IDCC (IDCC)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 7.8 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company exhibits exceptional capital efficiency, generating a robust ROIC-WACC spread of 16.2%, which signals strong value creation potential despite recent revenue contraction of -4% year-over-year. This high return on invested capital is underpinned by an elite margin profile with net margins at 48.8% and gross margins reaching 88.8%, indicating a dominant pricing power or cost structure that decouples profitability from top-line volatility. Qualitative financial health metrics further corroborate this stability; the firm posts a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9, reflecting strong fundamental quality across nine criteria, while an Altman Z-Score of 7.8 and Beneish M-Score of -3.27 suggest low bankruptcy risk and minimal earnings manipulation concerns respectively. The DuPont decomposition implies that such high ROE is driven primarily by operational leverage through expansive margins rather than financial leverage or asset turnover.
Valuation metrics present a divergent view between current market pricing and intrinsic value models, with the stock trading at 25.2x P/E against a DCF-derived fair value of $147 per share. While the multiple appears elevated relative to typical cyclical norms given the negative revenue growth trajectory, the implied growth rate embedded in this premium is likely justified by the sustainability of its near-monopoly gross margins and superior capital returns. The market may be pricing in a reversion risk regarding top-line momentum or demanding a higher equity risk premium for data center infrastructure exposure, yet the DCF model suggests significant upside if current margin expansion persists despite shrinking revenue volumes.
No specific risk factor deltas, insider activity reports, or Fama-French alpha statistics were provided to further contextualize the risk-reward profile beyond the fundamental scores already analyzed. Investors must weigh the tension between the company's structural profitability and its declining sales trend against the valuation gap implied by the DCF model before forming a view on future equity performance.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 12.5% | 14.5% | 16.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $166 | $138 | $118 |
| 3% | $179 | $147 | $124 |
| 4% | $195 | $156 | $131 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=14.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $147 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
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 XSW or MDYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell IDCC shares regardless of IDCC's individual fundamentals. We estimate $559M of passive capital is structurally linked to IDCC through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on IDCC'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 IDCC to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If IDCC (IDCC) 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 IDCC. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 11 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
IDCC Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest IDCC Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 11 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
IDCC Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does IDCC convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
IDCC converts 81% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 16.2% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-07 | 307 | $278.00 | $85,346 |
| 2026-05-01 | 858 | $296.56 | $254,448.48 |
| 2026-04-30 | 32 | $352.68 | $11,285.76 |
| 2026-04-29 | 77 | $353.10 | $27,188.7 |
| 2026-04-28 | 80 | $362.24 | $28,979.2 |
| 2026-04-27 | 6 | $368.50 | $2,211 |
| 2026-04-24 | 21,341 | $359.45 | $7.7M |
| 2026-04-21 | 906 | $368.95 | $334,268.7 |
| 2026-04-17 | 100 | $375.16 | $37,516 |
| 2026-04-16 | 2,471 | $365.50 | $903,150.5 |
| 2026-04-15 | 100 | $352.32 | $35,232 |
| 2026-04-14 | 100 | $351.94 | $35,194 |
| 2026-04-13 | 45 | $352.27 | $15,852.15 |
| 2026-04-10 | 800 | $349.58 | $279,664 |
| 2026-04-09 | 800 | $344.96 | $275,968 |
| 2026-04-08 | 1,531 | $315.42 | $482,908.02 |
| 2026-04-06 | 11,670 | $312.93 | $3.7M |
| 2026-04-01 | 6,539 | $302.00 | $2.0M |
| 2026-03-26 | 63 | $311.05 | $19,596.15 |
| 2026-03-23 | 2,800 | $325.69 | $911,932 |
| 2026-03-20 | 34 | $352.60 | $11,988.4 |
| 2026-03-13 | 36 | $362.35 | $13,044.6 |
| 2026-03-09 | 938 | $357.06 | $334,922.28 |
| 2026-03-02 | 254 | $366.53 | $93,098.62 |
| 2026-02-27 | 3,019 | $375.29 | $1.1M |
| 2026-02-23 | 100 | $358.50 | $35,850 |
| 2026-02-17 | 15,277 | $375.01 | $5.7M |
| 2026-02-12 | 3,332 | $363.90 | $1.2M |
| 2026-02-06 | 1,044 | $345.05 | $360,232.2 |
| 2026-02-04 | 270 | $323.91 | $87,455.7 |
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 IDCC 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.