TIGR · bank / insurer · bank model (justified price-to-book)
UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR): Valuation Snapshot
UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR) is a bank, insurer or other financial, and a discounted-cash-flow model is the wrong lens for one, so TickerWorth does not publish a DCF fair value for it. Its bank model puts it at about $11.98 a share against $4.07. Snapshot as of Oct 19, 2026.
Model by Miraaj Patel · generated from public market data · Updated Oct 19, 2026 · How these pages are made
How is a bank like TIGR valued?
This is a bank / insurer / financial. A free-cash-flow DCF is structurally the wrong lens here (their debt and float are raw material, not financing), so we don't publish one. Instead we value it with a bank model — justified price-to-book, (ROE − g) ÷ (cost of equity − g), on a return on equity of 13.6% and a cost of equity of 7.1% — at about $11.98 a share ($9.84–$15.32 for a cost of equity one point either way), against a price of $4.07. Every input is listed with its source; it is a model estimate, not a price target.
Bank model (justified price-to-book)
Our bank model’s estimate: about $11.98 (range $9.84 to $15.32), against a price of $4.07. It is not a DCF and not a price target.
Value = book value per share × (ROE − g) ÷ (cost of equity − g). The range is for a cost of equity ±1% (6.1%–8.1%).
| Input | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Book value per share | $4.96 | yfinance, latest reported book value per share |
| Return on equity | 13.6% | yfinance, trailing twelve months |
| Risk-free rate | 5.1% | US 10-year Treasury yield (^TNX) |
| Beta | 0.42× | yfinance 5-year monthly beta vs the S&P 500 |
| Equity risk premium | 4.7% | house equity risk premium (same as every DCF) |
| Cost of equity | 7.1% | computed — risk-free + beta × equity risk premium (CAPM) |
| Payout ratio | 0.0% | yfinance payout ratio (trailing dividends ÷ earnings) |
| Long-run growth | 2.5% | ESTIMATEROE × retention (13.6%), capped at the house long-run rate 2.5% |
| Justified price-to-book | 2.41× | computed — (ROE − g) ÷ (cost of equity − g) |
Dividend-discount cross-check: not computed. No established dividend (no current AND trailing dividend reported), so a dividend-discount model has nothing to discount.
A model estimate from public data, with every input shown — not a price target and not advice. Bank returns on equity revert over time and this model holds today's for good.
When we tested this family of bank models on past data, none ranked banks better than plain price-to-book. Treat it as one formula's estimate, not a verdict.
What is TIGR's TickerWorth Score?
Scores higher than almost every company we compare it with
Compared with Financial Services companies in US
Its strongest point: looks cheap on the numbers. Its weakest: recent price trend has been weak.
- Value · 93 of 100
Cheaper than 93% of Financial Services companies in US
- Price vs worth · 100 of 100
- Quality · 54 of 100
More profitable than 54% of Financial Services companies in US
- Financial health · 80 of 100
Financially stronger than 80% of Financial Services companies in US
- Growth · 57 of 100
Growing faster than 57% of Financial Services companies in US
- Momentum · 0 of 100
Outperformed almost none of the Financial Services companies in US over the past year
Confidence: High confidence · Scored
Get the Undervalued Company of the Week.
- Price
- $4.07
- Market cap
- $731,
970, 624 - 52-week high
- $11.35
- 52-week low
- $4.00
- Currency
- USD
- Exchange
- NasdaqGS
Snapshot of Oct 19, 2026, quote time not published · Prices are delayed.
What we can say
UP Fintech Holding Limited (TIGR) is a bank, insurer or other financial, and a free-cash-flow discounted-cash-flow (DCF) model is structurally the wrong lens for it: for these businesses debt and float are raw material, not financing. So we value it the way a bank is valued — on the return it earns on its book equity. Our bank model (justified price-to-book) puts it at about $11.98 a share, between $9.84 and $15.32 for a cost of equity one point either side of 7.1%, against $4.07 today.
Read the full reasoning
Every input is listed with its source. It is a model estimate, not a price target, and not investment advice.
On the numbers we do have, TIGR trades at a recent price of $4.07, a market capitalisation of about $731,970,624, sitting 1% of the way up its 52-week range ($4.00–$11.35), on the NasdaqGS.
The standard alternative to a DCF is relative valuation — comparing TIGR's trading multiples against a sector benchmark. Here that gives P/E of 7.5× (cheaper than the peer median of 14.2×); Fwd P/E of 4.5× (cheaper than the peer median of 13.3×); P/B of 0.8× (cheaper than the peer median of 2.6×); P/S of 1.2× (cheaper than the peer median of 4.7×). A cheaper multiple than peers can flag a discount or a market that expects weaker growth; it is a comparison, not a recommendation.
The asset, or book-value, lens is the classic tool for asset-heavy businesses and financials. TIGR shows a price-to-book (P/B) of 0.82 and book value of $4.96 per share. Price-to-book compares the market price to the accounting net-asset value per share; below 1.0 can mean a discount to net assets or that the market is pricing in trouble — descriptive either way, never a buy signal on its own.
Finally, a price-based read — explicitly not a valuation. TIGR is in a down-trend (price below both its 50- and 200-day averages), trading -64.1% from its 52-week high. Over the past year the stock is -59.1%. Moving-average trend and 52-week position describe where the stock has traded; they say nothing about what it is worth.
To be exact about what this page is not: we are not saying the numbers for TIGR are unavailable. They are, and they are above. We are saying a discounted-cash-flow model is the wrong instrument for this kind of business, and publishing one anyway — because the inputs happen to exist — would be a precise answer to the wrong question. Refusing is the more useful answer, and it is the same rule we apply to every name in this category.
TIGR vs peers
Sector benchmark (bellwethers, not direct competitors).
| Multiple | TIGR | Peer median | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 7.5× | 14.2× | cheaper than |
| Fwd P/E | 4.5× | 13.3× | cheaper than |
| P/B | 0.8× | 2.6× | cheaper than |
| P/S | 1.2× | 4.7× | cheaper than |
What does UP Fintech Holding Limited do?
What does it do?
UP Fintech Holding Limited provides online brokerage services focusing on Chinese investors in New Zealand, the Cayman Island, Singapore, the United States, and internationally. The company has developed a brokerage platform, Tiger Trade which allows investor to trade stocks, options, warrants, and other financial instruments that can be accessed through its APP and website. It operates in the Capital Markets industry (Financial Services sector), headquartered in Singapore. The company employs roughly 1,346 people.
How does it make money?
The business turns $612M in annual revenue into profit. Out of every $100 of sales, about $35 is left as operating profit (operating margin of 35.3%), after a 87% gross margin on the products/services it sells. After all costs, taxes and interest, 18.4% of revenue becomes bottom-line net profit.
Is it financially healthy?
Financially it looks solid: carries modest debt (0.1× equity), can just cover its short-term bills (1.1× current ratio), and is currently profitable.
Who at TIGR filed insider trades?
| Date | Insider | Relationship | What happened | Value | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIU JIAN | Director | Open-market sale | $42,931.80 | Form 4 for LIU JIAN (opens sec.gov in a new tab) | |
| Dong Ming | Key Personnel | Grant / award | — | Form 4 for Dong Ming (opens sec.gov in a new tab) | |
| LIU JIAN | Director | Grant / award | — | Form 4 for LIU JIAN (opens sec.gov in a new tab) |
A disclosure, not a signal to trade. Source: SEC EDGAR (Form 4).
Companies we do put a number on
Not investment advice. TickerWorth Score is a model output.
A descriptive, available-data snapshot and relative comparison — NOT a DCF, NOT a price target, and NOT investment advice. TickerWorth is not a licensed investment adviser, and these figures are estimates from public market data that can be wrong, stale or incomplete.