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

---

Fundamental analysis: CASI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (CASI)

Awarener score: 3.6

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

Margins score: 2.0

• CASI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually hardly sufficient. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be pauper. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain a slight improvement 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 somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

• CASI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been excellent in relation 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: 4.0

• CASI 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 great 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: 2.2

• CASI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a slight improvement compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks encouraging in relation to competitors.
• In the past, got meagre 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 more than average in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.3

• CASI 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 more than average in relation to 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 usually reduces the pool of investors, resulting in fewer mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains impressive 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 lacking 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: 4.5

• CASI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• All resources are company owned, with virtually no financial debt. Financial position is outstanding. The company could significantly borrow money if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains better than most 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 roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately three months after the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against 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.
• 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.
• There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are low 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 in good shape compared 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

• CASI Pharmaceuticals, 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 in good shape compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed lots of funds. Either it reinvested heavily in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still last-in-rank when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up impressive in relation to peer ventures.
• This company is sitting in a mountain of cash. It's very well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks top-notch 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 more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent in relation to rival firms.
• The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains well ranked against 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: 3.4

---

Awarener score: 3.6

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!