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

---

Fundamental analysis: BayCom Corp (BCML)

Awarener score: 5.4

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: 7.0

• Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
• BayCom Corp business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 7.0

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

Growth score: 6.5

• BayCom Corp profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been excellent in relation to competitors.
• There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a normal pace, which compares more than average in relation to peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a normal tempo. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a normal speed. It was somewhat better than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been average, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a low rhythm in past years. It's been close to average when compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 3.0

• BCML had to pay a lot of income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been worse than most 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

• BayCom Corp usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak when measured against 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.8

• BCML 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 weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came well ranked against competitors.
• Has recently started or restarted paying dividends to stockholders. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved impressive in relation to similar firms.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
• The company usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very weak position 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.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.2

• BayCom Corp intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
• Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
• Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very 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 better than rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
• A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
• We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
• Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
• Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against 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 good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are modest 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.9

• BayCom Corp looks extremely cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be encouraging 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 excellent in relation 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 substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 somewhat better than 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 similar 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 in good shape compared to rival firms.
• The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains better than most 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 encouraging in relation to 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 5.7

---

Awarener score: 5.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!