olivLaw · European equity research
Atlantic Sapphire ASA ASA.OL
Norway · Euronext Oslo Børs · Vertical: Listed companies from Norway
Atlantic Sapphire ASA produces Atlantic salmon in land-based Bluehouse systems with a closed water circuit, close to consumer markets in Florida. The company is closely watched because it offers an alternative to ocean-based aquaculture, in an industry where global supply of farmed salmon remains tied to pressure on marine resources. Water recycling of over 99 percent and an estimated global supply of about 2.7 million metric tons show the scale of the challenge it addresses.
At the close of 22 Oct 2026, Atlantic Sapphire ASA (ASA.OL) stock was 0.76 NOK (+0.00% on the day), with beta -1.41, 52-week range 0.71–7.90 NOK.
Data as of · AI analysis dated · Source: ESEF annual reports and closing prices, computed by olivLaw.
Price history
Loading chart…
Technical reading
- RSI (14)
- 47.1
- neutral
- Bollinger (20, 2)
- 0.71 – 0.80
- in the upper half of the band · %B 0.55 · band width 11.0%
- SMA 50 / 200
- 0.81 / 2.72
- downtrend (price < SMA50 < SMA200)
- MACD (12, 26, 9)
- -0.01 / -0.02
- MACD above signal
Indicators describe past prices; on their own they do not predict direction. On our history the RSI ≤ 40 filter added no return (see the signals methodology).
Performance
| Company | EURO STOXX 50 | vs EURO STOXX 50 | Vertical median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | −2.6% | −0.6% | −1.9 pp | — |
| 3 months | −17.4% | −4.2% | −13.2 pp | — |
| 6 months | −75.4% | +4.3% | −79.7 pp | — |
| Year to date | −89.1% | +7.5% | −96.6 pp | — |
| 1 year | −89.9% | +9.9% | −99.8 pp | −4.7% |
| 3 years | −99.8% | +49.8% | −149.7 pp | +17.6% |
| 5 years | −100.0% | +42.8% | −142.8 pp | — |
Price returns, dividends excluded.
Quarterly results
ESEF annual reports carry no quarters: the results are annual (below).
E/P over time
the price (USD) and the reports are in different currencies
E/P = trailing-12-month diluted EPS / price at quarter end. E/P is the inverse of P/E and stays defined when earnings are negative.
Fiscal years
| Fiscal year | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 14.0 m | 22.8 m | 43.3 m |
| Revenue YoY | unavailable | +63.1% | +89.7% |
| Net income | -133.8 m | -167.3 m | -191.3 m |
| Net income YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| Diluted EPS | -340.39 | -17.19 | -5.33 |
| Diluted EPS YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| net % | -955.8% | -733.3% | -441.8% |
| Free cash flow | -97.4 m | -96.5 m | -65.0 m |
Balance sheet & financial health
Fiscal year 2025 · 31 Dec 2025
- Cash
- 3.2 m USD
- Financial debt
- unavailable USD
- Net debt
- unavailable USD
- Equity
- 11.9 m USD
- Total assets
- 135.8 m USD
- Debt / equity
- unavailable
- Current ratio
- 3.51x
- ROE
- -178.1%
- ROA
- -93.4%
- FCF margin
- -150.2%
Financial statements (source on every figure)
Revenue and net income (USD)
Margins
Income statement · USD
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 14.0 m | 22.8 m | 43.3 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Operating income | -126.2 m | -162.8 m | -180.5 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Depreciation & amortisation | 13.8 m | 14.4 m | 13.6 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| EBITDA | -112.3 m ≈ | -148.3 m ≈ | -166.9 m ≈ | esef· 21 Oct 2026derived |
| Interest expense | 9.1 m | 8.7 m | 16.7 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Pre-tax income | -133.8 m | -167.3 m | -191.3 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Income tax | 0 | 0 | 0 | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Net income | -133.8 m | -167.3 m | -191.3 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Diluted EPS | -340.39 | -17.19 | -5.33 | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
≈ computed by olivLaw from the reported lines of the same year: Operating income + Depreciation & amortisation.
Balance sheet · USD
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 23.0 m | 29.9 m | 3.2 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Receivables | 1.2 m | 3.7 m | 4.6 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Inventories | 5.1 m | 5.7 m | 5.4 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Current assets | 47.7 m | 56.7 m | 41.4 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Property, plant & equipment, net | 275.6 m | 197.7 m | 73.7 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Total assets | 342.3 m | 273.7 m | 135.8 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Current liabilities | 19.8 m | 7.5 m | 11.8 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Total liabilities | 59.1 m | 70.8 m | 123.9 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Equity | 283.1 m | 202.8 m | 11.9 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Shares outstanding at year end | 393.0 k | 9.7 m | 35.9 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026derived |
Cash flow · USD
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash flow | -77.8 m | -87.4 m | -61.1 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Capex | 19.6 m | 9.1 m | 4.0 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Free cash flow | -97.4 m ≈ | -96.5 m ≈ | -65.0 m ≈ | esef· 21 Oct 2026derived |
| Investing cash flow | -33.5 m | -7.4 m | -3.4 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
| Financing cash flow | 110.3 m | 102.9 m | 35.1 m | esef· 21 Oct 2026verified |
≈ computed by olivLaw from the reported lines of the same year: Operating cash flow − Capex.
Computed indicators
Growth
Profitability
Returns
Balance sheet
Liquidity
Cash
Efficiency
Market and valuation
1 indicators that do not apply to the sector.
Valuation
olivLaw classification
- indicators available: 3 of at least 6
- score weight coverage: 16.7% of at least 60%
- valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1
A scoring methodology on indicators and valuation, not investment advice.
Closing price
22 Oct 2026Source: olivLaw, closing series
Market cap: unavailable
The price is older than the freshness threshold; market indicators are unavailable.
Key indicators
Coverage and freshness
Score by group
17% · Insufficient data
Estimated value range
unavailable — no valuation method could be computed
Valuation assumptions are editorial choices, not measured; beta is not measured.
Valuation methods
- DCF (discounted cash flow)unavailable · net debt missing: EV cannot be bridged to equity (missing debt is not zero)
- Peers: EV/EBITDAunavailable · net debt missing: EV cannot be bridged to equity (missing debt is not zero)
- Peers: P/Eunavailable · the base of the ratio is not positive
- Dividend discount (DDM)unavailable · the company pays no dividend: a dividend model needs an explicit initiation assumption
no valuation method could be computed
Assumptions (illustrative, editorial)
- Risk-free rate
- 4.3%
- Equity risk premium
- 5.0%
- Beta (default)
- 1.00
- Cost of equity
- 9.3%
- Terminal growth
- 2.5%
Factor scorecard
Insufficient data
Minimum-evidence gate: indicators available: 3 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 16.7% of at least 60%; valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1
| Factor | Value | Score | Weight used |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net margin · Quality | -441.8% | 5 (vs peers) | 38% |
| FCF conversion · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Revenue CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EPS CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Interest coverage · Balance sheet | -10.8x | 0 (on a fixed band) | 38% |
| Current ratio · Balance sheet | 3.5x | 100 (on a fixed band) | 25% |
| P/E (TTM) · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EV/EBITDA · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| FCF yield · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Shareholder yield (distributions) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Payout ratio (FCF) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
Factors without a value were dropped; the remaining weights were renormalised.
Score groups
- Balance sheet40/100 · 2/3 factors with a value
- Growth· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Quality· partial5/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
- Returns· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Valuation· partialunavailable · 0/3 factors with a value
A «partial» group is computed from under half of its weight or from one factor: it is not a full assessment of the group.
Memo
ATLANTIC SAPPHIRE ASA (ASA.OL). Latest full fiscal year: 2025; data up to 2025-12-31.
Figures computed from the financial statements: revenue 43.3 m USD in 2025; YoY growth 89.7%; net margin -441.8%; ROE -178.1%.
Valuation cannot be computed from the available data.
Insufficient data for a verdict (indicators available: 3 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 16.7% of at least 60%; valuation methods computed: 0 of at least 1).
Text generated deterministically from the figures shown; no language model. Not investment advice.
What supports the thesis
- Current ratio: 3.5x
What contradicts it
- Net margin: -441.8%
- Interest coverage: -10.8x
Not assessed (insufficient data or a ratio without meaning): ROIC, FCF conversion, Revenue CAGR 3Y, EPS CAGR 3Y, Net debt / EBITDA, P/E (TTM), EV/EBITDA, FCF yield, Shareholder yield (distributions), Payout ratio (FCF).
Versus the vertical median
Listed companies from Norway · same country · compared with 39 companies
Multiples and returns vs the median
Price rebased to 100 (monthly, 5 years)
Companies in the vertical
| Market cap | P/E | ROE | Net margin | Revenue YoY | 1A / 3A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AKER.OLAker Asa | 79.8 bn | 20.3 | 7.9% | 21.4% | +42.5% | +36% / +59% |
| AFG.OLAf Gruppen Asa | 21.5 bn | 19.8 | 39.7% | 3.4% | +4.4% | +8% / +69% |
| ELK.OLElkem Asa | 19.2 bn | 39.3 | 1.9% | 2.7% | −15.7% | +10% / +73% |
| ATEA.OLAtea Asa | 18.5 bn | 21.4 | 19.7% | 2.3% | +8.1% | +11% / +36% |
| AKSO.OLAker Solutions Asa | 17.4 bn | 6.8 | 22.5% | 4.1% | +19.2% | +18% / −12% |
| AUSS.OLAustevoll Seafood Asa | 16.6 bn | 37.1 | 1.6% | 1.1% | +11.1% | −7% / +10% |
| BRG.OLBorregaard Asa | 15.6 bn | 25.1 | 11.4% | 8.0% | +1.3% | −18% / −9% |
| BONHR.OLBonheur ASA | 11.2 bn | 7.8 | 17.1% | 11.4% | −10.8% | +17% / +44% |
| AFK.OLArendals Fossekompani Asa | 10.3 bn | — | -2.3% | -3.1% | −14.9% | +39% / +31% |
| B2I.OLB2 Impact Asa | 8.8 bn | 14.3 | 11.0% | 16.4% | +2.6% | +40% / +238% |
| AKVA.OLAkva Group Asa | 5.7 bn | 31.2 | 13.7% | 4.2% | +24.4% | +74% / +152% |
| ELMRA.OLElmera Group Asa | 5.1 bn | 32.0 | 10.5% | 1.3% | −0.9% | +32% / +98% |
| BOUV.OLBouvet Asa | 5.0 bn | 14.2 | 80.7% | 9.2% | −0.2% | −19% / −16% |
| CLOUD.OLCloudberry Clean Energy Asa | 4.0 bn | 61.9 | 1.3% | 13.1% | +34.0% | −5% / +29% |
| ABG.OLAbg Sundal Collier Holding Asa | 3.6 bn | 10.7 | 34.9% | 16.8% | +12.4% | −13% / +20% |
| ANDF.OLAndfjord Salmon Group As | 2.2 bn | — | -5.7% | -12,770.4% | +328.9% | −18% / −11% |
| BMA.OLByggma Asa | 1.6 bn | — | -25.3% | -11.9% | −2.5% | +61% / +15% |
| APR.OLAppear Asa | 1.4 bn | 10.5 | 30.1% | 16.1% | +32.3% | −53% / unavailable |
| AZT.OLArcticzymes Technologies Asa | 1.1 bn | 108.9 | 2.9% | 8.6% | +7.9% | −8% / −48% |
| CAPSL.OLCapsol Technologies Asa | 884.6 m | — | -89.4% | -114.8% | −25.0% | −33% / −66% |
| BOR.OLBorgestad Asa | 553.2 m | 36.1 | 2.1% | 1.4% | −3.0% | −7% / +41% |
| ARR.OLArribatec Group Asa | 234.6 m | 4.8 | 22.1% | 9.3% | +15.7% | −33% / −55% |
| DELIA.OLDellia Group Asa | 73.5 m | 1.5 | 22.6% | 7.7% | +140.0% | −62% / unavailable |
| ABTEC.OLAqua Bio Technology Asa | 11.1 m | 0.1 | — | 7,297.7% | −87.2% | −82% / −97% |
| AGLX.OLAgilyx Asa | — | — | -182.4% | -12,189.3% | +20.3% | −40% / −41% |
1- and 3-year price returns: for ASA.OL from daily closes (the same as the performance table), for the other companies from month-end closes.
olivLaw engine forecast
The world engine ran after the company's latest material disclosure. Probabilities are of TOUCHING a level within the horizon (not closing there) and sit next to the random walk (p_rw), the no-information benchmark.
The engine has no published run for this company yet.
Valuation scenarios (editable assumptions)
Illustrative scenarios
Scenarios are not available. input data missing
AI analysis
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
In brief
Atlantic Sapphire ASA produces Atlantic salmon in land-based Bluehouse systems with a closed water circuit, close to consumer markets in Florida. The company is closely watched because it offers an alternative to ocean-based aquaculture, in an industry where global supply of farmed salmon remains tied to pressure on marine resources. Water recycling of over 99 percent and an estimated global supply of about 2.7 million metric tons show the scale of the challenge it addresses.
SWOT
Strengths
- Proprietary Bluehouse technology provides a nearly closed water circuit with very high recycling and control of the growing environment.
- The product has clear health and safety arguments, free of antibiotics and marine contaminants.
- The company has pioneering experience in a new industry, which attracts interdisciplinary talent.
Weaknesses
- Dependence on the ability to scale land-based technology could limit volume growth.
- Investment and operating costs of land-based farms may be higher than those of ocean-based competitors.
- The execution record of new projects could influence the confidence of investors and commercial partners.
Opportunities
- Declining wild fish stocks could increase demand for controlled-farmed salmon.
- Proximity to Florida consumer markets could reduce logistics costs and transport emissions.
- Partnerships with equipment suppliers and research institutions could accelerate technology development.
Threats
- Ocean-based salmon producers, with economies of scale, could keep prices competitive.
- Regulatory changes on water permits and discharge could affect operations.
- Financing difficulties could slow expansion plans if the capital market becomes more restrictive.
Risks
- Scale-up execution riskhigh
Moving from pilot facilities to large-scale commercial production could face technical delays and cost overruns.
- Financing riskhigh
Capital needs for expansion could exceed available cash flows, requiring new equity or financing.
- Environmental regulation riskmedium
Changes to rules on water, energy or emissions could increase compliance costs.
- Price riskmedium
Price pressure from ocean aquaculture could limit the margin of land-based product.
- Operational riskmedium
Failures in recirculation or equipment systems could affect fish health and delivery continuity.
Investment thesis
What would need to be true (bull case)
- If Bluehouse technology proves replicable at competitive costs, the company could become a significant player in land-raised salmon supply.
- Pressure on wild fishing and interest in low-impact products could support long-term demand.
- Proximity to Florida consumer markets could reduce transport costs and the carbon footprint of the product.
What would break the thesis
- If capital and operating costs remain high, profit margins could stay under pressure compared with ocean producers.
- Delays in expanding capacity could limit volumes and leave the company dependent on additional financing.
- Regulatory changes or operational incidents could affect production and customer confidence.
What to watch
- Progress of production capacity and cost per kilogramQ1 2027
- Evolution of cash flow and financing needs2027
- Regulatory changes on water permits and discharge2027
Products, market & competition
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
The business
Atlantic Sapphire ASA is a Norwegian Atlantic salmon producer with its operations in Miami-Dade, Florida, using its proprietary Bluehouse technology for closed, land-based farming. The company presents its model as a solution to the environmental problems of conventional aquaculture, which farms salmon in nets or cages in the ocean. Its activity aims to offer a product free of antibiotics, parasites or micro-plastics, produced with low resource use. The 2025 annual report emphasizes product, environmental, economic and social responsibility as the group's priorities 1.
The business model depends on the company's ability to turn Bluehouse technology into stable and repeatable production. The annual report describes the company as a pioneer of a new industry, requiring interdisciplinary skills and partnerships with equipment suppliers and contractors. Land-based farming allows the elimination of airfreight-related emissions, an objective explicitly mentioned in the sustainability strategy 1.
Governance follows the listing requirements of Oslo Børs and includes a board independent of executive management, with separate audit and remuneration committees 1. The report notes that items put to the general meeting were voted on by almost all shareholders present, and participation at the 2025 AGM represented about 45.4 percent of outstanding shares 1.
Segments
Salmon production in Bluehouse systems
The main segment is the production of Atlantic salmon in closed land-based systems, where water is recycled to a proportion above 99 percent 1. The company argues this reduces demand for fresh and saltwater and avoids eutrophication risks linked to wastewater discharged into the ocean. Product quality, free of antibiotics and marine contaminants, is the main commercial argument.
Research and technology development
A second area, less visible financially, is research and development around Bluehouse technology. The report says the group invests in R&D and works with industry partners on new solutions, which could open the way to larger projects 1.
Market context
The global salmon market depends on a supply of about 2.7 million metric tons from conventional aquaculture, almost all produced in ocean net pens 1. The report shows wild fishing has limits, since 90 percent of assessed wild fish populations cannot absorb additional pressure 1. Demand for fish protein is rising, creating room for producers that can avoid the geographic limits of ocean aquaculture.
Land-based farming remains a technology niche, with investment and operating costs higher than ocean cages. Commercial success would depend on production costs and access to capital for new projects, factors not fully detailed in the analyzed source.
Trends
- Pressure on wild fish stockstailwind
Declining wild stocks could support demand for controlled-farmed salmon, if aquaculture can deliver sufficient volumes.
- Demand for low-impact production systemstailwind
Regulatory pressure and consumer preference for products with smaller carbon footprints could favour closed systems.
- Costs of land-based productionheadwind
Capital investment and energy costs of land-based farms could limit rapid expansion if yields do not improve.
- Interest in alternative proteinsmixed
The shift toward more sustainable protein sources could bring new customers, but also competition from other food segments.
Competitive position
Competition includes salmon producers in ocean aquaculture, which dominate global supply, and other land-based operators trying to replicate the Bluehouse model. The company's competitive edge rests on proprietary technology and operating experience, which must be validated through volume and costs.
Competitive pressure varies across regional markets, and the final price depends on logistics, energy costs and each producer's ability to supply consistently. For a company in a scaling phase, the gap between cost and volume is decisive.
- Mowi ASA
The largest salmon producer in ocean aquaculture, with a major share of global supply.
- SalMar ASA
Norwegian salmon producer with ocean farms and an integrated supply chain.
- Cermaq Group
Aquaculture operator with ocean farming, active in several international markets.
- Land-based aquaculture operators
Companies developing recirculating systems for salmon, in direct competition with Bluehouse technology.
News & filings
In the press
No news in our archive over the last 180 days.
Annual reports (ESEF)
- Annual report 202521 Oct 2026
- Annual report 202408 May 2025
Sources
- [1] Annual report, fiscal year ended 2025-12-31 (ESEF) · SEC / Atlantic Sapphire ASA · 31 Dec 2025
Figures computed by olivLaw from ESEF annual reports and closing prices; the qualitative analysis is AI-generated from cited sources. Not investment advice.