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

---

Fundamental analysis: Denali Therapeutics Inc. (DNLI)

Awarener score: 5.1

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 an extremely fast pace. It's been top tier when measured against peer companies.
• Denali Therapeutics Inc. business varies wildly, ups and downs could be very frequent. It's very risky. It looks bottom tier against rivals.

Margins score: 1.8

• DNLI profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually sufficient. They stand slightly better than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be pauper. It's similar to competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually destitute. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be pauper in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly better than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually destitute considering total sales, and remain similar to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be pauper when confronted to sales. Company stands similar to comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.3

• Denali Therapeutics Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an extremely fast pace. It's been excellent in relation 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

• DNLI 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 more than average in relation to 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: 3.0

• Denali Therapeutics Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves great when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain excellent in relation to similar companies.
• There's usually little profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks great when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got meagre 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 great when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.8

• DNLI 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 great when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is almost 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 good shape 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: 6.9

• Denali 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 more than enough short-term resources to face short-term obligations. Liquidity concerns are non-significant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• A very minor portion of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly worse than rival firms.
• Most resources controlled are already cash or short-term investments, which is best for liquidity. It looks more than average in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has abundant dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's in a weak position compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has more than enough dollars in cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on cash. It still ranks more than average in relation to 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.
• To what extent normalized EBITDA covers interest expenses is not known. It stands impossible to compare 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 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 good shape compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very low when yearly sales are considered, business volume must be greatly increased. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.4

• Denali 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 in a weak position 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 slightly better 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 great when measured against 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 impressive in relation to peer ventures.
• This company is a cash hoarder. It might be well poised to substantially increase stockholder payments, or to fund new business projects. It looks slightly better 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 huge relationship. The stock price might rely more on expectations and resources controlled than on anything else. It looks lacking compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is really high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost significant money. It happens to be more than average in relation to 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 excellent in relation to peer companies.

Total score: 3.8

---

Awarener score: 5.1

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!