Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: BeiGene, Ltd. (BGNE)

Awarener score: 4.4

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

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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • BeiGene, Ltd. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 1.8

  • BGNE profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain in good shape 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 well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • BeiGene, Ltd. couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. 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: 4.7

  • BGNE 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 some portion of revenues. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands excellent in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.5

  • BeiGene, Ltd. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average in relation to 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.4

  • BGNE 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 great 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.
  • 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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: 6.5

  • BeiGene, Ltd. 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 more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks almost average when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in 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 somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's close to average when 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 huge 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 a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.6

  • BeiGene, Ltd. 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 lacking compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands somewhat better than 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 more than average in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks slightly better than 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 close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • We have not enough information on the relation between current stock price and accounting book value. The company remains a mystery against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4


BGNE logos

Company at a glance: BeiGene, Ltd. (BGNE)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 14.89 billions

Revenues TTM: 1.07 billions

BeiGene, Ltd., a biotechnology company, focuses on discovering, developing, manufacturing, and commercializing various medicines worldwide. Its products include BRUKINSA to treat relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma; Tislelizumab to treat R/R classical Hodgkin's lymphoma; REVLIMID to treat multiple myeloma; VIDAZA to treat myelodysplastic syndromes, chronic myelomonocyte leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia; XGEVA to treat giant cell tumor of bone; BLINCYTO to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; KYPROLIS to treat R/R multiple myeloma; SYLVANT to treat idiopathic multicentric castleman disease; QARZIBA to treat neuroblastoma; Pamiparib for the treatment of various solid tumors; and Pobevcy to treat metastatic colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The company's clinical stage drug candidates comprise Zanubrutinib, a BTK inhibitor to treat lymphomas; Tislelizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody to treat solid and hematological cancers; Lifirafenib and BGB-3245 to treat melanoma, NSCLC, and endometrial cancer; and Sitravatinib, a multi-kinase inhibitor to treat NSCLC, melanoma, and other solid tumors. Its clinical stage drug candidates also include BGB-A333, a PD-L1 inhibitor to treat various solid tumors; Ociperlimab, a TIGIT inhibitor to treat various solid tumors; BGB-11417, a small molecule Bcl-2 inhibitor to treat mature B-cell malignancies; BGB-A445, an OX40 agonist antibody to treat solid tumors; Zanidatamab, a bispecific HER2 inhibitor to treat breast and gastric cancer; BGB-A425, a T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-domain containing-3 inhibitor to treat various solid tumors; and BGB-15025, a small molecule inhibitor of HPK1. The company has strategic collaborations with Shoreline Biosciences, Inc., Amgen Inc., Novartis AG, and Bristol Myers Squibb company. BeiGene, Ltd. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 4.4

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