Hao Feng Group's US IPO Priced at Steep 161x EBITDA

What's happening

Hao Feng Group, a Hong Kong-based financial education company, is pursuing a roughly $21 million U.S. initial public offering that analysts say carries a valuation far out of step with its underlying business 1. According to a detailed valuation analysis, the company is seeking pricing equivalent to about 161 times enterprise value to EBITDA, a multiple that stands out even in a market that has grown tolerant of richly priced small-cap listings 1. The report ties this stretched multiple to a combination of slowing growth and elevated business risk tied to Hao Feng's core Hong Kong financial education operations, raising the question of whether the offering can find sustainable investor support once early trading enthusiasm fades 1.

The Hao Feng listing arrives amid a broader wave of IPO filings that illustrates just how varied the current new-issue market has become. In the same stretch of dealmaking, biotech firm Electra Therapeutics disclosed plans to seek a valuation of up to $977.6 million, a filing framed by Reuters as part of a wider rebound in biotech listings this year 2. CVC-backed Bamboo Insurance Services is aiming even higher, targeting a fully diluted valuation of up to $3.24 billion 3. Blackstone-backed mobile marketing firm Liftoff is pursuing a similar scale, with reported target valuations of $3.7 billion and $3.66 billion depending on the source 5. At the very top end, India's National Stock Exchange is reportedly seeking a valuation near $46 billion, a figure that would rank among the largest listings in the country's history 6. Separately, Chinese AI company Moonshot has reportedly filed confidentially for a Hong Kong IPO, with reporting pointing to a valuation near $50 billion driven by demand for its Kimi K3 model and ongoing discussions with U.S. cloud providers 4.

Where the reporting agrees

Across these accounts, there is consistent agreement that 2025 has produced an unusually active and diverse IPO pipeline, spanning tiny Hong Kong-linked issuers, mid-size private-equity-backed firms, and multibillion-dollar exchange and AI listings 12356. Every source describing a private-equity- or sponsor-backed deal — Bamboo Insurance under CVC and Liftoff under Blackstone — frames the targeted valuation as a headline figure disclosed in a regulatory filing, suggesting these numbers came directly from prospectus materials rather than secondhand estimates 35. The Electra Therapeutics and NSE items likewise present their valuation targets as filing-based disclosures, reinforcing a pattern in which outlets are largely relaying company-stated targets rather than independent valuation work 26. The Moonshot report and the Hao Feng analysis diverge from that pattern in one shared respect: both involve additional analytical framing beyond a simple filing figure, whether that is skepticism about pricing or commentary on product demand driving investor interest 14.

Where it doesn't

The clearest inconsistency sits within a single deal rather than between outlets: Liftoff's targeted valuation is given as both $3.7 billion and $3.66 billion in the same report, a discrepancy likely explained by rounding or a headline figure versus a more precise fully diluted calculation, but one that is not reconciled in the available reporting 5. More broadly, the Hao Feng coverage is the only account in this set that applies a critical valuation lens, explicitly calling out a 161x EV/EBITDA multiple as excessive 1. None of the other five items subject their subject companies to comparable scrutiny; they largely report targeted valuations at face value, whether for Electra Therapeutics, Bamboo Insurance, Liftoff, the National Stock Exchange, or Moonshot 23456. Moonshot's IPO plan is also framed with more uncertainty than the others, since it is described as a confidential filing reported secondhand rather than a confirmed, disclosed process, and its $50 billion figure is presented as a reported estimate rather than a company-confirmed target 4.

What it adds up to

Taken together, the evidence best supports a reading in which Hao Feng Group is a genuine outlier rather than part of a uniform trend toward inflated small-cap pricing. The other listings in this set, regardless of size, are tied to identifiable growth stories, sponsor backing, or scale that at least explains investor appetite, even if their ultimate valuations prove aggressive once trading begins. Hao Feng's case is different: the analysis pairs a triple-digit EBITDA multiple with explicit warnings about decelerating growth and sector-specific risk, a combination that the reporting frames as a red flag rather than an open question. The broader IPO market described across these stories is healthy and varied, but Hao Feng's pricing looks like a case study in what happens when a small issuer tries to ride that momentum without the fundamentals to support it.