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

---

Fundamental analysis: DocuSign, Inc. (DOCU)

Awarener score: 5.5

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: 8.0

• Business has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been more than average in relation to peer companies.
• DocuSign, Inc. business trend stability is good. The higher the stability, the lower the risk. It looks slightly worse than rivals.

Margins score: 4.2

• DOCU profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually huge. They stand well ranked against rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very poor. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually very poor. They remain lacking compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be very poor in relation to total revenues. They're still somewhat worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually very poor considering total sales, and remain almost average when measured against rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be very poor when confronted to sales. Company stands almost average when measured against comparable firms.

Growth score: 2.0

• DocuSign, Inc. profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at a very good 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

• DOCU 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 some portion of revenues. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• The company shows business growth in relation to research and development efforts. It stands in good shape compared to rival companies.

Profitability score: 3.0

• DocuSign, Inc. usually gets meagre returns on the resources it controls. It proves almost average when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets meagre proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain lacking compared to similar companies.
• Profitability -in relation to owned resources- is usually insufficient. It ranks weak when measured 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 almost average when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 2.7

• DOCU usually uses almost all genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is huge. It stands almost average when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually replacing the property, plant, and equipment that gets old, keeping its operating capabilities up to date, which is encouraging in relation 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 usually significantly enlarges the pool of investors, resulting in more mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains lacking 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.
• The company generates very few genuine funds. Investor rewards must be paid burning existing cash or by borrowing money, which isn't sustainable in the long run. Unless business prospects improve greatly, stockholder compensation could be at risk. It still looks last-in-rank when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 4.2

• DocuSign, 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 below average when measured against peer companies.
• The company has lower short-term resources than short-term obligations. Unless it's part of the business model, there might be liquidity concerns. It turns to be a disappointment compared to similar firms.
• Roughly a third of resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Creditors have claims on the company. It remains mediocre against rival firms.
• Most controlled resources can be made into cash reasonably quick, which is good for liquidity and risk. It looks similar to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has almost another of cash and short-term receivables. It's in a very weak position compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has roughly half of cash and equivalents, which is mediocre against similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on somewhat less than three months credit. It still ranks below average when measured against peers.
• Normally has no inventories. It comes up as impressive in relation to competitors.
• On average, it takes higher than three months from the purchase to charging customers. It happens to be somewhat worse than peers.
• On average pays suppliers before a month from the purchase. It ranks weak when measured against industry peers.
• The company pays its suppliers roughly two months before charging its customers, so there's some 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 quite good 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 lacking compared to similar firms.
• Resource exploitation is very good when yearly sales are considered. This metric is normally tied to the industry where the firm belongs. It's still well ranked against peer companies.

Valuation score: 3.3

• DocuSign, 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 very weak position compared to peers.
• In the past twelve months, the company neither generated nor consumed funds. Whatever funds it could get, it reinvested in the business, 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 almost average when measured against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has slightly enlarged the pool of investors by issuing new shares. The pie of earnings will now be split among a little more stockholders. It came up a slight improvement compared to peer ventures.
• The company has neither net debt nor net cash. It may borrow extra money if it wishes so, or start cumulating cash for future uses. 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 very high relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks close to average when compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value is extremely high, which may be good or bad depending on context. Run again in analytic mode if you want to dig deeper. The company remains worse than most peer firms.
• In the past twelve months, the operating business lost some money. It happens to be similar to industry peers.
• In an alternate metric of bang for the buck, the company has usually shown a somewhat 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: 5.5

Conclusion

Support us!

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

• Donate!