Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cardlytics, Inc. (CDLX)

Awarener score: 4.0

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 (Very good) and growth (Very good), 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: 8.0

  • Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
  • Cardlytics, Inc. business trend stability is very good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 3.7

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

Growth score: 2.1

  • Cardlytics, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been in good shape 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: 5.0

  • CDLX 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 low portion of revenues. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.5

  • Cardlytics, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks substantially worse when measured against 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.5

  • CDLX 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 weak when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve 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 in a weak position 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: 3.5

  • Cardlytics, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be below average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. 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 better than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers four months or more before charging its customers, so there's significant money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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 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 rather normal 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 worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.3

  • Cardlytics, 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 disappointment 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 worse than most 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 weak 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 in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. 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 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 a disappointment compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large 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 a lot of money. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a very low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is in dispute. It's still lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.8


CDLX logos

Company at a glance: Cardlytics, Inc. (CDLX)

Sector, industry: Communication Services, Advertising Agencies

Market Cap: 0.31 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.30 billions

Cardlytics, Inc. operates an advertising platform in the United States and the United Kingdom. It offers Cardlytics platform, a proprietary native bank advertising channel that enables marketers to reach customers through their network of financial institution partners through digital channels, such as online, mobile applications, email, and various real-time notifications; and Bridg platform, a customer data platform which utilizes point-of-sale data and enables marketers to perform analytics and targeted loyalty marketing, as well as measure the impact of their marketing. The company was incorporated in 2008 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Awarener score: 4.0

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 (Very good) and growth (Very good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Poor).