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

---

Fundamental analysis: Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA)

Awarener score: 1.4

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

Margins score: 3.2

• DNA profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually excellent. They stand well ranked against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be extremely poor. It's encouraging in relation to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually extremely poor. They remain a slight improvement 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 somewhat better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually extremely poor considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be extremely poor when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 1.0

• Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, 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: 3.3

• DNA 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 very large portion of revenues. It's similar to competitors.
• The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands excellent in relation to rival companies.

Profitability score: 1.0

• Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. usually gets pauper returns on the resources it controls. It proves substantially worse when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets extremely poor proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain in a very weak position compared to similar companies.
• There's usually bottom profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks substantially worse when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got pauper 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: 4.0

• DNA remains pending of analysis regarding capital expenditures, due to data unavailable. It stands substantially worse when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is similar to 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 good shape 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: 5.7

• Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. 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 substantially worse when measured against peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be a slight improvement compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains worse than most rival firms.
• Resources controlled can be quickly made into cash, which is very good for liquidity and risk. It looks substantially worse when measured against rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's a slight improvement compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly better than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on a two-months credit. It still ranks almost average when measured against peers.
• Normally has approximately somewhat less than one month of sales worth in inventory. It comes up as excellent in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes less than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be well ranked against peers.
• On average pays suppliers after a month and a half from the purchase. It ranks substantially worse 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 close to average when 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.
• Last twelve months revenues were non-significant in relation to fixed assets. The company must improve income to take advantage of used resources. It looks a slight improvement 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 better than most peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.2

• Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, 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 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.
• The company has substantial more cash than debt. It might be poised to increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks somewhat 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 very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is somewhat high. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains slightly better than peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost plenty of money. It happens to be weak 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 lacking compared to peer companies.

Total score: 3.1

---

Awarener score: 1.4

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!