Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio 1.4x · EV/EBITDA -3.8x · ROE 5.6%. (2007–2025 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 | $110M | $141M | $165M | $192M | $212M | $415M | $593M | $438M | $532M | $560M | $263M |
| Enterprise Value | $-526340097 | $-4133904528 | $-3521304260 | $-4673154770 | $-4013896966 | $-2767653961 | $-4131120153 | $-3575399904 | $-2026934763 | $-855234478 | $-1594212519 |
| P/E Ratio → | 1.40 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.32 | — | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.73 | 0.41 |
| P/S Ratio | 0.28 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.20 | 0.11 |
| P/B Ratio | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.08 |
| P/FCF | 0.88 | 0.17 | 0.54 | 0.17 | 0.37 | — | 0.80 | 0.36 | 0.59 | 1.18 | 0.45 |
| P/OCF | 0.76 | 0.14 | 0.43 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.74 | 0.34 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 0.38 |
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 | — | -1.58 | -1.35 | -1.42 | -1.29 | -0.64 | -1.25 | -1.05 | -0.62 | -0.31 | -0.64 |
| EV / EBITDA | -3.79 | -4.43 | -4.45 | -3.72 | -3.23 | -2.06 | -3.04 | -3.50 | -1.99 | -1.00 | -2.19 |
| EV / EBIT | -4.55 | -5.32 | -5.56 | -4.26 | -3.69 | -2.31 | -3.28 | -3.69 | -1.98 | -0.96 | -2.12 |
| EV / FCF | — | -4.91 | -11.54 | -4.03 | -7.04 | — | -5.55 | -2.92 | -2.25 | -1.80 | -2.73 |
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 | 53.4% | 53.4% | 48.1% | 55.8% | 53.5% | 49.5% | 78.8% | 52.5% | 52.6% | 50.6% | 48.6% |
| Operating Margin | 29.8% | 29.8% | 24.4% | 33.3% | 35.1% | 27.9% | 38.1% | 27.0% | 28.3% | 27.7% | 26.8% |
| Net Profit Margin | 21.4% | 21.4% | 18.3% | 30.6% | 31.5% | 30.6% | -22.5% | 24.4% | 24.7% | 27.2% | 25.8% |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | 5.6% | 5.6% | 4.7% | 10.1% | 11.1% | 17.0% | -9.8% | 11.8% | 15.2% | 19.3% | 21.7% |
| ROA | 4.8% | 4.8% | 3.9% | 8.2% | 8.6% | 13.0% | -7.8% | 9.3% | 11.2% | 12.3% | 12.8% |
| ROIC | 5.8% | 5.8% | 4.5% | 8.1% | 9.0% | 11.3% | 11.9% | 9.4% | 12.3% | 12.2% | 13.2% |
| ROCE | 7.0% | 7.0% | 6.0% | 10.6% | 11.8% | 14.9% | 15.9% | 12.4% | 16.7% | 17.2% | 17.8% |
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 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.33 |
| Debt / EBITDA | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.26 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.37 | 0.14 | 0.57 | 1.54 |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.43 | -0.37 | -0.47 | -0.44 | -0.39 | -0.65 | -0.51 | -0.41 | -0.31 | -0.55 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | -4.58 | -4.58 | -4.66 | -3.87 | -3.40 | -2.37 | -3.48 | -3.93 | -2.51 | -1.65 | -2.55 |
| Debt / FCF | — | -5.07 | -12.08 | -4.19 | -7.41 | — | -6.34 | -3.28 | -2.84 | -2.97 | -3.18 |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2252.10 | 101.88 | 37.01 | 39.03 |
Net cash position: cash ($4.4B) exceeds total debt ($100M)
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 | 154.31 | 154.31 | 4.53 | 3.76 | 3.32 | 2.42 | 3.56 | 4.47 | 3.21 | 2.21 | 3.00 |
| Quick Ratio | 154.31 | 154.31 | 4.53 | 3.76 | 3.32 | 2.42 | 3.56 | 4.47 | 3.21 | 2.21 | 3.00 |
| Cash Ratio | 111.57 | 111.57 | 2.67 | 2.75 | 2.31 | 1.49 | 2.66 | 2.92 | 1.70 | 1.05 | 1.89 |
| Asset Turnover | — | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.42 |
| 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 | 72.3% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 92.5% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Payout Ratio | 97.8% | 97.8% | 212.0% | 17.6% | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | 71.5% | 383.0% | 288.2% | 526.1% | 460.6% | 316.9% | — | 189.6% | 153.9% | 136.3% | 244.4% |
| FCF Yield | 100.0% | 596.0% | 184.9% | 604.6% | 268.9% | — | 125.5% | 279.5% | 169.3% | 85.0% | 222.0% |
| Buyback Yield | 7.1% | 37.0% | 32.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 89.8% | 47.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 4.8% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 79.3% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 92.5% | 0.0% | 89.8% | 47.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 4.8% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $14M | $14M | $14M | $14M | $14M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $12M | $12M |
Includes 30+ ratios · 19 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 NOAH stock.
Noah Holdings Limited's current P/E ratio is 1.4x. The historical average is 0.6x. This places it at the 93th percentile of its historical range.
Noah Holdings Limited's current EV/EBITDA is -3.8x. This enterprise value multiple compares the company's total value (equity + debt - cash) to its EBITDA.
Noah Holdings Limited's return on equity (ROE) is 5.6%. The historical average is 18.7%.
Based on historical data, Noah Holdings Limited is trading at a P/E of 1.4x. This is at the 93th percentile of its historical P/E range. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.
Noah Holdings Limited's current dividend yield is 72.27% with a payout ratio of 97.8%.
Noah Holdings Limited has 53.4% gross margin and 29.8% operating margin. Operating margin above 20% indicates strong pricing power and cost efficiency.
Noah Holdings Limited's Debt/EBITDA ratio is 0.1x, indicating low leverage. A ratio below 2x is generally considered financially healthy.
Key Metrics
Top Statement Risk
Regulatory and asset quality
Deep Discount Reflects Structural Uncertainty
According to recent market data, Noah Holdings trades at a P/E of 1.76 and a P/B of 0.10, suggesting that investors are pricing the firm for terminal decline rather than the potential for a successful transition toward a recurring, fee-based asset management model.
The extreme valuation discount relative to historical norms and global peers implies that the market remains deeply skeptical of the firm's ability to monetize its HNWI client base in a post-shadow banking environment. This pricing suggests that the market is discounting the firm's substantial cash reserves, likely due to concerns regarding the quality of underlying assets and the sustainability of current dividend yields.
Capital Efficiency Remains Subdued Historically
Based on reported financial statements, Noah's ROIC has hovered between 0.9% and 1.9% over the last ten quarters, indicating that the firm is struggling to generate meaningful returns on its invested capital as it navigates a difficult domestic regulatory and economic landscape.
The persistent low ROIC suggests that the firm's capital-heavy approach to wealth management, combined with the transition toward lower-margin standardized products, is failing to drive value creation. Investors should monitor whether management can improve capital efficiency through better asset allocation or if the current returns represent a structural ceiling for the business model.
Working Capital Cycles Indicate Stagnation
As reported in recent filings, Noah's asset turnover has remained consistently low at approximately 0.05 to 0.06, highlighting a lack of operational velocity in converting its extensive asset base into recurring revenue streams compared to more agile, technology-driven financial service competitors.
The stagnant asset turnover ratio suggests that the firm's large balance sheet is not being utilized effectively to drive growth, potentially due to the high proportion of idle cash or legacy assets that are not generating active management fees. This inefficiency warrants further investigation into whether the firm's current operational structure is optimized for the modern Chinese wealth management market.
Conservative Leverage Masks Operational Risks
According to the latest quarterly data, Noah maintains a negligible debt-to-equity ratio of 0.01, which provides a fortress-like balance sheet but also suggests that the firm is not leveraging its capital structure to accelerate growth or optimize its return on equity for shareholders.
While the minimal debt levels provide a significant buffer against liquidity shocks, they also indicate that the firm is not utilizing debt to fund strategic acquisitions or expansion, perhaps reflecting a cautious management stance toward external financing. This conservative posture appears to be a defensive reaction to the volatility inherent in the Chinese financial services sector.
Misapplication of Price-to-Book Ratio
The P/B ratio is frequently misapplied to Noah Holdings, as it obscures the fact that a significant portion of the firm's book value is tied to internal valuations of proprietary funds rather than liquid, market-clearing assets that could be realized in a stress scenario.
Investors should prioritize analyzing the quality of the underlying assets and the sustainability of fee-based revenue over the P/B ratio, which provides a false sense of security given the potential for asset impairments. A more appropriate metric would be a risk-adjusted AUM growth rate or a fee-based earnings yield, which better captures the firm's true economic value.