Fundamental analysis: bluebird bio, Inc. (BLUE)

Awarener score: 3.5

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 (Very poor), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), 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: 5.5

Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
bluebird bio, Inc. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks mediocre against rivals.

Margins score: 1.0

BLUE profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually destitute. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
Business profit on sales tends to be pauper. It's weak when measured against competitors.
Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually destitute. They remain in a weak position compared to peers.
Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be pauper in relation to total revenues. They're still mediocre against similar companies.
Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

bluebird bio, Inc. 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: 2.0

BLUE 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 almost average when measured against competitors.
The company hardly grows despite of research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.5

bluebird bio, Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks below average 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: 3.4

BLUE 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 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 usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains excellent 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: 4.6

bluebird bio, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
The company has more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns shouldn't be an issue. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier 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 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 enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a weak position compared to similar companies.
Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch 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.
The company didn't have revenues in the past twelve months. It must start having income to take advantage of used resources. It looks close to average when compared to similar firms.
The firm has yet to start reporting any sales. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.4

bluebird bio, 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 funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
The company usually consumes much 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 significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still below average 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 close to average when compared to peer ventures.
The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks bottom tier against 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 in a very weak position compared 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 a lot of money. It happens to be almost average 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.7

Company at a glance: bluebird bio, Inc. (BLUE)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.39 billions

Revenues TTM: unavailable

bluebird bio, Inc., a biotechnology company, researches, develops, and commercializes transformative gene therapies for severe genetic diseases. Its product candidates for severe genetic diseases include betibeglogene autotemcel for the treatment of transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia; lovotibeglogene autotemcel for the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD); and elivaldogene autotemcel to treat cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy. The company's clinical study program includes HGB-205, HGB-206, and HGB-210 to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lovo-cel in the treatment of patients with SCD; and HGB-204, HGB-205, HGB-207, and HGB-212 to evaluate the safety and efficacy of beti-cel in the treatment of patients with ß-thalassemia. It has strategic collaboration and license agreements with Orchard Therapeutics Limited, Forty Seven, Inc., and Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. The company was formerly known as Genetix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and changed its name to bluebird bio, Inc. in September 2010. bluebird bio, Inc. was incorporated in 1992 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.