Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 9.5x · EV/EBITDA 562.8x · ROE 3.1%. (2013–2025 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 | $678M | $835M | $556M | $446M | $334M | $441M | $364M | $1.0B | $451M | $762M | — |
| Enterprise Value | $769M | $926M | $723M | $783M | $902M | $884M | $797M | $1.4B | $513M | $474M | — |
| P/E Ratio → | 9.46 | 11.65 | 3.94 | 4.04 | — | 72.67 | — | 46.33 | — | 78.33 | — |
| P/S Ratio | 6.16 | 7.59 | 2.33 | 2.10 | 7.83 | 1.96 | 2.37 | 5.49 | 9.21 | 5.46 | — |
| P/B Ratio | 0.28 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.19 | 0.53 | 0.24 | 0.40 | — |
| P/FCF | 6.45 | 7.95 | 4.82 | 2.89 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | 6.44 | 7.93 | 4.79 | 2.89 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | — | 8.42 | 3.04 | 3.70 | 21.13 | 3.94 | 5.19 | 7.65 | 10.46 | 3.40 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | 562.82 | 677.48 | 8.32 | 16.99 | — | 30.21 | — | — | 10.40 | 3.40 | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | 4.36 | 3.53 | 7.17 | — | 68.08 | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | 8.82 | 6.28 | 5.08 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | 40.4% | 40.4% | 49.9% | 36.7% | 35.6% | 35.7% | 27.5% | 28.9% | 41.1% | 23.3% | 44.5% |
| Operating Margin | -6.7% | -6.7% | 28.4% | 12.4% | -91.7% | 1.5% | -26.6% | -27.3% | -160.4% | -64.4% | -262.0% |
| Net Profit Margin | 64.5% | 64.5% | 28.7% | 26.2% | -36.1% | 2.9% | -0.3% | 4.9% | -70.9% | 52.5% | -84.5% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 3.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | 2.8% | -0.8% | 0.3% | -0.0% | 0.5% | -1.8% | 4.3% | -3.6% |
| ROA | 2.2% | 2.2% | 2.3% | 1.9% | -0.5% | 0.2% | -0.0% | 0.3% | -1.2% | 2.9% | -2.6% |
| ROIC | -0.2% | -0.2% | 2.2% | 0.8% | -1.2% | 0.1% | -1.3% | -1.8% | -3.3% | -4.2% | -8.3% |
| ROCE | -0.2% | -0.2% | 2.3% | 0.9% | -1.4% | 0.1% | -1.4% | -1.9% | -3.2% | -4.3% | -9.7% |
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 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.30 | 0.29 | 0.11 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 378.99 | 378.99 | 6.89 | 15.02 | — | 24.22 | — | — | 11.30 | 4.02 | 4.37 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.30 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.03 | -0.15 | 0.07 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 66.96 | 66.96 | 1.93 | 7.33 | — | 15.15 | — | — | 1.24 | -2.06 | 2.79 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 0.87 | 1.46 | 2.19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 | 82.24 | 82.24 | 145.64 | 10.09 | 84.31 | 22.46 | 18.70 | 58.71 | 4.43 | 4.46 | 4.01 |
| Quick Ratio | 14.32 | 14.32 | 27.40 | 1.62 | 7.31 | 3.18 | 2.98 | 10.61 | 1.10 | 1.67 | 0.31 |
| Cash Ratio | 11.86 | 11.86 | 22.17 | 1.36 | 4.53 | 2.44 | 2.35 | 8.83 | 0.97 | 1.66 | 0.17 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| Inventory Turnover | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.01 |
| 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 | 10.6% | 8.6% | 25.4% | 24.8% | — | 1.4% | — | 2.2% | — | 1.3% | — |
| FCF Yield | 15.5% | 12.6% | 20.7% | 34.6% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.5% | 1.5% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.0% | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.5% | 1.5% | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.0% | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $149M | $147M | $145M | $144M | $67M | $67M | $146M | $65M | $54M | $38M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 13 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 FPH stock.
Five Point Holdings, LLC's current P/E ratio is 9.5x. The historical average is 36.2x. This places it at the 33th percentile of its historical range.
Five Point Holdings, LLC's current EV/EBITDA is 562.8x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 13.9x.
Five Point Holdings, LLC's return on equity (ROE) is 3.1%. The historical average is 1.7%.
Based on historical data, Five Point Holdings, LLC is trading at a P/E of 9.5x. This is at the 33th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Five Point Holdings, LLC has 40.4% gross margin and -6.7% operating margin.
Five Point Holdings, LLC's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 379.0x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Lumpy land-sale revenue
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Land Bank Discounted by Market
FPH trades at 0.32x book value and 16.1x forward FFO, per recent filings, implying the market assigns minimal value to the San Francisco assets and discounts the land bank's long-term realization.
The P/FFO of 16.1x appears elevated relative to the REIT's own history, but this is misleading given the lumpy earnings stream. The implied cap rate, derived from NOI and enterprise value, is not directly comparable to traditional REITs due to the development model. The deep discount to book value suggests the market is pricing in significant execution risk on the entitled land, particularly in San Francisco, where regulatory delays persist. Investors should monitor whether any entitlement progress could trigger a re-rating toward NAV.
NOI Margins Swing on Land Sales
NOI margin fluctuated between 24.9% and 74.2% over the past ten quarters, per FPH's financial statements, with the latest quarter at 48.3%, reflecting the lumpy nature of land sales and project mix.
The volatility in NOI margins is a direct consequence of the company's project-based revenue model, where each land sale carries different infrastructure costs and pricing. The negative operating margin in the most recent quarter, despite a positive net margin, suggests that non-operating items, such as equity in earnings from joint ventures, are masking underlying operational weakness. This implies that FFO growth is not organically driven but rather dependent on the timing of specific land closings and JV distributions, which may not be sustainable.
No Dividend, Retained Cash Builds
FPH pays no dividend, so the FFO payout ratio is not applicable, but the company retains all cash flow, as evidenced by zero distributions and a growing equity base, per balance sheet data.
The absence of a dividend allows FPH to retain all earnings, which has contributed to an increase in equity from $681.0M in 2024Q1 to $849.0M in 2026Q2. This conservative capital allocation provides a cushion for the lumpy cash flows inherent in land development. However, the negative AFFO in 2026Q1 indicates that cash generation is insufficient to support any distribution, reinforcing the decision to retain capital. Investors should view the retained cash as a strategic reserve for future development or debt reduction, rather than a source of income.
Deleveraging with Low Parent Debt
Total debt declined from $600.7M in 2025Q2 to $444.0M in 2026Q2, per balance sheet data, while D/E fell from 0.27 to 0.18, indicating a deliberate deleveraging strategy.
The reduction in debt, coupled with a substantial cash position of $348.4M, suggests a defensive balance sheet posture that is prudent given the cyclicality of land sales. The low parent-level debt (D/E of 0.18) provides financial flexibility, but the lack of disclosed interest coverage data warrants caution. The company's ability to service debt is dependent on the timing of land closings, which have been volatile. The maturity profile is not disclosed, but the declining debt trend suggests manageable refinancing risk in the near term.
Concentrated California Land Portfolio
FPH's operations are 100% concentrated in three California counties, per company filings, with the Great Park segment as a critical cash flow driver, exposing the company to regional regulatory and market risks.
The geographic concentration in California's coastal markets is a double-edged sword: it provides scarcity value and pricing power, but also exposes FPH to local regulatory hurdles, such as CEQA and zoning changes. The G&A efficiency appears strained, as evidenced by historically high overhead relative to the scale of operations, which has drawn criticism. The portfolio's value is heavily dependent on the successful monetization of the San Francisco assets, which have faced delays. Investors should monitor occupancy rates in the residential markets served, as they influence builder demand for land takedowns.
P/E Misleads for Land Developer
Standard P/E is misleading for FPH because depreciation is minimal and earnings are distorted by non-operating gains, as reported in financial statements, so investors should use P/FFO or NAV-based metrics.
The P/E of 10.81 appears low, but it is based on earnings that include significant non-operating items, such as equity in earnings from unconsolidated ventures and one-time gains. For a land developer, FFO is a more appropriate metric as it adjusts for depreciation (though minimal here) and provides a clearer picture of recurring operational performance. However, even FFO is volatile due to the lumpy nature of land sales. The most appropriate valuation approach for FPH is a sum-of-the-parts NAV analysis, which assigns value to the entitled land bank and the potential upside from San Francisco. Investors should focus on the implied cap rate and land value per acre rather than traditional earnings multiples.