Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -7.8x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -217.9%. (1996–2025 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 | $1.2B | $713M | $191M | $107M | $423M | $2.5B | $3.0B | $3.8B | $5.9B | $9.3B | $1.7B |
| Enterprise Value | $1.4B | $847M | $250M | $190M | $466M | $2.6B | $3.0B | $4.1B | $6.0B | $9.6B | $1.9B |
| P/E Ratio → | -7.84 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8.70 | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | 22.56 | 12.91 | 1.94 | 1.19 | 4.59 | 24.30 | 19.85 | 32.96 | 4.96 | 30.27 | 10.35 |
| P/B Ratio | 7.00 | 7.94 | 3.15 | 0.82 | 1.15 | 3.64 | 2.82 | 2.69 | 3.45 | 106.04 | 19.44 |
| P/FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8.41 | — | — |
| P/OCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8.24 | — | — |
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 | — | 15.34 | 2.54 | 2.11 | 5.06 | 25.46 | 19.54 | 35.68 | 5.00 | 31.05 | 11.50 |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8.55 | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8.23 | — | — |
| EV / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 8.48 | — | — |
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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 68.8% | 59.3% | 76.5% | 75.6% | 87.3% | 81.4% | 98.0% | 90.1% | 81.7% |
| Operating Margin | -236.8% | -236.8% | -106.9% | -152.5% | -261.0% | -437.8% | -248.5% | -383.9% | 57.6% | -19.4% | -68.2% |
| Net Profit Margin | -297.1% | -297.1% | -120.9% | -306.3% | -400.0% | -514.0% | -290.6% | -384.5% | 57.1% | -31.4% | -92.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -217.9% | -217.9% | -124.1% | -110.9% | -70.4% | -59.6% | -35.8% | -28.2% | 75.5% | -109.9% | -324.7% |
| ROA | -56.2% | -56.2% | -33.9% | -49.8% | -40.3% | -39.4% | -25.3% | -21.4% | 51.2% | -17.9% | -28.7% |
| ROIC | -57.2% | -57.2% | -47.5% | -33.1% | -29.8% | -36.6% | -20.8% | -18.9% | 49.2% | -14.8% | -35.6% |
| ROCE | -55.7% | -55.7% | -35.7% | -27.8% | -28.7% | -36.3% | -24.9% | -23.8% | 54.6% | -12.6% | -24.1% |
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 | 1.66 | 1.66 | 1.69 | 0.90 | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 0.14 | 2.79 | 2.82 |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.35 | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | 1.49 | 0.96 | 0.63 | 0.12 | 0.17 | -0.05 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 2.74 | 2.14 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.07 | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.07 | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | -5.27 | -5.27 | -3.24 | -9.90 | -11.62 | -10.06 | -10.96 | -8.49 | 16.96 | -1.35 | -2.62 |
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 | 4.97 | 4.97 | 4.26 | 6.45 | 8.00 | 9.34 | 9.83 | 4.02 | 17.53 | 5.82 | 5.90 |
| Quick Ratio | 4.97 | 4.97 | 4.26 | 6.14 | 7.72 | 9.15 | 9.70 | 3.98 | 17.39 | 5.63 | 5.75 |
| Cash Ratio | 4.59 | 4.59 | 4.16 | 5.92 | 7.40 | 8.61 | 9.17 | 3.74 | 16.28 | 5.27 | 5.39 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.20 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.29 |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | 2.28 | 1.13 | 1.58 | 1.27 | 1.69 | 2.14 | 2.85 | 2.72 |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | 11.76 | 5.97 | 9.12 | 33.32 | 80.56 | 92.83 | 117.20 | 13.22 | 5.95 | 34.59 |
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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 11.5% | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 11.9% | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $17M | $14M | $13M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $10M | $9M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 30 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 NKTR stock.
Nektar Therapeutics's current P/E ratio is -7.8x. The historical average is 8.7x.
Nektar Therapeutics's return on equity (ROE) is -217.9%. The historical average is -81.5%.
Based on historical data, Nektar Therapeutics is trading at a P/E of -7.8x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Nektar Therapeutics has 100.0% gross margin and -236.8% operating margin.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Imminent liquidity crisis
Metrics are mathematically derived from official filings.
Valuation Reflects Distress, Not Growth
Nektar's P/S ratio of 42.72 appears extreme on a trailing basis, but it is a misleading artifact of collapsing revenue rather than a reflection of growth expectations, as the company's P/B of 13.41 is built on a recently raised equity base.
The current valuation multiples are disconnected from traditional growth metrics. The high P/S ratio is a mathematical consequence of the 43.9% YoY revenue decline, not a premium for future growth. The P/B ratio of 13.41, while high, is anchored by the massive equity infusion that rebuilt the balance sheet from negative territory, masking the underlying value destruction reflected in the -$3.8B retained earnings deficit. Compared to profitable peers like EXEL and INCY, which trade at P/E multiples under 20x, Nektar's valuation appears to be pricing in a speculative turnaround rather than current fundamentals.
Gross Margin Illusion Masks Operational Bleeding
The 100% gross margin is a structural artifact of the IP licensing model, but the operating margin of -4.2% in 2026Q2 reveals that even minimal revenue cannot cover the fixed R&D cost base, indicating severe operational strain.
The stark dichotomy between gross and operating margins is the defining feature of Nektar's profitability profile. The 100% gross margin is meaningless in isolation, as it reflects zero cost of goods sold for a company that does not manufacture products. The true measure of earning power is the operating margin, which has swung wildly from a peak of 49.2% in 2024Q4 (driven by a one-time milestone) to consistently negative figures. This volatility suggests the company's profitability is entirely dependent on lumpy, non-recurring collaboration events, not sustainable operational earnings.
Negative Returns Signal Capital Destruction
Nektar's ROIC of -4.0% in 2026Q2 and ROE of -5.5% confirm that the company is destroying, not compounding, the capital recently infused by shareholders, a trend that has persisted for eight of the last ten quarters.
The return on invested capital metrics paint a clear picture of value erosion. The negative ROIC indicates that the company's operating profits (or losses) are insufficient to generate a return on the capital deployed in the business. The recent improvement in ROE from -116.7% to -5.5% is not a sign of operational recovery but rather a mathematical effect of the massive equity raise inflating the denominator. This pattern of negative returns is unsustainable and suggests the current capital structure is not being utilized to generate economic value.
Debt Eased by Equity, But Coverage Remains Negative
While the D/E ratio has improved to 0.15 following a capital raise, the interest coverage ratio of -5.86 in 2026Q2 indicates that operating losses are still insufficient to service even the reduced debt load, highlighting ongoing financial fragility.
The leverage profile has been artificially improved by a significant equity infusion, which reduced the D/E ratio from a peak of 7.30 in 2025Q1. However, this is a cosmetic improvement. The negative interest coverage ratio is the more critical metric, as it shows the company's core operations cannot generate enough earnings to cover interest expenses. This situation implies that debt service is being funded by drawing down cash reserves or new equity, not by operational cash flow, which is a precarious position for any company.
Liquidity Position Is Operationally Insufficient
Despite a current ratio of 10.42 in 2026Q2, the reported cash position of $39.1M is grossly inadequate to fund the quarterly operating cash burn, which exceeded $40M in the prior quarter, signaling an imminent need for additional financing.
The headline liquidity ratios are misleading. The high current and quick ratios are driven by a recent cash balance that, while large relative to current liabilities, is small relative to the company's cash consumption rate. The absence of inventory makes the quick ratio identical to the current ratio, simplifying the analysis to a pure cash vs. liability comparison. Given the persistent negative free cash flow margins, the current cash stockpile represents less than one quarter of runway, making the company's liquidity position highly vulnerable to any delay in clinical milestones or capital raises.
The Misapplied Ratio: Price-to-Sales
The P/S ratio is the most commonly misapplied metric to Nektar, as it implies a valuation based on revenue scale, whereas the company's value is almost entirely derived from the binary outcome of its late-stage clinical pipeline.
Investors often anchor on the P/S ratio to gauge relative valuation, but for a pre-commercial biotech like Nektar, this metric is fundamentally flawed. The 100% gross margin means revenue is not correlated with the cost of goods sold or operational scale; it is a function of partnership accounting. A high P/S ratio does not indicate a premium for growth but rather highlights the inadequacy of the revenue base to support the company's cost structure. The appropriate alternative metric is a risk-adjusted Net Present Value (rNPV) analysis of the clinical pipeline, which values the company based on the probability-weighted future cash flows from its drug candidates, not its historical or current revenue.