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

---

Fundamental analysis: 1895 Bancorp of Wisconsin, Inc. (BCOW)

Awarener score: 6.1

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: 4.5

• Business has been shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• 1895 Bancorp of Wisconsin, Inc. business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.0

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

Growth score: 2.0

• 1895 Bancorp of Wisconsin, Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position compared to competitors.
• In recent years, the firm hasn't always been able to profit from operations, which has been bottom tier against comparable firms.
• Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares weak when measured against peer enterprises.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a very low tempo. It turns to be lacking 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: 2.0

• BCOW had to pay too much 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: 5.0

• 1895 Bancorp of Wisconsin, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets hardly sufficient 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 last-in-rank 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.8

• BCOW usually uses almost no genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is non-significant. It stands last-in-rank when measured against 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 weak 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 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
• The company uses a non-significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could greatly boost stockholder rewards if it wished so. It still looks more than average in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.9

• 1895 Bancorp of Wisconsin, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• The company has plenty short-term resources to face short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be excellent in relation 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 worse than most 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.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of 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 plenty of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks similar to 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 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 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.3

• 1895 Bancorp of Wisconsin, 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 impressive in relation to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands worse than most 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 more than average in relation to 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 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 worse than most 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 high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks rather normal in relation 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 top-notch against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned little money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. 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 a good earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.8

---

Awarener score: 6.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!