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

---

Fundamental analysis: BSQUARE Corporation (BSQR)

Awarener score: 3.2

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: 5.5

• Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• BSQUARE Corporation business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

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

Growth score: 1.1

• BSQUARE Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. It's been in a very weak position 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: 3.3

• BSQR 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 sparse portion of revenues. It's great when measured against competitors.
• Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.5

• BSQUARE Corporation usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks weak when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got meagre 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: 2.3

• BSQR 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, 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 usually significantly enlarges 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 in a very weak position 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: 7.9

• BSQUARE Corporation has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be excellent in relation to 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 somewhat better than rival firms.
• Most resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is best for liquidity. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's impressive in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is top-notch against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
• On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's in good shape compared to 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 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 excellent 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 in good shape compared 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 well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 5.0

• BSQUARE Corporation 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 impressive in relation 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 largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up in a weak position 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 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 not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against 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: 3.9

---

Awarener score: 3.2

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!