Awarener easy mode Awarener analytic mode

Fundamental analysis: Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. (CSCW)

Awarener score: 2.8

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

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: a result could not be reached

  • Business growth could not be estimated, due to not enough input data. It's been unavailable to compare with peer companies.
  • Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.0

  • CSCW profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very poor. They stand worse than most rival companies.
  • Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's below average when measured against competitors.
  • Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain in a 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 very poor considering total sales, and remain below average when measured against rivals.
  • Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands weak when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

  • Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. has an unknown gross margin growth, as there is not enough data to analyze. It's been impossible to compare 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

  • CSCW 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
  • Business has seen substantial shrinking, despite research and development efforts. It stands a disappointment compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.8

  • Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. usually gets low returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
  • The company normally gets low proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a weak position compared to similar companies.
  • There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks weak when measured against 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 weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.4

  • CSCW 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 replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
  • In the past twelve months the stock paid no dividends. It came bottom tier against competitors.
  • Has stopped or virtually stopped paying dividends. Unless they were a special one-shot payment, the company could be enduring difficult times. The company has behaved a disappointment 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 significantly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in a weak position compared 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: 5.0

  • Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. 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 more than average in relation to peer companies.
  • The company has roughly double short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are normally not an issue. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
  • Almost no resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is great. Company could significantly 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.
  • Most controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks similar to rivals.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
  • For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has extremely few cents of cash and equivalents, which is bottom tier against similar enterprises.
  • Usually, sales are on a month and a half credit. It still ranks encouraging in relation to peers.
  • Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
  • On average, it takes approximately two months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat better than peers.
  • Pays suppliers mostly in cash. It ranks last-in-rank when measured against industry peers.
  • The company pays its suppliers roughly one month before charging its customers, so there's sparse 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.
  • There is insufficient data to conclude on the relationship of EBITDA and debt for this company. It ranks unknown against comparable enterprises.
  • Revenues are somewhat 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 close to average when compared to similar firms.
  • Resource exploitation is slightly low when yearly sales are considered, business volume should be increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still mediocre against peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.5

  • Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. 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 impressive in relation to peers.
  • In the past twelve months, the company consumed lots of funds. Either it reinvested heavily in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
  • The company usually consumes plenty 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 outstanding 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 hasn't rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
  • The company has more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks better 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 low relationship. One common cause includes profitability being poor. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
  • The stock price is significantly below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is extremely low, the stock may be selling at a large discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains top-notch against peer firms.
  • In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of money. 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 in a very weak position compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.4


CSCW logos

Company at a glance: Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. (CSCW)

Sector, industry: Communication Services, Entertainment

Market Cap: 0.01 billions

Revenues TTM: 0.03 billions

Color Star Technology Co., Ltd., an entertainment and education company, provides online entertainment performances and music education services in the United States and China. The company operates Color World, an online platform of curriculum that includes music, sports, animation, painting and calligraphy, film and television, life skills, etc. Its Color World platform provides celebrity lectures, celebrity concert videos, celebrity peripheral products, and artist interactive communication services. The company was formerly known as Huitao Technology Co., Ltd. and changed its name to Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. in May 2020. Color Star Technology Co., Ltd. was founded in 2002 and is based in New York, New York.

Awarener score: 2.8

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