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

---

Fundamental analysis: CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK)

Awarener score: 3.8

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: 5.5

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

Margins score: 2.0

• CLSK profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand worse than most rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually destitute. They remain a disappointment compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be pauper in relation to total revenues. They're still bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

• CleanSpark, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been impressive 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: 7.0

• CLSK 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 hardly consume a portion of revenues. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
• The company shows excellent business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.2

• CleanSpark, Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got pauper 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 4.1

• CLSK usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is top tier when measured against industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid very little dividends, considering the current stock price. It came worse than most competitors.
• Has recently started or restarted paying dividends to stockholders. Business prospects are most likely good. The company has behaved impressive in relation to similar firms.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Dividend payments are usually on borrowed money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, future payments could be at risk. Sustainability looks bottom tier against comparable companies.
• The company has heavily 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

• CleanSpark, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be more than average in relation to peer companies.
• The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains somewhat better than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks weak when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has very few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks top tier when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately only a couple of weekly sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in good shape compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than one month from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be top-notch against peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks top tier 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 impressive in relation 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 a disappointment 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 worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.5

• CleanSpark, 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 excellent 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 worse than most similar companies.
• The company usually consumes much 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 significant business growth, genuine profitability may be brought into question. It's still substantially worse 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 has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. It looks somewhat worse 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 very high 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 might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains better than most 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.9

---

Awarener score: 3.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!