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

---

Fundamental analysis: Bandwidth Inc. (BAND)

Awarener score: 3.1

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: 7.5

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
• Bandwidth Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 3.5

• BAND profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand mediocre against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain a disappointment compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be extremely poor in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.7

• Bandwidth Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal 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: 2.7

• BAND 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 substantial portion of revenues. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a very weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.8

• Bandwidth Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got low 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: 2.8

• BAND 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 largely 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 has greatly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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: 5.2

• Bandwidth Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge 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 last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly better than 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 more than enough 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 roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks weak 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 close to average when 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 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 reasonable 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

• Bandwidth Inc. looks expensive in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be more than average in relation 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed lots of funds. Either it reinvested heavily in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 might be reasonable. It ranks great 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.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains better than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of 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 an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.7

---

Awarener score: 3.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!