Fundamental analysis: a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. (AKA)

Awarener score: 5.1

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 (Average), the business stability (unknown) 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: 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.
a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 4.8

AKA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand somewhat better than rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be hardly sufficient. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually meagre. They remain a slight improvement 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 slightly better than similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. 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.
EBITDA growth is unknown due to insufficient inputs, which compares unknown 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: 1.0

AKA had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against 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: 4.8

a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
The company normally gets hardly sufficient proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks below average 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.8

AKA usually uses a large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is large. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is almost average 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 significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains close to average when compared to peer enterprises.
We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.6

a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be significant difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in good shape 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment compared to similar companies.
Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands worse than most rival firms.
Business earnings have usually been very low when measured against loans taken. Even significantly cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than ten years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
Revenues are very good in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. Low property, plant, and equipment requirements allows the company to keep more money to reward stockholders in the long run. It looks close to average when compared to similar firms.
Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. 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 generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands somewhat better than similar companies.
The company usually generates somewhat more than enough 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, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still encouraging in relation to 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains better than most peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a little money. It happens to be encouraging in relation to industry peers.
In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a modest earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.5

Company at a glance: a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. (AKA)

Sector, industry: Consumer Cyclical, Internet Retail

Market Cap: 0.05 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.61 billions

a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. operates a portfolio of online fashion brands in the United States, Australia, and internationally. It offers apparel, footwear, and accessories through its online stores under the Princess Polly, Culture Kings, Petal & Pup, mnml, and Rebdolls brands, as well as operates eight physical stores under the Culture Kings brand name. The company was founded in 2018 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.