Fundamental analysis: 3D Systems Corporation (DDD)

Awarener score: 4.0

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Very good) and growth (Bottom), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

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: 4.5

Business has been shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
3D Systems Corporation business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 4.5

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

Growth score: 1.1

3D Systems 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: 2.7

DDD 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 moderate portion of revenues. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands in a very weak position compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 4.0

3D Systems Corporation usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks below average when measured against competitors.
In the past, got low 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: 2.2

DDD 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 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 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 enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when 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: 4.5

3D Systems Corporation 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar firms.
A significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks below average when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant 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 more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 lacking compared to similar companies.
Has usually been losing money on the business, so net interest expenses must be paid by increasing borrowings, which is unsustainable in the long run. The situation is very risky for both creditors and shareholders, profitability must increase. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are reasonable 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.0

3D Systems 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up close to average when 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 worse 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 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 in a weak position compared to rival firms.
The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. 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 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 somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4

Company at a glance: 3D Systems Corporation (DDD)

Sector, industry: Technology, Computer Hardware

Market Cap: 1.34 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.54 billions

3D Systems Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides 3D printing and digital manufacturing solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company offers 3D printers, such as stereolithography, selective laser sintering, direct metal printing, multi jet printing, color jet printing, and extrusion and SLA based bioprinting that transform digital data input generated by 3D design software, computer aided design (CAD) software, or other 3D design tools into printed parts. It also develops, blends, and markets various print materials, such as plastic, nylon, metal, composite, elastomeric, wax, polymeric dental, and bio-compatible materials. In addition, the company provides digital design tools, including software, scanners, and haptic devices, as well as solutions for product design, simulation, mold and die design, 3D scan-to-print, reverse engineering, production machining, metrology, and inspection and manufacturing workflows under the Geomagic brand. Further, it offers 3D Sprint and 3DXpert, a proprietary software to prepare and optimize CAD data and manage the additive manufacturing processes, which provides automated support building and placement, build platform management, print simulation, and print queue management; and Bioprint Pro, a software solution that allows researchers to design and bioprint repeatable experiments. Additionally, the company provides maintenance and training services; manufacturing services; and software and precision healthcare services. It primarily serves companies and small and midsize businesses in medical, dental, automotive, aerospace, durable good, government, defense, technology, jewelry, electronic, education, consumer good, energy, biotechnology, and other industries through direct sales force, channel partners, and appointed distributors. 3D Systems Corporation was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Rock Hill, South Carolina.