good 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.3

ATSG usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands great when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is weak 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, 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 a disappointment 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: 5.5

Air Transport Services Group, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks last-in-rank 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's lacking compared to similar companies.
Net interest expenses consume a minor portion of usual business earnings, and are largely bearable. It stands well ranked against rival firms.
Business earnings have usually been quite good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take around three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.
Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. 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 mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.2

Air Transport Services Group, Inc. looks reasonable in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be great 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 neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against 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 almost average when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks slightly worse than 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 top tier when measured against peer companies.
Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a weak position compared 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 somewhat better than peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some 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 a good 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: 5.3

Company at a glance: Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (ATSG)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Airlines

Market Cap: 1.25 billions

Revenues TTM: 2.06 billions

Air Transport Services Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides aircraft leasing and air cargo transportation and related services in the United States and internationally. The company offers aircraft, flight crews, aircraft maintenance, aircraft hull and liability insurance, and aviation fuel services; and aircraft maintenance and modification services, including airframe modification and heavy maintenance, component repairs, engineering services, and aircraft line maintenance. It also provides equipment maintenance services; cargo load transfer and package sorting services; crew training services; and airline express operation, line and heavy maintenance, and ground handling services. The company's ground support services include labor and management for cargo load transfer and sorting; design, installation, and maintenance of material handling equipment; leasing and maintenance of ground support equipment; and general facilities maintenance. In addition, it offers equipment installation and maintenance, vehicle maintenance and repair, jet fuel, and deicing services. Further, the company operates cargo and passenger transportation business; resells and brokers aircraft parts; and performs passenger-to-freighter and passenger-to-combi conversions of aircrafts. It provides its services to delivery companies, freight forwarders, airlines, air transportation, e-commerce, package delivery, and logistics industries, as well as government customers. As of December 31, 2021, the company's in-service aircraft fleet consisted of 107 owned aircraft and ten leased aircraft. The company was formerly known as ABX Holdings, Inc. Air Transport Services Group, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is based in Wilmington, Ohio.