Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Celsius Holdings, Inc. (CELH)

Awarener score: 5.5

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).

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 extremely fast pace. It's been great when measured against peer companies.
  • Celsius Holdings, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 4.3

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

Growth score: 2.1

  • Celsius Holdings, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent 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: 1.0

  • CELH had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been better than most peers.
  • The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
  • We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

  • Celsius Holdings, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very 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 low 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: 6.7

  • CELH usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is similar to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. 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 lacking 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
  • We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 5.3

  • Celsius Holdings, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent some 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 almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains well ranked against 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 more than enough 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 enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a disappointment compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly three months before charging its customers, so there's sufficient 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 top-notch 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are huge 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 excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

  • Celsius Holdings, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be weak 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 a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company generated some free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands mediocre against similar companies.
  • In the past years the company barely generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still weak when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. 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 weak 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 a disappointment compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some 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 somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.1


CELH logos

Company at a glance: Celsius Holdings, Inc. (CELH)

Sector, industry: Consumer Defensive, Beverages—Non-Alcoholic

Market Cap: 9.01 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.58 billions

Celsius Holdings, Inc. develops, processes, markets, distributes, and sells functional drinks and liquid supplements in North America, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various carbonated and non-carbonated functional energy drinks under the CELSIUS Originals name; dietary supplement in carbonated flavors, including apple jack'd, orangesicle, inferno punch, cherry lime, blueberry pomegranate, strawberry dragon fruit, tangerine grapefruit, and jackfruit under the CELSIUS HEAT name; and branched-chain amino acids functional energy drink that fuels muscle recovery under the CELSIUS BCCA+ENERGY name. The company also provides CELSIUS On-the-Go, a powdered form of the active ingredients in functional energy drinks in individual On-The-Go packets and canisters; and sparkling grapefruit, cucumber lime, and orange pomegranate, as well as pineapple coconut, watermelon berry, and strawberries and cream non-carbonated functional energy drinks under the CELSIUS Sweetened. It distributes its products through direct-to-store delivery distributors and direct to retailers, including supermarkets, convenience stores, drug stores, nutritional stores, and mass merchants, as well as health clubs, spas, gyms, the military, and e-commerce websites. The company was formerly known as Vector Ventures, Inc. and changed its name to Celsius Holdings, Inc. in January 2007. Celsius Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.

Awarener score: 5.5

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Superb), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Modest).