Fundamental analysis: Bank First Corporation (BFC)

Awarener score: 5.5

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

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: 5.0

Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
Bank First Corporation business trend isn't so stable. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 10.0

BFC profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually huge. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be huge. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually huge. They remain excellent in relation to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.9

Bank First Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking compared to competitors.
In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at a very low step, which has been mediocre against comparable firms.
Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a low pace, which compares similar to peer enterprises.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been growing at a slow tempo. It turns to be rather normal in relation 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 low, and similar 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: 5.0

BFC had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat worse than 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: 7.5

Bank First Corporation usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain impressive in relation to similar companies.
There's usually abundant profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks great when measured against competitors.
In the past, got 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.4

BFC 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 great when measured against 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 it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
Has somewhat increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects may have improved. The company has behaved close to average when compared 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, 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 a disappointment 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: 6.1

Bank First Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse 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.
Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains better than most rival firms.
Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks below average 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 mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation 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 great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks top tier when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are low 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 in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.5

Bank First Corporation looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be almost average 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 in a very weak position compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre 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 almost average when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in a weak position 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 is somewhat high. Improvement expectations are already in the stock price, which presents some risks. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks a disappointment compared 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 worse than most peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be below average when measured against 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 6.1

Company at a glance: Bank First Corporation (BFC)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 0.79 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.09 billions

Bank First Corporation operates as a holding company for Bank First N.A. that provides consumer and commercial financial services to businesses, professionals, consumers, associations, individuals, and governmental authorities in Wisconsin. The company offers checking, savings, money market, cash management, retirement, and health savings accounts; other time deposits; certificates of deposit; and residential mortgage products. It also provides credit cards; ATM processing; insurance; data processing and other information technology; investment and safekeeping; treasury management; and online, telephone, and mobile banking services. The company's loan products include real estate loans, including commercial real estate, residential mortgage, and home equity loans; commercial and industrial loans for working capital, accounts receivable, inventory financing, and other business purposes; construction and development loans; residential 1-4 family loans; and consumer loans for personal and household purposes, including secured and unsecured installment loans, and revolving lines of credit. It operates through 21 offices in Manitowoc, Outagamie, Brown, Winnebago, Sheboygan, Waupaca, Ozaukee, Monroe, and Jefferson counties in Wisconsin. The company was formerly known as Bank First National Corporation and changed its name to Bank First Corporation in June 2019. Bank First Corporation was founded in 1894 and is headquartered in Manitowoc, Wisconsin.