• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: AstraZeneca PLC (AZN)

Awarener score: 5.2

Conclusion

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: 6.5

• Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• AstraZeneca PLC business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 7.7

• AZN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very good. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be good in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be good when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.1

• AstraZeneca PLC profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a low pace. It's been close to average when compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been shrinking, which has been worse than most 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: 6.3

• AZN managed to pay no income taxes on profits made in the past years, sometimes even got a credit. It's been better than most peers.
• Research and development expenses consume some portion of revenues. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• The company grows sparsely in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 7.8

• AstraZeneca PLC usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got very 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.4

• AZN usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands substantially worse 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 it paid run-of-the-mill dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• The company pays more dividends than genuine funds is usually able to generate, therefore borrowing more funds. Future payments may be at risk, especially if a downturn in business occurs. Sustainability looks worse than most 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 in a 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
• The company uses somewhat more funds to reward investors than it can genuinely generate, so some part of them is paid out of existing cash or by borrowing money, both of which will eventually reach a limit. Either business somewhat improves, or rewards will probably not be sustained at this pace. It still looks substantially worse when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.5

• AstraZeneca PLC intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak when measured against peer companies.
• The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared 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 mostly on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
• The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's impressive in relation to similar companies.
• Net interest expenses consume a significant portion of usual business earnings, but are mostly bearable. It stands worse than most rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak 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 a weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

• AstraZeneca PLC 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some slightly better free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still last-in-rank when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position 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 mediocre 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 very high 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 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 mediocre against 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 mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.3

---

Awarener score: 5.2

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!