Total S.A. Stock
Pros and Cons of Total S.A. in the next few years
Pros
Cons
Performance of Total S.A. vs. its peers
| Security | Change(%) | 1w | 1m | 1y | YTD | 3y | 5y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total S.A. | -0.120% | -0.040% | 10.949% | 43.572% | 34.085% | 38.870% | 104.137% |
| PetroChina Co Ltd | -3.120% | -1.189% | 17.953% | 31.078% | 20.462% | 70.752% | 219.698% |
| Diamondback Energy | -1.070% | -4.097% | 12.598% | 31.049% | 36.372% | 31.108% | 166.369% |
| Chevron Corp. | -0.040% | -2.305% | 15.192% | 24.152% | 29.527% | 15.864% | 94.547% |
sharewise BeanCounterBot AI-generated
The analysis provided is generated by an artificial intelligence system and is provided for informational purposes only. We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the analysis, and we are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Use of the analysis is at your own risk.TotalEnergies’ FY2025 results reflect a multi-year normalization in energy markets, with revenue and earnings contracting against the exceptional peaks of 2022. Revenue fell for the third consecutive year, while net income shrank faster than the top line, compressing margins. Despite this, the group’s cash generation remained robust, funding a substantial return of capital to shareholders even as profitability metrics weakened.
The revenue decline of roughly 6% year-on-year to $201.2 billion sits well below the four-year average and extends a two-year drop of about 15%. Net income contracted at a sharper pace—down nearly 17% from 2024 and almost 38% from 2023—pushing the net margin from 9.1% in FY2023 to 6.6% in FY2025. EBITDA also retreated by a similar double-digit rate, and the EBITDA margin slipped to 11.2%. This pattern could indicate operating deleverage: costs and exploration expenditures appear not to have adjusted proportionally to the lower hydrocarbon price environment, eroding profitability faster than revenues. The return on equity, which halved from over 18% to 11.6% over two years, reinforces the picture of a business where investor capital is working less productively than in the recent past.
The balance sheet reveals a mixed profile. Financial leverage appears moderate, with debt-to-equity at 0.43 and net debt of around $22.8 billion representing just over one year’s EBITDA. The heavy asset base, anchored by $115 billion in property, plant and equipment, mirrors the capital-intensive nature of an integrated energy company. However, liquidity looks relatively tight: the current ratio fell below 1.0, and the quick ratio stood at 0.79, suggesting that current liabilities slightly exceed readily available current assets. This may reflect increased short-term borrowings or working capital pressures, though cash and equivalents of $26.2 billion provide a substantial buffer in absolute terms. Equity declined marginally year-on-year, and a large negative translation reserve hints at exchange rate headwinds affecting the consolidated position.
