Logo

NKTR

Nektar Therapeutics

NKTR

Nektar Therapeutics NASDAQ
$65.21 -0.73% (-0.48)

Market Cap $1.33 B
52w High $66.92
52w Low $6.45
Dividend Yield 0%
P/E -6.63
Volume 221.03K
Outstanding Shares 20.34M

Income Statement

Period Revenue Operating Expense Net Income Net Profit Margin Earnings Per Share EBITDA
Q3-2025 $11.79M $43.462M $-35.522M -301.289% $-1.87 $-29.312M
Q2-2025 $11.175M $47.405M $-41.593M -372.197% $-2.95 $-33.787M
Q1-2025 $10.46M $54.995M $-50.882M -486.444% $-3.62 $-40.969M
Q4-2024 $29.175M $6.85M $7.261M 24.888% $0.52 $17.487M
Q3-2024 $24.124M $54.034M $-37.057M -153.611% $-2.66 $-30.035M

Balance Statement

Period Cash & Short-term Total Assets Total Liabilities Total Equity
Q3-2025 $270.208M $301.347M $216.261M $85.086M
Q2-2025 $175.903M $207.534M $231.745M $-24.211M
Q1-2025 $218.632M $256.241M $242.503M $13.738M
Q4-2024 $255.226M $303.85M $243.113M $60.737M
Q3-2024 $244.495M $307.966M $259.082M $48.884M

Cash Flow Statement

Period Net Income Cash From Operations Cash From Investing Cash From Financing Net Change Free Cash Flow
Q3-2025 $-35.522M $-48.761M $-94.873M $141.677M $-1.956M $-48.875M
Q2-2025 $-41.593M $-45.738M $49.615M $211K $4.094M $-45.775M
Q1-2025 $-50.882M $-49.053M $43.689M $7K $-5.358M $-49.055M
Q4-2024 $7.261M $-46.187M $60.214M $83K $14.143M $-46.646M
Q3-2024 $-37.057M $-43.932M $46.116M $13K $2.143M $-44.598M

Revenue by Products

Product Q4-2024Q1-2025Q2-2025Q3-2025
License Collaboration And Other Revenue
License Collaboration And Other Revenue
$0 $0 $0 $0
Non Cash Royalty Revenue Related To Sale Of Future Royalties
Non Cash Royalty Revenue Related To Sale Of Future Royalties
$30.00M $10.00M $10.00M $10.00M
Product
Product
$20.00M $0 $0 $0

Five-Year Company Overview

Income Statement

Income Statement Nektar looks very much like a classic clinical‑stage biotech: almost no product revenue and a cost base dominated by R&D and overhead. Sales have been tiny and flat for several years, so the business is not yet commercially driven. Gross margins on that small revenue pool are high, but that doesn’t really matter while revenue is this limited. The company has been running sizable operating and net losses year after year. The good news is that these losses have narrowed meaningfully over the last few years, suggesting disciplined cost-cutting and a leaner operation. The challenge is that there is still a wide gap between expenses and income, and profitability depends entirely on successfully moving one or more drugs through late‑stage trials and into the market or into lucrative partnerships.


Balance Sheet

Balance Sheet The balance sheet shows a company that has been drawing down its resources over time. Total assets have fallen significantly from earlier years, reflecting both cash burn and a shrinking asset base. Cash on hand is modest for a drug developer running multiple clinical programs, which heightens sensitivity to timing of future funding, deals, or milestone payments. Debt exists but is not extreme in absolute terms; however, with equity much lower than in the past, leverage matters more now. Shareholders’ equity has been eroded by repeated losses, which reduces financial flexibility and can increase the importance of any future financing or partnership decisions.


Cash Flow

Cash Flow Cash flow is consistent with an early‑stage biotech: money is flowing out to fund research and operations, with very little coming in from customers. Operating cash burn has been persistent, and free cash flow has been deeply negative each year, with only minimal spending on equipment or facilities. That means the cash drain is primarily people, trials, and R&D activities rather than big capital projects. The trend shows some improvement in the scale of outflows, but the company still relies on its existing cash and access to capital markets or partners to keep funding its pipeline. The key risk is how long the current cash can support operations at the present burn rate.


Competitive Edge

Competitive Edge Competitively, Nektar has scientific credibility and a long history with polymer conjugation and immune‑modulating therapies, but it is still a small player in a space dominated by very large, well‑funded pharma and biotech companies. Its main advantages are proprietary PEGylation know‑how, a sizable patent estate, and differentiated mechanisms in autoimmune disease and oncology. However, it has no approved products of its own driving recurring revenue, and its lead programs compete against or alongside blockbuster treatments from larger rivals. This creates a leveraged competitive profile: meaningful success in one or two programs could transform the company’s standing, but setbacks in key trials would have an outsized impact because the portfolio and revenue base are not yet diversified.


Innovation and R&D

Innovation and R&D Innovation is clearly Nektar’s core strength. The company is focused on finely tuning the immune system using its polymer technology, rather than broadly suppressing or stimulating immunity. The lead asset, rezpegaldesleukin, targets regulatory T cells and has already earned expedited review designations in two autoimmune indications, which speaks to its novelty and potential clinical value. Additional programs like NKTR‑0165 in autoimmune disease and NKTR‑255 in cancer immunotherapy provide breadth, but they are earlier in development and carry higher uncertainty. R&D spending has been heavy relative to the company’s size, which is typical at this stage but contributes to ongoing losses and cash burn. Future value will hinge on how upcoming mid‑stage trial readouts look, whether the company can secure strong partners (especially for oncology), and how efficiently it can advance its pipeline without overstretching its finances.


Summary

Nektar Therapeutics combines a high‑quality scientific platform with a financially fragile early‑stage profile. On the positive side, it has a clearly differentiated technology, multiple novel immune‑modulating drugs in clinical and preclinical stages, and regulatory recognition for its lead autoimmune program. On the risk side, revenue remains negligible, losses are still substantial despite cost‑cutting, cash resources are limited compared with the scale and duration of planned trials, and the company is heavily dependent on a handful of key assets. The overall picture is of a science‑rich, cash‑burning biotech where upcoming clinical data, partnering progress, and funding decisions will be the main drivers of how its prospects evolve over the next few years.