Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Avinger, Inc. (AVGR)

Awarener score: 1.2

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Bottom), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).

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: 2.0

  • Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Avinger, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 2.0

  • AVGR profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand bottom tier against 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: 1.0

  • Avinger, 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: 2.0

  • AVGR 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 substantial portion of revenues. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • Business has been shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.0

  • Avinger, Inc. usually gets pauper 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: 1.2

  • AVGR 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 not 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.
  • There was no available information regarding dividend yield. It came unknown 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 greatly 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: 4.2

  • Avinger, Inc. 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
  • A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks great 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 rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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.
  • 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 low 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 a very weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.6

  • Avinger, 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 excellent in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed lots of funds. Either it reinvested heavily in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding 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.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks well ranked 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 three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. 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: 2.0


AVGR logos

Company at a glance: Avinger, Inc. (AVGR)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Instruments & Supplies

Market Cap: 0.01 billions

Revenues TTM: unavailable

Avinger, Inc., a commercial-stage medical device company, designs, manufactures, and sells a suite of image-guided and catheter-based systems used by physicians to treat patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in the United States and internationally. It develops lumivascular platform that integrates optical coherence tomography visualization with interventional catheters to provide real-time intravascular imaging during the treatment portion of PAD procedures. The company's lumivascular products comprise Lightbox imaging consoles, as well as the Ocelot family of catheters, which are designed to allow physicians to penetrate a total blockage in an artery; and Pantheris, an image-guided atherectomy device that allows physicians to precisely remove arterial plaque in PAD patients. In addition, its first-generation chronic total occlusion (CTO)-crossing catheters, Wildcat and Kittycat 2, which employs a proprietary design that uses a rotational spinning technique allowing the physician to switch between passive and active modes when navigating across a CTO. Further, the company develops IMAGE-BTK for the treatment of PAD lesions below-the-knee. It markets and sells its products to interventional cardiologists, vascular surgeons, and interventional radiologists. Avinger, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.

Awarener score: 1.2

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Bottom), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).