FCFS (FCFS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 3.5 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company demonstrates robust fundamental quality, characterized by a 9.2% ROIC that suggests efficient capital deployment relative to cost of equity, supported by a strong Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and a negative Beneish M-Score of -2.36 indicating low earnings manipulation risk. The DuPont decomposition reveals an ROE of 14.5% driven primarily by operational leverage rather than financial engineering; specifically, the equity multiplier of 2.33x indicates moderate use of debt to amplify returns on a solid foundation of high gross margins (50.3%) and healthy net margins (9.0%). While revenue growth remains steady at 8.0%, the combination of superior profitability metrics and conservative accounting scores points to a financially sound entity with sustainable earnings power, though the current valuation must be weighed against these operational strengths.
Valuation analysis presents a divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value models; trading at a P/E multiple of 25.6x suggests the market is anticipating growth rates that exceed the company's historical 8% revenue expansion or its implied DCF fair value of $275 per share. The elevated multiple implies significant expectations for future margin expansion or acceleration in asset turnover, as current fundamentals do not immediately justify such a premium over sector peers if those peers trade at more reasonable valuations relative to their growth profiles. Investors must assess whether the market is pricing in a repricing event that could compress multiples or if the DCF model's assumptions regarding long-term cash flow generation are overly conservative given the company's high gross margin profile.
Risk assessment highlights a notable divergence between fundamental quality and recent insider behavior, with $4.78 million of net selling recorded over the last 90 days by insiders. This activity introduces a potential delta in sentiment, as significant internal distribution often precedes or accompanies periods where management anticipates headwinds not yet reflected in public data or believes current shares are undervalued relative to future prospects. While the Fama-French alpha and specific risk factor deltas were not provided to quantify systematic exposure, the insider flow serves as a critical contrarian signal that warrants scrutiny against the otherwise strong Piotroski score and clean Beneish metrics before drawing conclusions on downside protection or upside catalysts.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.2% | 9.2% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $285 | $212 | $141 |
| 3% | $379 | $262 | $163 |
| 4% | $567 | $344 | $195 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.2%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $262 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like MDYG or VTWO, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FCFS shares regardless of FCFS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $579M of passive capital is structurally linked to FCFS through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on FCFS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in FCFS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If FCFS (FCFS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies FLEX LTD (FLEX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with FCFS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 12 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
FCFS Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest FCFS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 12 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
FCFS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does FCFS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
FCFS converts 53% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 2.0% confirms that reinvested capital creates shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 919 | $224.25 | $206,085.75 |
| 2026-05-11 | 16 | $227.68 | $3,642.88 |
| 2026-05-08 | 156 | $224.89 | $35,082.84 |
| 2026-05-07 | 2 | $226.38 | $452.76 |
| 2026-05-06 | 3,546 | $224.72 | $796,857.12 |
| 2026-04-24 | 45 | $212.33 | $9,554.85 |
| 2026-04-08 | 27 | $194.88 | $5,261.76 |
| 2026-04-01 | 10 | $188.00 | $1,880 |
| 2026-03-30 | 1,214 | $190.88 | $231,728.32 |
| 2026-03-23 | 14 | $192.08 | $2,689.12 |
| 2026-03-10 | 126 | $196.21 | $24,722.46 |
| 2026-02-27 | 167 | $189.27 | $31,608.09 |
| 2026-02-18 | 100 | $183.90 | $18,390 |
| 2026-02-05 | 8 | $171.92 | $1,375.36 |
| 2026-01-22 | 12 | $171.84 | $2,062.08 |
| 2026-01-12 | 8 | $164.91 | $1,319.28 |
| 2026-01-08 | 58 | $165.66 | $9,608.28 |
| 2025-12-23 | 72 | $162.27 | $11,683.44 |
| 2025-12-19 | 124 | $162.18 | $20,110.32 |
| 2025-12-18 | 11 | $160.77 | $1,768.47 |
| 2025-12-04 | 559 | $162.28 | $90,714.52 |
| 2025-11-26 | 3 | $154.63 | $463.89 |
| 2025-11-24 | 11 | $150.46 | $1,655.06 |
| 2025-11-19 | 5 | $155.57 | $777.85 |
| 2025-10-20 | 100 | $157.44 | $15,744 |
| 2025-10-14 | 695 | $153.64 | $106,779.8 |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Compare FCFS to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.