Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cerus Corporation (CERS)

Awarener score: 5.2

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 (Poor), the business stability (Excellent) and growth (Excellent), 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: 9.0

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Cerus Corporation business trend stability is excellent. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks somewhat better than rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

  • CERS 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 almost average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain close to average when 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 slightly worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

  • Cerus Corporation 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: 3.3

  • CERS 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 quite a bit of revenues. It's weak when measured against competitors.
  • The company grows sparsely in relation to research and development efforts. It stands close to average when compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.2

  • Cerus Corporation usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks weak 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: 2.8

  • CERS 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 almost average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, 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 rather normal 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: 5.3

  • Cerus 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 similar to peer companies.
  • The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
  • A substantial part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have as many claims on the company as shareholders. The situation is somewhat risky. It remains worse than most rival firms.
  • Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks almost 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 weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as a slight improvement compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than six months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks great when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse money invested in working capital. It's excellent in relation 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 quite good 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 very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

  • Cerus 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 in a weak position compared to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, which stands slightly better than 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 almost average 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 a slight improvement 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 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 high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when 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 significant money. It happens to be similar to industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still close to average when compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.9


CERS logos

Company at a glance: Cerus Corporation (CERS)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 0.62 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.18 billions

Cerus Corporation operates as a biomedical products company. The company focuses on developing and commercializing the INTERCEPT Blood System to enhance blood safety. Its INTERCEPT Blood System, a proprietary technology for controlling biological replication that is designed to reduce blood-borne pathogens in donated blood components intended for transfusion. The company offers INTERCEPT Blood Systems for platelets and plasma, which is designed to inactivate blood-borne pathogens in platelets and plasma donated for transfusion; INTERCEPT Blood System for red blood cells to inactivate blood-borne pathogens in red blood cells donated for transfusion; and INTERCEPT Blood System for Cryoprecipitation that uses its plasma system to produce pathogen reduced cryoprecipitated fibrinogen complex for the treatment and control of bleeding, including massive hemorrhage associated with fibrinogen deficiency, as well as pathogen reduced plasma, cryoprecipitate reduced. It sells platelet and plasma systems through its direct sales force and distributors in the United States, Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Middle East, Latin America, and internationally. The company was incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Concord, California.

Awarener score: 5.2

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