Good or high score = 7, 8, 9
Bad or low score = 0, 1, 2, 3
MedAssets has an F-score of 5 indicating the company's financial situation is typical for a stable company.
The historical rank and industry rank for MedAssets's Piotroski F-Score or its related term are showing as below:
MedAssets Piotroski F-Score Historical Data
The historical data trend for MedAssets's Piotroski F-Score can be seen below:
* For Operating Data section: All numbers are indicated by the unit behind each term and all currency related amount are in USD. * For other sections: All numbers are in millions except for per share data, ratio, and percentage. All currency related amount are indicated in the company's associated stock exchange currency.
* For Operating Data section: All numbers are indicated by the unit behind each term and all currency related amount are in USD. * For other sections: All numbers are in millions except for per share data, ratio, and percentage. All currency related amount are indicated in the company's associated stock exchange currency.
*Note: If the latest quarterly/semi-annual/annual total assets data is 0, then we will use previous quarterly/semi-annual/annual data for all the items in the balance sheet.
Profitability
Question 1. Return on Assets (ROA)
Net income before extraordinary items for the year divided by Total Assets at the beginning of the year.
Score 1 if positive, 0 if negative.
MedAssets's current Net Income (TTM) was -35.0.
==> Negative ==> Score 0.
Question 2. Cash Flow Return on Assets (CFROA)
Net cash flow from operating activities (operating cash flow) divided by Total Assets at the beginning of the year.
MedAssets's return on assets of this year was -0.01997568. MedAssets's return on assets of last year was 0.01820928.
==> Last year is higher ==> Score 0.
Question 4. Quality of Earnings (Accrual)
Compare Cash flow return on assets (2) to return on assets (1)
MedAssets's gearing of this year was 0.45516084. MedAssets's gearing of last year was 0.54119381.
==> This year is lower or equal to last year. ==> Score 1.
Question 6. Change in Working Capital (Liquidity)
Compare this year's current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) to last year's current ratio.
Score 1 if this year's current ratio is higher, 0 if it's lower
MedAssets's current ratio of this year was 0.54783863. MedAssets's current ratio of last year was 0.61856156.
==> Last year's current ratio is higher ==> Score 0.
Question 7. Change in Shares in Issue
Compare the number of shares in issue this year, to the number in issue last year.
Score 0 if there is larger number of shares in issue this year, 1 otherwise.
MedAssets's number of shares in issue this year was 59.437. MedAssets's number of shares in issue last year was 60.662.
==> There is smaller number of shares in issue this year, or the same. ==> Score 1.
Efficiency
Question 8. Change in Gross Margin
Compare this year's gross margin (Gross Profit divided by sales) to last year's.
Score 1 if this year's gross margin is higher, 0 if it's lower.
MedAssets's gross margin of this year was 0.75179629. MedAssets's gross margin of last year was 0.76580216.
==> Last year's gross margin is higher ==> Score 0.
Question 9. Change in asset turnover
Compare this year's asset turnover (total sales for the year divided by total assets at the beginning of the year) to last year's asset turnover ratio.
Score 1 if this year's asset turnover ratio is higher, 0 if it's lower
MedAssets's asset turnover of this year was 0.43649998. MedAssets's asset turnover of last year was 0.42362074.
==> This year's asset turnover is higher. ==> Score 1.
Evaluation
Piotroski F-Score
=
Que. 1
+
Que. 2
+
Que. 3
+
Que. 4
+
Que. 5
+
Que. 6
+
Que. 7
+
Que. 8
+
Que. 9
=
0
+
1
+
0
+
1
+
1
+
0
+
1
+
0
+
1
=
5
Good or high score = 7, 8, 9
Bad or low score = 0, 1, 2, 3
MedAssets has an F-score of 5 indicating the company's financial situation is typical for a stable company.
The developer of the system is Joseph D. Piotroski is relatively unknown accounting professor who shuns publicity and rarely gives interviews.
He graduated from the University of Illinois with a B.S. in accounting in 1989, received an M.B.A. from Indiana University in 1994. Five years later, in 1999, after earning a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Michigan, he became an associate professor of accounting at the University of Chicago.
He wanted to see if he can develop a system (using a simple nine-point scoring system) that can increase the returns of a strategy of investing in low price to book (referred to in the paper as high book to market) value companies.
What he found was something that exceeded his most optimistic expectations.
Buying only those companies that scored highest (8 or 9) on his nine-point scale, or F-Score as he called it, over the 20 year period from 1976 to 1996 led to an average out-performance over the market of 13.4%.
Even more impressive were the results of a strategy of investing in the highest F-Score companies (8 or 9) and shorting companies with the lowest F-Score (0 or 1).
Over the same period from 1976 to 1996 (20 years) this strategy led to an average yearly return of 23%, substantially outperforming the average S&P 500 index return of 15.83% over the same period.
MedAssets Piotroski F-Score Related Terms
Thank you for viewing the detailed overview of MedAssets's Piotroski F-Score provided by GuruFocus.com. Please click on the following links to see related term pages.
MedAssets Inc was incorporated in 1999. It is a financial and performance improvement company providing technology-enabled products and services that, together, help mitigate the increasing financial challenges faced by hospitals, health systems, and other non-acute healthcare providers. Its solutions are designed to reduce the total cost of care delivery, enhance operational efficiency, align clinical delivery of physicians and staff to advance care coordination, and improve revenue performance mainly for hospitals and health systems. The Company's solutions integrate with its clients' existing operations and enterprise software systems, and require minimal upfront costs or capital expenditures for its clients. Its technology-enabled solutions are delivered through company-hosted software, sometimes referred to as software as a service or Web-based applications, supported by implementation, process improvement consulting and outsourced services, as well as enterprise-wide sales and client management support. The Company manages its business through two business segments, Spend and Clinical Resource Management (CM) and Revenue Cycle Management (RCM). Within the SCM segment it provides a comprehensive suite of cost management services, supply chain analytics and data capabilities that help its clients reduce their total cost of care delivery, enhance their operational efficiency and align their clinicians' delivery of care with advance care coordination. Its solutions lower operating costs through compliance to its strategic sourcing of supplies and purchased services at discounted prices, supply chain outsourcing and procurement services capabilities. It also help to improve care processes and reduce care variations through the use of its clinical and process improvement consulting services, workforce optimization solutions and business analytics and intelligence tools. The Company's RCM segment is a provider of revenue cycle management solutions to healthcare providers, mainly hospitals and health systems. It provides SaaS or Web-based software and technology-enabled services designed to improve revenue performance for healthcare organizations through patient access and financial responsibility, clinical documentation, charge capture and revenue integrity, pricing analysis, claims processing and denials management, payor contract management, extended business office revenue recovery, accounts receivable services and outsourcing. As of December 31, 2013, the Company's client base included more than 4,400 acute care hospitals and approximately 122,000 ancillary or non-acute provider locations. The Company competes with Allscripts Corporation, Epic Systems Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Siemens AG; Accenture Ltd., Accretive Health, Inc., Deloitte & Touche LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, Craneware Inc., Emdeon Inc. and among others. The Company is subject to federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect patients, government
Quick Browse
Personalize
Premium Gurus 
Create New Portfolio
Portfolio Contest
MDAS has been successfully added to your 