Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -8.3x · EV/EBITDA 5.7x · ROE 10.1%. (2012–2025 historical series)
Price-based multiples — how expensive the stock is relative to earnings, sales, book value, and cash flow
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $4.2B | $3.9B | $4.2B | $4.0B | $3.4B | $3.5B | $2.0B | $444M | $808M | $826M | $860M |
| Enterprise Value | $5.4B | $5.1B | $5.1B | $4.1B | $3.7B | $3.9B | $2.6B | $5.5B | $6.0B | $6.1B | $6.1B |
| P/E Ratio → | -8.33 | 10.77 | 11.23 | 7.03 | 6.45 | 5.80 | 1.04 | — | 2.52 | — | 3.15 |
| P/S Ratio | 1.17 | 1.08 | 1.43 | 1.41 | 1.04 | 1.38 | 1.22 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.49 |
| P/B Ratio | 1.12 | 1.06 | 1.19 | 1.79 | 1.81 | 2.10 | 1.66 | 0.88 | 1.59 | — | — |
| P/FCF | 11.75 | 7.20 | 12.07 | 8.62 | 10.86 | 7.61 | 33.31 | 2.01 | — | — | 15.64 |
| P/OCF | 4.82 | 4.52 | 6.98 | 6.15 | 4.89 | 5.37 | 18.54 | 0.66 | 1.75 | 3.33 | 6.62 |
P/E links to full P/E history page with 30-year chart
Enterprise-value multiples — capital-structure-neutral measures of total business value
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 1.42 | 1.72 | 1.45 | 1.15 | 1.51 | 1.60 | 2.03 | 1.97 | 2.92 | 3.49 |
| EV / EBITDA | 5.74 | 3.46 | 4.51 | 3.50 | 2.34 | 3.33 | 6.98 | 4.01 | 3.59 | 9.49 | 11.16 |
| EV / EBIT | 6.33 | 8.45 | 8.42 | 5.07 | 4.58 | 13.70 | 1.23 | 11.33 | 7.48 | 75.46 | 11.83 |
| EV / FCF | — | 9.46 | 14.50 | 8.87 | 12.00 | 8.32 | 43.67 | 24.75 | — | — | 111.20 |
Margins and return-on-capital ratios measuring operating efficiency
Full margin charts and quarterly trend are on the Earnings History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 39.6% | 39.6% | 40.6% | 47.1% | 53.3% | 48.6% | 25.0% | 46.9% | 51.8% | 30.0% | 21.2% |
| Operating Margin | 23.6% | 23.6% | 22.0% | 31.8% | 41.6% | 35.2% | 0.4% | 31.6% | 37.2% | 3.5% | -0.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | 10.1% | 10.1% | 12.7% | 20.0% | 16.1% | 23.9% | 117.0% | -1.0% | 10.7% | -12.7% | 15.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 10.1% | 10.1% | 13.1% | 27.6% | 29.5% | 42.6% | 223.0% | -5.5% | 64.4% | — | — |
| ROA | 5.0% | 5.0% | 6.8% | 14.2% | 13.4% | 17.7% | 37.5% | -0.4% | 4.9% | -4.2% | 4.2% |
| ROIC | 13.8% | 13.8% | 14.5% | 29.5% | 47.9% | 35.5% | 0.1% | 11.3% | 16.6% | 1.2% | -0.2% |
| ROCE | 13.6% | 13.6% | 13.7% | 27.7% | 44.6% | 32.3% | 0.2% | 13.3% | 19.0% | 1.3% | -0.2% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.54 | 9.97 | 10.32 | — | — |
| Debt / EBITDA | 0.91 | 0.91 | 1.09 | 0.52 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 1.73 | 3.69 | 3.12 | 8.24 | 9.61 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.52 | 9.93 | 10.28 | — | — |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.76 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.28 | 1.66 | 3.68 | 3.11 | 8.21 | 9.59 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 2.26 | 2.43 | 0.25 | 1.14 | 0.71 | 10.36 | 22.74 | — | — | 95.56 |
| Interest Coverage | 5.74 | 5.74 | 6.93 | 14.36 | 15.36 | 5.24 | 9.62 | 1.26 | 2.13 | 0.24 | 1.58 |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 0.89 | 0.89 | 1.04 | 1.51 | 0.97 | 0.88 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 1.05 | 0.66 | 0.59 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.95 | 1.39 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.94 | 0.58 | 0.51 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.38 | 0.81 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.28 |
| Inventory Turnover | 20.53 | 20.53 | 19.50 | 20.65 | 25.33 | 21.97 | 19.77 | 21.36 | 21.38 | 26.20 | 23.83 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 46.08 | 57.64 | 36.07 | 45.71 | 41.55 | 49.68 | 47.03 | 43.73 | 61.47 | 57.47 |
Earnings, FCF, buyback, and dividend yields — total returns to shareholders
Full dividend history and growth charts are on the Dividend History page
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | 3.3% | 3.5% | 2.7% | 2.0% | 1.7% | 0.4% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | 37.5% | 37.5% | 30.1% | 14.4% | 11.3% | 2.3% | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | 9.3% | 8.9% | 14.2% | 15.5% | 17.3% | 95.8% | — | 39.7% | — | 31.8% |
| FCF Yield | 8.5% | 13.9% | 8.3% | 11.6% | 9.2% | 13.1% | 3.0% | 49.7% | — | — | 6.4% |
| Buyback Yield | 9.0% | 9.6% | 4.5% | 3.6% | 9.3% | 4.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 12.4% | 13.1% | 7.2% | 5.7% | 11.0% | 4.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $87M | $81M | $73M | $78M | $83M | $83M | $49M | $47M | $43M | $40M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 14 years · Updated daily
Live VCP patterns, Cup & Handle overlays, support/resistance, and AI trade plans.
High-probability breakout stocks crossing their pivot across 5 pattern engines.
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying CRC stock.
California Resources Corp's current P/E ratio is -8.3x. The historical average is 6.0x.
California Resources Corp's current EV/EBITDA is 5.7x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 5.3x.
California Resources Corp's return on equity (ROE) is 10.1%. The historical average is -1.8%.
Based on historical data, California Resources Corp is trading at a P/E of -8.3x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
California Resources Corp's current dividend yield is 3.31% with a payout ratio of 37.5%.
California Resources Corp has 39.6% gross margin and 23.6% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
California Resources Corp's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 0.9x, indicating low leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Aera integration and SB 1137 uncertainty
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Discount Multiples Reflect California Political Risk
Based on reported figures, CRC trades at 11.32x trailing earnings and 3.65x EV/EBITDA, a discount to the Permian-weighted peer group where Matador and SM Energy carry materially higher multiples on comparable operating margins.
The 11.32x trailing P/E sits above CIVI's 3.24x but well below MTDR's 8.28x and CRGY's 20.78x, which appears to reflect a discount for regulatory exposure rather than a difference in earnings quality. The 1.12x P/B and 7.68x P/FCF suggest the market is pricing CRC's cash generation conservatively, although the negative trailing margins in the two most recent quarters mean the trailing multiple may overstate normalized earning power. Investors should monitor whether the forward EV/EBITDA rising to 4.48x reflects a genuine earnings decline or simply the mechanical effect of a lower forward EBITDA estimate.
Margin Collapse Exposes Fixed-Cost Deleverage
As reported in the income statement, CRC's operating margin fell from 39.4% in 2026Q2 to negative 96.9% in 2026Q3, a deterioration far exceeding the 52.1% revenue decline and indicating high fixed-cost sensitivity.
A 52.1% revenue decline producing a swing of more than 130 percentage points in operating margin suggests that a large share of the cost base does not flex with production or price, consistent with steam-flood energy costs and carbon compliance obligations. The gross margin moving from 63.9% to negative 7.6% in a single quarter further implies that realized pricing and timing effects, rather than a stable structural premium, are driving reported results. Earnings power is therefore better judged from the 2025 quarters, where net margins held between 1.4% and 21.0%, than from the most recent volatile prints.
ROIC Compression Masks Recent Recovery Attempts
Based on reported figures, ROIC has oscillated between 2.6% and 8.6% across ten quarters, and the latest negative 6.8% reading sits well below the 3.0% to 3.6% range sustained through most of 2025.
The 2025 ROIC clustering near 3% against an asset base that grew from $4.5B to $7.3B indicates that acquisition capital has not yet generated returns above the implied cost of capital. The 2026Q2 spike to 8.6% appears to have been driven by margin strength rather than capital efficiency, so it may not be repeatable absent sustained pricing. Compounding is not evident in the reported series, and investors should watch whether Aera synergies can lift ROIC structurally above 5%.
Working Capital Stable Despite Revenue Volatility
According to recent SEC filings, CRC's cash conversion cycle has remained in a narrow band of roughly negative 7 to positive 3 days through most quarters, while DSO has held near 12 to 13 days before the 2026 Aera-related jump to 84 days.
The stability of DSO and DPO through 2024 and 2025 suggests disciplined receivables and payables management relative to a commodity-linked revenue base. The 2026Q3 DSO of 84 days and DIO of 22 days, however, may reflect acquisition-related balance sheet consolidation rather than a true deterioration in collection practices, which warrants further investigation. Asset turnover falling from 0.18 to 0.06 indicates that the enlarged asset base is not yet generating proportional revenue.
Low Debt Ratios Mask Thin Coverage Trend
Based on EDBL's reported figures, the debt-to-equity ratio of 0.42 and debt-to-EBITDA of 2.10x in 2026Q2 appear moderate, yet interest coverage swung from 17.36x to negative 15.46x within a single quarter.
Debt-to-equity has stayed between 0.31 and 0.60 across the ten quarters, which suggests the balance sheet is not highly levered in aggregate. The sharp deterioration in interest coverage, however, indicates that debt service comfort depends heavily on quarterly earnings stability, which has not been dependable recently. Refinancing and covenant exposure cannot be assessed from the supplied data, so the leverage profile should be treated as adequate rather than conclusively low-risk.
Cash Cushion Thins Against Commodity Swings
As reported in the balance sheet, CRC's current ratio compressed to 0.51 and quick ratio to 0.44 in 2026Q3, with cash falling to $48.0M against $1.3B of total debt.
A current ratio below 1.0 combined with minimal cash implies that near-term obligations depend on continued operating cash inflow rather than a liquid reserve. The decline from a 2.43 current ratio in 2024Q2 suggests the liquidity buffer built earlier has been largely consumed by acquisition outflows. Under a severe commodity downturn, the position could tighten materially, so investors should monitor revolver availability and working capital movements closely.
Low Debt Ratio Obscures Earnings Volatility
The debt-to-equity ratio is often treated as the primary safety metric for E&P names, but for CRC it obscures the volatility in operating margins and interest coverage that matters more for near-term solvency.
Debt-to-equity is a balance-sheet snapshot that ignores the fixed-cost structure and earnings swings evident in the reported series, which moved from 39.4% to negative 96.9% operating margin in consecutive quarters. Debt-to-EBITDA on a trailing or normalized basis, combined with interest coverage and a liquidity-adjusted net debt measure, would give a more useful view of resilience. Carbon TerraVault capitalization may also understate near-term cash commitments, so a cash-based metric such as free cash flow after mandatory carbon spend would be a more defensible lens.