Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. (BDR)

Awarener score: 2.4

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

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 at a very fast pace. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 3.7

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

Growth score: 1.1

  • Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very 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.
  • 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

  • BDR 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 moderate portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.5

  • Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got meagre 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.8

  • BDR 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually sparsely 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 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a 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.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.3

  • Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared 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 worse than most rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient money invested in working capital. It's rather normal in relation 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 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 quite good 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.4

  • Blonder Tongue Laboratories, 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes much 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 significant 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 largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly worse than 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 very low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is in dispute. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.0


BDR logos

Company at a glance: Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. (BDR)

Sector, industry: Technology, Communication Equipment

Market Cap: unavailable

Revenues TTM: 0.02 billions

Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc., a technology-development and manufacturing company, provides television (TV) signal encoding, transcoding, digital transport, and broadband product solutions in the United States. It offers encoders/transcoders, such as 4K/ultra-high definition, high definition and standard definition, MPEG-2, MPEG-4/H.264, and HEVC/H.265 capable encoders and transcoders; and QPSK and 8PSK, and QAM transcoders. The company also provides NXG IP digital video processing and headend products, including IPTV format conversions and simulcast use cases. In addition, it offers coax distribution products comprising broadband amplifiers, directional taps, splitters, and wall outlets; coax distribution products are either mounted on exterior utility poles or encased in pedestals, vaults, or other security devices in cable television systems; distribution system is enclosed within the walls of the building or added to an existing structure using various techniques to hide the coax cable and devices in SMB systems; and non-passive devices for signal distributed from the headend is of sufficient strength when it arrives at its final destination to provide audio/video images. Further, the company provides CPE products consisting of Android-based IPTV set top boxes. Additionally, it offers digital modulation products, such as Aircastertm ATSC, QAM, and IP trans-modulator series of products allow the user to create a line up from off-air and/or cable feeds for coax IP distribution; Edge QAM devices that accept Ethernet input and capture MPEG over IP transport streams, decrypt service provider conditional access or content protection, and insert proprietary conditional access; DOCSIS data products; service level agreements and services; and analog modulation, fiber, and miscellaneous products and services, as well as test and measurement instruments, and contract manufacturing services. The company was founded in 1950 and is headquartered in Old Bridge, New Jersey.

Awarener score: 2.4

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