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

---

Fundamental analysis: Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. (BIOX)

Awarener score: 4.4

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: a result could not be reached

• Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
• Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 5.2

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

Growth score: 2.3

• Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been impressive in relation 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: 7.0

• BIOX had to pay too much income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been mediocre against peers.
• Research and development expenses consume a very little portion of revenues. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
• The company shows excellent business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 6.0

• Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. usually gets good returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got good 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 5.5

• BIOX usually uses a portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is rather normal. It stands below average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to 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 heavily 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 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 top tier when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 3.7

• Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of 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 very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
• On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against 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 lacking compared to similar companies.
• Usual business earnings are mostly consumed by net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but stockholders not so much. Profitability must increase, lest the firm risks only working for creditors' benefit. It stands worse than most 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 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

• Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. 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 a disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
• In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still last-in-rank 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 in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. It looks somewhat worse 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 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 a weak position compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little 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 a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.7

---

Awarener score: 4.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!