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

---

Fundamental analysis: Aziyo Biologics, Inc. (AZYO)

Awarener score: 2.0

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: a result could not be reached

• Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
• Aziyo Biologics, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

• AZYO profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than 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 slightly better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• Aziyo Biologics, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 3.7

• AZYO 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
• The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

• Aziyo Biologics, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
• Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against competitors.
• In the past, got very poor 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.8

• AZYO 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually sparsely 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.
• 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 close to average when 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: 4.0

• Aziyo Biologics, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains bottom tier against 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 less than a dollar 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 on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
• Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement 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 excellent 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.2

• Aziyo Biologics, 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 a disappointment 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 mediocre 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 weak when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks bottom tier 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 not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. 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 very low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is in dispute. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.5

---

Awarener score: 2.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!