Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (AKBA)

Awarener score: 2.6

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 (Poor) and growth (Average), 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: 4.5

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
  • Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 2.5

  • AKBA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's great when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain excellent in relation to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be extremely poor in relation to total revenues. They're still better than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain great when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands great when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.1

  • Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been a disappointment 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

  • AKBA 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 substantial portion of revenues. It's great when measured against competitors.
  • The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.5

  • Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to 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 very poor 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.6

  • AKBA 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 almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in 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 has heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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 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: 4.6

  • Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major 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 somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately four months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient 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 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.
  • Revenues are quite good 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.9

  • Akebia 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 a disappointment 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 worse than most 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 last-in-rank 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 rather normal in relation to peer ventures.
  • This company is a cash hoarder. It might be well poised to substantially 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of money. It happens to be last-in-rank 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 a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.8


AKBA logos

Company at a glance: Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (AKBA)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.06 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.30 billions

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company's lead product investigational product candidate is vadadustat, an oral therapy, which is in Phase III development for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) in dialysis-dependent and non-dialysis dependent adult patients. It also offers Auryxia, a ferric citrate that is used to control the serum phosphorus levels in adult patients with DD-CKD on dialysis; and the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adult patients with CKD not on dialysis. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. has collaboration agreements with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. for the development and commercialization of vadadustat in the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, Australia, Canada, the Middle East, and other countries; and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation for the development and commercialization of vadadustat in Japan and other Asian countries, as well as research and license agreement with Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for the development and commercialization of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase targeted compounds worldwide. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 2.6

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 (Poor) and growth (Average), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).