Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Abeona Therapeutics Inc. (ABEO)

Awarener score: 1.5

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (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: 1.0

  • Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • Abeona Therapeutics Inc. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 2.2

  • ABEO profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be extremely poor in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • Abeona Therapeutics Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 1.3

  • ABEO 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 huge portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • Business has been shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.0

  • Abeona Therapeutics Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got pauper 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

  • ABEO 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 weak when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to 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 heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal in relation to peer enterprises.
  • Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands in a very weak position 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: 5.6

  • Abeona Therapeutics Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier 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 in a very weak position compared 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 worse than most rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks substantially worse 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 in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's excellent in relation 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 has usually been operated at a loss. Unless prospects improve, the company is no position to decrease loans taken levels but by additional shareholders' funding. Profitability must improve. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.5

  • Abeona Therapeutics Inc. 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 close to average when compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed lots of funds. Either it reinvested heavily in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still substantially worse when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up a slight improvement 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 worse than most 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 very large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks rather normal in relation 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 worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of 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 an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.2


ABEO logos

Company at a glance: Abeona Therapeutics Inc. (ABEO)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.05 billions

Revenues TTM: unavailable

Abeona Therapeutics Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, develops gene and cell therapies for life-threatening rare genetic diseases. Its lead program is EB-101, an autologous, gene-corrected cell therapy that is in Phase III clinical trial for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. The company also develops ABO-102, an adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy for Sanfilippo syndrome type A; ABO-201 to treat CLN3 disease; ABO-401 for the treatment of cystic fibrosis; and ABO-50X for the treatment of genetic eye disorders. In addition, it is developing AAV-based gene therapy through its AIM vector platform programs. The company was formerly known as PlasmaTech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Abeona Therapeutics Inc. in June 2015. Abeona Therapeutics Inc. was incorporated in 1974 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

Awarener score: 1.5

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 (Bottom), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).