• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. (BBIO)

Awarener score: 3.2

Conclusion

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.
• BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 2.5

• BBIO profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually huge. They stand top-notch against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be pauper. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually destitute. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be pauper in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

• BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been a slight improvement 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: 2.3

• BBIO 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 very large portion of revenues. It's below average when measured against competitors.
• The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a slight improvement compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

• BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
• Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown 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: 2.7

• BBIO 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 heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
• Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved in a very weak position 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape 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.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 7.3

• BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
• The company has plenty short-term resources to face short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be impressive in relation to similar firms.
• Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly better than 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 a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
• On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to 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.
• Revenues are modest 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 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: 2.6

• BridgeBio Pharma, 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 neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands better than most similar companies.
• The company usually consumes 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 business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still encouraging in relation to industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up in good shape 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 huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
• There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant 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 very low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is in dispute. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.1

---

Awarener score: 3.2

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!