Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. (CNET)

Awarener score: 2.3

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 (Good) and growth (Bottom), 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 shrinking at a very fast pace. It's been below average when measured against peer companies.
  • ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

  • CNET profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually extremely poor. They stand bottom tier against rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's substantially worse 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 very poor in relation to total revenues. They're still mediocre against 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 weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. 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

  • CNET 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 more than average in relation to competitors.
  • Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 7.8

  • ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. usually gets huge returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment 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 huge 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: 2.8

  • CNET 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 top tier 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 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: 6.4

  • ZW Data Action Technologies 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.
  • The company has roughly triple short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely unimportant. It turns to be in good shape 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 top-notch against rival firms.
  • Controlled resources can be made into cash within reason, which is quite good for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks great when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation 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 during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers almost when charging its customers, so there's very little money invested in working capital. It's lacking 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.
  • Revenues are huge 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is huge considering yearly sales, which is great. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

  • ZW Data Action Technologies 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 in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands top-notch against 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 last-in-rank 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 a disappointment 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 top-notch 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 more than one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in good shape compared to rival firms.
  • We have not enough information on the relation between current stock price and accounting book value. The company remains a mystery against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business earned some money when compared to the current stock price and financial position. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a very low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is in dispute. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.0


CNET logos

Company at a glance: ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. (CNET)

Sector, industry: Communication Services, Advertising Agencies

Market Cap: 0.04 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.03 billions

ZW Data Action Technologies Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides omni-channel advertising, precision marketing, and data analysis management systems in the People's Republic of China. It offers Internet advertising, precision marketing, and related data services through its Internet portals, including 28.com and liansuo.com that provide advertisers with tools to build sales channels in the form of franchisees, sales agents, distributors, and/or resellers. The company also develops and operates blockchain technology-based products and services. In addition, it provides other e-commerce online to offline advertising and marketing and related value-added technical services, as well as strategic corporation management services. The company was formerly known as ChinaNet Online Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. in October 2020. ZW Data Action Technologies Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.

Awarener score: 2.3

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