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

---

Fundamental analysis: Bird Global, Inc. (BRDS)

Awarener score: 1.0

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

Margins score: 2.0

• BRDS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain a disappointment 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 bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• Bird Global, Inc. 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.
• 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: 3.5

• BRDS 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 moderate portion of revenues. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.0

• Bird Global, Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

• BRDS remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing most of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, and saving a little funds for something else, which is substantially worse 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.
• Shares count analysis is unavailable, on lacking data. It remains we cannot compare it with 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: 5.8

• Bird Global, Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against peer companies.
• The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources might be turned into cash and equivalents neither fast nor too slow. Liquidity and risk might be run-of-the-mill. It looks great when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of 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 few cents of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to peers.
• Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month since the purchase. It ranks below average when measured against industry peers.
• The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's in good shape 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.
• Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

• Bird Global, 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 slight improvement compared to peers.
• There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
• Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
• A conclusion regarding usual company rewards to stockholders was impossible to reach with data available. It came up also not enough to relate to peer ventures.
• The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. It looks somewhat worse 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly better 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

---

Awarener score: 1.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!