Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. (CJJD)

Awarener score: 4.1

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 (Superb) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very 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: 8.5

  • Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
  • China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 3.8

  • CJJD profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand somewhat worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. 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 lacking compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands below average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.7

  • China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a normal pace. It's been rather normal 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

  • CJJD 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: 3.2

  • China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks below average 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.0

  • CJJD 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 investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is more than average in relation 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 has significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a weak position 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: 5.7

  • China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a modest 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 encouraging in relation to 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 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 mediocre against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks encouraging 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 lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is somewhat worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's a slight improvement 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 reasonable 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is excellent when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.1

  • China Jo-Jo Drugstores, 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 rather normal in relation 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 slightly worse 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 largely 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 a lot more stockholders. It came up in a weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • The company is drowned in loans. It almost belongs more to the creditors than the stockholders. The situation may be dire. 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. It happens to be almost average 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.9


CJJD logos

Company at a glance: China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. (CJJD)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Pharmaceutical Retailers

Market Cap: 0.01 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.13 billions

China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer and distributor of pharmaceutical and other healthcare products in the People's Republic of China. The company operates through four segments: Retail Drugstores, Online Pharmacy, Drug Wholesale, and Herb Farming. Its stores provide various pharmaceutical products, including prescription and over-the-counter drugs, nutritional supplements, traditional Chinese medicines (TCM), personal and family care products, and medical devices, as well as convenience products, such as consumable, seasonal, and promotional items. The company also operates licensed doctors of Western medicine and TCM on site for consultation, examination, and treatment of common ailments at scheduled hours. In addition, it operates online drugstore that retails OTC drugs and nutritional supplements, as well as sells products through third-party platforms. Further, the company distributes third-party pharmaceutical products primarily to trading companies, as well as cultivates and wholesales herbs used for TCM. As of March 31, 2021, it had 109 retail pharmacies under the Jiuzhou Grand Pharmacy name, as well as 4 drugstores. The company was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Hangzhou, the People's Republic of China.

Awarener score: 4.1

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 (Superb) and growth (Good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).