Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -55.2x · EV/EBITDA 21.4x · ROE N/A. (2011–2025 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 | $1.9B | $793M | $638M | $600M | $401M | $782M | $851M | $808M | $624M | $436M | $439M |
| Enterprise Value | $2.3B | $1.2B | $1.1B | $1.1B | $871M | $1.2B | $1.2B | $931M | $700M | $506M | $469M |
| P/E Ratio → | -55.21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 58.39 | 56.08 | — | 94.50 |
| P/S Ratio | 2.48 | 1.03 | 0.99 | 1.05 | 0.95 | 5.31 | 10.34 | 2.36 | 2.01 | 1.64 | 1.81 |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | 49.03 | 6.74 | 5.80 | 5.09 | 3.87 | 3.69 |
| P/FCF | 29.95 | 12.42 | 10.85 | — | — | — | — | — | 310.01 | — | — |
| P/OCF | 17.13 | 7.10 | 6.91 | 23.59 | — | 24.06 | — | 12.91 | 11.07 | 8.25 | 13.97 |
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 | — | 1.56 | 1.68 | 1.87 | 2.07 | 8.02 | 13.99 | 2.71 | 2.26 | 1.90 | 1.94 |
| EV / EBITDA | 21.41 | 11.08 | 14.41 | 18.36 | — | — | — | 15.72 | 15.19 | 18.01 | 14.49 |
| EV / EBIT | 50.98 | 51.10 | 52.39 | 146.50 | — | — | — | 28.02 | 27.64 | 41.44 | 39.11 |
| EV / FCF | — | 18.79 | 18.38 | — | — | — | — | — | 348.13 | — | — |
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 | 37.6% | 37.6% | 46.7% | 43.4% | 32.8% | 15.4% | 11.4% | 51.4% | 50.4% | 49.1% | 50.9% |
| Operating Margin | 5.9% | 5.9% | 3.3% | 1.9% | -15.0% | -75.3% | -107.3% | 9.7% | 8.2% | 4.0% | 5.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | -3.9% | -3.9% | -4.8% | -8.0% | -26.4% | -81.0% | -119.9% | 4.8% | 3.7% | -3.2% | 2.0% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | — | — | — | — | — | -167.6% | -74.3% | 12.5% | 9.7% | -7.5% | 4.2% |
| ROA | -3.2% | -3.2% | -3.7% | -5.6% | -13.8% | -15.0% | -15.1% | 3.2% | 2.5% | -2.1% | 1.2% |
| ROIC | 12.4% | 12.4% | 5.0% | 2.2% | -11.8% | -19.8% | -19.2% | 10.8% | 10.0% | 4.9% | 9.5% |
| ROCE | 9.1% | 9.1% | 4.3% | 2.2% | -12.8% | -19.4% | -18.3% | 9.8% | 8.5% | 3.8% | 5.0% |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | 34.46 | 3.86 | 1.61 | 1.55 | 1.47 | 1.39 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 6.13 | 6.13 | 8.36 | 10.73 | — | — | — | 3.79 | 4.12 | 5.91 | 5.12 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | 25.01 | 2.38 | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.26 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | 3.76 | 3.76 | 5.91 | 8.03 | — | — | — | 2.07 | 1.66 | 2.47 | 0.94 |
| Debt / FCF | — | 6.38 | 7.54 | — | — | — | — | — | 38.12 | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.45 | 0.16 | -1.72 | -3.93 | -5.59 | 2.70 | 2.34 | 1.25 | 1.18 |
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 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.54 | 0.73 | 1.47 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 1.38 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.69 | 1.42 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 0.86 | 1.33 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.56 | 0.56 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.30 | 0.52 | 1.20 | 0.56 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 1.09 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.53 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.59 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | 59.28 | 23.75 | 11.80 | 9.54 | 20.01 | 22.71 | 19.82 | 20.49 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.7% | 1.8% | — | 1.1% |
| FCF Yield | 3.3% | 8.1% | 9.2% | — | — | — | — | — | 0.3% | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $55M | $54M | $53M | $52M | $50M | $50M | $49M | $46M | $45M | $46M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 15 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 LIND stock.
Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc.'s current P/E ratio is -55.2x. The historical average is 58.7x.
Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc.'s current EV/EBITDA is 21.4x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA. The historical average is 15.5x.
Based on historical data, Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc. is trading at a P/E of -55.2x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc. has 37.6% gross margin and 5.9% operating margin.
Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc.'s Debt/EBITDA ratio is 6.1x, indicating high leverage. A ratio above 4x may signal elevated financial risk.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Persistent net losses despite growth
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Margin Volatility Masks Underlying Economics
Gross margin swung from 45.6% in 2025Q2 to 39.2% in 2026Q2, while operating margin improved to 6.0%, yet net margin remains negative at -0.7%, per financial statements.
The sharp quarterly swings in gross margin—from 14.1% in 2025Q4 to 42.0% in 2025Q3—reflect the seasonal nature of expedition cruises and the high fixed-cost base. Despite record net yield and occupancy, operating leverage is not translating to net profitability, as interest and depreciation absorb gains. The negative net margin in 2026Q2, despite positive operating income, suggests that debt service is a significant drag, and investors should monitor whether cost inflation or capacity-related expenses persist.
ROIC Recovery Hinges on Fleet Utilization
ROIC improved to 4.8% in 2026Q2 from -1.9% in 2024Q4, but remains below the cost of capital, as reported in financial statements, indicating value creation is not yet established.
The trend in ROIC shows a clear recovery from the trough in 2024Q4, but the absolute level remains low relative to the capital invested in new polar-class vessels. The improvement is driven by higher asset turnover (0.20 in 2026Q2 vs. 0.17 in 2024Q4) and recovering margins, yet the negative equity base complicates the interpretation. For the newest vessels to be value-creative, occupancy and net yield must sustain at record levels, as the high fixed-cost base requires near-full utilization.
Working Capital Efficiency Driven by Deposits
Cash conversion cycle is not calculable due to missing DSO and DIO, but DPO has ranged from 10 to 20 days, while customer deposits surged to $439.9M, per balance sheet data.
The absence of DSO and DIO data limits a full working capital assessment, but the significant customer deposit liability indicates that advance bookings are a major source of cash. The low DPO suggests limited supplier leverage, which is typical for a service-oriented business with specialized crew and fuel costs. The strong deposit growth provides forward revenue visibility, but also creates an obligation to deliver voyages, and any cancellation risk could pressure liquidity.
Debt Service Burden Intensifies
D/EBITDA rose to 21.36 in 2026Q2 from 12.97 in 2025Q3, while interest coverage improved to 1.10, as per financial statements, indicating a highly leveraged capital structure.
The leverage ratio remains elevated, though it has improved from the peak of 106.86 in 2024Q2, reflecting EBITDA growth. Interest coverage of 1.10 in 2026Q2 is thin, meaning operating income barely covers interest expense, leaving little cushion for adverse shocks. The negative equity base and persistent net losses suggest that refinancing risk is elevated, and any rise in interest rates could further strain the balance sheet.
Thin Liquidity Buffer Persists
Current ratio improved to 0.84 in 2026Q2 from 0.80 in 2024Q1, but remains below 1.0, while cash rose to $318.9M, according to recent SEC filings.
The current ratio below 1.0 indicates that short-term obligations exceed current assets, a common feature in cruise lines due to high customer deposits. However, the substantial cash balance of $318.9M provides a buffer, and the strong operating cash flow generation (25.6% FCF margin in 2026Q2) suggests liquidity is manageable in the near term. Under a severe demand shock, the reliance on customer deposits could reverse, but the affluent customer base may offer some resilience.
Misapplied EV/EBITDA in Capital-Intensive Model
EV/EBITDA of 21.13 appears rich versus peers like NCLH at 8.43, but EBITDA excludes depreciation and interest, which are significant for LIND, as per financial statements.
The market often uses EV/EBITDA to compare cruise lines, but for LIND, this metric obscures the heavy capital expenditure and debt service requirements. EBITDA does not capture the full cost of fleet maintenance and dry-docking, nor the interest burden that has kept net margins negative. A more appropriate metric would be EV/EBITDAR (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, and restructuring) or a multiple of operating cash flow, which better reflects the cash available to service debt and reinvest in the fleet.