Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: BIOLASE, Inc. (BIOL)

Awarener score: 3.6

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).

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: 3.5

  • Business has been slightly shrinking. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • BIOLASE, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 2.7

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

Growth score: 1.9

  • BIOLASE, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a good pace. It's been a slight improvement 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: 4.0

  • BIOL 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in a weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.5

  • BIOLASE, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
  • Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown against competitors.
  • In the past, got very poor 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: 2.3

  • BIOL 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 the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is below average when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid low dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
  • The company pays no dividend, so measuring its growth is meaningless. The company has behaved in an conservative way 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 has greatly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, 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.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.1

  • BIOLASE, Inc. 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.
  • The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be lacking compared 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 mediocre against rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant 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 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 very good in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

  • BIOLASE, 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 in good shape compared 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 worse than most 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 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 slightly better than 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than 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 plenty of money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.2


BIOL logos

Company at a glance: BIOLASE, Inc. (BIOL)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 0.02 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.04 billions

BIOLASE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells laser systems for dental practitioners and their patients in the United States and internationally. Its dental laser systems allow dentists, periodontists, endodontists, oral surgeons, and other dental specialists to perform a range of minimally invasive dental procedures, such as cosmetic, restorative, and complex surgical applications. The company offers Waterlase all-tissue dental laser systems for cutting soft and hard tissues; diode soft-tissue laser systems for soft tissue, pain therapy, teeth whitening, and cosmetic procedures; and Epic Hygiene laser to manage non-surgical periodontitis and enhance clinical production. It also manufactures and sells consumable products and accessories for its laser systems, as well as markets flexible fibers and hand pieces, and teeth whitening gel kits. The company sells its products through its field sales force and distributor network. The company was formerly known as BIOLASE Technology, Inc. and changed its name to BIOLASE, Inc. in 2012. BIOLASE, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California.

Awarener score: 3.6

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Lacking), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).