Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: First Busey Corporation (BUSE)

Awarener score: 5.8

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 (Modest), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Modest), 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: 7.0

  • Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • First Busey Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 7.5

  • BUSE 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 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 rather normal in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be excellent when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.2

  • First Busey Corporation 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 almost average when measured against peer enterprises.
  • Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be lacking compared to similar stocks.
  • In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
  • In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • Earnings per share have been almost stagnant in past years. It's been lacking compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 4.0

  • BUSE had to pay substantial income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been somewhat worse 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

  • First Busey Corporation usually gets sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very good proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.1

  • BUSE 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 almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak when measured against industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came better than most competitors.
  • Dividend payments have been more or less stable in recent years. The company has behaved in a weak position 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, 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 a disappointment 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: 6.2

  • First Busey Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared 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 worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources might be only very slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is riskier. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has plenty of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks more than average 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 good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.1

  • First Busey Corporation 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 lacking 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 might be reasonable. It ranks almost average 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 rather normal 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: 5.4


BUSE logos

Company at a glance: First Busey Corporation (BUSE)

Sector, industry: Financial Services, Banks—Regional

Market Cap: 1.24 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.42 billions

First Busey Corporation operates as the bank holding company for Busey Bank that provides retail and commercial banking products and services to individual, corporate, institutional, and governmental customers in the United States. The company operates through three segments: Banking, FirsTech, and Wealth Management. It offers banking services to individual and corporate customers. The company also provides asset management, investment, brokerage, fiduciary, philanthropic advisory, tax preparation, and farm management services. Further, it offers payment technology solutions through its payment platform, such as walk-in payment processing for customers at retail pay agents; online bill payment solutions; customer service payments accepted over the telephone; mobile bill pay; direct debit services; electronic concentration of payments delivered to automated clearing house network; money management and credit card networks; and lockbox remittance processing to make payments by mail, as well as provides tools related to billing, reconciliation, bill reminders, and treasury services. The company has 46 banking centers in Illinois; 8 in Missouri; 3 in southwest Florida; and 1 in Indianapolis, Indiana. First Busey Corporation was founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Champaign, Illinois.

Awarener score: 5.8

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 (Modest), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Modest), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Good).