Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cinedigm Corp. (CIDM)

Awarener score: 2.8

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

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: 3.0

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • Cinedigm Corp. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks slightly better than rivals.

Margins score: 3.5

  • CIDM profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand well ranked against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain in a very weak position 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 worse than most similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.7

  • Cinedigm Corp. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been in a very weak position 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: 1.0

  • CIDM had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against 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

  • Cinedigm Corp. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
  • Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.4

  • CIDM 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse 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: 5.2

  • Cinedigm Corp. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very large 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 almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be close to average when 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 better than most rival firms.
  • Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has less than a dollar of cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than five months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be bottom tier against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers long before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. 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 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 excellent 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 quite good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

  • Cinedigm Corp. 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 somewhat 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 below average when measured against industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly 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 numerous more stockholders. It came up a disappointment 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 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 roughly two to one 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 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 weak when measured against 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 in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.8


CIDM logos

Company at a glance: Cinedigm Corp. (CIDM)

Sector, industry: Communication Services, Entertainment

Market Cap: 0.09 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.06 billions

Cinedigm Corp., together with its subsidiaries, operates as distributor and aggregator of independent movie, television, and other short form content in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Cinema Equipment Business and Content and Entertainment Business. The company distributes its products for various brands, such as Hallmark, Televisa, ITV, Nelvana, ZDF, Konami, NFL, and NHL, as well as international and domestic content creators, movie producers, television producers, and other short form digital content producers. It also collaborates with producers, various brands, and other content owners to market, source, curate, and distribute content to targeted audiences through existing and emerging digital home entertainment platforms, including Apple, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Xbox, Tubi, PlutoTV, Vudu, and cable/satellite video-on-demand; and distributes DVD and Blu-ray discs to wholesalers and retailers with sales coverage to approximately 48,000 retail storefronts, including Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Amazon. In addition, the company operates various branded and curated over-the-top (OTT) entertainment channels and applications, including Docurama, CONtv, Dove Channel, Viewster Anime, Fandor, and Screambox; and Matchpoint, a software-as-a-service platform to automate the distribution of streaming content and OTT channels. Further, it provides monitoring, billing, collection, and verification support services to music and movie screens as well as directly to exhibitors and other third-party customers. The company was formerly known as Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. and changed its name to Cinedigm Corp. in September 2013. Cinedigm Corp. was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

Awarener score: 2.8

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