JBTM (JBTM)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicBelow-average fundamentals indicated by Piotroski score of 3/9. Beneish M-Score of -1.42 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics present a stark dichotomy between explosive top-line expansion and deteriorating profitability quality. While revenue growth of 121.3% YoY suggests aggressive scaling, the company's negative net margin of -1.3% indicates that this growth is currently eroding bottom line returns rather than enhancing them. This inefficiency is underscored by a low Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) of just 0.6%, signaling that capital deployment is failing to generate sufficient economic value relative to the cost of equity. Compounding these concerns, a Piotroski F-Score of 3/9 points toward significant financial weakness and declining fundamentals, while the DuPont decomposition likely reveals that margin compression or asset turnover issues are driving down overall Return on Equity despite high leverage or specific operational headwinds.
Valuation metrics further highlight the tension between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates. The stock trades at a premium P/E ratio of 42.0x, which implies the market is anticipating sustained high growth that has not yet translated into net earnings power. This multiple stands in contrast to a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis suggesting a fair value of $137, creating ambiguity regarding whether current prices reflect realistic future cash flows or speculative optimism about margin recovery. The divergence between the high revenue trajectory and the negative earnings base suggests that the market is pricing in a turnaround narrative where gross margins of 35.1% eventually convert into profitability, yet such an assumption carries substantial execution risk given the weak historical scorecard.
Risk-adjusted analysis reveals further cautionary signals through alternative scoring models and implied volatility profiles. A Beneish M-Score of -1.42 indicates low probability of earnings manipulation, which contrasts sharply with the poor Piotroski F-Score; this divergence suggests that while financial statements may be clean, operational fundamentals are genuinely weak rather than artificially inflated. The combination of a negative ROIC and an expanding revenue base without corresponding profit generation creates a high-risk environment where standard valuation multiples become unreliable indicators of future performance. Investors must weigh the potential for margin expansion against the immediate reality of capital destruction as measured by the negligible return on invested assets.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $173 | $120 | $88 |
| 3% | $207 | $137 | $98 |
| 4% | $259 | $160 | $110 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $137 (+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 SLYG or SPSM, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell JBTM shares regardless of JBTM's individual fundamentals. We estimate $399M of passive capital is structurally linked to JBTM through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on JBTM'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 JBTM to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If JBTM (JBTM) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with JBTM. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 9 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
JBTM Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest JBTM Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
JBTM Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does JBTM convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
JBTM converts 75% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-06 | 1 | $131.29 | $131.29 |
| 2026-05-05 | 4 | $116.44 | $465.76 |
| 2026-05-01 | 336 | $118.10 | $39,681.6 |
| 2026-04-28 | 4 | $131.96 | $527.84 |
| 2026-04-27 | 239 | $130.17 | $31,110.63 |
| 2026-04-23 | 18 | $131.36 | $2,364.48 |
| 2026-04-20 | 171,079 | $132.23 | $22.6M |
| 2026-04-08 | 54 | $125.39 | $6,771.06 |
| 2026-03-25 | 107 | $126.67 | $13,553.69 |
| 2026-03-23 | 141 | $127.00 | $17,907 |
| 2026-03-19 | 11 | $130.13 | $1,431.43 |
| 2026-03-18 | 113 | $134.51 | $15,199.63 |
| 2026-03-17 | 83 | $129.09 | $10,714.47 |
| 2026-03-16 | 2,241 | $129.64 | $290,523.24 |
| 2026-03-12 | 4,114 | $142.03 | $584,311.42 |
| 2026-03-11 | 3,922 | $141.01 | $553,041.22 |
| 2026-03-06 | 27,459 | $152.75 | $4.2M |
| 2026-03-03 | 6,462 | $154.39 | $997,668.18 |
| 2026-02-25 | 2,576 | $163.86 | $422,103.36 |
| 2026-02-24 | 9,464 | $163.40 | $1.5M |
| 2026-02-20 | 3,641 | $162.58 | $591,953.78 |
| 2026-02-19 | 205 | $163.05 | $33,425.25 |
| 2026-02-17 | 658 | $163.74 | $107,740.92 |
| 2026-02-13 | 534 | $163.36 | $87,234.24 |
| 2026-02-12 | 2,686 | $165.36 | $444,156.96 |
| 2026-02-11 | 692 | $166.00 | $114,872 |
| 2026-02-05 | 6,836 | $165.43 | $1.1M |
| 2026-01-28 | 1,711 | $155.09 | $265,358.99 |
| 2026-01-27 | 79 | $155.55 | $12,288.45 |
| 2026-01-26 | 3 | $154.23 | $462.69 |
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 JBTM 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.