Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. (CLPT)

Awarener score: 4.5

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 (Lacking), the business stability (Bottom) and growth (Superb), 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: 5.5

  • Business has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
  • ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 3.0

  • CLPT profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely 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 substantially worse when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands substantially worse when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

  • ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been a disappointment 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: 4.0

  • CLPT 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 shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.8

  • ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves below average when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
  • In the past, got very poor 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 below average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.2

  • CLPT 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 below average when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is weak 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 lacking 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: 5.6

  • ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be similar to peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be excellent in relation to similar firms.
  • Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
  • Most resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is best for liquidity. It looks great when measured against rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's excellent in relation to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
  • Normally has more than six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a very weak position compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be worse than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers longer than two months after the purchase. It ranks similar to industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers plenty of months before charging its customers, so there's a lot of money invested in working capital. It's a disappointment 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 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.1

  • ClearPoint Neuro, 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 lacking 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 worse than similar companies.
  • In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still similar to 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 has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks slightly better 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 huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant 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 somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4


CLPT logos

Company at a glance: ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. (CLPT)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Medical Devices

Market Cap: 0.26 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.02 billions

ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. operates as a medical device company primarily in the United States. The company develops and commercializes platforms for performing minimally invasive surgical procedures in the brain under direct, and intra-procedural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance. It offers ClearPoint system for the insertion of deep brain stimulation electrodes and biopsy needles, and the infusion of pharmaceuticals and laser catheters into the brain; and ClearPoint Neuro Navigation System, an MRI suite. It has license and collaboration agreements with Boston Scientific Corporation, The Johns Hopkins University, Clinical Laserthermia Systems Americas Inc, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Blackrock Neurotech, and University of California and San Francisco. The company was formerly known as MRI Interventions, Inc. and changed its name to ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. in February 2020. ClearPoint Neuro, Inc. was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Solana Beach, California.

Awarener score: 4.5

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