Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (COLL)

Awarener score: 6.7

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 (Average), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Very good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).

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 a very good pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. business varies, ups and downs are rather normal. Risk is sufficient. It looks worse than most rivals.

Margins score: 5.0

  • COLL profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually good. They stand slightly worse than rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be meagre. It's similar to competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually good. They remain in good shape compared to peers.
  • Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
  • Profits -before income taxes- are usually meagre considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be meagre when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 3.3

  • Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good pace. It's been a slight improvement 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.
  • Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, 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: 6.3

  • COLL 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 little portion of revenues. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
  • The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands excellent in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 4.0

  • Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
  • The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain close to average when compared to similar companies.
  • Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually lacking. It ranks similar to competitors.
  • In the past, got low 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 6.2

  • COLL usually uses a modest portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments isn't too high. It stands encouraging in relation to rival firms.
  • The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is great 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 somewhat enlarges a bit the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a slight improvement 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 rather normal in relation to rivals.
  • The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks encouraging in relation to competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 2.4

  • Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a huge portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be major difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has somewhat lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might some liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment 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 mediocre 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.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has few cents of cash and equivalents, which is worse than most similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on many months credit. It still ranks last-in-rank when measured against peers.
  • Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as lacking compared to competitors.
  • On average, it takes plenty of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be mediocre against peers.
  • On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against 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 in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
  • Usual business earnings barely cover net interest expenses. Creditors may be earning money by assuming risks, but hardly shareholders. Situation is risky, profitability must increase, or additional stockholders' funding will eventually be required. It stands bottom tier against rival firms.
  • Business earnings have usually been extremely low when measured against loans taken. Even severely cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take more than twenty years to repay the obligations. Additional stockholders' funding may be a quicker way, but at the cost of increasing the mouths to feed on the eventual pie of profits. It ranks weak when measured against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are very good 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 a slight improvement 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: 4.5

  • Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. reported losses, so valuating it in relation to earnings is meaningless. It happens to be below average 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 generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands better than most similar companies.
  • The company usually generates somewhat more than enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Surplus cash may be used to repay loans, to eventually buy new businesses, or to reward investors. Considering the financial position and stock price, the current valuation might be reasonable. It's still encouraging in relation to industry firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the company has significantly rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up excellent in relation to peer ventures.
  • The company is largely indebted. It should focus on loan repayment before rewarding stockholders. 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 similar to peer companies.
  • Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a roughly two to one 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 is significantly high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains somewhat worse than peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be great when measured against industry peers.
  • In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a mediocre earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still in good shape compared to peer companies.

Total score: 4.6


COLL logos

Company at a glance: Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (COLL)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Drug Manufacturers—Specialty & Generic

Market Cap: 0.58 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.31 billions

Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes medicines for pain management. Its portfolio includes Xtampza ER, an abuse-deterrent, extended-release, oral formulation of oxycodone; Nucynta ER and Nucynta IR, which are extended-release and immediate-release formulations of tapentadol; and Xtampza ER for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment. The company was formerly known as Collegium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. in October 2003. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. was incorporated in 2002 and is headquartered in Stoughton, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 6.7

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 (Average), the business stability (Poor) and growth (Very good), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Superb).