HAL

Energy

Halliburton

Price Chart

Market Data

Financials

XBRL · SEC EDGAR

2007–2025(19yr)

Revenue

Net Income

Free CF

Metric	FY 2007	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011	FY 2012	FY 2013	FY 2014	FY 2015	FY 2016	FY 2017	FY 2018	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY 2022	FY 2023	FY 2024	FY 2025Latest	YoY
Revenue	$15.3B	$18.3B	$14.7B	$18.0B	$24.8B	$28.5B	$29.4B	$32.9B	$23.6B	$15.9B	$20.6B	$24.0B	$22.4B	$14.4B	$15.3B	$20.3B	$23.0B	$22.9B	$22.2B	-3.3%
Gross Profit	$11.9B	$14.3B	$11.4B	$14.5B	$20.4B	$23.2B	$23.4B	$26.3B	$18.4B	$12.1B	$16.5B	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Gross Margin	78.0%	78.3%	77.8%	80.5%	82.4%	81.3%	79.7%	79.9%	77.9%	76.3%	79.9%	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Operating Income	$3.5B	$4.0B	$2.0B	$3.0B	$4.7B	$4.2B	$3.1B	$5.1B	-$165.0M	-$6.8B	$1.4B	$2.5B	-$448.0M	-$2.4B	$1.8B	$2.7B	$4.1B	$3.8B	$2.3B	-40.9%
Operating Margin	22.9%	21.9%	13.6%	16.7%	19.1%	14.6%	10.7%	15.5%	-0.7%	-42.7%	6.6%	10.3%	-2.0%	-16.9%	11.8%	13.3%	17.7%	16.7%	10.2%	-6.5pp
Net Income	$3.5B	$2.2B	$1.1B	$1.8B	$2.8B	$2.6B	$2.1B	$3.5B	-$671.0M	-$5.8B	-$463.0M	$1.7B	-$1.1B	-$2.9B	$1.5B	$1.6B	$2.6B	$2.5B	$1.3B	-48.7%
Net Margin	22.8%	12.2%	7.8%	10.2%	11.4%	9.2%	7.2%	10.6%	-2.8%	-36.3%	-2.2%	6.9%	-5.0%	-20.4%	9.5%	7.7%	11.5%	10.9%	5.8%	-5.1pp
Free Cash Flow	$1.1B	$850.0M	$542.0M	$143.0M	$731.0M	$88.0M	$1.5B	$779.0M	$722.0M	-$2.5B	$1.1B	$1.1B	$915.0M	$1.2B	$1.1B	$1.2B	$2.1B	$2.4B	$1.7B	-31.0%
FCF Margin	7.5%	4.7%	3.7%	0.8%	2.9%	0.3%	5.1%	2.4%	3.1%	-15.7%	5.3%	4.7%	4.1%	8.0%	7.3%	6.1%	9.0%	10.6%	7.5%	-3.0pp
EPS (Diluted)	$3.65	$2.45	$1.27	$2.01	$3.08	$2.84	$2.36	$4.11	$-0.79	$-6.69	$-0.53	$1.89	$-1.29	$-3.33	$1.63	$1.74	$2.97	$2.88	$1.54	-46.7%

Total Debt$7.2B

Cash & Equiv.$2.2B

Net Debt$5.0B

3 min read

1. THE BIG PICTURE

Halliburton is a tale of two geographies, shifting its weight toward international markets to compensate for a shrinking North American footprint. While its technological push into electric fracturing and AI-driven subsurface insights aims to protect its competitive standing, Halliburton remains fundamentally tethered to the capital expenditure cycles of global energy producers. It is currently a lower-margin operator attempting to prove that its "value proposition" can deliver growth even as domestic activity fades.

2. WHERE THE RISKS HIT HARDEST

International Growth vs. Geopolitical Exposure: Halliburton’s strategic priority of increasing international growth (10-K Item 1) is directly threatened by "unsettled political conditions" and "armed conflict" (Competitive Position). This tension is critical because international revenue rose 7% in the most recent quarter while North American revenue fell by 7% (8-K).
Technological Differentiation vs. Intellectual Property Risk: Halliburton relies on its "large number of patents" and tools like iCruise to maintain a competitive advantage (Competitive Position). However, this strength is vulnerable to a "failure to defend intellectual property" or the development of rival technologies, which could erode its ability to command premium pricing in a crowded field (Risks).

3. WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY TOGETHER

The financial data reveals a significant efficiency gap between Halliburton and its peers. Despite management’s praise for "differentiated results" (8-K), Halliburton’s net margin of 5.7% and free cash flow (FCFFCFFree Cash Flow — cash left after paying for operations and capital investments; what the company can actually spend, save, or return to shareholders) margin of 6.1% are the lowest among its peer group (Peer Benchmarking). This suggests that while Halliburton is successfully winning international contracts, it is doing so at a much higher cost or lower price point than competitors like SLB.

The 3.3% year-over-year revenue decline aligns with the sequential 7% drop in North American revenue, confirming that the domestic slowdown is currently outpacing international gains. Furthermore, short interest at 6.1% of the float suggests a notable segment of the market remains skeptical of this transition (Supplemental Signals).

4. IS IT WORTH IT AT THIS PRICE?

At 13.2x forward earnings, Halliburton trades at a modest discount to the peer median of 14.1x (Peer Benchmarking). This price implies a long-term growth rate of just 1.0% (CAPM analysis). This low expectation seems justified given that Halliburton trails the field in nearly every profitability metric, including a gross margin of 15.7% compared to SLB’s 18.7% or FANG’s 73.0% (Peer Benchmarking).

For the current price to be "right," Halliburton only needs to achieve 4.2% EPSEPSEarnings Per Share — the company's net profit divided by its share count; the most common per-share profitability metric growth—a figure largely achievable through its 3.2% buyback yield and minimal organic growth. However, the $5.5 billion in net debt against $1.4 billion in annual free cash flow creates a leverage profile that may limit more aggressive shareholder returns if commodity prices soften (CAPM analysis).

5. WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS VIEW?

Constructive if international operating margins in the Completion and Production segment begin to close the gap with peers, proving that the move abroad is driving higher profitability, not just higher volume.
Cautious if North American revenue continues its mid-single-digit decline (8-K) without a corresponding reduction in the $1.1 billion capital expenditure budget, which would further squeeze the already thin 6.1% FCFFCFFree Cash Flow — cash left after paying for operations and capital investments; what the company can actually spend, save, or return to shareholders margin.

6. BOTTOM LINE

Structural Advantage: A global operational footprint with a highly localized workforce (91% of employees) and a proprietary digital suite (Landmark) that creates high switching costs for subsurface data management.

Bottom Line: Halliburton is a low-expectation play on international energy recovery, but its bottom-tier margins make it a less efficient vehicle for capital than its larger or more specialized peers.

Source: Synthesis · LLM Analysis

4 min read

1. Top 5 Material Risks

Commodity Price Volatility: Halliburton’s business is highly sensitive to oil and natural gas prices, which dictate customer capital spending levels. Prolonged price reductions or the perception of lower long-term prices cause customers to defer or reduce major expenditures, directly impacting demand for Halliburton’s services.
Customer Capital Spending: Reductions in customer capital budgets—driven by factors such as limited access to capital, sustainability initiatives, or industry consolidation—directly reduce demand for Halliburton’s products and services.
Operational Liabilities: Halliburton faces risks of explosions, fires, and environmental damage at project sites or manufacturing facilities. While Halliburton utilizes contractual indemnities and insurance, these may be insufficient, unenforceable, or unavailable, potentially leading to material adverse effects on financial results.
Severe Weather: Operations in regions such as Canada, the Gulf of America, and the North Sea are vulnerable to extreme weather. Such events can cause equipment inoperability, project delays, and reduced demand for services, all of which threaten consolidated results.
Intellectual Property and Competitive Positioning: Halliburton’s competitive standing depends on its ability to protect proprietary information and develop new technologies. Failure to defend intellectual property or a failure to innovate in response to market trends and climate change concerns could reduce the value of its intellectual property and harm its business.

2. Company-Specific Risks

Integrated Project Management (IPM) Contracts: Halliburton assumes significant risk in long-term, fixed-price contracts, including exposure to cost over-runs, labor inflation, and liquidated damages, which can lead to project losses.
Supply Chain Constraints: Halliburton faces potential shortages of essential raw materials like sand and chemicals, as well as challenges in sourcing sufficient electric power for its Zeus electric fracturing systems.
Cybersecurity Incidents: Halliburton has previously experienced unauthorized access to its systems, resulting in exfiltration of information and operational disruptions. Future incidents could lead to significant costs, regulatory actions, and litigation.
Capital Return Framework: Halliburton’s goal of returning at least 50% of annual free cash flow to shareholders is not guaranteed and depends on the Board of Directors' discretion, which may change based on financial results or cash requirements.

3. Regulatory/Legal Risks

Tax Audits and Legislation: Halliburton is currently in an IRS administrative appeals process regarding a $3.5 billion ordinary deduction claimed for a 2016 termination fee paid to Baker Hughes. Additionally, the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) led to a $125 million valuation allowance against foreign tax credit deferred tax assets.
International Trade and Sanctions: Halliburton must comply with complex export/import laws and economic sanctions. Changes in U.S. trade policy, including the 10% baseline tariff announced in April 2025 and subsequent reciprocal tariffs, create uncertainty and potential cost burdens.
Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation: Future federal, state, or local laws that limit or ban hydraulic fracturing could make it more difficult to complete wells, directly impacting Halliburton’s service demand.
Environmental Compliance: Halliburton is subject to strict liability under environmental laws for cleanup costs and natural resource damages, which can arise from both current operations and historical activities of acquired companies.

4. Financial Impact Map

Commodity Price Volatility → Consolidated Results of Operations → Direct reduction in demand for services and products due to customer spending cuts. Operational Liabilities → Consolidated Financial Condition → Potential for damages exceeding insurance coverage or contractual indemnities. Integrated Project Management Contracts → Profitability/Net Income → Cost over-runs and liquidated damages may reduce project margins or result in losses. Tax Audits (IRS NOPA) → Provision for Taxes → Potential for significant tax liability adjustments regarding the $3.5 billion 2016 deduction. OBBBA Legislation → Deferred Tax Assets → $125 million valuation allowance recorded in 2025 against foreign tax credit carryforwards.

Source: 10-K Item 1A · LLM Analysis

Recent Filings

Form	Filed	Period
10-K	Feb 2026	Dec 2025
8-K	Jan 2026	—
10-Q	Oct 2025	Sep 2025
14A	Apr 2025	—