Energy / Oil & Gas E&PNasdaqGS
$27.66
+0.58 (+2.14%)
FCF base 3Y
n/d
n/d CAGR · yield n/d
FCF base 5Y
n/d
n/d base · n/d expected
Precio de entrada
n/d
MOS 23% · confianza 25%
FCF escenarios
weak_data · normalized FCF $132.6M · quality 88.0/100
Ranking barato/determinista: CAGR esperado 5Y + downside bear + calidad del modelo + balance + capital allocation + data gate. No entra en buy-candidate si la data es débil o el CAGR 5Y no compensa.
SA Score
36/100
D
Piotroski
5/9
balance/quality
Valuation
50/100
+0.0% upside
5Y CAGR
+0.0%
50/100
Data QA
20/100
SEC 0%
Sin guardar todavía.
Market Cap
$1.3B
P/E
19.9x
↑EV/EBITDA
10.4x
↑ROE
18.8%
↑Gross Margin
46.2%
↑Debt/Equity
0.00
↓TradingView lightweight chart
Absolute Values (Left Axis)
Ratios / Percentages (Right Axis)
Financial statement dashboard
2009–2025 · 16 años de histórico normalizado
Revenue CAGR
—
FCF CAGR
—
FCF margin
86.7%
FCF / Net income
2.31x
Latest source
Provider fallback
Margin decomposition
Último año: revenue $152.8M · net income $57.4M · FCF $132.5M
Gross margin
Operating margin
Net margin
FCF margin
| Metric | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Income Statement | ||||||||||||||||||
| Revenue | $152.8M | $152.8M | $161.5M | $163.8M | $170.8M | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income | $57.4M | $57.4M | $92.4M | $114.1M | $130.6M | $70.2M | $21.9M | $52.8M | $53.9M | $38.4M | $21.0M | $13.3M | $45.2M | $43.6M | $38.0M | $42.2M | $34.9M | $21.7M |
| EBITDA | $123.8M | $123.8M | $135.2M | $140.6M | $149.9M | — | — | — | — | — | $29.5M | $23.3M | $54.6M | $56.5M | $54.6M | $60.5M | — | — |
| EPS | — | — | 2.13 | 2.85 | 3.35 | 1.94 | 0.61 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Gross Margin | 46.2% | 46.2% | 64.6% | 76.5% | 81.3% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 37.5% | 37.5% | 57.2% | 69.7% | 76.5% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Margin | 37.5% | 37.5% | 57.2% | 69.7% | 76.5% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Balance Sheet | ||||||||||||||||||
| Debt/Equity | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Current Ratio | 16.61 | 16.61 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Cash Flow | ||||||||||||||||||
| Free Cash Flow | $132.5M | $132.5M | $132.6M | $139.8M | $147.1M | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Returns | ||||||||||||||||||
| ROE | 18.8% | 18.8% | 25.6% | 61.5% | 76.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Valuation | ||||||||||||||||||
| P/E | 19.90 | 19.90 | 16.00 | 10.95 | 8.83 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.45 | 10.45 | 10.23 | 8.28 | 7.16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/B | 4.37 | 4.37 | 3.94 | 6.52 | 6.49 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Growth & Yield | ||||||||||||||||||
| Revenue Growth | -5.4% | -5.4% | -1.4% | -4.1% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth | — | — | -25.3% | -14.9% | — | 218.0% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend Yield | 9.4% | 9.4% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Revenue, Net Income & Free Cash Flow ($B)
Margins (%)
Returns (%)
Leverage & Liquidity
Qué te dice: cuánto EPS CAGR está descontando el precio si sales al múltiplo terminal indicado. Si el growth observado queda por debajo, el mercado está pidiendo una ejecución muy fina.
Total return
+12.7%
Start / end P/E
n/dx → n/dx
EPS bridge
2.13 → n/d
Residual
+3.3%
EPS/multiple decomposition requires positive EPS at both endpoints; residual absorbs price move not explained by dividends.
Simple additive decomposition: total return = EPS growth contribution + P/E multiple contribution + dividend contribution + explicit residual. The residual captures cross-terms, buybacks/share-count effects, FX, special dividends, data noise and methodology mismatch so the bridge always reconciles.