Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Celularity Inc. (CELU)

Awarener score: 2.1

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 (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).

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.
  • Celularity Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 2.8

  • CELU profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand better than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be extremely poor in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • Celularity 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: 1.5

  • CELU 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 very large portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
  • We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.2

  • Celularity 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 rather normal in relation to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks almost average 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.6

  • CELU 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 encouraging in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing part of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping some funds for something else. It can't keep forever, which is weak 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 greatly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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

  • Celularity Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge 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 last-in-rank 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 very 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 somewhat worse than rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks last-in-rank 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 enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's in a very weak position 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.
  • Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks rather normal in relation to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still somewhat better than peer companies.

Valuation score: 2.2

  • Celularity 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 better than most 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 great when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up in a very weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks worse than most 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 huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really 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 a lot of money. It happens to be encouraging 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 excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 2.1


CELU logos

Company at a glance: Celularity Inc. (CELU)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.36 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.03 billions

Celularity Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, develops off-the-shelf placental-derived allogeneic cell therapies for the treatment of cancer, immune, and infectious diseases. It operates through three segments: Cell Therapy, Degenerative Disease, and BioBanking. The company's lead therapeutic programs include CYCART-19, a placental-derived CAR-T therapy, which is in Phase I clinical trial for the treatment of B-cell malignancies; CYNK-001, placental-derived unmodified natural killer (NK) cell that is in Phase I clinical trial to treat acute myeloid leukemia, as well as in Phase I/IIa clinical trial for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme and COVID-19; CYNK-101, an allogeneic genetically modified NK cell, which is in Phase I clinical trial to treat HER2+ gastric and gastroesophageal cancers; APPL-001, a placenta-derived mesenchymal-like adherent stromal cell that is in a pre-clinical stage for the treatment of Crohn's disease; and PDA-002, a placenta-derived mesenchymal-like adherent stromal cell, which is in pre-clinical stage for the treatment of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. It also sells and licenses products that are used in surgical and wound care markets, such as Biovance and Interfyl; collects stem cells from umbilical cords and placentas; and provides cells storage under the LifebankUSA brand. The company was incorporated in 2016 and is headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

Awarener score: 2.1

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 (unknown) and growth (unknown), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Bottom).