Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. (BWMN)

Awarener score: 5.6

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 (Good), 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.
  • Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 5.7

  • BWMN profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be sufficient. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually hardly sufficient. They remain in a very weak position compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be hardly sufficient in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually hardly sufficient considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be hardly sufficient when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: could not be analyzed

  • Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. 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.
  • EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown against peer enterprises.
  • We were not able to provide an estimate for EBIT growth, because of lacking data. It turns to be not yet known in relation to similar stocks.
  • Profit before income tax growth was not estimated, on insufficient history. It was impossible to measure against rivals.
  • Net income growth could not be estimated, and so it is unknown against peer companies.
  • There was not enough input data to estimate EPS trend. It's been an impossibility to compare it with industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 5.0

  • BWMN 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: 5.2

  • Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets hardly sufficient 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 modest. It ranks last-in-rank 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.7

  • BWMN usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually not replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
  • The company uses a non-significant portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors. The company is usually improving its financial position, and could greatly boost stockholder rewards if it wished so. It still looks top tier when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.3

  • Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. 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 double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains somewhat 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 roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
  • To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are quite good 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.
  • Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.7

  • Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. profits are really small compared to market valuation, market valuation doesn't rely on current earnings. It happens to be substantially worse 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 rather normal in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some good free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better than most similar companies.
  • The company usually generates much 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 might be very interesting. It's still top tier when measured 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 a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has barely more debt than cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation is huge, as profits were extremely low in relative terms. It ranks substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one 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 is high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains slightly better than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. 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 a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.9


BWMN logos

Company at a glance: Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. (BWMN)

Sector, industry: Industrials, Consulting Services

Market Cap: 0.35 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.16 billions

Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. provides a range of real estate, energy, infrastructure, and environmental management solutions in the United States. It offers civil and site engineering services, such as conceptual land planning, environmental consulting and permitting, planning/zoning and entitlements, roadway and highway designs, erosion and sediment designs, stormwater management designs, construction administration, traffic studies, floodplain studies, and utility relocation designs; and commissioning and energy efficiency services comprise construction observation, direct systems functional performance testing, system development readiness checklist, post occupancy review, review of construction documents, deferred/seasonal functional testing, final commissioning report, and commissioning review of submittals. The company also provides construction management services, including constructability review, value engineering, budgeting and cost estimating, interagency and utility coordination, onsite observation and report evaluation, public communication and outreach, and resident engineer services, as well as bid solicitation, documentation, and preparation services; and environmental consulting services consisting of wetlands and waters of the U.S. delineations, natural resources inventories, wildlife and vegetation surveys, threatened and endangered species surveys, endangered species conservation and management, wetland creation and enhancement design, NEPA documentation, section 404/401 permitting and compliance, NPDES permitting, and phase I environmental site assessment. In addition, it offers landscape architecture, land procurement and right-of-way acquisition, structural engineering, surveying and geospatial engineering, and transportation and water resources engineering services, as well as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering services. Bowman Consulting Group Ltd. was incorporated in 1995 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

Awarener score: 5.6

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 (Good), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).