Fundamental analysis: Golden Minerals Company (AUMN)

Awarener score: 4.3

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 (Very poor), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Average).

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 extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
Golden Minerals Company business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 2.7

AUMN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand better than most rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's last-in-rank 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: 2.1

Golden Minerals Company profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been a slight improvement 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: 1.0

AUMN had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against 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: 2.0

Golden Minerals Company 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.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
In the past, got meagre 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: 2.4

AUMN 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 replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is substantially worse 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 significantly 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.
We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.6

Golden Minerals Company has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier 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.
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 well ranked against rival firms.
Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks great when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on less than a month credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's in good shape 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 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.4

Golden Minerals Company 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 in a very weak position compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier 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 hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up rather normal in relation to peer ventures.
The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks better 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 roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really 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 last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a very low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is in dispute. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.2

Company at a glance: Golden Minerals Company (AUMN)

Sector, industry: Basic Materials, Other Precious Metals & Mining

Market Cap: 0.03 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.02 billions

Golden Minerals Company, a precious metals exploration company, mines, constructs, and explores for mineral properties containing precious metals. It explores for gold, silver, zinc, lead, and other minerals. The company holds a 100% interest in the Rodeo gold mine situated in Durango State, Mexico; and a 100% interest in the Velardeña and Chicago gold-silver mining properties and associated oxide and sulfide processing plants located in the State of Durango, Mexico. It also holds a 100% interest in the El Quevar advanced exploration silver property situated in the province of Salta, Argentina; and diversified portfolio of precious metals and other mineral exploration properties located in Argentina, Nevada, and Mexico. The company was formerly known as Apex Silver Mines Limited and changed its name to Golden Minerals Company in March 2009. Golden Minerals Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado.