Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. (BOTJ)

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Superb) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).

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: 8.0

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 7.3

  • BOTJ profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand well ranked against 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 excellent. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be excellent in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually excellent considering total sales, and remain substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.8

  • Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare to competitors.
  • There is not sufficient data to estimate the operating income margin trend, which has been therefore unknown against comparable firms.
  • Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares below average 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 close to average when compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a low speed. It was slightly better than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been average, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been in good shape compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • BOTJ had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better 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: 6.5

  • Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets excellent proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually quite good. It ranks almost average 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.4

  • BOTJ 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 somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
  • In recent years, has greatly cut back dividend payments. It could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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 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: 6.7

  • Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 below average 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.
  • Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks encouraging in relation to 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 on less than a month credit. It still ranks encouraging 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 very good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks similar to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are somewhat 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 weak position compared to similar firms.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.6

  • Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison 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 slight improvement compared to peers.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has barely rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up lacking compared to peer ventures.
  • We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks very cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be very attractive. It ranks great when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. 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 somewhat better than peer firms.
  • We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
  • An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 6.2


BOTJ logos

Company at a glance: Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. (BOTJ)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 0.06 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.04 billions

Bank of the James Financial Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Bank of the James that provides general retail and commercial banking services to individuals, businesses, associations and organizations, and governmental authorities in Virginia, the United States. It offers checking, savings, individual retirement, and health care saving accounts, as well as other time deposits, including money market accounts and certificates of deposit. The company also offers loans to small- and medium-sized businesses for the purchases of equipment, facilities upgrades, inventory acquisition, and various working capital purposes; commercial and residential construction and development loans; commercial real estate mortgage loans; residential mortgage loans; and secured and unsecured consumer loans, such as lines of credit and overdraft lines of credit, as well as personal, automobile, installment, demand, and home equity loans for personal, family, or household purposes. In addition, it provides other banking services, including safe deposit boxes, traveler's checks, direct deposit of payroll and social security checks, automatic drafts for various accounts, treasury management, and credit card merchant services. Further, the company offers securities brokerage and investment services; and telephone and internet banking services comprising online bill pay, as well as acts as an agent for insurance and annuity products. It operates through a network of 16 full-service offices, 2 limited-service offices, and 1 residential mortgage loan production office. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Awarener score: 7.2

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Superb) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).