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

---

Fundamental analysis: Decibel Therapeutics, Inc. (DBTX)

Awarener score: 2.0

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

Margins score: we could not reach a conclusion

• DBTX usual gross margins were not estimated, due to lack of enough history. They stand unknown against rival companies.
• We would not risk estimating the normal operating margins, because of insufficient past records. It's unidentified in relation to competitors.
• Normal EBITDA margins remain unknown, due to not enough track records. They remain unknown against peers.
• EBIT normal margins could not be estimated, due to not sufficient input years. They're still undisclosed compared to similar companies.
• Usual profit margin before income taxes is still unknown, as there is not enough history to analyze, and remain therefore an impossibility to compare with rivals.
• Due to insufficient past records, we were unable to estimate normal net profit margin. Company stands unidentified in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• Decibel Therapeutics, 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

• DBTX 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: 2.0

• Decibel Therapeutics, Inc. usually gets very poor returns on the resources it controls. It proves encouraging in relation to peer firms.
• The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain rather normal in relation to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks similar to 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 encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 1.3

• DBTX 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 sparsely replacing property, plant, and equipment that gets old, instead using funds in something else. It can't keep forever, which is substantially worse when measured against 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 in a very weak position 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 in a very weak position 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: 6.5

• Decibel Therapeutics, Inc. has no intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) according to accounting books, which is safest. It happens to be top tier when measured against 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a quarter of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have some claims on the company. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Most resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is best for liquidity. It looks similar to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's lacking compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Days of sales outstanding are not known, out of lack of data. It still ranks unknown against peers.
• Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
• We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
• Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
• Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against 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.
• The company didn't have revenues in the past twelve months. It must start having income to take advantage of used resources. It looks in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• The firm has yet to start reporting any sales. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 4.4

• Decibel Therapeutics, 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 close to average when 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.
• Price-to-Sales ratio is currently an incognita. It looks incomparable with 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 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: 2.7

---

Awarener score: 2.0

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!