Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: AxoGen, Inc. (AXGN)

Awarener score: 4.7

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

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 similar to peer companies.
  • AxoGen, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

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

Growth score: 1.9

  • AxoGen, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been rather normal in relation 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: 4.3

  • AXGN 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 moderate portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
  • The company grows modestly in relation to research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

  • AxoGen, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.6

  • AXGN 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 similar to rival firms.
  • The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is great 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 usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.0

  • AxoGen, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be close to average when 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 worse than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks below average 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 close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks top tier when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's little money invested in working capital. It's impressive in relation 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 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 quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

  • AxoGen, 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands somewhat 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 below average when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks slightly worse than 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 high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement 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 somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be almost average 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 close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.0


AXGN logos

Company at a glance: AxoGen, Inc. (AXGN)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 0.45 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.13 billions

AxoGen, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and markets surgical solutions for physical damage or transection to peripheral nerves. The company's products include Avance Nerve Graft, a biologically active off-the-shelf processed human nerve allograft for bridging severed nerves without the comorbidities associated with a second surgical site; AxoGuard Nerve Connector, a porcine submucosa extracellular matrix (ECM) coaptation aid for tensionless repair of severed peripheral nerves; and AxoGuard Nerve Protector, a porcine submucosa ECM product that is used to wrap and protect damaged peripheral nerves, as well as reinforces the nerve reconstruction while preventing soft tissue attachments. Its products also comprise Axoguard Nerve Cap, a porcine submucosa ECM product that is used to protect a peripheral nerve end, as well as separates the nerve from the surrounding environment to reduce the development of symptomatic or painful neuroma; and Avive Soft Tissue Membrane, a processed human umbilical cord membrane that can be used as a resorbable soft tissue covering to separate tissues in the surgical bed. In addition, the company offers AxoTouch two point discriminator, a tool that is used for measuring the innervation density of surface area of the skin. It provides its products to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals plastic reconstructive surgeons, orthopedic and plastic hand surgeons, and various oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and other European countries, South Korea, and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua, Florida.

Awarener score: 4.7

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