Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Clovis Oncology, Inc. (CLVS)

Awarener score: 2.6

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 (Very poor) and growth (Average), 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: 4.0

  • Business has been growing at a low pace. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • Clovis Oncology, Inc. business varies frequently, ups and downs are normal. It's risky. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

  • CLVS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand better than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain in good shape 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 well ranked against similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain more than average in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands more than average in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.4

  • Clovis Oncology, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very low pace. It's been lacking 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

  • CLVS 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 substantial portion of revenues. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
  • The company hardly grows despite of research and development efforts. It stands rather normal in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

  • Clovis Oncology, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
  • Due to insufficient track history, we were unable to estimate typical returns on invested capital (ROIC). They remain undisclosed in relation to similar companies.
  • Normal return on equity (ROE) is unavailable at this time, because of not enough yearly inputs to calculate. It ranks unknown 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: 3.2

  • CLVS 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 heavily investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand 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 heavily enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains rather normal 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: 3.8

  • Clovis Oncology, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
  • Current ratio remains a mystery, as there was not sufficient Balance Sheet information. It turns to be unidentifiable against similar firms.
  • Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
  • Quick ratio is unavailable at this moment, due to lacking data. It's a pity we cannot compare it with peer firms.
  • A conclusion on cash ratio could not be reached, as we lack inputs, which is unfortunate when trying to measure against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat more than three months credit. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. 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 top-notch against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company charges its customers before it must pay its suppliers, so the more it sales, the more free funds it gets. It's rather normal 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.
  • Fixed assets turnover remains undisclosed. It looks we cannot relate it 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 1.7

  • Clovis Oncology, 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 a disappointment compared 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 slightly better than 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 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 lacking 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 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 impressive in relation to rival firms.
  • There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot of money. It happens to be similar to 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.7


CLVS logos

Company at a glance: Clovis Oncology, Inc. (CLVS)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.16 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.07 billions

Clovis Oncology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on acquiring, developing, and commercializing anti-cancer agents in the United States, Europe, and internationally. In the U.S., the company offers Rubraca (rucaparib), an oral small molecule inhibitor of poly ADP-ribose polymerase for recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, as well as for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In Europe, the company offers Rubraca for recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. It is also developing lucitanib, an investigational angiogenesis inhibitor, which inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1 through 3 (VEGFR 1-3), platelet-derived growth factor receptors alpha and beta (PDGFRa/ß), and fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 3 (FGFR 1-3);and FAP-2286, an investigational peptide-targeted radionuclide therapy and imaging agent targeting fibroblast activation protein. In addition, the company sells its Rubraca through a limited number of specialty distributor and specialty pharmacy providers, who subsequently sells Rubraca to patients and health care providers. Clovis Oncology, Inc. has license agreements with Pfizer Inc., AstraZeneca UK Limited, Advenchen Laboratories LLC, and 3B Pharmaceuticals GmbH, a clinical collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb Company; and a partnership with Foundation Medicine, Inc. Clovis Oncology, Inc. was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Boulder, Colorado.

Awarener score: 2.6

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