The company reported $71.04 billion of revenue in FY2024, up from $67.57 billion in FY2023—an increase of +5.14%. Gross profit declined in margin terms to 9.75% of sales in 2024 versus 12.55% in 2023, and operating income as a share of revenue compressed to 9.87%. Net income fell from $6.92 billion in 2023 to $5.34 billion in 2024, a decline of -22.83%. Despite that, free cash flow remained positive at $5.29 billion in 2024, implying a free cash flow margin of 7.45% and a nearly 99% free cash flow to net income conversion for the year (5.29/5.34 = 99.06%).

Two balance sheet moves stand out: total debt rose to $21.42 billion and net debt moved to $18.93 billion by year‑end 2024, while shareholders’ equity declined to $6.33 billion. Combining market capitalization of $105.99 billion with net debt produces an enterprise value of roughly $124.92 billion, which yields an EV/EBITDA multiple near 14.16x on FY2024 EBITDA of $8.82 billion.

(Primary company filings: FY2024 financial statements, filings accepted 2025‑01‑28.)

Key financial tables#

The following tables summarize the primary income statement and balance sheet/cash‑flow metrics used throughout this analysis. All ratios and percent changes below are calculated from the raw line items in the company’s FY2024 and FY2023 statements.

Income statement highlights (FY2024 vs FY2023)#

Metric	FY2024	FY2023	Change (abs)	Change (%)
Revenue	$71.04B	$67.57B	$3.47B	+5.14%
Gross profit	$6.93B	$8.48B	-$1.55B	-18.29%
Gross margin	9.75%	12.55%	-2.80 ppt
Operating income	$7.01B	$8.51B	-$1.50B	-17.61%
Operating margin	9.87%	12.59%	-2.72 ppt
Net income	$5.34B	$6.92B	-$1.58B	-22.83%
Net margin	7.51%	10.24%	-2.73 ppt
EBITDA	$8.82B	$10.44B	-$1.62B	-15.52%

Balance sheet & cash-flow highlights (FY2024 vs FY2023)#

Metric	FY2024	FY2023	Change (abs)	Change (%)
Cash & equiv.	$2.48B	$1.44B	+$1.04B	+72.22%
Total assets	$55.62B	$52.46B	+$3.16B	+6.02%
Total debt	$21.42B	$17.46B	+$3.96B	+22.68%
Net debt	$18.93B	$16.02B	+$2.91B	+18.17%
Total equity	$6.33B	$6.83B	-$0.50B	-7.32%
Net cash from ops (FY)	$6.97B	$7.92B	-$0.95B	-12.01%
Free cash flow	$5.29B	$6.23B	-$0.94B	-15.12%

Reconciling conflicting ratios: why our calculations differ from embedded TTM metrics#

The dataset supplied contains several internally inconsistent ratio values. For example, an embedded “netDebtToEBITDA_TTM” field reads 0.24x, but calculating net debt (FY2024: $18.93B) divided by FY2024 EBITDA ($8.82B) produces ~2.15x. Similarly, a presented “debtToEquity” figure of 58.46% conflicts with the balance sheet math (total debt $21.42B / total equity $6.33B = 3.38x or 338%). For current ratio the FY2024 current assets and liabilities imply 1.12x, not the stated 0.98x.

When data inconsistencies appear, the most reliable basis is the primary line‑item figures (revenues, EBITDA, debt, cash, equity) from audited statements; ratio fields are sometimes computed on differing denominators (TTM vs year‑end, or excluding certain items). This analysis therefore prioritizes the raw line items and computes ratios consistently (FY figures using year‑end balances and FY totals) while explicitly flagging divergences for readers.

What the numbers say about the Q2 2025 program charges and earnings quality#

Lockheed’s FY2024 performance shows a high level of cash generation and sound free cash flow in absolute terms, but the productivity of that cash is now in question given the Q2 2025 program adjustments. The company’s ability to convert reported earnings to cash had historically been strong; FCF conversion in 2024 was nearly 100%. Yet the Q2 2025 quarter’s reported operating cash of roughly $201 million and negative free cash flow for the quarter (approx ($150) million) indicate short‑term pressure on liquidity dynamics.

Two attributes of earnings quality deserve emphasis. First, the FY2024 free cash flow and operating cash numbers are genuine sources of shareholder value and are not entirely the product of one‑time accounting adjustments. Second, the recurrence of large program charge‑backs — $80 million reported in Oct 2024, $1.7 billion in Jan 2025 and $1.6 billion in Q2 2025 as noted in public disclosures — suggests there are still program‑level forecasting or control weaknesses that can materially swing reported profit and near‑term cash generation.

From a cash‑flow governance angle, several P&L items (notably reductions in operating income and EBITDA from 2023 to 2024) reduce the margin buffer available to absorb future program adjustments. That makes the speed and transparency of management’s remedial controls central to restoring earnings reliability.

Capital allocation under stress: dividends, buybacks and leverage#

Lockheed declared a quarterly dividend of $3.30 per share in recent distributions, and FY2024 dividends paid totaled approximately $3.06 billion. Using FY2024 net income as the payout base produces a dividends/net income ratio of about 57.3% (3.06/5.34). That is a meaningful cash commitment but is still below the dataset’s stated payout ratio of 73.6% — another instance where differing denominator choices (TTM EPS vs annual net income or share‑count effects) produce divergent percent figures. Our calculation uses cash dividends actually paid against FY net income and therefore reflects the cash burden on the business.

Share repurchases present the more flexible lever. The company repurchased $3.7 billion of common stock in FY2024 according to cash‑flow lines. Given weaker cash flow in Q2 2025 and negative free cash flow that quarter, buybacks are the most likely element of capital policy to be curtailed if management prioritizes liquidity or legal contingencies. Indeed, FY2024 growth in net debt (+18.17%) and a higher enterprise value (EV/EBITDA near 14.2x) reduce headroom for aggressive repurchases without affecting leverage targets.

Competitive positioning and strategic priorities: backlog, product portfolio and execution risk#

Lockheed’s industrial moat remains anchored in a large, defense‑oriented backlog and a portfolio of mission‑critical platforms — F‑35 and other air systems, missile defense, rotary and naval systems, and space capabilities. Public commentary and filings cite a backlog near $166.5 billion at the recent quarter, which underpins revenue visibility and positions Lockheed as a primary beneficiary of sustained defense budgets.

However, the value of backlog is a function of execution. The recent program losses are concentrated in Aeronautics and Rotary & Mission Systems programs, including a sizeable classified program and the Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program. Those events indicate that certain long‑duration, technically complex fixed‑price and risk‑sharing contracts remain structurally riskier than management’s previous disclosures implied.

Relative to peers, Lockheed’s scale and program diversity are strengths, but execution reliability has become the differentiating risk. If rival primes demonstrate steadier execution on large, fixed‑price programs, Lockheed could trade at a structural discount until program management credibility is reestablished.

Historical context: precedent matters for investor trust#

Lockheed is not new to periodic program charges; the defense prime model regularly includes program‑level adjustments tied to technical complexity, scope changes and supply chain pressures. What elevates the current episode is its frequency and clustered magnitude within an 18‑month window, which plaintiffs in the pending securities actions have used to allege broader internal control deficiencies.

Historically, Lockheed has converted backlog into predictable cash flows and returned substantial capital to shareholders via dividends and buybacks. The present episode tests whether that track record can withstand a short period of negative cash flow and whether governance fixes can be executed at a speed and level of transparency sufficient to reassure investors, customers and rating agencies.

What this means for investors (no recommendation implied)#

Investors should treat three elements as primary determinants of near‑term risk and valuation compression: the pace of program‑level remediation, the durability of free cash flow after recent charges, and any legal or settlement costs arising from securities litigation.

First, transparent, measurable improvements to program governance (including meaningful board oversight disclosures and independent reviews, if implemented) would materially reduce uncertainty. Second, the company’s FY2024 cash generation demonstrates an underlying ability to produce free cash flow, but the Q2 2025 cash weakness shows that conversion can be lumpy; the pace at which operating cash recovers will be critical for capital allocation choices. Third, litigation and any related regulatory inquiries create both headline risk and potential cash costs; the timetable for lead plaintiff appointment and discovery (lead plaintiff deadline noted as Sept 26, 2025) will likely define the cadence of legal news flow.

Forward‑looking indicators and catalysts to watch#

Several measurable near‑term items will clarify whether the company is stabilizing or remains at elevated execution risk. Key indicators include sequential improvements in quarterly operating cash flow, a return to positive quarterly free cash flow, reductions in program charge‑backs in subsequent quarters, and concrete governance actions (independent reviews or enhanced disclosures) from the board.

Analysts’ estimates embedded in the dataset show EPS rising to ~$21.95 in 2025 and continuing to grow through 2029, but those forward figures assume improved execution and margin normalization. Market attention will focus on how quickly guidance revisions revert from conservative, remediation‑oriented assumptions back toward pre‑charge profitability levels.

Executive accountability and governance implications#

Securities class actions amplify the governance lens. Plaintiffs will probe whether senior management and the board were adequately informed and whether disclosures were timely. For investors, the composition and activism of the lead plaintiff group (deadline Sept 26, 2025) and any substantive board responses — refreshed committee oversight, independent program reviews, or remediation roadmaps — will be central to restoring confidence.

Key takeaways#

Lockheed Martin remains a mission‑critical industrial franchise with a large backlog and historically strong cash generation, but recent concentrated program losses and emerging securities litigation have materially increased execution and legal risk. Fiscal 2024 shows positive free cash flow ($5.29B) and solid revenue growth (+5.14%), yet margin compression, rising net debt ($18.93B), and the Q2 2025 operating cash shortfall underscore the need for demonstrable remediation and a re‑established pattern of predictable cash conversion. Investors should monitor upcoming quarterly cash flow prints, program charge trajectories, and any substantive governance actions from the board.

Final synthesis: the so‑what for stakeholders#

The numeric story is straightforward: Lockheed has scale, backlog and base cash generation, but the business is not immune to execution shocks that can rapidly erode earnings and temporarily stress liquidity. The recent string of program charges raises legitimate questions about program‑level forecasting, the robustness of internal controls, and the transparency of disclosures. Restoring trust will require a combination of measured operational fixes, clear governance steps, and consistent quarterly evidence that program losses are an aberration rather than a structural shift.

For customers and counterparties, Lockheed’s operational reliability matters more than legal headlines; for investors, the speed and clarity of remediation — and the company’s ability to convert backlog into cash without recurring charge‑backs — will determine whether the valuation gap to peers narrows. This analysis focuses on those measurable outcomes rather than on speculative settlement math or price forecasts; the path back to normalized multiples begins with demonstrable, data‑driven improvements in execution and cash flow stability.

(Primary dataset: Lockheed Martin FY2024 financial statements and supplemental Q2 2025 disclosures; filings accepted 2025‑01‑28 and subsequent company statements.)