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

---

Fundamental analysis: Bank of America Corporation (BAC)

Awarener score: 8.1

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: 6.0

• Business has been shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• Bank of America Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 8.2

• BAC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand mediocre 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 excellent. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.4

• Bank of America Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an extremely fast step, which has been somewhat better than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was mediocre against rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been almost null, and below average when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been lacking compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 8.0

• BAC managed to pay little to no income taxes on 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: 6.0

• Bank of America Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
• The company normally gets good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got barely sufficient 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: 7.6

• BAC usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands similar to 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.
• In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came somewhat better than competitors.
• Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a slight portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks slightly better than comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer 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 in good shape 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 below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

• Bank of America Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
• A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains somewhat worse than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 earnings have usually been low when measured against loans taken. Even cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than seven years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are very good 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 8.8

• Bank of America Corporation looks extremely cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar to 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 generated extraordinary free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat better than similar companies.
• The company usually generates plenty more 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 looks to be very attractive. It's still top tier when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up close to average when compared to peer ventures.
• This company is sitting in a mountain of cash. It's very well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch against similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 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 earned huge money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be top tier when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an extreme earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be significantly undervalued. It's still impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.9

---

Awarener score: 8.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!