Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 8.1x · EV/EBITDA 8.5x · ROE 10.0%. (2005–2025 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 | $1.4B | $1.4B | $1.6B | $1.4B | $558M | $912M | $851M | $768M | $891M | $932M | $563M |
| Enterprise Value | $1.8B | $1.8B | $1.9B | $1.4B | $1.0B | $1.5B | $1.1B | $846M | $565M | $718M | $408M |
| P/E Ratio → | 8.13 | 8.08 | 8.09 | 8.09 | 3.12 | 8.28 | 14.05 | 23.14 | 14.93 | 18.49 | 9.64 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.82 | 0.81 | 1.09 | 0.94 | 0.37 | 0.69 | 0.91 | 1.79 | 8.53 | 8.16 | 2.85 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.77 | 0.77 | 1.03 | 0.99 | 0.47 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 1.33 | 1.54 | 1.00 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | 3.72 | 5.30 | — | — | — | — | — | 9.36 |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | 3.71 | 5.13 | — | — | — | — | — | 8.42 |
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 | — | 1.08 | 1.25 | 1.00 | 0.66 | 1.11 | 1.18 | 1.97 | 5.41 | 6.28 | 2.07 |
| EV / EBITDA | 8.48 | 8.43 | 7.71 | 6.86 | 4.32 | 8.99 | 1.18 | 1.99 | 7.78 | 15.87 | 1.10 |
| EV / EBIT | 8.62 | 8.17 | 6.96 | 6.49 | 4.27 | 10.03 | 15.22 | 23.04 | 31.74 | 11.85 | 3.63 |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | 3.96 | 9.57 | — | — | — | — | — | 6.78 |
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 | 21.9% | 21.9% | 23.8% | 21.2% | 21.3% | 17.3% | 12.7% | 15.3% | 37.2% | 4.0% | 14.4% |
| Operating Margin | 12.6% | 12.6% | 16.0% | 14.4% | 15.2% | 12.1% | 7.8% | 8.6% | 17.1% | 34.8% | 71.1% |
| Net Profit Margin | 10.1% | 10.1% | 13.5% | 11.6% | 11.8% | 8.3% | 6.5% | 7.7% | 57.0% | 44.0% | 29.7% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 10.0% | 10.0% | 13.7% | 13.0% | 16.1% | 11.7% | 7.2% | 4.5% | 9.3% | 8.6% | 11.0% |
| ROA | 5.6% | 5.6% | 7.7% | 6.9% | 8.0% | 5.7% | 3.8% | 2.8% | 7.2% | 6.7% | 6.8% |
| ROIC | 7.8% | 7.8% | 11.0% | 10.0% | 10.7% | 8.9% | 5.4% | 4.5% | 3.6% | 7.5% | 17.6% |
| ROCE | 8.2% | 8.2% | 10.7% | 10.1% | 12.4% | 9.8% | 5.2% | 3.5% | 2.3% | 5.6% | 17.4% |
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 | 0.46 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.74 | 0.57 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.20 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 3.84 | 3.84 | 2.94 | 3.36 | 3.06 | 4.35 | 0.69 | 1.08 | 0.13 | 2.40 | 0.30 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.37 | 0.55 | 0.29 | 0.10 | -0.49 | -0.35 | -0.28 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 2.06 | 2.06 | 0.97 | 0.42 | 1.93 | 3.41 | 0.27 | 0.18 | -4.49 | -4.74 | -0.42 |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | 0.24 | 4.27 | — | — | — | — | — | -2.58 |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 7.10 | 5.62 |
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 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 1.17 | 1.91 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 1.93 | 2.16 | 7.96 | 16.49 | 7.76 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.94 | 0.94 | 1.17 | 1.91 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 1.93 | 2.16 | 28.14 | 16.49 | 7.76 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.86 | 0.86 | 1.06 | 1.79 | 0.68 | 0.44 | 1.82 | 2.09 | 7.63 | 9.49 | 6.48 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.53 | 0.53 | 0.58 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.27 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 12.3% | 12.4% | 12.4% | 12.4% | 32.1% | 12.1% | 7.1% | 4.3% | 6.7% | 5.4% | 10.4% |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | 26.9% | 18.9% | — | — | — | — | — | 10.7% |
| Buyback Yield | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $51M | $51M | $50M | $50M | $49M | $48M | $42M | $42M | $42M | $42M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 21 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 FOR stock.
Forestar Group Inc.'s current P/E ratio is 8.1x. The historical average is 28.8x. This places it at the 22th percentile of its historical range.
Forestar Group Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 8.5x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 10.8x.
Forestar Group Inc.'s return on equity (ROE) is 10.0%. The historical average is 5.9%.
Based on historical data, Forestar Group Inc. is trading at a P/E of 8.1x. This is at the 22th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Forestar Group Inc. has 21.9% gross margin and 12.6% operating margin. Operating margin between 10-20% is typical for established companies.
Forestar Group Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 3.8x, indicating high leverage. A ratio between 2-4x is manageable but warrants monitoring.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Parent-Subsidiary Dependency
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Valuation Discount Amidst Parent Dependency
Forestar trades at a P/E of 7.91, significantly below the peer median of 12.77 (based on provided comps), while its EV/EBITDA of 8.30 is also comparatively low, suggesting the market is applying a discount due to its captive customer model and cyclical risk.
The valuation metrics indicate that the market may be pricing in a 'parent-subsidiary discount,' reflecting concerns about the concentration of revenue with D.R. Horton and the company's limited pricing power. However, if the relationship provides more durable demand than peers realize, the current multiples could present a relative value opportunity, though this remains speculative given the volatility in FFO growth.
NOI Margin Contraction Signals Cost Pressures
According to recent financial statements, Forestar's NOI margin has declined to 20.7% in 2026Q3 from a peak of 23.9% in 2024Q4, indicating that rising development costs may be outpacing the company's ability to raise lot prices within its agreement with D.R. Horton.
This margin compression suggests the company's profitability is under pressure from inflationary construction inputs and potentially constrained pricing in its captive sales channel. The associated volatility in FFO per share growth, which swung from -55.6% to 64.6% over the last ten quarters, further indicates that operational efficiency is not consistently translating to stable bottom-line results.
Conservative Leverage Contrasts with Industry Norms
Based on balance sheet data, Forestar's debt-to-equity ratio of 0.44 is substantially below the peer median of 0.37 (for LGIH, GRBK, TMHC, SKY), which is unusual for a capital-intensive land developer and may indicate off-balance-sheet financing or a uniquely conservative strategy.
The low reported leverage provides a significant cushion against housing market downturns but may also mask the true capital intensity of the business if material financing is arranged through its parent. Investors should monitor whether this conservative profile is sustainable as the company scales its land bank or if it reflects limited independent access to capital markets.
Valuation Discount Offset by Inferior Returns
Forestar's P/E of 7.91 and EV/EBITDA of 8.30 are below the peer median of 12.77 and 9.27 respectively, but its ROE of 2.0% is also well below the peer median of 11.45%, suggesting the valuation discount may reflect inferior profitability rather than a clear opportunity.
The peer comparison highlights that while FOR is cheaper on a multiple basis, it also generates substantially lower returns on equity, which could be inherent to its land-development business model versus homebuilding. The company's leverage is within the peer range, but the stark difference in profitability warrants scrutiny of cost structures and the terms of its related-party transactions.
Debt-to-Equity Ratio Obscures True Leverage
The reported debt-to-equity ratio of 0.44 for Forestar appears unusually low for a land developer and may not capture potential off-balance-sheet liabilities or parent-provided financing, making it a misleading metric for assessing the company's true financial risk.
Analysts should instead focus on debt-to-gross-assets or net debt metrics, but even these may be incomplete if significant financing is arranged through D.R. Horton. The standard D/E ratio is particularly misleading here because it understates the capital intensity of the business and the potential contingent liabilities from land option contracts, requiring a deeper review of related-party disclosures to gauge actual risk.