Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Curis, Inc. (CRIS)

Awarener score: 3.4

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Good) and growth (Poor), 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: 5.0

  • Business has been shrinking. It's been substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • Curis, Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 3.3

  • CRIS profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually huge. They stand top-notch against 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 encouraging in relation to rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.3

  • Curis, Inc. profit growth -on goods and services sold- has been almost stagnant. It's been in a weak position 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

  • CRIS 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • The company hardly grows despite of research and development efforts. It stands lacking compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.0

  • Curis, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves below 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.6

  • CRIS 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 weak when measured against rival firms.
  • The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is almost average 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 close to average when 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

  • Curis, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. It isn't that a significant risk of liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
  • The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
  • A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks almost average 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 in good shape compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be better than most peers.
  • On average pays suppliers many months after the purchase. It ranks great 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.
  • Revenues are low in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks in good shape compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.7

  • Curis, 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 slight improvement compared to peers.
  • There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
  • Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure 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 weak position compared to peer ventures.
  • We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding 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 large relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be more than reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
  • We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
  • An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 3.3


CRIS logos

Company at a glance: Curis, Inc. (CRIS)

Sector, industry: Healthcare, Biotechnology

Market Cap: 0.07 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.01 billions

Curis, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the discovery and development of drug candidates for the treatment of human cancers in the United States. Its clinical stage drug candidates include Emavusertib, an oral small molecule drug candidate, which is in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial for the treatment of non-hodgkin lymphomas, and acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes; and CI-8993, a monoclonal antibody designed to antagonize the V-domain Ig suppressor of T cell activation. The company's pipeline also includes Fimepinostat, an oral dual inhibitor of HDAC and PI3K enzymes for the treatment of patients with MYC-altered diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; CA-170, an oral small molecule drug candidate for treating patients with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas; and CA-327, a pre-investigational new drug stage oncology drug candidate. It has collaboration agreement with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Genentech Inc. for the development and commercialization of Erivedge, an orally-administered small molecule hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma; and with Aurigene Discovery Technologies Limited for the discovery, development, and commercialization of small molecule compounds in the areas of immuno-oncology and precision oncology. Curis, Inc. was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in Lexington, Massachusetts.

Awarener score: 3.4

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 (could not be estimated), the business stability (Good) and growth (Poor), and the company's inclination to return cash to the stockholders (Very poor).