Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2022-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2021-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2020-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31).
A consistent and accelerating increase in operational losses is evident over the five-year period ending December 31, 2022. While losses remained relatively stable between 2018 and 2020, a sharp escalation occurred in 2021 and 2022, reflecting a significant expansion in expenditures.
- EBITDA Trend Analysis
- EBITDA exhibited a substantial downward trajectory, moving from -101,253 thousand US dollars in 2018 to -363,727 thousand US dollars in 2022. The period between 2018 and 2020 was characterized by relative stability, with EBITDA fluctuating within a narrow range around -110 million US dollars. However, the deficit nearly doubled in 2021 and increased by approximately 85% in 2022, indicating a rapid increase in cash-basis operational spending.
- Relationship Between EBIT and EBITDA
- The marginal variance between EBIT and EBITDA across all reported years indicates that depreciation and amortization expenses constitute a minimal portion of the total operating losses. This suggests that the widening financial deficit is driven primarily by direct operating expenses rather than non-cash accounting charges.
- Net Loss and Earnings Performance
- Net loss closely mirrors the EBITDA trend, expanding from -106,289 thousand US dollars in 2018 to -388,955 thousand US dollars in 2022. The near-identical values observed between Earnings Before Tax (EBT) and Net Loss suggest an absence of significant tax benefits or interest expenses that would otherwise create a divergence between operating performance and the final bottom line.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
Without a user account, I tend to respond rather slowly.
How can I help you?
Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio, Current
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | |
| Enterprise value (EV) | 13,914,826) |
| Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) | (363,727) |
| Valuation Ratio | |
| EV/EBITDA | — |
| Benchmarks | |
| EV/EBITDA, Competitors1 | |
| AbbVie Inc. | 32.43 |
| Amgen Inc. | 17.42 |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 10.74 |
| Danaher Corp. | 24.92 |
| Eli Lilly & Co. | 46.09 |
| Gilead Sciences Inc. | 16.57 |
| Johnson & Johnson | 16.65 |
| Merck & Co. Inc. | 14.06 |
| Pfizer Inc. | 13.22 |
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 15.04 |
| Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. | 24.43 |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 26.93 |
| EV/EBITDA, Sector | |
| Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences | 22.53 |
| EV/EBITDA, Industry | |
| Health Care | 20.66 |
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2022-12-31).
1 Click competitor name to see calculations.
If the company EV/EBITDA is lower then the EV/EBITDA of benchmark then company is relatively undervalued.
Otherwise, if the company EV/EBITDA is higher then the EV/EBITDA of benchmark then company is relatively overvalued.
Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio, Historical
| Dec 31, 2022 | Dec 31, 2021 | Dec 31, 2020 | Dec 31, 2019 | Dec 31, 2018 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | ||||||
| Enterprise value (EV)1 | 3,931,450) | 2,644,163) | 1,003,554) | 787,578) | 173,561) | |
| Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA)2 | (363,727) | (196,598) | (109,496) | (113,776) | (101,253) | |
| Valuation Ratio | ||||||
| EV/EBITDA3 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| EV/EBITDA, Competitors4 | ||||||
| AbbVie Inc. | 13.31 | 13.44 | — | — | — | |
| Amgen Inc. | 12.97 | 13.22 | — | — | — | |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 9.46 | 8.65 | — | — | — | |
| Danaher Corp. | 18.42 | 21.05 | — | — | — | |
| Eli Lilly & Co. | 37.76 | 29.86 | — | — | — | |
| Gilead Sciences Inc. | 13.89 | 8.57 | — | — | — | |
| Johnson & Johnson | 14.78 | 14.47 | — | — | — | |
| Merck & Co. Inc. | 13.91 | 12.18 | — | — | — | |
| Pfizer Inc. | 6.12 | 8.64 | — | — | — | |
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 15.27 | 6.68 | — | — | — | |
| Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. | 20.25 | 20.21 | — | — | — | |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 14.91 | 18.92 | — | — | — | |
| EV/EBITDA, Sector | ||||||
| Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences | 13.58 | 13.16 | — | — | — | |
| EV/EBITDA, Industry | ||||||
| Health Care | 14.00 | 14.33 | — | — | — | |
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2022-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2021-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2020-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31).
3 2022 Calculation
EV/EBITDA = EV ÷ EBITDA
= 3,931,450 ÷ -363,727 = —
4 Click competitor name to see calculations.
A significant divergence is observed between the growth of the enterprise value and the trajectory of operational earnings from 2018 to 2022. While the market valuation increased exponentially, the company experienced persistent and widening negative EBITDA, indicating a valuation decoupled from current profitability.
- Enterprise Value Trends
- A consistent and aggressive upward trend in enterprise value is evident over the five-year period. Starting at 173,561 thousand US$ in 2018, the value grew to 3,931,450 thousand US$ by December 31, 2022. The most substantial increases occurred between 2020 and 2022, where the value more than tripled, suggesting a sharp increase in market capitalization or debt levels relative to the company's scale.
- EBITDA Performance
- Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization remained negative throughout the entire analyzed period. After maintaining relatively stable losses between 2018 and 2020 (ranging from -101,253 to -109,496 thousand US$), a notable deterioration occurred in the final two years. EBITDA losses expanded to -196,598 thousand US$ in 2021 and further deepened to -363,727 thousand US$ by 2022.
- EV/EBITDA Ratio Analysis
- The EV/EBITDA ratio cannot be interpreted as a traditional valuation multiple because EBITDA remained negative throughout the period. The mathematical result of dividing a positive enterprise value by a negative EBITDA yields a negative ratio, which is generally considered not meaningful for standard comparative analysis. However, the widening gap between the rising enterprise value and the accelerating operational losses indicates that the valuation is driven by expectations of future growth or clinical milestones rather than current cash flow generation.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
Without a user account, I tend to respond rather slowly.
How can I help you?