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

---

Fundamental analysis: Cutera, Inc. (CUTR)

Awarener score: 4.8

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: 5.5

• Business has been growing at a good pace. It's been almost average when measured against peer companies.
• Cutera, Inc. business shows some variation, there's some risk. It looks somewhat worse than rivals.

Margins score: 4.3

• CUTR 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 encouraging in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain a slight improvement compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be meagre in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat 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: 1.9

• Cutera, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a 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.
• 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: 5.0

• CUTR 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 low portion of revenues. It's more than average in relation to competitors.
• The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands a slight improvement compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.5

• Cutera, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to 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 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: 3.6

• CUTR 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 encouraging in relation to rival firms.
• The company is usually heavily 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 usually significantly enlarges 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 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: 5.2

• Cutera, Inc. has not disclosed intangibles assets, so we could not reach a meaningful conclusion on this metric. It happens to be a not known variable when measured with peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are most likely irrelevant. It turns to be rather normal in relation to similar firms.
• Most resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have more claims on the company than shareholders. Unless the company is a financial institution that takes deposits, the situation might be very risky. It remains bottom tier against rival firms.
• A substantial portion of resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is better for liquidity. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant 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 more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately six months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as close to average when compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes a lot of months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be slightly better than peers.
• On average pays suppliers approximately four months or higher after the purchase. It ranks more than average in relation to industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers six months or more before charging its customers, so there's abundant money invested in working capital. It's rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch 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 reasonable 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 rather normal in relation 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: 3.0

• Cutera, 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 disappointment compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested in the business or genuine fund generation might be challenging, which stands somewhat worse than similar companies.
• In the past years the company hardly generated enough genuine funds to cover up for its business needs. Business prospects should improve enough to be in a better position to reward investors. It's still similar to 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 in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• The company is somewhat indebted, loan repayment needs to be taken into account. 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 roughly two to one 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.
• There's no accounting equity, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains bottom tier against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be almost average when measured against industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a low earnings power ability when measured against the current stock price and financial position. It's still rather normal in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 4.0

---

Awarener score: 4.8

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!