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

---

Fundamental analysis: CuriosityStream Inc. (CURI)

Awarener score: 1.0

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: 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.
• CuriosityStream Inc. business stability could not be estimated, due to insufficient input data. It looks we cannot compare it to rivals.

Margins score: 3.2

• CURI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually very good. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's last-in-rank when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain a disappointment 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 bottom tier against similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain last-in-rank when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands last-in-rank when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• CuriosityStream Inc. 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: 1.0

• CURI had still to pay income taxes, even though in recent past years mostly lost money. It's been bottom tier against peers.
• The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
• We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.2

• CuriosityStream Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves last-in-rank when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain a disappointment compared to similar companies.
• There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured 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 last-in-rank when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.0

• CURI remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands last-in-rank when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually not replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is last-in-rank 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 greatly enlarged the pool of investors in previous years, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains a disappointment 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: 5.9

• CuriosityStream Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a non-significant portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is safer. It happens to be great when measured against 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 rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Roughly a tenth of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have minor claims on the company, and financial position is safe. It remains better than most rival firms.
• Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks top tier when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's rather normal in relation to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is better than most similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers two months after the purchase. It ranks almost average when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers less than one month before charging its customers, so there's 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 excellent 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 in good shape compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is reasonable when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still slightly worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.6

• CuriosityStream 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 rather normal in relation 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 greatly 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 plenty more stockholders. It came up a disappointment compared to peer ventures.
• This company is sitting in a mountain of cash. It's very well poised to substantially 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 not far from one-to-one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks in a very weak position compared to rival firms.
• The stock price is at or below the accounting book value. Unless profitability is really low, the stock may be selling a t a discount. Pay attention to the other key indicators for hints. The company remains slightly worse than 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 an extremely low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. Profitability is significantly in dispute. It's still a disappointment compared to peer companies.

Total score: 2.7

---

Awarener score: 1.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!