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

---

Fundamental analysis: Desktop Metal, Inc. (DM)

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

Margins score: 1.8

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

Growth score: 1.0

• Desktop Metal, Inc. couldn't always profit -on goods and services sold- in the past years. It's been a disappointment 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: 4.3

• DM 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 substantial portion of revenues. It's substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• The company shows very good business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands impressive in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 2.2

• Desktop Metal, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets very poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. 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 substantially worse when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.2

• DM 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 substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing some proportion of the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, saving part of the funds for something else, which is below average 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 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: 4.1

• Desktop Metal, Inc. intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books. There could be difficulties in liquidating them if the company ever gets in financial distress. It happens to be weak 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 a slight improvement compared 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 slightly worse than rival firms.
• Controlled resources take time to be turned into cash and equivalents, which is somewhat risky. It looks substantially worse 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 in good shape compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is well ranked against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately five months of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as in a weak position compared to competitors.
• On average, it takes a lot of 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 below average when measured against 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 in a weak position 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 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 in a very weak position compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be significantly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still worse than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

• Desktop Metal, 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 close to average when compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company consumed funds. Either it reinvested significantly in the business or genuine fund generation might be struggling, which stands bottom tier against similar companies.
• The company usually consumes much 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 significant 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 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 in a weak position 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 slightly worse than 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 a weak position compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains somewhat better than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost a lot 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 a disappointment compared to 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!