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

---

Fundamental analysis: CareDx, Inc (CDNA)

Awarener score: 4.5

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: 6.5

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
• CareDx, Inc business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 3.8

• CDNA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand better than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's similar to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain close to average when 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

• CareDx, Inc profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good 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: 4.3

• CDNA 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 some portion of revenues. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

• CareDx, Inc usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
• There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks almost average 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

• CDNA usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is more than average 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 close to average when 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.
• 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: 5.5

• CareDx, Inc intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be some difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
• A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains better than most rival firms.
• Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in good shape compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as rather normal in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks below average 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 in a weak position 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 reasonable 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.4

• CareDx, 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 funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands slightly worse than similar companies.
• In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still almost average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up rather normal 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 roughly two to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. 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 below average 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 close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.1

---

Awarener score: 4.5

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!