Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Cellectis S.A. (CLLS)

Awarener score: 3.2

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

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: 5.0

  • Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been similar to peer companies.
  • Cellectis S.A. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 3.0

  • CLLS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand well ranked against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's encouraging 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 extremely poor considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.1

  • Cellectis S.A. profit -on goods and services sold- has been shrinking. 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: 2.3

  • CLLS 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • The company grows very little in relation to research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

  • Cellectis S.A. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves more than average in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in good shape compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks encouraging in relation to 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 3.6

  • CLLS 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 great when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is encouraging 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 usually enlarges quite a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains impressive 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: 5.1

  • Cellectis S.A. 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 weak when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. 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 substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant 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 more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks substantially worse when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
  • On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks almost average 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 close to average when 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 well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.9

  • Cellectis S.A. 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 excellent in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding 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 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 somewhat more stockholders. It came up excellent in relation 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 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 three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks excellent in relation 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 better than most peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of 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 an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still in a weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4


CLLS logos

Company at a glance: Cellectis S.A. (CLLS)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.11 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.05 billions

Cellectis S.A., a clinical stage biotechnological company, develops immuno-oncology products based on gene-edited T-cells that express chimeric antigen receptors to target and eradicate cancer cells. It operates through two segments, Therapeutics and Plants. The company is developing UCART19, an allogeneic T-cell product candidate for the treatment of CD19-expressing hematologic malignancies, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia; ALLO-501 and ALLO-501A to treat relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma; ALLO-316 for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma; UCART123 for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia; and UCART22 to treat B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. It is also developing UCARTCS1 and ALLO-715 for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The company has strategic alliances with Allogene Therapeutics, Inc.; Les Laboratoires Servier; The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; and Iovance Biotherapeutics, as well as a strategic research and development collaboration with Cytovia Therapeutics, Inc. Cellectis S.A. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Paris, France.

Awarener score: 3.2

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