Why did TotalEnergies stock underperform as debt surged and earnings weakened?
TotalEnergies SE (EPA: TTEF, NYSE: TTE) is under intense investor scrutiny as its net debt nearly doubled year on year to USD 25.9 billion, while adjusted net income for the second quarter of 2025 slipped 23 percent to around USD 3.6 billion. The French integrated energy company, long regarded as one of Europe’s most disciplined capital allocators, is struggling to defend that reputation as shareholders watch debt levels climb and share performance lag behind global peers.
The weak quarter was blamed on lower oil and gas realizations and particularly squeezed refining and chemicals margins. Although production gains and a stronger performance in the power business helped cushion the fall, they were not enough to offset sector-wide price weakness. The company’s gearing ratio, including leases, reached approximately 22.6 percent, raising alarm among equity analysts about leverage sustainability in a lower commodity price cycle.
Investor reaction was swift. Shares dropped around 4 percent following the second quarter release, highlighting waning patience with management’s insistence on maintaining capital returns despite cash flow constraints. Earlier in 2025, TotalEnergies’ free cash flow before working capital was about USD 2.5 billion, insufficient to cover dividends and its aggressive share buyback program. That mismatch has now become a central point of contention between the company and its investors.
How are investor flows, analyst downgrades, and short bets shaping sentiment?
Sentiment has tilted negative through 2025. Berenberg Bank recently downgraded TotalEnergies from “buy” to “hold,” citing balance sheet stress and a USD 64 price target that offers little upside. Hedge fund Elliott Management, known for its activist campaigns, revealed a short bet of around €670 million against TotalEnergies, underscoring how some institutional players view downside risks as underpriced.
Institutional ownership data tells a more complex story. Over the last two years, institutions bought about 30.6 million shares worth approximately USD 1.83 billion but also sold 16.2 million shares valued at nearly USD 936 million. The churn reflects caution rather than conviction. Long-only funds remain invested for the dividend yield, while hedge funds and tactical managers trade around volatility.
Adding to the pressure, Union Investment, a German asset manager, cut its stake in May after citing governance and reputational issues linked to the company’s controversial East African energy projects. That exit came alongside environmental advocacy groups pushing for stricter oversight of TotalEnergies’ operations, particularly Scope 3 emission disclosures.
The stock trades on a price-to-earnings multiple of roughly 9.3 times, below global peers like Shell, Chevron, or ExxonMobil. This valuation discount reflects both Europe’s more cautious stance toward fossil fuel firms and doubts about the company’s ability to execute its dual strategy of hydrocarbons plus energy transition.
What strategic adjustments is TotalEnergies making to preserve cash and credibility?
Under pressure, TotalEnergies has already scaled back its capital return guidance. For 2026, it plans a buyback range of USD 0.75 billion to USD 1.5 billion per quarter, compared with the earlier baseline of USD 2 billion. Management tied the new framework to Brent crude benchmarks between USD 60 and USD 70 per barrel and to refining margins, signaling a more cautious capital allocation approach.
At the same time, TotalEnergies has sought to recycle capital through divestments. A marquee transaction was expected to be the USD 860 million sale of its 10 percent stake in Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria to Chappal Energies. However, Nigerian regulators revoked approval after both parties failed to meet financial and environmental obligations. The collapse of this deal has complicated TotalEnergies’ deleveraging strategy and underscored the regulatory risks embedded in African upstream portfolios.
Despite setbacks, TotalEnergies continues to invest aggressively in renewable and low-carbon projects. A landmark win in September was the €4.5 billion contract to develop a 1.5 gigawatt offshore wind farm off Normandy, France—one of the largest renewable energy awards ever granted in the country. Management has also expanded into hydrogen ventures, including the Magallanes project in Chile and the Darwin H₂ Hub in Australia.
In parallel, the company announced the conversion of its American Depositary Receipts into fully listed New York shares to improve liquidity and broaden its U.S. investor base. The move is intended to attract North American institutions that remain more tolerant of fossil-fuel names compared with European ESG-oriented investors.
Why are investors skeptical about the company’s energy transition strategy?
The long-term pivot into renewables and hydrogen is strategically necessary but raises short-term concerns. Renewable projects are capital-intensive and generate returns over a longer horizon, often below the double-digit returns of traditional oil and gas. Investors question whether TotalEnergies can fund these ambitions while also meeting dividend commitments and lowering leverage.
Another layer of skepticism stems from transparency. Analysts note that without clearer disclosures on Scope 3 emissions, carbon intensity pathways, and the proportion of capital earmarked for low-carbon assets, TotalEnergies risks accusations of “greenwashing.” Union Investment’s withdrawal from sustainable funds illustrates that investor concerns are no longer limited to activists but now extend to mainstream institutional holders.
Critics also highlight contradictions: TotalEnergies continues to pursue production growth in upstream oil and gas without explicit caps. Without clear guardrails, the narrative of balancing hydrocarbons with renewables can appear inconsistent. That lack of clarity feeds the valuation discount.
What does the market expect from TotalEnergies’ investor day and next results?
The late-September 2025 Investor Day is widely viewed as an inflection point. Analysts expect management to provide firm targets for net debt reduction, concrete thresholds for buybacks, and more transparent disclosures on the allocation of growth capital between hydrocarbons and renewables. Failure to do so could entrench the valuation discount and extend the share price underperformance.
Buy-side sentiment remains cautious but not entirely bearish. Dividend yield support keeps long-term investors engaged, while some value investors believe downside is largely priced in. Others argue that the Elliott short bet indicates further potential weakness. The balance between these camps will hinge on management’s ability to deliver credible deleveraging signals.
How does TotalEnergies compare with peers like Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil?
Compared with Shell and BP, TotalEnergies’ renewable exposure is larger, but so are its debt metrics. Shell, for example, trades at a higher earnings multiple and has sustained more aggressive buybacks despite similar commodity pressures. BP, by contrast, has faced its own investor skepticism due to strategic missteps in balancing oil and renewables. ExxonMobil and Chevron in the U.S. continue to command higher multiples and stronger free cash flow support, largely because of lower European ESG pressures and a stronger U.S. capital market base.
The comparison matters because global investors benchmark European majors against their American counterparts. If TotalEnergies fails to articulate a superior value proposition, funds may continue rotating into ExxonMobil, Chevron, or even U.S. independents offering cleaner capital return frameworks.
What lies ahead for TotalEnergies’ balance sheet, stock price, and investor trust?
The next year will test whether TotalEnergies can repair its balance sheet while preserving investor trust. Clear commitments to debt reduction, execution on renewable projects, and credible buyback thresholds will be critical. A revival in refining margins or higher oil prices could provide near-term relief, but structural clarity is the real catalyst investors are waiting for.
Should management succeed in demonstrating disciplined deleveraging and authentic transition progress, TotalEnergies could close the valuation gap with peers and re-rate higher. However, persistent debt stress, failed asset sales, or perceived greenwashing risks could cement its discount and invite further activist pressure.
TotalEnergies is not alone in walking this tightrope—every oil major is grappling with how to fund the energy transition while preserving returns. But with leverage elevated and investors increasingly vocal, the French major’s next steps will determine whether it regains market confidence or remains stuck in limbo.
Discover more from Business-News-Today.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
