Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: AZZ Inc. (AZZ)

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Good), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Average), 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: 5.0

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • AZZ Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 6.2

  • AZZ profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand well ranked against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually sufficient. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually good considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.4

  • AZZ Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
  • In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very good tempo. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at an excellent speed. It was slightly worse than 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: 7.0

  • AZZ had hardly to pay income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat better than 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: 7.0

  • AZZ Inc. usually gets very good returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.5

  • AZZ usually uses a significant portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is abundant. It stands encouraging in relation to 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid somewhat low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat worse than competitors.
  • In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging times. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Dividend payments usually represent a modest portion of genuine funds generation and should be reasonable safe. Sustainability looks slightly worse than comparable companies.
  • The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
  • The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks almost average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.5

  • AZZ Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be 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 worse than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. 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 extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat less than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands somewhat worse than rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are somewhat 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 weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.1

  • AZZ 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 in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
  • The company usually generates more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, at the current price the share might be interesting. It's still almost 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 in a very 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 close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little 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 modest 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: 5.6


AZZ logos

Company at a glance: AZZ Inc. (AZZ)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Metal Fabrication

Market Cap: 1.04 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.32 billions

AZZ Inc. offers galvanizing and metal coating solutions, welding solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and engineered services to the power generation, transmission, distribution, refining, and industrial markets in the United States and internationally. The company operates through two segments, Infrastructure Solutions and Metal Coatings. The Metal Coatings segment offers metal finishing solutions for corrosion protection, including hot-dip galvanizing, spin galvanizing, powder coating, anodizing, and plating to the steel fabrication and other industries. It serves fabricators or manufacturers that provide services to the electrical and telecommunications, bridge and highway, petrochemical, and general industrial markets, as well as original equipment manufacturers. The Infrastructure Solutions segment provides products and services to support industrial and electrical applications. It offers custom switchgear, electrical enclosures, medium and high voltage bus ducts, explosion proof and hazardous duty lighting, and tubular products, as well as solutions and engineering resources to multi-national companies. This segment sells its products through internal sales force, manufacturers' representatives, distributors, and agents. The company was incorporated in 1956 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.

Awarener score: 6.1

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 (Good), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).