Latest Ratios: P/E Ratio -7.1x · EV/EBITDA N/A · ROE -9.6%. (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 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $808M | $1.1B | $596M | $1.0B | $1.6B | $2.4B | $1.0B | $180M | $174M | $418M | $19M |
| Enterprise Value | $406M | $660M | $25M | $835M | $1.6B | $2.4B | $1.0B | $216M | $151M | $363M | $17M |
| P/E Ratio → | -7.10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.50 | — | — | — |
| P/S Ratio | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 35.86 | 97.41 | — |
| P/B Ratio | 0.56 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 2.67 | — | — | 5.44 | 1.13 | 2.11 | 3.84 | 0.31 |
| 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 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EV / Revenue | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 31.10 | 84.71 | — |
| EV / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.56 | — | — | — |
| EV / EBIT | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 3.72 | — | — | — |
| 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 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -40.4% | -42.3% | — |
| Operating Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -583.7% | -589.3% | — |
| Net Profit Margin | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | -583.7% | -775.1% | — |
| Metric | TTM | FY 2025 | FY 2024 | FY 2023 | FY 2022 | FY 2021 | FY 2020 | FY 2019 | FY 2018 | FY 2017 | FY 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE | -9.6% | -9.6% | -6.4% | -2.9% | — | -63.1% | -15.2% | 42.7% | -29.6% | -39.2% | -18.4% |
| ROA | -6.7% | -6.7% | -5.7% | -2.2% | -350.5% | -27.9% | -8.6% | 26.0% | -26.0% | -36.5% | -16.3% |
| ROIC | -5.1% | -5.1% | -7.5% | -21.2% | -984.4% | -40.1% | -10.2% | 35.0% | -37.3% | -33.4% | -13.3% |
| ROCE | -3.1% | -3.1% | -4.0% | -14.9% | — | -27.4% | -8.2% | 31.5% | -26.9% | -29.4% | -15.6% |
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 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / Equity | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.01 | — | — | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.07 |
| Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.98 | — | — | — |
| Net Debt / Equity | — | -0.25 | -0.60 | -0.50 | — | — | -0.12 | 0.23 | -0.28 | -0.50 | -0.02 |
| Net Debt / EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.60 | — | — | — |
| Debt / FCF | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Interest Coverage | — | — | — | — | -16947.09 | -18861.81 | -29575.32 | 19.89 | — | — | — |
Net cash position: cash ($568M) exceeds total debt ($166M)
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 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio | 5.16 | 5.16 | 10.33 | 8.37 | 0.04 | 0.40 | 17.63 | 6.20 | 13.96 | 16.44 | 1.14 |
| Quick Ratio | 5.16 | 5.16 | 10.33 | 8.37 | 0.04 | 0.40 | 17.42 | 6.12 | 13.48 | 15.88 | 1.07 |
| Cash Ratio | 3.21 | 3.21 | 10.19 | 7.95 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 16.91 | 5.58 | 12.38 | 14.87 | 0.89 |
| Asset Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.05 | 0.04 | — |
| Inventory Turnover | — | — | — | — | — | — | 0.28 | — | 4.21 | 2.93 | — |
| Days Sales Outstanding | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 146.74 | 86.53 | — |
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 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 28.6% | — | — | — |
| FCF Yield | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Total Shareholder Yield | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Shares Outstanding | — | $244M | $201M | $160M | $134M | $134M | $134M | $92M | $89M | $76M | $27M |
Commercial scale execution risk
According to recent market data, LAC trades at a price-to-book ratio of 0.58, which suggests that investors are heavily discounting the carrying value of the Thacker Pass project due to the significant technical and execution risks inherent in its unproven clay-based lithium extraction methodology.
The current valuation multiple appears to reflect a deep skepticism regarding the company's ability to convert its massive asset base into profitable production. Investors should monitor whether this discount persists as the company approaches critical construction milestones, as a P/B below 1.0 often signals that the market views the underlying assets as potentially impaired or overly optimistic in their feasibility projections.
Based on reported figures, LAC's ROIC has remained consistently negative, bottoming out at -6.7% in 2023Q4 and hovering near -0.5% in 2026Q1, which is typical for a pre-revenue developer that is currently consuming capital rather than generating returns on its invested assets.
The persistent negative return on capital highlights the company's status as a capital-intensive project developer rather than an operating business. Until the Thacker Pass facility reaches commercial production, these metrics will continue to reflect the accumulation of non-productive capital expenditures rather than the efficiency of the firm's core business model.
As reported in financial statements, the company's debt-to-equity ratio has risen from 0.01 in 2024Q3 to 0.47 in 2026Q1, indicating a rapid shift toward debt-based financing to fund the massive capital requirements of the Thacker Pass project as equity markets become less receptive to dilution.
While the DOE loan commitment provides a necessary liquidity bridge, the increasing leverage warrants caution, as the company lacks the operating cash flow to service this debt. Investors should monitor the interest coverage profile closely, as the transition from capitalized interest to cash-based debt service could create significant pressure on the balance sheet if production ramp-up is delayed.
Based on the quarterly balance sheet, the current ratio of 7.36 in 2026Q1 appears robust, yet this figure is misleading as it reflects cash reserves earmarked for construction rather than operational flexibility, leaving the company vulnerable to any unforeseen cost overruns or delays in project completion.
The high current ratio is a function of the company's recent capital raises and loan facilities rather than efficient working capital management. This liquidity position should be viewed as a finite runway; any deviation from the construction timeline will likely necessitate further capital injections, potentially diluting existing shareholders or increasing the debt burden further.
The most commonly misapplied metric for LAC is the EV/EBITDA multiple, which is frequently used by analysts to value the company despite the firm being pre-revenue, thereby obscuring the reality that the company has no EBITDA to measure and no current operational cash flow.
Using EV/EBITDA for a pre-revenue developer like LAC is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the massive, non-cash depreciation and amortization that will eventually hit the income statement once construction is complete. Analysts should instead focus on the Net Present Value (NPV) of the Thacker Pass project and the internal rate of return (IRR) as more accurate proxies for value creation.
Includes 30+ ratios · 18 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 LAC stock.
Lithium Americas Corp.'s current P/E ratio is -7.1x. The historical average is 18.1x.
Lithium Americas Corp.'s return on equity (ROE) is -9.6%. The historical average is -20.0%.
Based on historical data, Lithium Americas Corp. is trading at a P/E of -7.1x. Compare with industry peers and growth rates for a complete picture.