Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -0.1x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE N/A. (2021–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $38M | $36M | $142M | — | — | — |
| Enterprise Value | $1.8B | $1.8B | $1.2B | — | — | — |
| P/E Ratio → | -0.08 | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.15 | — | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | 3.47 | 1.33 | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 8.7% | 8.7% | 3.2% | 15.0% | -270.6% | 15.1% |
| Operating Margin | -71.5% | -71.5% | -85.1% | -108.4% | -7776.9% | -3063.2% |
| Net Profit Margin | -89.4% | -89.4% | -119.5% | -109.3% | -7571.2% | -2997.9% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | — | — | — | — | -1307.7% | -56.6% |
| ROA | -21.9% | -21.9% | -57.1% | -46.9% | -50.0% | -8.4% |
| ROIC | -84.5% | -84.5% | -263.7% | — | — | — |
| ROCE | — | — | — | -310.6% | -120.7% | -19.3% |
Solvency and debt-coverage ratios — lower is generally safer
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | 1.12 |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | — | — | — | — | -1.60 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -6.48 | -6.48 | -17.97 | -72.45 | -83.83 | — |
Short-term solvency ratios and asset-utilisation metrics
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.42 | 0.50 | 0.88 | 1.40 |
| Quick Ratio | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.86 | 1.40 |
| Cash Ratio | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.79 | 0.73 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| Inventory Turnover | 3.90 | 3.90 | 4.74 | 2.01 | 1.56 | 1.58 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 106.16 | 104.40 | 53.27 | 330.43 | 5028.72 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — | — |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — | — | — |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $649M | $645M | $475M | $673M | $36M |
Imminent liquidity and solvency
According to current market data, the company trades at a P/S multiple of 0.07, a valuation level that suggests investors are heavily discounting the brand's future viability due to the persistent negative margins and the significant revenue contraction observed in recent quarterly filings.
The extremely low P/S ratio relative to luxury automotive peers indicates that the market is pricing the equity as a distressed asset rather than a growth-stage manufacturer. This valuation implies that the market lacks confidence in the company's ability to reach the scale necessary to justify its current R&D-heavy cost structure.
Based on reported figures, the company's ROIC has deteriorated to -37.5% in 2024Q4, illustrating a profound inability to generate returns on the massive capital investments deployed into its Wuhan manufacturing facility and electric vehicle platform development over the past several quarters.
The consistent decay in ROIC suggests that the capital-intensive nature of the business model is not currently yielding the expected operational leverage. Investors should monitor whether future product cycles can improve asset utilization, as the current trend indicates significant value destruction for shareholders.
As reported in financial statements, the company's cash conversion cycle has shifted to -8 days in 2024Q4, a metric that appears to be driven more by aggressive payables management than by genuine operational efficiency in inventory turnover or receivables collection.
The reliance on extending DPO to manage liquidity suggests that the company is under significant pressure to preserve cash. This strategy may eventually strain supplier relationships, potentially impacting the production consistency required for the high-performance luxury segment.
According to recent SEC filings, the company's current ratio has compressed to 0.42, a level that warrants serious concern as it indicates that short-term assets are insufficient to cover immediate liabilities without reliance on external financing or parent company support.
The rapid depletion of the liquidity buffer leaves little room for operational error or market volatility. This precarious position suggests that the company may be forced into dilutive financing or emergency capital injections to maintain its ongoing operations in the near term.
Investors frequently misapply traditional P/E or EV/EBITDA multiples to this business model, which obscures the reality that the company functions more as a capital-intensive R&D laboratory for the Geely ecosystem than as a mature, profit-generating automotive manufacturer.
Using standard automotive valuation metrics fails to account for the strategic value of the brand's intellectual property and its role within the broader Geely conglomerate. A more appropriate approach would involve assessing the company's burn rate against its strategic utility to the parent, rather than relying on earnings-based multiples that are currently non-existent.
Includes 30+ ratios · 5 years · Updated daily
DCF models, multiple analysis, and analyst estimates.
10-year return with dividends reinvested.
See how regular investing compounds over time.
Compare growth, multiples, and margins vs sector.
Quick answers to the most common questions about buying LOTWW stock.
Lotus Technology Inc. Warrants's current P/E ratio is -0.1x. This places it at the 50th percentile of its historical range.
Based on historical data, Lotus Technology Inc. Warrants is trading at a P/E of -0.1x. This is at the 50th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Lotus Technology Inc. Warrants has 8.7% gross margin and -71.5% operating margin.