Fundamental analysis: ChromaDex Corporation (CDXC)

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 (Very poor), the business stability (Average) and growth (Very good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Lacking).

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: 7.0

Business has been growing at a very good pace. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
ChromaDex Corporation business trend stability is run-of-the-mill. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks better than most rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

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

Growth score: 2.0

ChromaDex Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been lacking 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: 5.3

CDXC 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 top tier when measured against competitors.
The company shows good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.2

ChromaDex Corporation usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak when measured against 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.6

CDXC 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is below average 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 enlarges quite a bit 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: 5.6

ChromaDex Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be weak when measured against peer companies.
The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks below average 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 a month and a half credit. It still ranks similar to peers.
Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as close to average when compared 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 four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks almost 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 lacking 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 very good 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 excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

ChromaDex Corporation 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 lacking 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 well ranked against 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 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 a slight improvement 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 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 roughly two 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 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 somewhat worse than peer firms.
In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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 rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.8

Company at a glance: ChromaDex Corporation (CDXC)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.11 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.07 billions

ChromaDex Corporation operates as a bioscience company focusing on healthy aging. The company operates through three segments: Consumer products; Ingredients; and Analytical Reference Standards and Services. It researches on nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+); provides finished dietary supplement products that contain its proprietary ingredients directly to consumers, as well as to distributors; and develops and commercializes proprietary-based ingredient technologies and supplies these ingredients as raw materials to the manufacturers of consumer products. The company also commercializes NAD+ precursor nicotinamide riboside as the flagship ingredient NIAGEN; NIAGEN as an active ingredient in its consumer products under the TRU NIAGEN name; and IMMULINA, a Braun-type lipoproteins, including spirulina extracts and active compounds, which are used to support human immune function. It also offers analytical reference standards and services comprising supply of products to conduct quality control of raw materials and consumer products in dietary supplements, cosmetics, food and beverages, life sciences, and pharmaceutical industries. The company distributes TRU NIAGEN products direct to consumers through its propriety e-commerce platform TRUNIAGEN.com, Amazon, and other internet marketplaces, as well as specialty retailers and direct healthcare practitioners in the United States. ChromaDex Corporation is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.