Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Golden Minerals Company (AUMN)

Awarener score: 4.5

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 (Very poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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: 6.0

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

Margins score: 2.8

  • AUMN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. 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 in a very 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.
  • 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: 10.0

  • Golden Minerals Company usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets huge 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 paramount. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got huge 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: 2.2

  • 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 some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is below average 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: 8.4

  • 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 triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be a slight improvement 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 better than most rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. 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.
  • 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 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 a slight improvement 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.4

  • Golden Minerals Company looks very expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly 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 substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks top-notch against similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is high. Substantial improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which is somewhat risky. It ranks weak 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 in a very weak position 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 mediocre against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. 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 in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.6


AUMN logos

Company at a glance: Golden Minerals Company (AUMN)

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

Market Cap: 0.05 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.03 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.

Awarener score: 4.5

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 (Very poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).