Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (CARA)

Awarener score: 4.2

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 (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 growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • Cara Therapeutics, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 2.8

  • CARA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand slightly better than 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: 2.3

  • Cara Therapeutics, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been in a very weak position 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: 3.0

  • CARA 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • The company grows sparsely in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

  • Cara Therapeutics, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves similar to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very 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 similar to 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 similar to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.2

  • CARA 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 similar to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for 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 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: 6.5

  • Cara Therapeutics, 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 a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be rather normal 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 somewhat better than rival firms.
  • A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks weak 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 somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than 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 in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare 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 excellent 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 impressive in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.1

  • Cara 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 close to average when 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 slightly 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 encouraging in relation to 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 in good shape compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks slightly 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 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.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is significantly 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 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 low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still a slight improvement compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4


CARA logos

Company at a glance: Cara Therapeutics, Inc. (CARA)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.66 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.04 billions

Cara Therapeutics, Inc., an early commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on developing and commercializing chemical entities with a primary focus on pruritus and pain by selectively targeting kappa opioid receptors in the United States. The company is developing product candidates that target the body's peripheral nervous system and immune cells. The company's lead product is KORSUVA (difelikefalin) injection for the treatment of moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults undergoing hemodialysis. Its product candidate includes Oral KORSUVA (difelikefalin), which has completed Phase II clinical trial to treat pruritus atopic dermatitis and pruritus non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) associated pruritus; and in Phase II clinical trial to treat pruritus chronic liver disease (CLD) primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and notalgia paresthetica. The company has license agreements with Maruishi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd to develop, manufacture, and commercialize drug products containing difelikefalin for acute pain and uremic pruritus in Japan; and Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical Corporation to develop, manufacture, and commercialize drug products containing difelikefalin in South Korea. Cara Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is based in Stamford, Connecticut.

Awarener score: 4.2

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 (Poor).