Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: BTRS Holdings Inc. (BTRS)

Awarener score: 2.6

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).

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.
  • BTRS Holdings Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.0

  • BTRS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand worse than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain in a very weak position 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 worse than most 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 extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • BTRS Holdings Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 2.0

  • BTRS 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 quite a bit of revenues. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

  • BTRS Holdings Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks below average 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.7

  • BTRS remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against 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 very weak position compared to peer enterprises.
  • We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

  • BTRS Holdings Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. 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 rather normal in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is somewhat better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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 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 a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.9

  • BTRS Holdings 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 close to average when 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 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 very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks somewhat 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 very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low 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: 2.6


BTRS logos

Company at a glance: BTRS Holdings Inc. (BTRS)

Sector, industry: Technology, Software—Application

Market Cap: 0.95 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.09 billions

BTRS Holdings Inc. provides cloud-based software and integrated payment processing solutions that automates business-to-business (B2B) commerce worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Print, and Software and Payments. The company offers solutions that span credit decisioning and monitoring, online ordering, invoicing, cash application, and collections. Its products include credit Application, a B2B credit application module, which provides a digital process that delivers credit-related information in real-time to streamline prospect evaluation and new customer onboarding during initial sales activity; Credit Management, a credit management module, which provides ongoing risk assessment for its customers' customers; order/E-commerce module that offers B2B wholesale distributors with e-commerce capabilities; and invoicing module, which enables its customers to optimize invoice delivery across various distribution channels. The company's products also comprise integrated B2B payments, an integrated payment capabilities that enable customers to facilitate payments at every possible touchpoint across solution set; cash application module, which enables revenue reconciliation through line item reconciliation within accounting and ERP systems; collections module that enables customers to shift from a reactive recovery-centric model to a strategic customer touchpoint-centric operation, preventing payment delays, and driving positive customer experiences; and business payments network, which makes accepting electronic payments through connecting suppliers and their underlying systems, AP portals, payment card issuers, banks, and payment processors. It serves customers across various industry verticals comprising technology, healthcare, industrial, wholesale distribution, consumer packaged goods, and others. The company was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Lawrenceville, New Jersey.

Awarener score: 2.6

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).