|
Report Date : |
01.12.2014 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
NATUS NEUROLOGY INCORPORATED |
|
|
|
|
Registered Office : |
3150 Pleasant View Road, Middleton, WI 52562 |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
United States |
|
|
|
|
Date of Incorporation : |
23.08.2005 |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
Corporation – Profit |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business : |
manufacturer of products
for Diagnostic Electroencephalography (EEG), Electromyography (EMG), Diagnostic
Sleep Analysis Or Polysomnography (PSG), Intra-Operative Monitoring (IOM),
and Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound Technology |
|
|
|
|
No of Employees : |
200 (943 for the group) |
RATING & COMMENTS
|
MIRA’s Rating : |
Ba |
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
Status : |
Satisfactory |
|
Payment Behaviour : |
No Complaints |
|
Litigation : |
Clear |
NOTES :
Any query related to this report can be made
on e-mail : infodept@mirainform.com
while quoting report number, name and date.
ECGC Country Risk Classification List – June 1, 2014
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (31.03.2014) |
Current Rating (01.06.2014) |
|
United States |
A1 |
A1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC
Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
United States ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
The US has the largest and most
technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of
$49,800. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business
firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy
needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business
firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and
Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to
develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter
their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US
firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in
computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage
has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely
explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in
which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical
skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay
raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically
all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since
1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other
category of after-tax income. Imported oil accounts for nearly 55% of US
consumption. Crude oil prices doubled between 2001 and 2006, the year home
prices peaked; higher gasoline prices ate into consumers' budgets and many
individuals fell behind in their mortgage payments. Oil prices climbed another
50% between 2006 and 2008, and bank foreclosures more than doubled in the same
period. Besides dampening the housing market, soaring oil prices caused a drop
in the value of the dollar and a deterioration in the US merchandise trade
deficit, which peaked at $840 billion in 2008. The sub-prime mortgage crisis,
falling home prices, investment bank failures, tight credit, and the global economic
downturn pushed the United States into a recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted
until the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn
since the Great Depression. To help stabilize financial markets, in October
2008 the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program
(TARP). The government used some of these funds to purchase equity in US banks
and industrial corporations, much of which had been returned to the government
by early 2011. In January 2009 the US Congress passed and President Barack
OBAMA signed a bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be
used over 10 years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax
cuts - to create jobs and to help the economy recover. In 2010 and 2011, the
federal budget deficit reached nearly 9% of GDP. In 2012 the federal government
reduced the growth of spending and the deficit shrank to 7.6% of GDP. Wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan required major shifts in national resources from civilian
to military purposes and contributed to the growth of the budget deficit and
public debt. Through 2011, the direct costs of the wars totaled nearly $900
billion, according to US government figures. US revenues from taxes and other
sources are lower, as a percentage of GDP, than those of most other countries.
In March 2010, President OBAMA signed into law the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, a health insurance reform that was designed to extend
coverage to an additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private
health insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished.
Total spending on health care - public plus private - rose from 9.0% of GDP in
1980 to 17.9% in 2010. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a law designed to promote financial
stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer
bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are "too big
to fail," and improving accountability and transparency in the financial
system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded
in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight. In December
2012, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced plans to purchase $85 billion
per month of mortgage-backed and Treasury securities in an effort to hold down
long-term interest rates, and to keep short term rates near zero until
unemployment drops below 6.5% or inflation rises above 2.5%. In late 2013, the Fed
announced that it would begin scaling back long-term bond purchases to $75
billion per month in January 2014 and reduce them further as conditions
warranted; the Fed, however, would keep short-term rates near zero so long as
unemployment and inflation had not crossed the previously stated thresholds.
Long-term problems include stagnation of wages for lower-income families,
inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure, rapidly rising medical
and pension costs of an aging population, energy shortages, and sizable current
account and budget deficits.
|
Source : CIA |
Company name: NATUS NEUROLOGY INCORPORATED
Address: 3150 Pleasant View Road,
Middleton, WI 52562 - USA
Telephone: +1
608-829-8500
Fax: +1 608-829-8775
Website: www.natus.com
Corporate ID#: 4019832
State: Delaware
Judicial form: Corporation – Profit
Date incorporated: 08-23-2005
Stock Value: USD
60,000=
Name of manager: James
B. HAWKINS
Business:
Natus Neurology Incorporated is a manufacturer of products for
diagnostic electroencephalography (EEG), electromyography (EMG), diagnostic
sleep analysis or polysomnography (PSG), intra-operative monitoring (IOM), and
transcranial doppler ultrasound technology.
The Company exports to South and Central America.
Office of the Foreign Assets Control (OFAC):
The company is not listed on the OFAC list.
The Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List is a publication of OFAC
which lists individuals and organizations with whom United States citizens and
permanent residents are prohibited from doing business.
No name of foreign suppliers available.
EIN: -
Staff: 200 (943 for the group)
Operations & branches:
At the headquarters, we
find a factory, warehouse and office, owned.
The Company maintains branches located:
200 Metro Center Blvd, Unit 8
Warwick, RI 02886
720 Corporate Circle, Suite A
Golden, CO 80401
Shareholders:
NATUS MEDICAL INCORPORATED
1501 Industrial Road, San Carlos, California
94070
Incorporated in Delaware on
07-20-2000
ID# 3262636
The Company is listed with
the Nasdaq under symbol BABY.
Management:
James B. HAWKINS is the President and CEO of the group.
He has been the Chief Executive Officer of Natus Medical, Inc. since
April 19, 2004 and has been its President since June 6, 2013.
Mr. Hawkins served as the President of Natus Medical, Inc. from April
2004 to February 2011. Mr. Hawkins served as the Chief Executive Officer of
Invivo Corporation since August 1985 and served as its Secretary since
September 1986. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of
Invivo Research Inc. Mr. Hawkins has over two decades of experience as chief
executive of successful medical device companies. He joined Natus with
approximately 25 years of combined medical device and financial experience. He
served as the President of Invivo Corporation from August 1985 to January 2005
and Chief Executive Officer of Invivo's predecessor since August 1985. Before
he joined Invivo, he founded a corporate financial consulting company and in
that capacity served as Chief Financial Officer for several technology
companies in California's Silicon Valley. Under Mr. Hawkins' leadership Invivo
posted increasing revenues and earnings every year since 1985. He also built a
senior management team that remained intact for more than 10 years before
Invivo Corporation was acquired this year by Intermagnetics General
Corporation. Mr. Hawkins served as the Chief Financial Officer of Sensor
Control Corporation.
He has been the Chairman of IRadimed Corporation since December 2013. He
has been Director of Digirad Corporation since April 22, 2012. He has been a
Director at IRIDEX Corporation since October 2007, Myoscience, Inc. since
December 2013 and Natus Medical, Inc. since April 19, 2004. He served as a
Director of Invivo Corporation and Invivo's predecessor since August 1985.
He served as a Director of Pillar Corporation from August 1987 to August
1999. Mr. Hawkins holds an undergraduate degree in Business Commerce from Santa
Clara University and holds Masters of Business Administration degree from San
Francisco State University.
Bob BOSCOM is the CFO.
In United States, privately
held corporations are not required to publish any financials.
On a direct call, a financial
assistant controlled the present report and confirmed that all financials are
consolidated into the parent company which reported sales for year 2013 up to
USD 344,100,000= and a net profit of USD 22,900,000=
Natus Neurology sales
declared for year 2013 is in the range of
USD 30,000,000=
Banks: Wells Fargo Bank
Legal filings
& complaints:
As of today date, there is no legal filing pending with the Courts.
Secured debts summary (UCC):
None
Trade references:
Date reported: November 2014
High credit: USD 20,000
Now owing: 0
Past due: 0
Last purchase: October 2014
Line of business: Office supply
Paying status: On terms
Date reported: November 2014
High credit: USD 280,000
Now owing: 0
Past due: 0
Last purchase: October 2014
Line of business: Payroll
Paying status: As agreed
Date reported: November 2014
High credit: USD 1,000
Now owing: 0
Past due: October
2014
Line of business: Telecommunications
Paying status: On terms
Domestic credit history:
National Credit Bureaus
gave a satisfying credit rating.
According to our credit analysts, during the last 6 months, domestic
payments were made on terms.
Other comments:
The Company maintains a
regular business.
The Company is late to file
its annual report in Delaware, but is still active.
The Secretary of State of
Wisconsin revoked the Company.
On a direct call, the bank
was not allowed to release any information without the authorization of its
customer.
Our opinion:
The risk remains low.
A business connection may
be conducted.
Standard
& Poor’s
|
United
States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks,
Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |
|
Publication
date: 05-Aug-2011 20:13:14 EST |
·
We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings
from CreditWatch negative.
·
The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to
falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the
government's medium-term debt dynamics.
·
More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges
to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the
rating on April 18, 2011.
·
Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in
bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes
us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able
to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan
that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
·
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could
lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that
less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal
pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt
trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
TORONTO (Standard &
Poor's) Aug. 5, 2011--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today that it
lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America
to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on the
long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed
its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's
removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011,
with negative implications.
The
transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of
the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public-
and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for
debt service--remains
'AAA'.
We lowered our long-term
rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over
raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate
indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public
spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising
revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a
contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation
plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of
the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government
debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the
rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our
perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria
(see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions ," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41).
Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external,
and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating,
as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings
off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment
of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by
delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that
the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course
of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The
political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's
governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less
predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and
the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over
fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the
differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily
difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short
of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had
envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able
to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while
delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It
appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy
options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare
and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which
we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal
sustainability.
Our opinion is that
elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to
effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent
with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41).
In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the
government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the
debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era
of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political
consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe
that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed
medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on
the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers
closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even
More Green, Now," June 21,
2011).
Standard & Poor's
takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and
the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s
finances on a sustainable footing.
The act calls for as much
as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through
2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to
initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed
Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to
recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or
otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.
The act further provides
that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion
will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly
affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We
understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to
embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might
recommend.
We note that in a letter
to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated
total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the
next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal
projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the
CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to
include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In
general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation
of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.
We view the act's
measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework
of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally
agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could
modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion
of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our
view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government
combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow.
Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be consistent
with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project that net
general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of
2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign
indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would
continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.
Compared with previous
projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003
tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed
our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue
to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress
reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case
scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near
2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside
scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the
outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these
same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of
new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners
lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario,
we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated
74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
Our revised downside
scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a
possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable
macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second
round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not
occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for
U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key
reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change
only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose
monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible
that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a
result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in
10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In
this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP
in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.
Our revised scenarios
also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP
data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our
perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when
evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the
revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so
the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real
terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised
data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared
with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish
pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences
of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt
deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a
result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP
growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.
When comparing the U.S.
to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant
peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our
base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt
is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five
sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year
ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%.
By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between
30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at
79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt
burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by
2015.
Standard & Poor's
transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment
reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public
and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service.
Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has
deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of
this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the
Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly
remote.
The outlook on the
long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario
illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could
lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside
scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other
initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and
we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt
dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
|
Currency |
Unit
|
Indian Rupees |
|
US Dollar |
1 |
Rs.61.97 |
|
UK Pound |
1 |
Rs.97.37 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.77.16 |
INFORMATION DETAILS
|
Analysis Done by
: |
KAR |
|
|
|
|
Report Prepared
by : |
MNL |
RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
>86 |
Aaa |
Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest
capability for timely payment of interest and principal sums |
Unlimited |
|
71-85 |
Aa |
Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit
transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest
and principal sums |
Large |
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General unfavourable
factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for payment of
interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively
below average. |
Small |
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with full
security |
|
<10 |
C |
Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised |
Credit not
recommended |
|
-- |
NB |
New Business |
-- |
This score serves as a reference to assess SC’s
credit risk and to set the amount of credit to be extended. It is calculated
from a composite of weighted scores obtained from each of the major sections of
this report. The assessed factors and their relative weights (as indicated
through %) are as follows:
Financial
condition (40%) Ownership
background (20%) Payment
record (10%)
Credit history
(10%) Market trend (10%) Operational size
(10%)
This report is issued at your request without any
risk and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL)
or its officials.