Is Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (TAK) a good stock to buy?
Everything we have tested points the right way. That is a reason to look closer, not a reason to buy — these are frequencies about groups of companies in the past, not a statement about this one.
What each rating means, in numbers
Cash it pays you — High. For every $100 of share price, the business threw off about $17.6 of spare cash last year. Higher is better: the cheap fifth on this measure ran about 7.7 points a year ahead of the dear fifth, 2011 to 2025.
Business quality — Middling. Passes 5 of the 8 health checks we can measure — things like making a profit, turning it into cash, and not piling on debt. Across 131,000 company-quarters the weakest scorers went on to fail at 5.4% against 1.4% for the strongest, in every era and all twelve sectors.
How wild is the price? — Very calm. The share price swings about 22% in a typical year, which puts it in the calmest fifth. Out of every 100 companies that swung like this, about 0.3 went bankrupt within the year. Across the three periods we tested that ran from 0.1% to 0.7%.
What "tested" means here, and why there is no score out of 100
Tested means the read was measured against what actually happened afterwards, on a history that keeps the companies that were later delisted, using only figures that had been filed on the day they are used. Survival was ranked on companies that really did fail. What an owner keeps was tested across the universe from 2011 to 2025.
The full record of everything we have tested is on the research pages.
Which benchmark. Over the period we tested, the median listed company returned +5.8% a year while the S&P 500 returned about +13.9% — the index is weighted by size and was carried by a handful of enormous winners. So "beats the index" and "beats the other companies you could have bought" are different questions. Where a read says it picks better companies, it means the second one. None of these gets you an index fund's return, and we would rather say that than imply otherwise.
The quality read is the strongest thing we have tested: 131,000 company-quarters across 5,300 companies, where the weakest scorers went on to fail at 5.4% against 1.4% for the strongest, holding in every era and all twelve sectors. It still says less likely to break, not likely to beat the market — every band in that study lost to the index at the median, because the median listed company does.
Each read is shown on its own rather than merged into a single score, so you can see which part is strong and which is weak instead of taking an average on trust.
▾ What goes into the smart-money reading
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.
Chance the S&P 500 falls 10% or more in the next three months.
Counted from every day since 2006. Says nothing about TAK — see the board for how it is measured.
📍 Where to start on this page, and what to look at first
How to read TAK
A profitable, cash-generating business — our discounted-cash-flow estimate is the primary lens, cross-checked against what growth the price implies and against peers.
-
1
The verdict + intrinsic value (our DCF) ↓
Our estimate of what a share is worth, versus today's price.
-
2
Reverse-DCF + the interactive calculator ↓
See the growth the price assumes, then flex every assumption yourself to pressure-test it.
-
3
Football field + peers ↓
A cross-check across methods and against comparable companies.
Who expects what from TAK
The price implies one growth rate and our model produces another — and both have been scored against what actually happened. Beside them: how the analysts covering this company rate it, and how accurate their earnings estimates have proved.
What each number is, and which has been tested
The market — -16.5% over 5 years. The growth implied by today's price. Tested: median miss of 8.3 points a year against realised five-year growth.
Us — 7.0% over 5 years. Tested across 3,279 past filings: a median miss of 4.8 points a year against realised five-year growth, better than both the market and a naive carry-forward.
Analysts (their record here) — Usually wrong. Over the last 4 quarters, the consensus earnings estimate for this company missed by a median of 90.6% either way, and ran too LOW, so the company kept beating on average (3 beats, 1 misses). This is NEXT-QUARTER earnings, which companies guide analysts toward - they are supposed to be good at it. It says nothing about long-run growth, which nobody guides.
Analyst data from Finnhub, snapshotted recently. Their forward estimates are behind a paywall we have not bought, so what is shown is their rating and their measured track record on this company — not their forecast. Nothing here is used anywhere in our valuation: feeding an unscored forecast into the model would undo the one growth result we have actually tested.
What growth must the market believe? Reverse DCF — Instead of asking "what is this stock worth?", asks "what growth rate is the current market price already assuming?"
Why it matters: It crystallizes the bull thesis as a single number you can argue with. If the market expects 40% growth for 10 years and you do not believe that, the stock is overvalued.
Reference: 10–15% = sustainable for strong companies · 20–25% = exceptional · 30%+ = historically very rare
Traditional DCF asks "what is this stock worth?" Reverse DCF flips it: it treats today's price as correct and solves for the growth rate that justifies it. In plain terms — if our model is right about everything else, the company's cash flow would have to grow (or shrink) by this much every year for the next 5 years for today's price to make sense. If that required growth looks unrealistic, the price is stretched; if it looks easy to beat, the price may be cheap.
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 → must grow at:
▾ Exactly how this 5-year figure is computed
Forecast length: 5 years at the solved rate, then a linear fade to terminal growth over years 6-10 — the same shape the DCF above uses
Terminal growth after the fade: 3.0%
Discount rate: 8.5% (the rate the model used)
Price used: $18.37 — the live price shown on this page (not frozen)
Method: solve for the constant annual growth rate that makes the discounted 10-year FCF stream + terminal value equal today's price.
The market is pricing in shrinking cash flow — often a sign of undervaluation, and sometimes of a dying business. Check leverage, the cash-flow trend and the health screens below to tell those apart.
For reference: The market is pricing in a material multi-year contraction in cash flow (≈17.1%/yr) — a significant decline, not a flat business.
▾ How we computed this · Reality check thresholds · Assumptions
- Starting FCF/share: $3.23 (trailing 3-year average)
- Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation →: 8.5% — standard 8-12%; 9-10% matches S&P 500 historical return - Terminal Growth RateTerminal Growth Rate — The growth rate we assume the company holds forever, after the explicit 10-year forecast period ends.
Why it matters: It anchors the long-tail value. Cannot mathematically exceed long-term GDP growth or the company eventually becomes larger than the global economy.
Reference: 2–3% (matches long-term US GDP growth) · Above 4% is mathematically problematic
Full explanation →: 3.0% — matches long-term GDP growth - Forecast horizon: 10 years explicit + terminal perpetuity
| ≤ 0% | Priced for decline — likely undervalued OR dying business |
| 5-12% | Reasonable; sustainable for quality businesses |
| 12-18% | Demanding — strong execution required |
| 18-25% | Exceptional — few companies sustain for a decade |
| 25-35% | Heroic — historically very rare |
| 35%+ | Borderline impossible at scale |
Sustaining 30%+ cash-flow growth for a full decade at scale is exceedingly rare — the bar is brutally high.
Use the interactive calculator below to change the discount rate, growth and terminal-growth assumptions and watch the value move.
What this rating means
What the rating says — Below every method. Every model's range sits above the current price, but that does not prove mispricing. The gap may reflect secular or cyclical pressures, leverage, or information not yet captured by the model. Review recent filings and test lower normalized cash-flow assumptions before relying on the valuation.
What it does not say — Not a forecast. This shows where today's price sits against several different ways of valuing the business. Where the methods disagree, the spread itself is the useful part - it tells you how much the answer depends on which one you trust.
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: industry: Pharmaceuticals. See the Peer Basket section below for the peer comparison and its limited-comparables caveat.
How does TAK stack up against its closest peers?
We take the 5 same-industry companies most similar to TAK (similar size) and check what investors are paying for each dollar of their revenue (or profits). If TAK 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, EV/EBIT and FCF yield (both in the table) are 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 5 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 (5)
| Ticker | Company | Industry | Mcap | EV/Sales | EV/GP | EV/EBIT | FCF Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTHR | UNITED THERAPEUTICS Corp | Pharmaceuticals | $23.6B | 7.4x | 8.4x | 15.8x | 3.3% |
| ZLAB | Zai Lab Ltd | Pharmaceuticals | $19.6B | 43.0x | — | — | 0.8% |
| TEVA | TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD | Pharmaceuticals | $45.5B | 2.7x | 5.3x | 21.9x | 2.2% |
| SPRO | Spero Therapeutics, Inc. | Pharmaceuticals | $12.4B | 981.8x | — | 1,957.0x | 0.1% |
| RGC | Regencell Bioscience Holdings Ltd | Pharmaceuticals | $11.8B | — | — | — | — |
Bankruptcy + quality screens
Cheap stocks can be cheap for a reason. These screens warn when a low valuation comes paired with structural fragility.
What these health ratings mean, in numbers
Business quality — Middling. Passes 5 of the 8 health checks we can measure — making a profit, turning it into cash, not piling on debt, not issuing shares. Across 131,000 company-quarters the weakest scorers went on to fail at 5.4% within a year against 1.4% for the strongest, and that held in every era and all twelve sectors. It says "less likely to break", not "likely to beat the market".
Bankruptcy score (Altman Z) — Distress zone. Altman Z is 0.87. It combines working capital, retained earnings, operating profit and market value against total assets into one bankruptcy score. Above 3.0 is the safe zone, 1.8 to 3.0 is grey, below 1.8 is the distress zone. It was calibrated on manufacturers in 1968, so it reads asset-light and heavily-financed businesses badly — which is why it is one input here and never the verdict.
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 →
Distress zone under the classic Altman thresholds — scores here have historically preceded a high rate of financial distress within ~2 years. This is a warning signal, not a direct bankruptcy probability, and its reliability varies by industry. Be very skeptical of any "cheap" valuation on this name.
The classic Z-score was calibrated on manufacturers. It is less reliable for asset-light or non-manufacturing businesses (broadcasters, media, software, services) and not applicable to banks, REITs, or insurers — for those the coefficients and the asset-turnover term distort the result. Read it as one screening input, not a verdict.
▾ The checks — what passed, what didn't (and what we couldn't measure)
-
✓ Positive net incomeNet income $710.2M in FY2025.
-
✓ Positive operating cash flowOperating cash flow $6,942.4M (was $4,960.4M the prior year).
-
✓ Cash flow backs up reported profitOperating cash flow $6,942.4M vs net income $710.2M.
-
✗ Return on assets improvingReturn on assets 0.7% vs 1.0% a year ago.Why this matters: Is the company squeezing more profit out of each dollar of assets than last year? Rising = getting more efficient; falling = the opposite.
-
✓ Debt load (vs assets)Long-term debt is 27.8% of assets vs 29.6% a year ago ($26,534.7M of $95,321.4M assets).
-
✗ Short-term liquidity (current ratio)Current ratio 1.01x vs 1.11x a year ago.Why this matters: The current ratio compares assets it can turn to cash within a year against bills due within a year. Below 1.0 means it may struggle to cover near-term obligations.
-
✗ Share count (dilution)Share count rose 0.9% (1,564.5M → 1,578.9M year-over-year).Why this matters: Issuing lots of new shares splits the pie into more pieces, shrinking your slice. Stable or falling share count protects existing owners.
-
· Pricing power (gross margin) (n/a — data not reported; not scored)
-
✓ Sales per asset (asset turnover)Asset turnover 0.32x vs 0.30x a year ago.
Missing data is never counted as a pass or a fail — it's shown as n/a and excluded from the denominator. Each check compares the company against its own prior year.
This stock looks cheap by our DCF (~75% below intrinsic value) but the financial health scores show structural weakness. Many cheap stocks are cheap because the market correctly sees what's coming. Be very skeptical of a "deep value" thesis here without an explicit catalyst.
What if you assume different inputs?
Here's where we land — and what happens if you change the assumptions. Drag the sliders to set your own Discount RateDiscount Rate — The annual return you demand for taking single-stock risk instead of buying a safe Treasury or index fund.
Why it matters: Higher discount rate = stricter valuation (a stock has to produce more cash to be worth holding). Lower = more generous.
Reference: 8–12% is standard · 9–10% matches S&P 500 historical return · Below 7% is illogical for single-stock risk
Full explanation → (the annual return you demand for single-stock risk) and terminal growth; the value updates live so you can see whether the stock looks cheaper or richer. The discount rate starts at 8.5%, the figure our model used for TAK. Open Advanced to also change beta, growth and the rate path.
Note: the calculator opens at our published value of $74.81 — it is initialised to the same scenario-weighted result, so the two match exactly on load. The moment you move a slider, the value below becomes a single-path what-if at your assumptions (not the three-scenario weighting), which is why it can differ from the headline once you've touched it.
8.5% — beta-based (CAPM), from this stock's BetaBeta — How much the stock moves when the overall market moves. 1.0 = moves with the market; 1.5 = moves 50% more than the market.
Why it matters: Higher beta = more volatile = should demand higher discount rate. Low beta stocks (utilities, consumer staples) move less.
Reference: Most stocks 0.5–1.5 · Defensives ~0.3 · High-vol tech ~1.5–2.0
Full explanation → of 0.45. The safe Treasury rate plus a premium scaled by how much more (or less) volatile the stock is than the market.
8.5% — sector/quality tier. A simpler hurdle set by industry and business durability: lower for stable, wide-moat companies; higher for speculative or micro-caps.
The headline value and this calculator start at 8.5% — the beta-based rate. Drag the slider to the other rate to see the full range.
-75.4%
At the default assumptions the flat path lands near our published value of $74.81. Move any slider to recompute it with your own.
Move any slider above to recompute this against your own assumptions.
⚙ Advanced — tinker with every input (beta, growth, rate path, margin → full intrinsic value)
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD appears deeply undervalued by the model, with the price 75.4% below 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 → (a 75.4% discount / margin of safetyMargin of Safety — How much room there is between the current price and intrinsic value, in your favor.
Why it matters: Benjamin Graham's core idea: only buy when there is enough discount that you can be wrong about your assumptions and still not lose money.
Reference: 20%+ is the classic Graham target · 30%+ for higher-risk companies
Full explanation →); equivalently the intrinsic value is about 298% ABOVE the price. The market is likely discounting the stock due to its roughly flat revenue (-0.1%/yr over 4yr) and a franchise/durability score of 2/5, suggesting concerns about future growth and competitive positioning. The biggest risk to our model's base assumptions is that the underlying cash flow continues to decline, rather than growing at the modeled +7.0% rate, especially given the market's implied annual decline of 16.5% in per-share cash flow.
As of 14 days 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.
- Next quarter's revenue growth rate
- Updates on key pipeline drug approvals
- Changes in operating cash flow from $6.9 billion
The trend, in plain numbers (FY2024 → FY2025, latest reported)
Straight from the financial statements — no model, no opinion. For a small or unprofitable company, the direction of these numbers usually tells you more than any single valuation.
- Revenue grew +2% to $30.09B.
- Free cash flow rose to $5.62B.
- Net income fell -29% to $710.2M.
Management & Leadership
Christophe Weber serves as the CEO of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, leading the company's global pharmaceutical operations. Other key executives include Costa Saroukos as Chief Financial Officer. These names are from public sources rather than the latest filing.
Names marked "per latest SEC filing" come from Form 4 / Item 408 filings and take precedence over our AI-compiled roster when they differ.
What They Make
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd develops, manufactures, and sells a range of pharmaceutical products, primarily focusing on therapeutic areas such as oncology, rare diseases, neuroscience, and gastroenterology. Their paying customers are healthcare providers, pharmacies, and national health systems.
End Markets
Revenue Drivers
Why Is It Priced Like This?
Why Customers Pay
The market prices TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD at a 75.4% discount 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 →, likely reflecting concerns over its roughly flat revenue (-0.1%/yr over 4yr). Separately, the reverse DCFReverse DCF — Instead of asking "what is this stock worth?", asks "what growth rate is the current market price already assuming?"
Why it matters: It crystallizes the bull thesis as a single number you can argue with. If the market expects 40% growth for 10 years and you do not believe that, the stock is overvalued.
Reference: 10–15% = sustainable for strong companies · 20–25% = exceptional · 30%+ = historically very rare
Full explanation → implies the price is consistent with roughly a 16.5% annual per-share cash-flow decline, suggesting the market anticipates a material multi-year contraction in per-share cash flow, further supported by the company's 2/5 franchise/durability score.
Three Scenarios, Weighted
| Scenario | IV | Upside from today's price | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $64.02 | 248.5% | 40% |
| Base | $76.10 | 314.3% | 35% |
| Optimistic | $90.27 | 391.4% | 25% |
| Weighted | $74.81 | 307.2% | 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
The company generated $5.6 billion in 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 → after stock comp in the latest fiscal year. Long-term debt is falling from $41.7B to $26.5B. No specific dividend or buyback rates are available from current data.
Free Cash Flow DCF High
Owner-earnings FCF DCF: positive free cash flow (operating cash flow − capex − stock-based comp) in a sector suited for cash-flow-based valuation.
▾ Exactly how the $3.23 normalized FCF/share is computed
2025: 5.6B
2024: 3.7B
2023: 6.2B
Sum ÷ 3 = 5.2B average total FCF
÷ 1,605.3M current diluted shares = $3.23/share
We divide the multi-year total-FCF average by today's share count (not each year's own share count), so the buyback effect is captured once, via the current denominator.
Show advanced inputs
| Revenue Growth | -0.1% |
| Eps Growth | -33.5% |
| Historical Fcf Growth | -9.8% |
| Sector Default | 10.0% |
| Sector Default Source | Healthcare sector default |
| Best Estimate | 7.0% |
| Method | blend(30% revenue_cagr, 70% sector) |
| Growth Basis | total |
What this model does NOT do: this is a consolidated owner-earnings FCF model. Standalone segment assumptions: none. It does not project its revenue segments 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
Revenue has been roughly flat over the past four years, with a -0.1%/yr trend.
Geography & Markets
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)61.0NeutralMomentum 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 →BullishLine above signalThe fast trend is above the slow trend — short-term momentum is currently upward.
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 (1 notes — click to expand/collapse)
Guardrail Notes (1)
- Latest FCF ($5.6B, net of stock-based compensation) is 7.9x net income ($0.7B) - using 3yr average FCF to reduce one-time inflation.
FINANCIALS
Financial Statements (5-year tables — click to expand)
From Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd's SEC filings (EDGAR).
Income (5yr)
| Year | Revenue | Net Income | EPS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 30.1B | 710.2M | $0.44 |
| 2024 | 29.5B | 998.5M | $0.63 |
| 2023 | 29.8B | 2.3B | $1.49 |
| 2022 | 31.8B | 2.0B | $1.30 |
| 2021 | 30.2B | 3.5B | $2.25 |
Cash Flow (5yr)
| Year | Operating CF | CapEx | − SBC | Free Cash Flow |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 6.9B | 1.3B | — | 5.6B |
| 2024 | 5.0B | 1.2B | — | 3.7B |
| 2023 | 7.2B | 1.0B | — | 6.2B |
| 2022 | 10.0B | 1.1B | — | 8.9B |
| 2021 | 9.5B | 1.0B | — | 8.5B |
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 trailing 3-year average, not this single year.
Balance Sheet
| Total Assets | 95.3B |
| Total Liabilities | 48.9B |
| Equity | 46.4B |
| Total Debt | 30.2B |
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.
The questions people ask about TAK
Is Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (TAK) a good stock to buy?
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (TAK) trades about 75% below our $74.81 estimate of what the business is worth, so the price is not the obstacle. The questions are why it is cheap: check the failure-warning checks, the debt, and whether insiders are buying, all on this page. This is educational research from SEC filings, not investment advice.
Is Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (TAK) overvalued?
No, by our measure. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd (TAK) trades at $18.37, about 75% below our estimate of $74.81 for what the business is worth. This is educational research from SEC filings, not investment advice.
What is TAK's intrinsic value?
Our model estimates TAK is worth about $74.81 per share, built from the cash the business is expected to generate, taken from its SEC filings. The market price is $18.37.
What growth is priced into TAK?
Working backwards from today's price, the market is counting on roughly -12.9% a year growth in TAK's cash flow over the next decade. Compare that with the company's actual record on this page.
Where do these numbers come from?
From Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd's own SEC filings (10-K and 10-Q), Form 4 insider filings and daily market prices. Every figure on the page links to how it was calculated, and the model's weak spots are listed next to its results.