Is Londian Wason Worth $1.7 Billion? Breaking Down the FOIL IPO Valuation

 

Once Londian Wason New Energy Tech put its price range on the table, it created a combination of numbers that is easy to misread. At the $21.00 midpoint of the range the implied market capitalisation is roughly $1.63 billion, and Reuters reported a valuation of up to $1.7 billion using the top of the range. Set against 2025 revenue of roughly RMB 10.9 billion, that works out to a price-to-sales ratio near one. On that metric alone, the company looks inexpensive.

 

The problem sits below the revenue line. The same prospectus shows a gross margin of 6.6% for 2025 and full-year net income of about $2.9 million. A manufacturer turning over more than $1.5 billion produced a net margin under 0.2%. Using a one-times sales multiple to judge this deal assumes the business can convert revenue into profit, and that is precisely the assumption most in need of testing.

 

First-quarter 2026 figures did improve materially. But multiplying a single quarter's profit by four and treating it as a stable annual run rate is the classic valuation trap in cyclical materials businesses. What actually needs unpacking is why revenue is so large while profit is so thin, what role copper prices play, and whether the first-quarter improvement came from pricing power or from where the cycle happens to sit.

 

 

 

At the $21.00 midpoint the implied market capitalisation is about $1.63 billion, rising to as much as $1.7 billion at the top of the range.

 

2025 revenue was roughly RMB 10.9 billion, up about 25% year on year, with gross profit of RMB 726.957 million (US$103.954 million) and a gross margin of 6.6%.

 

Operating income for 2025 was RMB 350.494 million (US$50.120 million), yet full-year net income was only about $2.9 million, leaving a large gap between the two.

 

First-quarter 2026 revenue reached RMB 4.07 billion, more than doubling year on year. Gross margin rose to 10.4% from 3.0%, and net income of RMB 134.5 million (US$19.2 million) replaced a prior-year net loss of RMB 68.4 million.

 

Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was RMB 378.0 million (US$54.1 million) at a 9.3% margin, against RMB 135.6 million and 7.1% a year earlier.

 

The prospectus notes that sales of ultra-thin LiB copper foil at 6µm and below rose during the quarter, products that typically command higher processing fees because of their greater technical complexity.

 

The balance sheet carries visible leverage. Bamboo Works reported RMB 5.54 billion of short-term debt at the end of last year plus roughly RMB 4 billion of long-term debt.

 

 

 

According to the company's Form F-1 registration statement filed with the SEC, 2025 gross profit was RMB 726.957 million, about US$103.954 million, for a 6.6% margin, on revenue that grew 24.9% year on year. Bamboo Works, in its analysis of the Londian Wason prospectus, put revenue at RMB 10.9 billion.

 

A 6.6% gross margin needs a reference point to be meaningful. It sits closer to contract manufacturing and commodity processing territory than to what a materials company with genuine technical moats usually shows. The company's competitive position is not weak; the registration statement, citing Frost & Sullivan, states it was the world's largest LiB copper foil supplier by sales volume in 2025 with a 7.6% share. Holding the top volume share while running a 6.6% gross margin says a great deal about the current state of competition in this industry.

 

 

This is the single line worth pausing on. Operating income for 2025 was RMB 350.494 million, roughly US$50.120 million, while full-year net income came in near $2.9 million, or roughly RMB 20 million. Almost the entirety of operating profit was consumed below the operating line.

 

Gaps of that shape usually come from three places: finance costs, foreign exchange effects and tax. Set against the debt Bamboo Works described, RMB 5.54 billion short term plus roughly RMB 4 billion long term, interest expense is the most plausible explanation. Copper foil is a capital-intensive business where capacity expansion and equipment maintenance demand continuous capital expenditure, and that expenditure needs debt behind it.

 

The valuation implication is direct. An equity value of $1.6 billion describes only half the capital structure. Including net debt, enterprise value would be materially higher than market capitalisation. Without a cash balance figure a precise enterprise value multiple cannot be calculated here, but what is certain is that calling a one-times sales multiple cheap ignores the other side of the balance sheet.

 

 

 

Reading a copper foil company's accounts requires understanding how it prices. Industry practice sets the selling price as the copper cost plus a processing fee, meaning the copper input is largely passed through to customers and what the manufacturer actually earns is the fee. Rising copper prices therefore lift revenue and cost of sales together, and revenue growth carries no automatic relationship to earnings power.

 

The registration statement's own language supports this framing. It notes that sales of ultra-thin LiB copper foil at 6µm and below increased during the first quarter of 2026, products that typically command higher processing fees because of their greater technical complexity. The company's narrative is built around processing fees, not around the copper price.

 

 

First-quarter revenue rose from RMB 1.91 billion to RMB 4.07 billion, more than doubling. If a substantial portion of that increase came from copper prices, the corresponding profit improvement would be far smaller than the revenue growth implies.

 

The actual data supports the caution while pointing in a better direction than expected. Gross margin rose from 3.0% to 10.4%, which cannot be explained by copper pass-through alone. More than a threefold margin expansion requires at least one of higher processing fees, an improved product mix or better capacity utilisation. The ultra-thin foil volume growth cited in the filing is evidence of the mix component.

 

The accurate formulation is therefore that the first-quarter improvement contains both cyclical and structural elements, and the balance between them determines how long it lasts. Public information is not sufficient to split those contributions precisely, and any specific split would be speculation.

 

 

 

The quarter improved on three levels at once. Gross margin went from 3.0% to 10.4%. Adjusted EBITDA rose from RMB 135.6 million to RMB 378.0 million, about US$54.1 million, taking the margin from 7.1% to 9.3%. Net income swung from a RMB 68.4 million loss to a RMB 134.5 million profit, roughly US$19.2 million.

 

Three metrics moving in the same direction is more persuasive than any single one improving. It is worth noting that the adjusted EBITDA margin expanded less than the gross margin, indicating that the gross improvement was not fully offset at the expense line but also that the cost base is growing.

 

 

Multiplying $19.2 million by four gives roughly $77 million, implying a price-to-earnings ratio near 21 times against a $1.63 billion market capitalisation. The arithmetic works, but at least three factors argue against using it as a valuation anchor.

 

First, the base effect. The prior-year quarter was a loss, so a swing to profit produces a dramatic year-on-year comparison without confirming a trend. Second, seasonality and cyclicality. Copper foil demand tracks battery production schedules and the copper cycle closely, so one quarter's utilisation and fee levels need not represent the annual norm. Third, the rigidity of finance costs. Absent a meaningful reduction in debt, interest expense will keep eroding operating profit, and the 2025 gap between operating income and net income already demonstrated the scale of that erosion.

 

The more prudent approach is to wait for at least two consecutive quarters, watching whether gross margin holds in double digits and whether the conversion rate from operating income to net income improves.

 

 

 

Different yardsticks produce contradictory conclusions. Against roughly $1.56 billion of 2025 revenue, a $1.63 billion market capitalisation gives a price-to-sales ratio near one, which is unremarkable for a global materials producer. Against $2.9 million of 2025 net income, the earnings multiple loses analytical meaning entirely. Against annualised first-quarter earnings, the multiple lands near 21 times, within the ordinary range for a growing materials business.

 

The distance between those answers is really one question: which version of Londian Wason should the market price. If 2025 was a cyclical trough and the first quarter represents the new normal, $1.7 billion is not expensive. If the first quarter benefited from a temporary alignment of copper prices and production schedules, then the valuation is being set near a cyclical high.

 

 

The registration statement's forward-looking narrative centres on product upgrading: ultra-thin high-strength foil down to 4µm, plus HVLP and RTF products aimed at next-generation communications and AI applications. Citing Frost & Sullivan, the filing puts the global LiB copper foil market at approximately RMB 135.0 billion in 2025, reaching RMB 375.4 billion by 2030, with global lithium-ion battery demand projected to grow from 2,278.9 GWh in 2025 to 5,912.8 GWh in 2030, a 21.0% compound rate.

 

Industry growth looks reasonably assured. What sits between industry growth and company earnings is competitive structure. The filing names competitors including DEFU, Jiayuan Technology, SK Nexilis, Lotte Energy Material, Solus Advanced Materials and Mitsui Kinzoku, all substantial players. In commodity-grade product, capacity expansion routinely runs ahead of demand, which is exactly why gross margin compressed to 6.6% in 2025. Whether revenue mix can migrate toward higher-end products will determine this company's earnings power more than total market growth will.

 

 

 

Primary allocation generally goes to institutions and specific brokerage channels, so most retail investors can only buy once FOIL begins trading on the NYSE. That leaves a gap: after pricing is announced but before trading opens, ordinary investors have no direct route to participate.

 

It is also worth noting how small the float is on the announced terms. Working from the $21.00 midpoint and the $1.63 billion valuation, the 3,571,429 ADSs on offer represent roughly 5% of shares outstanding, with only a modest increase if the over-allotment is fully exercised. This is an estimate derived from published figures, and the definitive numbers belong to the final prospectus. A float that small amplifies both upside and downside volatility, which is a separate matter from the quality of the underlying business.

 

 

Before the shares open, some venues list futures contracts referencing the stock. MEXC has done so, and its first-in-market stock futures listing announcement confirms the contract is already tradeable. Structurally, these instruments differ from direct share ownership in several ways.

 

First, timing: a position can be opened before the shares list, allowing a view on the pricing outcome to be expressed early. Second, there is no allocation constraint, so the lottery dynamics of primary subscription do not apply. Third, trading runs around the clock rather than only during US market hours, which matters for investors in Asian time zones. Fourth, positions can be taken in either direction, so a view that the valuation is stretched can be expressed directly through a short rather than depending on stock borrow. Fifth, leverage is available, allowing a larger notional exposure against a smaller margin commitment.

 

Each of those features enlarges risk in equal measure. Leverage magnifies losses proportionally, continuous trading means exposure is never protected by a market close, contract prices reflect expectations rather than fundamentals, and holding a contract is not equity ownership and confers no shareholder rights. For anyone unfamiliar with these instruments, the explainers on buying and shorting Londian Wason stock futures and how stock futures trading works are a starting point for understanding the risk structure rather than a set of instructions.

 

 

 

The line in these accounts that genuinely deserves attention is not the 6.6% gross margin. It is the distance between RMB 350 million of operating income and $2.9 million of net income. That gap says Londian Wason's 2025 problem was not purely operational. The operations made money; almost all of it was consumed below the operating line. Combined with the roughly RMB 9.5 billion of debt Bamboo Works described, this is a textbook leveraged, capital-intensive structure. Once that registers, the persuasive power of a one-times sales multiple drops considerably, because price-to-sales looks only at equity value while the debt holders' claim on this capital structure is substantial.

 

Two misreadings look likely. The first is straight-line annualisation of the first quarter. A swing from loss to profit is mathematically bound to produce a dramatic comparison, and a gross margin jumping from 3.0% to 10.4% is itself evidence that the base period was abnormal. Growth rates derived from abnormal bases do not extrapolate. The second is equating market position with pricing power. The world's largest volume share coexisting with a 6.6% gross margin tells you the share was won through scale rather than premium. In a product mix dominated by commodity grades, the volume leader is usually the first to feel price competition, not the last.

 

Three quantitative markers are worth tracking from here. Whether gross margin holds in double digits across two consecutive quarters is the minimum threshold for treating the first quarter as a new normal. The conversion rate from operating income to net income will not improve on its own if debt stays where it is, and proceeds of roughly $75 million are not enough to reshape the capital structure. And the revenue share of ultra-thin and PCB-grade foil is the only verifiable trace of mix upgrading; the filing has flagged the thread, and whether future reports disclose product-level revenue will determine whether it can be followed.

 

For cross-asset investors, the transferable lesson is that choosing a valuation multiple is itself an act of judgement. The same company reads as one times on sales, three digits on trailing earnings, and 21 times on annualised current earnings. All three numbers are real; they differ in what they assume. Crypto markets run into the identical problem constantly, where fully diluted valuation, circulating market cap and protocol revenue multiples each tell a different story, and most disputes are really arguments about which denominator to use. The disciplined approach is to decide first which state of the business you are pricing, then select the metric that matches, rather than picking whichever multiple produces the most comfortable conclusion. From a risk management perspective, building a long-term valuation anchor out of one quarter of data in a cyclical industry is among the more expensive habits available.

 

This analysis rests on the published registration statement, company disclosures and credible reporting available now. Final pricing, subsequent quarterly results and the industry cycle could each change the conclusion, and no single scenario should be treated as a fixed expectation.

 

 

 

On an accounting basis yes, but only marginally. For 2025 the company reported gross profit of RMB 726.957 million at a 6.6% margin and operating income of RMB 350.494 million, yet full-year net income was only about $2.9 million. The first quarter of 2026 improved sharply, with net income of RMB 134.5 million, roughly $19.2 million, against a RMB 68.4 million loss a year earlier. The precise framing is that the company has just emerged from a cyclical trough and its earnings power has not yet been proven sustainable.

 

 

Two layers explain it. First, the gross margin itself is only 6.6%, because copper foil is priced as copper cost plus a processing fee, so most of the copper input is passed through and revenue is inflated by the metal price while the company earns the fee. Second, the gap between RMB 350.494 million of operating income and net income is enormous, and given roughly RMB 9.5 billion of debt, interest expense and other below-the-line costs are the most plausible explanation.

 

 

Not in any simple sense. Higher copper prices lift revenue but raise cost of sales in parallel, and the two largely offset. What determines earnings power is the processing fee, not the metal price. So a doubling of revenue should never be read as implying a doubling of profit. The fact that first-quarter gross margin rose from 3.0% to 10.4%, more than copper pass-through can explain, suggests fees or product mix also shifted.

 

 

Not advisedly. Multiplying $19.2 million by four gives roughly $77 million and a multiple near 21 times against a $1.63 billion valuation. The arithmetic is fine, but it ignores three things: the prior-year quarter was a loss, making the base abnormal; copper foil demand tracks the copper cycle and battery production schedules, so one quarter need not represent the year; and with debt largely unchanged, finance costs will keep eroding full-year net income.

 

 

It depends entirely on the metric. Against roughly $1.56 billion of 2025 revenue, the price-to-sales ratio sits near one, which is not high. Against 2025 net income, the earnings multiple is meaningless. Against annualised first-quarter earnings it lands near 21 times, an ordinary range for a growing materials producer. The divergence reduces to one question: whether the market should price the 2025 trough or the improvement the first quarter represents. That question has no settled answer today.

 

 

This is the variable most worth tracking. The registration statement notes that sales of ultra-thin LiB copper foil at 6µm and below rose in the first quarter of 2026, products that typically earn higher processing fees given their technical complexity. The company is also advancing foils down to 4µm plus HVLP and RTF products for communications and AI applications. If the high-end revenue share keeps climbing, the gross margin baseline should move up. No product-level revenue breakdown has been disclosed publicly, so the magnitude cannot yet be quantified.

 

 

The shares are not trading yet, and primary allocation goes mainly to institutions and specific brokerage channels, so most retail investors must wait until FOIL lists on the NYSE. Before then, some venues offer futures contracts referencing the stock, allowing long or short positions to be established early with round-the-clock trading and leverage available. It should be clear that such contracts price expectations rather than fundamentals, holding one is not equity ownership, and leverage magnifies losses proportionally.

 

 

Working from the $21.00 midpoint and the roughly $1.63 billion valuation, the 3,571,429 ADSs on offer represent around 5% of shares outstanding, rising only modestly if the over-allotment is exercised in full. This is an estimate derived from published figures, with the final prospectus as the authoritative source. A float that small can amplify early price swings considerably and weakens price discovery, so early trading levels may not reflect the market's real assessment of fundamentals.

 

 

This article is provided for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, legal advice, tax advice or any recommendation to transact. The financial data, offering terms and industry forecasts referenced here come from public filings and credible reporting; the company's formal announcements and final prospectus are the authoritative sources, some figures had not received further company confirmation at the time of publication, and every valuation multiple in this article is an estimate derived from public data rather than a judgement of the company's worth. Prices of crypto assets, equities and other related financial instruments can move sharply over short periods, newly listed securities are especially prone to severe volatility in early trading, and investors may lose their entire principal. Futures contracts referencing a stock carry leverage risk that magnifies losses proportionally, holding such contracts is not equity ownership and confers no shareholder rights, and the risk profile differs fundamentally from holding shares directly. Historical performance, technical indicators and on-chain data cannot guarantee future outcomes and should not be read as a promise or forecast regarding any asset. Readers should conduct their own independent research, verify official information directly, and evaluate any decision against their own financial circumstances, investment objectives, experience and risk tolerance, consulting a qualified professional adviser where appropriate. The MEXC Crypto Pulse team accepts no liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from use of or reliance on the information in this article.

 

 

James Mitchell specializes in technical analysis, market trends, and trading strategies for both Bitcoin and altcoins. Based in London, he has over 10 years of experience in financial markets. Before joining MEXC Learn, James worked as a senior analyst at a leading European investment firm, where he developed expertise in risk management and quantitative trading. His transition to cryptocurrency markets began in 2017, and he has since become recognized for his data-driven approach. He holds a Master's degree in Financial Economics from the London School of Economics. His analytical approach combines traditional technical analysis with on-chain metrics to provide readers with actionable insights.

 

Areas of Expertise:

 

 

Want the fastest access to MEXC's latest updates? Join our official Telegram group now!

MEXC Platform: Download App | Zero Fee Trading | Buy USDT Now

Join MEXC Community: X (Twitter) | Telegram | Discord

Get Insights: MEXC Learn | Terms of Service | MEXC Blog | MEXC News

Account Verification: Understand KYC | How to Complete KYC

External Content Platforms: Substack | Medium | Paragraph | LinkedIn | X(News)