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

---

Fundamental analysis: First Busey Corporation (BUSE)

Awarener score: 6.1

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 growth has been almost stagnant. It's been similar to peer companies.
• First Busey Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 8.3

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

Growth score: 5.4

• First Busey Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been in good shape compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been slightly better than comparable firms.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at a very low pace, 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 lacking compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, profits -before income taxes- grew at a very low speed. It was somewhat worse than rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been very low, and below average when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have grown at a very low rhythm in past years. It's been lacking compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

• BUSE had to pay some income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly 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: 6.2

• First Busey Corporation usually gets hardly 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 close to average when compared 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 substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid good dividends, considering the current stock price. It came slightly better than competitors.
• In recent years, has cut back dividend payments. It could be traversing challenging 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 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 a disappointment 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: 5.4

• 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 last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
• Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's lacking 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 earnings have usually been reasonable when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than five years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are modest 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 6.9

• First Busey Corporation looks cheap in relation to profits and financial position. It happens to be weak 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 lacking compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated extraordinary free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands slightly better than similar companies.
• The company usually consumes much more funds than can genuinely generate. Business needs are meet by borrowing money or consuming preexistent cash, which can only keep up until a certain limit. Unless the company is driving significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still similar to 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
• The company is indebted, it should focus on loan repayment. It looks worse than most 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 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 slightly worse than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business earned great money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown an excellent earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Further analysis is recommended, as the stock might currently be undervalued. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 5.9

---

Awarener score: 6.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!