Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
NBHC · against 262 other Banks & Insurance companies of similar size
Ranked #188 of 263 · scores higher than 28% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the profitability score27 peers with a profitability score of 20–29, including NBHC · Click a bar to see the companies
Mainly because of its return on equity and return on assets, which are weaker than most Banks & Insurance peers.
| Metric | NBHC | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return on invested capitalHigher is better · 239 reported | 6.3% | 10.8% | 28% | Context only | |
| Operating marginHigher is better · 39 reported | Not reported | 20.7% | — | — | Context only |
| Return on assetsHigher is better · 264 reported | 0.8% | 1.1% | 33% | 50% | |
| Return on equityHigher is better · 263 reported | 6.5% | 9.9% | 26% | 50% | |
| Gross marginHigher is better · 278 reported | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0% | Context only |
Metrics with no weight are context only: for banks, brokers and insurers, free cash flow, EBITDA, gross margin and current ratio mostly reflect trading and funding flows, not the health of the business.
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
| Rank | Company | Market cap | Profitability | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 192.8B JPY (≈$1.3B) | 98 | 47 | |
| 1 | 275.9B INR (≈$3.3B) | 98 | 38 | |
| 1 | 1.8B CHF (≈$2.1B) | 98 | ||
| 1 | 1.3B GBP (≈$1.7B) | 98 | ||
| 1 | 2.5B USD | 98 | 87 | |
| 183 | 19.85T IDR (≈$1.2B) | 23 | 9 | |
| 186 | 16.5B CNY (≈$2.3B) | 22 | 52 | |
| 186 | 2.8B USD | 22 | 55 | |
| 188 | 2.6B USD | 21 | 26 | |
| 188 | 1.7B USD | 21 | 23 | |
| 188 | 3.2B USD | 21 | 29 | |
| 191 | 21.1B CNY (≈$3.0B) | 20 | 22 | |
| 191 | 4.5B MYR (≈$992M) | 20 | 43 | |
| 191 | 305.3B JPY (≈$2.1B) | 20 | 49 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score