• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

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

Awarener score: 4.1

Conclusion

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: 8.0

• Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 3.7

• CJJD profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand slightly worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's weak 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 meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still worse than most similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain weak when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse 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 a slight improvement 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

• 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: 3.5

• China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse 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 substantially worse 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is great 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a very 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: 5.9

• China Jo-Jo Drugstores, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• The company has somewhat more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns might not be that important. It turns to be lacking 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 more than average in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another 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 roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat more than two months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than four months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against 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 close to average when 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 in a very weak position 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 worse than most 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 in good shape 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 mediocre against 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 weak 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 very 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 bottom tier 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 very low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being very poor. 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 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 low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.9

---

Awarener score: 4.1

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!