Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Bandwidth Inc. (BAND)

Awarener score: 5.0

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Lacking) and growth (Very good), 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: 6.0

  • Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
  • Bandwidth Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 4.5

  • BAND profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand worse than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain rather normal in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than 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 meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.9

  • Bandwidth Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been excellent 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: 5.0

  • 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 low portion of revenues. It's great when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands excellent in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 5.0

  • Bandwidth Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually modest. 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: 3.4

  • BAND usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands similar to rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve 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 usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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: 4.8

  • 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be excellent in relation 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.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's close to average when 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 earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse 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 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 slightly better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.8

  • Bandwidth 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 neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could generate, it reinvested in the business, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still weak 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 rather normal in relation 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 impressive 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 well ranked against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be almost average when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat low 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: 4.3


BAND logos

Company at a glance: Bandwidth Inc. (BAND)

Sector, industry: Technology, Software—Infrastructure

Market Cap: 0.30 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.39 billions

Bandwidth Inc. operates as a cloud-based software-powered communications platform-as-a-service (CPaaS) provider in the United States. The company operates in two segments, CPaaS and Other. Its platform enables enterprises to create, scale, and operate voice or messaging communications services across various mobile applications or connected devices. The company also provides SIP trunking, data resale, and hosted voice over Internet protocol services. It serves large enterprises, communications service providers, conferencing providers, contact centers, small and medium-sized businesses, emerging technology companies, and many other businesses. Bandwidth Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Awarener score: 5.0

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