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

---

Fundamental analysis: Champions Oncology, Inc. (CSBR)

Awarener score: 5.9

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: 4.5

• Business growth has been almost stagnant. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• Champions Oncology, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks well ranked against rivals.

Margins score: 4.7

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

Growth score: 2.6

• Champions Oncology, 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.
• Profits -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been growing at an extremely fast pace, which compares top tier 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: 3.7

• CSBR 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 some portion of revenues. It's top tier when measured against competitors.
• The company grows sparsely in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a slight improvement compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.0

• Champions Oncology, 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.
• There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks last-in-rank 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: 5.2

• CSBR usually uses a very large portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is heavy. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually largely investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to expand its operating capabilities, which is encouraging 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 usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains impressive in relation to peer enterprises.
• We are not sure on the effectiveness of the company when repurchasing shares, as there were not enough numbers to crunch. It stands unidentified against rivals.
• We do not have sufficient data to comment on buybacks and their sustainability. It still looks dubious against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.9

• Champions Oncology, 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 substantially worse 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 significant part of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have almost as many claims on the company as shareholders. It remains worse than most rival firms.
• Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly another of cash and short-term receivables. It's a disappointment compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are mostly on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to 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 better than most peers.
• On average pays suppliers during the first couple of weeks from the purchase. It ranks substantially worse 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 close to average when compared to similar companies.
• To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been great when measured against loans taken. Debt might be repaid almost as soon as desired. It ranks great 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 impressive in relation 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 top-notch against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

• Champions 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 in a very weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company generated excellent free funds in relation to the stock price, which stands top-notch against 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 top tier when measured against 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 impressive in relation 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 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 last-in-rank when measured against peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a high 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.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be top tier when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still impressive in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 4.1

---

Awarener score: 5.9

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!