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

---

Fundamental analysis: The Bank of Princeton (BPRN)

Awarener score: 8.6

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: 7.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• The Bank of Princeton business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 7.7

• BPRN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier 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 huge. They remain in good shape compared 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 similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 5.6

• The Bank of Princeton 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 -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 average, and encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a normal rhythm in past years. It's been a slight improvement compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.0

• BPRN had to pay sparse 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

• The Bank of Princeton usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
• There's usually some profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.1

• BPRN 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 more than average in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid some dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly worse than competitors.
• Has greatly increased dividend payments in the past years. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved excellent in relation to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
• The company somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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 close to average when compared to rivals.
• The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.9

• The Bank of Princeton intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be similar to 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 slightly better than rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks weak 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 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 excellent when measured against loans taken. It could take less than two years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks great when measured against 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: 7.7

• The Bank of Princeton looks very cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be similar to 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.
• 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 bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually generates plenty more genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, at the current price the share looks to be very attractive. It's still encouraging in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
• This company is a cash hoarder. It might be 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 looks 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 attractive. It ranks similar to peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks lacking compared 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.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned huge money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be similar to 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 6.8

---

Awarener score: 8.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!