FIVE (FIVE)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 4.8 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics reveal a company generating robust top-line expansion at 22.9% year-over-year, supported by healthy gross margins of 36.0%, yet the capital allocation efficiency remains constrained. The return on invested capital sits at 9.1%, falling short of the estimated cost of capital at 10.7%, resulting in a negative spread that suggests value destruction rather than accretion despite strong revenue momentum. This dynamic is further illuminated by the DuPont decomposition, where high leverage or low asset turnover likely suppresses overall returns given the net margin of only 7.5%. However, financial stability metrics present a mixed picture; while the Altman Z-Score of 4.8 indicates a safe distance from bankruptcy and the Beneish M-Score of -2.63 points to high earnings credibility, the exceptional Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 suggests strong balance sheet strength that contrasts sharply with the negative ROIC-WACC spread.
Valuation multiples reflect significant market optimism relative to historical norms and sector peers, as evidenced by a current price-to-earnings ratio of 34.4x. This premium multiple appears disconnected from the underlying capital efficiency metrics, particularly given the DCF fair value estimate of $219 implies a growth trajectory that may not be fully supported by the current -1.6% spread between returns and costs. The market is pricing in substantial future improvements to operating leverage or margin expansion, assuming that the 7.5% net margins can scale alongside revenue without eroding capital efficiency.
The risk profile presents an interesting divergence where fundamental strength scores suggest resilience against distress, yet the negative economic value added creates a structural headwind for long-term shareholder returns unless operational mechanics improve. The high Piotroski score mitigates downside risk regarding financial deterioration, but investors must weigh this stability against the valuation premium and the current inability to generate returns exceeding the cost of capital.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.7% | 10.7% | 12.7% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $268 | $197 | $152 |
| 3% | $310 | $219 | $166 |
| 4% | $371 | $249 | $183 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.7%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $219 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
Balance Sheet Health
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 XRT or MDYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FIVE shares regardless of FIVE's individual fundamentals. We estimate $767M of passive capital is structurally linked to FIVE through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on FIVE'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 FIVE to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If FIVE (FIVE) 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 FIVE. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 14 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
FIVE Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest FIVE Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 14 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
FIVE Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does FIVE convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
FIVE converts 63% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-1.6%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-21 | 113 | $247.71 | $27,991.23 |
| 2026-04-20 | 323 | $236.26 | $76,311.98 |
| 2026-04-17 | 1 | $225.06 | $225.06 |
| 2026-04-13 | 3,010 | $217.37 | $654,283.7 |
| 2026-04-10 | 25,264 | $225.19 | $5.7M |
| 2026-04-08 | 26 | $226.53 | $5,889.78 |
| 2026-03-23 | 2,042 | $227.42 | $464,391.64 |
| 2026-03-13 | 22,798 | $217.03 | $4.9M |
| 2026-03-06 | 17 | $221.65 | $3,768.05 |
| 2026-03-02 | 4 | $223.53 | $894.12 |
| 2026-02-23 | 556 | $220.09 | $122,370.04 |
| 2026-02-04 | 385 | $196.73 | $75,741.05 |
| 2026-02-02 | 619 | $191.64 | $118,625.16 |
| 2026-01-30 | 200 | $188.39 | $37,678 |
| 2026-01-29 | 43 | $185.42 | $7,973.06 |
| 2026-01-28 | 10 | $187.24 | $1,872.4 |
| 2026-01-23 | 733 | $191.33 | $140,244.89 |
| 2026-01-20 | 100 | $196.69 | $19,669 |
| 2026-01-12 | 2 | $195.57 | $391.14 |
| 2026-01-05 | 14 | $193.45 | $2,708.3 |
| 2025-12-23 | 1 | $186.54 | $186.54 |
| 2025-12-22 | 380 | $182.07 | $69,186.6 |
| 2025-12-19 | 9 | $182.04 | $1,638.36 |
| 2025-12-11 | 259 | $177.16 | $45,884.44 |
| 2025-12-05 | 126 | $168.42 | $21,220.92 |
| 2025-12-04 | 822 | $163.15 | $134,109.3 |
| 2025-12-01 | 100 | $164.89 | $16,489 |
| 2025-11-21 | 37 | $149.19 | $5,520.03 |
| 2025-11-20 | 1,212 | $148.35 | $179,800.2 |
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 FIVE 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.