Franklin Crypto Trust (EZPZ) Stock Analysis
Franklin Crypto Trust
▾ What's in the 62/100 risk score? (higher = riskier)
Contributions (weight × component score) sum to the total. This near-term score now includes fundamental health (leverage, FCF trend, DCF applicability). See the Financial Health section for the full balance-sheet read.
How to read EZPZ (Bitcoin fund)
EZPZ holds Bitcoin on your behalf — it is not a business, so there are no cash flows to value. Its price tracks Bitcoin. What matters is your view on Bitcoin, the fund's fee, and how close the price trades to the value of the coins it holds.
-
1
Why normal valuation doesn't apply ↓
Bitcoin has no earnings or cash flow — a DCF, P/E or book-value model tells you nothing here. Your return is ~100% the coin's price.
-
2
Anatomy of a share ↓
What one share actually represents in terms of the fund's holdings.
How to value EZPZ
Franklin Crypto Trust isn't a business — it's a fund that holds Bitcoin on your behalf. There are no revenues, earnings, or cash flows to discount, so a DCF, P/E, or book-value model tells you nothing. Each share represents a fixed slice of the fund's Bitcoin, so the price simply tracks the price of Bitcoin (minus a small annual fee). An intrinsic-value "verdict" would be meaningless here, so we don't show one.
- Your view on Bitcoin — that's ~100% of the return. This page can't tell you whether Bitcoin itself is cheap or expensive.
- Expense ratio — the annual fee skims your holding every year. Spot Bitcoin funds range from ~0.12% to ~1.5%; for a long hold, lower is better.
- Premium / discount to NAV — aim to pay close to the value of the coins the fund holds, not a markup over them.
- Structure & custody — a modern spot ETF vs an older trust, and who actually custodies the coins.
Crypto is highly volatile and speculative. Educational only — not investment advice.
⚠ Standard industry multiples (the bars below) collapse toward $0 at this scale, so they aren't the useful read. For a micro-cap with sales, lean on the Momentum trend, and cash runway — see 📍 What to focus on.
Football field: where does the price sit?
Different valuation methods produce different fair-value ranges depending on assumptions. Plotting them together lets you see at a glance whether the current price is reasonable across approaches, or only one specific lens.
Industry multiples sourced from: broad market average (sector unknown). See the Peer Basket section below for the peer comparison and its limited-comparables caveat.
⚠ Genuine comparables are scarce at this size, so peer multiples are unreliable here. Treat as rough context only — see 📍 What to focus on above.
How does EZPZ stack up against its closest peers?
We take the 8 same-industry companies most similar to EZPZ (similar size) and check what investors are paying for each dollar of their revenue (or profits). If EZPZ is much more expensive on the same yardstick, that's a red flag — unless you have a specific reason it deserves a premium. For a leveraged business, FCF yield (in the table) is usually more reliable than EV/Sales, because revenue multiples ignore differences in margins and debt.
▾ What's "EV / Sales" in plain English?
EV (Enterprise Value) = market cap + total debt − cash. It's "what you'd pay to buy the entire company outright" — you pay the market cap to shareholders and take over their debt, but you keep their cash. EV is fairer than market cap alone because it includes the debt the new owner inherits.
EV / Sales = EV ÷ annual revenue. So "2.5×" means investors pay $2.50 of enterprise value per $1 of yearly sales. Higher = market is paying more per dollar of sales (usually because they expect future growth or fat margins).
p25 / median / p75 are the 25th, 50th (middle), and 75th percentile of the peers' multiples. Half the peers fall between p25 and p75. The median (p50) is the typical peer — that's the benchmark we compare to.
Bold middle number = median peer. Half the peers trade above it, half below. Computed over 8 same-industry peers; implausible multiples excluded.
⚠️ Important caveat: peer multiples only work if the peers are genuinely comparable. Always check the peer list below — if the auto-picker grabbed micro-caps or unrelated businesses, the comparison is noise. A medical-device giant priced against tiny biotech startups won't produce a useful signal.
▾ View peer list (8)
| Ticker | Company | Industry | Mcap | EV/EBIT | FCF Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNL | United States 12 Month Natural Gas | Investment Banking | $16M | — | — |
| TETH | 21Shares Ethereum ETF | Investment Banking | $16M | — | 8.4% |
| QETH | Invesco Galaxy Ethereum ETF | Investment Banking | $18M | — | — |
| GDOG | Grayscale Dogecoin Trust ETF | Investment Banking | $8M | — | — |
| QSOL | Invesco Galaxy Solana ETF | Investment Banking | $5M | — | — |
| GAVA | Grayscale Avalanche Staking ETF | Investment Banking | $5M | — | — |
| SOEZ | Franklin Solana Trust | Investment Banking | $5M | — | — |
| GSUI | Grayscale Sui Staking ETF | Investment Banking | $32M | — | — |
How to value a bank (not a DCF question)
A bank's economic engine is the shareholder equity on its balance sheet — what the accountants say is left over after all loans, deposits, and liabilities are netted out. The bank earns a percentage on that equity each year (its ROE). So the two questions are: (1) what are you paying per dollar of equity (Price / Book)? and (2) how much is that equity actually earning (ROE)? Free cash flow doesn't work here — banks lend out their cash for a living.
Why it matters: For banks and insurers, book value is the regulatory capital they earn returns on. P/B is the cleanest comparison: 1.0× means buying the bank at the same price the accountants say it's worth.
Reference: 0.8–1.2× = fair for average bank · 1.5–2.0× = solid franchise · >2.5× = premium · <0.8× = potentially cheap or distress
Full explanation →
Around $1 = fair for an average bank.
Why it matters: For a bank, ROE is the engine. A bank earning 15% on equity will compound book value at ~15%/year if it retains earnings. Combined with P/B, ROE tells you whether a premium price is supported by returns.
Reference: <8% = weak · 10–12% = solid · 15%+ = excellent · >20% sustained = exceptional franchise
Full explanation →
Why it matters: For banks especially, ROA isolates underwriting and operating efficiency from leverage. Two banks with identical ROE may have very different ROAs — one earning it cleanly, one earning it on borrowed money.
Reference: <0.8% = weak · 1.0–1.2% = solid · >1.5% = excellent (very rare for big banks)
Full explanation →
ROA differs from ROE because banks borrow ~10× their equity. Big asset base, smaller equity sliver.
Note: this lens skips Altman Z-Score and Piotroski F-Score (validated on industrial companies, not banks). For deeper bank-specific health analysis: check the 10-K's Tier 1 capital ratio, Non-Performing Loan ratio, and CET1 — these are what regulators actually monitor.
Quality & solvency checks
Cheap stocks can be cheap for a reason. These screens warn when a low valuation comes paired with structural fragility.
Why it matters: Cheap-looking stocks (low P/E or P/B) often have low Z-scores because the market knows the company is dying. Z-score warns you before you fall into a value trap.
Reference: > 3.0 = safe zone · 1.81–3.0 = grey zone · < 1.81 = distress zone
Full explanation →
Altman Z was calibrated on industrial firms and doesn't apply to banks or insurers — their balance sheets are dominated by loans/securities, not working capital. See the Bank Valuation Lens above for P/B, ROE and ROA — the metrics regulators and analysts actually use to assess bank solvency.
Why it matters: High score = fundamentals improving. Low score = deteriorating. Especially powerful for filtering cheap stocks: cheap + high F-score historically outperforms; cheap + low F-score is often a value trap.
Reference: 7–9 = strong · 4–6 = mediocre · 0–3 = weak
Full explanation →
Piotroski F was built for non-financial firms (gross margin, asset turnover, current ratio all assume an industrial cost structure). For banks, the equivalent quality signals are efficiency ratio, net interest margin, and provision coverage — see the Bank Valuation Lens above.
EZPZ (Franklin Crypto Trust) trades at a deep overvalued premium of +152.3% to the model's intrinsic valueIntrinsic Value — Our DCF model's estimate of what each share is mathematically worth based on projected cash flows.
Why it matters: Compare to current price. Below IV = potentially undervalued. Above IV = priced for growth that must actually happen.
Reference: Model-derived; quality depends on data and assumptions.
Full explanation →. The market appears to be paying up for its exposure to the crypto sector, despite the company's negative operating cash flow and a low franchise/durability score of 0/5. The primary quantifiable risk is its negative free cash flowFree Cash Flow (FCF) — Operating cash flow minus capital spending: cash left after a company covers operating costs, taxes and interest and reinvests in the business — but BEFORE repaying debt principal or paying dividends. The cash actually available to investors.
Why it matters: A company can show big profits on paper while burning through cash. FCF is what actually fills the bank account.
Reference: Healthy mature businesses convert 8–15% of revenue into FCF · Growth companies often negative
Full explanation → per share of $-2.5694.
As of 3 months ago
Anatomy of a share
What you're buying per share. Bars are at the same scale so you can see the relative size of revenue, costs, cash flow, and debt — not just read them in a table.
What's free cash flow / what do these mean?
Revenue per share — how much the business earns from customers, divided by the number of shares outstanding. Top of the income statement.
Earnings per share — profit left after operating costs, interest, and taxes, per share. Two versions appear on this page and are not interchangeable: GAAP diluted EPS uses the company's weighted-average diluted share count during the reporting period (this is the "earnings" in "price-to-earnings"); net income per current share divides annual net income by today's share count. They differ whenever the share count has changed.
Owner-earnings free cash flow per share — the cash the business produces for shareholders. Savng's owner-earnings FCF subtracts capital expenditures and stock-based compensation from operating cash flow (SBC is a real dilution cost even though it's non-cash). This is deliberately more conservative than "standard" FCF, which subtracts only capital expenditures — so our figure is lower than the headline FCF you'll see elsewhere. FCF funds dividends, buybacks, debt repayment, and acquisitions; a company can report positive earnings yet negative FCF.
Debt per share — total interest-bearing borrowings divided by shares. High debt-per-share next to thin FCF-per-share is a fragility signal.
What you actually need to decide
Every stock price is a disagreement. Here's the single thing that must go right for the bulls, the single thing that breaks the thesis, and the concrete signposts to watch so you can update your view as real results arrive.
- Improvement in operating cash flow in the next reporting period
- Growth in assets under management (AUM)
- Stability or increase in cryptocurrency market capitalization
Management & Leadership
Limited executive data available for EZPZ. As a crypto trust, its operations are typically managed by a trustee or fund manager, rather than a traditional corporate CEO structure. The trust's performance is largely tied to the underlying crypto assets it holds.
What They Make
EZPZ (Franklin Crypto Trust) is a financial product that provides investors with exposure to the cryptocurrency market. It primarily serves investors seeking indirect access to digital assets without direct ownership.
End Markets
Revenue Drivers
Why Is It Priced Like This?
Why Customers Pay
The market prices EZPZ at a premium of +152.3% to the model, likely due to investor optimism and demand for crypto-related investment vehicles. This optimism persists despite the company's negative operating cash flow in the latest period and a very low franchise/durability score of 0/5, suggesting the market is overlooking current financial health for future growth potential in the crypto space.
Three Scenarios, Weighted
| Scenario | IV | Upside from today's price | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $7.18 | -64.2% | 40% |
| Base | $7.28 | -63.7% | 35% |
| Optimistic | $7.31 | -63.6% | 25% |
| Weighted | $7.25 | -63.9% | 100% |
Reading the last column: it is the move from today's price to each value (IV ÷ price − 1). The headline "premium/discount to model IV" measures the same gap from the value's side (price ÷ IV − 1), so the two percentages differ in size and sign by construction — e.g. a price 8% above value is a value 7.4% below price.
Business Model & Valuation
How They Make Money
As a trust, EZPZ typically funds its operations through management fees and does not have a traditional dividend or buyback policy. Its capital structure is tied to the value of its underlying crypto holdings.
Residual Income High
Balance-sheet financial (Investment Banking): residual income model - book value is meaningful anchor.
Show advanced inputs
| Sector Default | 8.0% |
What this model does NOT do: this is a consolidated owner-earnings FCF model. Standalone segment assumptions: none. It does not project net interest income and fee-income lines independently; their combined effect is embedded in the historical revenue and cash-flow trend the model extrapolates. The calculator above can only approximate a segment's impact through the single consolidated growth rate — it cannot model any one line separately. For a true segment-level view, build a separate model from the company's segment disclosures.
Maturity & Competitive Position
Moat Signals
Operating cash flow has been negative in the latest period, with positive cash flow in 0 out of 1 years.
Geography & Markets
As a crypto trust, EZPZ's operations are global in nature, reflecting the decentralized and international accessibility of cryptocurrency markets. Specific geographic revenue mix is not available from current data sources.
Geographic Risks
Market Signals
These are timing signals, not value signals — they describe the stock's recent price behavior, not what the business is worth. Use them for the "the thesis looks good, but is now the moment?" question. Each tile below explains what it's saying.
Why it matters: Short-term contrarian indicator. Extreme readings often precede mean reversion, though not always.
Reference: 30–70 normal · >70 overbought · <30 oversold
Full explanation → (14)38.7NeutralMomentum is balanced — neither overbought nor oversold.
Why it matters: When the fast line crosses above the slow line, short-term momentum is turning up; below, turning down. A timing cue, not a value signal.
Reference: Line above signal = bullish momentum · below = bearish
Full explanation →BearishLine below signalThe fast trend is below the slow trend — short-term momentum is currently downward.
Technicals describe price, not the business. A great company can have a "bearish" tape (a buying chance) and a weak one a "bullish" tape (a trap). Pair these with the valuation and health sections above.
QUALITY
Data Quality & Risk Flags (3 notes — click to expand/collapse)
Guardrail Notes (3)
- Financial sector: using residual income model. IV = Book Value + PV(excess earnings).
- Terminal growth (3%) capped to 1.6% (80% of near-term growth 2%).
- Illiquidity discount 25% applied (small/micro-cap — harder to exit, demand a margin).
FINANCIALS
Financial Statements (5-year tables — click to expand)
From Franklin Crypto Trust's SEC filings (EDGAR).
Income (5yr)
| Year | Revenue | Net Income | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | — | -1.5M | $-2.57 |
Cash Flow (5yr)
Capital expenditure isn't tagged in this filer's machine-readable data (the CapEx column shows "—"). The free-cash-flow column is therefore operating cash flow less stock-based compensation only — an upper bound on true owner earnings, not the real figure. Companies that report capex under a custom label (some large IFRS filers do) look better here than they are.
| Year | Operating CF | CapEx | − SBC & adj. | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | -9.2M | — | — | -9.2M |
How we define FCF: operating cash flow − capital expenditure − stock-based compensation (owner-earnings basis — SBC is a real cost to shareholders even though it's non-cash). This is the same owner-earnings FCF definition the valuation model uses, though the DCF's starting value is a EPS basis (residual-income model), not this single year.
Balance Sheet
| Total Assets | 10.2M |
| Total Liabilities | 1,477 |
| Equity | 11.7M |
Similar companies worth a look
Same sector and industry, similar fundamentals shape. Verify everything yourself — this list is computed mechanically and does not reflect our judgment about whether any of these are a good investment.