X
<

Where Patterson-UTI Energy Stands Now: Inside the Key Metrics

PART:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Part 2
Where Patterson-UTI Energy Stands Now: Inside the Key Metrics PART 2 OF 6

Patterson-UTI Energy’s Valuation: Reading the Implications

Patterson-UTI Energy’s PE trend

Patterson-UTI Energy’s (PTEN) share price rose ~79% between December 31, 2015, and December 30, 2016. But PTEN’s adjusted earnings were negative in 2016, so PTEN’s PE (price-to-earnings) multiple wasn’t meaningful in 2016.

The forward PE ratio considers the sell-side analysts’ consensus estimate of earnings for the next four quarters. Patterson-UTI Energy’s forward PE ratio is also not meaningful, reflecting analysts’ expectations of negative earnings over the next four quarters.

Patterson-UTI Energy&#8217;s Valuation: Reading the Implications

Interested in PTEN? Don't miss the next report.

Receive e-mail alerts for new research on PTEN

Success! You are now receiving e-mail alerts for new research. A temporary password for your new Market Realist account has been sent to your e-mail address.

Success! has been added to your Ticker Alerts.

Success! has been added to your Ticker Alerts. Subscriptions can be managed in your user profile.

Price-to-cash-flow multiple

Analysts expect a higher forward PCF (price-to-cash flow) multiple for Patterson-UTI Energy, which reflects analysts’ expectations of lower cash flow over the next four quarters. Patterson-UTI Energy’s PCF ratio had moved within a notable range for eight years until 2016.

EV-to-EBITDA trend

Patterson-UTI Energy’s current valuation, as expressed by EV-to-EBITDA multiple, rose in 2016 over 2015. From 2015 to 2016, PTEN’s net debt decreased, while its stock price increased sharply. In effect, then, its EV (enterprise value, or approximately the summation of its equity value and net debt) rose in 2016. PTEN’s TTM (trailing-12-month) EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization) fell in 2016 over the previous year, so its EV-to-EBITDA ratio increased sharply in 2016.

Remember, the forward EV-to-EBITDA considers the sell-side analysts’ consensus estimate of EBITDA for the next four quarters. Patterson-UTI Energy’s forward EV-to-EBITDA multiple for 2017 is lower than its current EV-to-EBITDA multiple, which implies an expectation of an increase in PTEN’s EBITDA in 2017. This figure also explains PTEN’s higher current EV-to-EBITDA multiple, as compared to its eight-year average.

Peer EV-to-EBITDA multiples

By comparison, Schlumberger’s (SLB) EV-to-EBITDA was 18.5x in 2016. You can read more on SLB’s valuation in Market Realist’s Schlumberger’s Valuation Compared to Its Peers in 2017.

Weatherford International’s (WFT) EV-to-EBITDA multiple was ~200.0x in 2016, as a result of its low adjusted EBITDA. For more on WFT’s valuation, check out Market Realist’s What Does Weatherford’s Relative Valuation Suggest?

Notably, Patterson-UTI Energy makes up 2.7% of the iShares US Oil Equipment & Services ETF (IEZ).

Now let’s compare Patterson-UTI Energy’s valuation with those of its industry peers.

X

Please select a profession that best describes you: