FTS (FTS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 0.7.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company exhibits a high-quality earnings profile characterized by robust profitability metrics, evidenced by a gross margin of 72.3% and a net margin of 14.8%. However, the DuPont decomposition reveals that this return on equity of 7.0% is driven primarily by financial leverage (equity multiplier of 2.89x) rather than operational efficiency or asset turnover, which remains low at 0.16x. Despite operating with a modest ROIC spread relative to its cost of capital and generating revenue growth of only 5.8%, the firm demonstrates strong fundamental integrity through a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.73, suggesting low earnings manipulation risk even as insider selling totals $805,934 over the last ninety days.
Valuation metrics currently trade at a premium relative to historical norms and sector peers, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 22.8x implying that the market anticipates acceleration in growth or margin expansion beyond the current 5.8% revenue trajectory. This multiple suggests investors are pricing in significant upside potential from the high-margin business model, yet the disconnect between moderate asset turnover and elevated valuation multiples indicates a reliance on leverage to sustain returns rather than scalable operational efficiency. The combination of strong quality scores and aggressive insider outflows creates an environment where current prices may reflect optimistic growth assumptions that have not yet been realized by the underlying fundamentals.
The risk-reward dynamic is nuanced, balancing superior profitability indicators against modest organic growth rates and active shareholder divestment. While the low Beneish M-Score supports the credibility of reported earnings, the insider selling pressure could signal a lack of confidence in near-term catalysts necessary to justify the 22.8x multiple. Investors must weigh whether the high gross margins can sustainably drive future expansion without corresponding improvements in asset turnover or if the current leverage-dependent ROE structure poses long-term constraints on scalability.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
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 VIGI or VYMI, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FTS shares regardless of FTS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $865M of passive capital is structurally linked to FTS through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on FTS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 7 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in FTS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If FTS (FTS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Royal Bank of Canada (RY) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with FTS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 7 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
FTS Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest FTS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
FTS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does FTS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
FTS converts -37% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, negative FCF conversion — the company is consuming cash faster than it generates EBITDA, which is unsustainable long-term. The 137% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-1.5%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 31,378 | $56.35 | $1.8M |
| 2026-05-12 | 27 | $56.23 | $1,518.21 |
| 2026-05-11 | 3,138 | $56.09 | $176,010.42 |
| 2026-05-08 | 5,290 | $56.14 | $296,980.6 |
| 2026-05-07 | 224 | $56.13 | $12,573.12 |
| 2026-05-06 | 36,137 | $57.44 | $2.1M |
| 2026-05-05 | 49,144 | $56.89 | $2.8M |
| 2026-05-04 | 613 | $57.18 | $35,051.34 |
| 2026-05-01 | 10,430 | $57.21 | $596,700.3 |
| 2026-04-30 | 210 | $56.24 | $11,810.4 |
| 2026-04-29 | 913 | $56.50 | $51,584.5 |
| 2026-04-28 | 224 | $56.29 | $12,608.96 |
| 2026-04-24 | 11,588 | $56.57 | $655,533.16 |
| 2026-04-23 | 12,791 | $55.36 | $708,109.76 |
| 2026-04-22 | 37,299 | $55.83 | $2.1M |
| 2026-04-21 | 371 | $56.34 | $20,902.14 |
| 2026-04-20 | 30,860 | $56.87 | $1.8M |
| 2026-04-16 | 22,723 | $56.87 | $1.3M |
| 2026-04-15 | 1,586 | $56.92 | $90,275.12 |
| 2026-04-06 | 6,368 | $56.81 | $361,766.08 |
| 2026-04-02 | 800 | $56.27 | $45,016 |
| 2026-03-31 | 3,167 | $56.06 | $177,542.02 |
| 2026-03-30 | 9,601 | $55.66 | $534,391.66 |
| 2026-03-26 | 1,649 | $55.35 | $91,272.15 |
| 2026-03-25 | 200 | $55.12 | $11,024 |
| 2026-03-20 | 9,112 | $56.19 | $512,003.28 |
| 2026-03-18 | 28,367 | $58.26 | $1.7M |
| 2026-03-16 | 5,730 | $58.18 | $333,371.4 |
| 2026-03-13 | 16,117 | $58.07 | $935,914.19 |
| 2026-03-12 | 300 | $57.36 | $17,208 |
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 FTS 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.