Fundamental analysis: Berkeley Lights, Inc. (CELL)

Awarener score: 1.9

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 (Bottom), the business stability (unknown) and growth (unknown), 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: 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.
Berkeley Lights, Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

CELL profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. 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 extremely 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: 1.0

Berkeley Lights, Inc. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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: 2.7

CELL 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 grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a slight improvement compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.8

Berkeley Lights, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks more than average 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

CELL 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 great when measured against rival firms.
The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is similar 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 in good shape 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: 5.3

Berkeley Lights, Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier 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 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 mediocre against 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 abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat 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 six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. 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 last-in-rank when measured 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 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.1

Berkeley Lights, 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 excellent in relation 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 worse than most 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 substantially worse 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 a slight improvement compared 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 substantially worse 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 in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.1

Company at a glance: Berkeley Lights, Inc. (CELL)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.09 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.08 billions

Berkeley Lights, Inc., a digital cell biology company, focuses on enabling and accelerating the rapid development and commercialization of biotherapeutics and other cell-based products. The company offers an integrated platform, which comprise of proprietary consumables, including OptoSelect chips and reagent kits, automation systems, and application and workflow software. It serves in North America, the Asia Pacific, and Europe. Berkeley Lights, Inc. was incorporated in 2011 and is headquartered in Emeryville, California.