LAB (LAB)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of LAB reveal a distressed operational profile characterized by a negative ROIC of -16.6% and severe margin compression, with net margins contracting to -87.8%. While the gross margin sits at 49.9%, indicating some pricing power or cost control in direct production, this is entirely offset by massive operating inefficiencies that have dragged overall profitability into deep negative territory alongside a 6.2% revenue decline year-over-year. The DuPont decomposition suggests leverage cannot be compensating for these structural issues, as the return on equity is fundamentally eroded by the loss-making core business. Further corroborating this deterioration are the Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 and Beneish M-Score of -2.84; while a negative M-score typically flags low earnings manipulation risk, it coincides here with clear financial distress rather than aggressive accounting optimization, signaling that the market is grappling with genuine value destruction rather than perceived overstatement.
Valuation metrics are absent from the provided dataset due to the lack of share price or P/E data in the input; consequently, no comparison against historical averages or sector peers can be constructed based on the available information. Without a DCF model's implied growth rate or current fair value estimate derived from these missing inputs, it is impossible to determine if the market is pricing in a turnaround scenario or acknowledging terminal decline. The absence of positive earnings renders traditional multiple-based valuation frameworks inapplicable for assessing relative cheapness or expensiveness at this time.
Risk factors are elevated given the confluence of shrinking revenues and negative returns on invested capital, creating an asymmetric risk-reward profile where downside volatility is likely to outpace any potential recovery catalysts. The Piotroski score indicates a company failing half its nine criteria for financial strength, suggesting deteriorating balance sheet health or declining asset efficiency that could exacerbate liquidity pressures if the trend persists.
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
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
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in LAB to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LAB (LAB) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with LAB. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 1 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LAB Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest LAB Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 2 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
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 | 224,733 | $1.01 | $226,980.33 |
| 2026-05-07 | 64,777 | $0.97 | $62,833.69 |
| 2026-05-05 | 47,243 | $0.94 | $44,408.42 |
| 2026-05-04 | 73,904 | $0.94 | $69,469.76 |
| 2026-04-30 | 98,091 | $0.89 | $87,300.99 |
| 2026-04-24 | 61,738 | $0.89 | $54,946.82 |
| 2026-04-23 | 63,587 | $0.94 | $59,771.78 |
| 2026-04-17 | 9,856 | $0.92 | $9,067.52 |
| 2026-04-13 | 203,839 | $0.89 | $181,416.71 |
| 2026-04-10 | 396,554 | $0.91 | $360,864.14 |
| 2026-04-09 | 220,733 | $0.94 | $207,489.02 |
| 2026-04-08 | 108,537 | $0.93 | $100,939.41 |
| 2026-04-07 | 26,663 | $0.89 | $23,730.07 |
| 2026-04-02 | 112,150 | $0.92 | $103,178 |
| 2026-04-01 | 74 | $0.92 | $68.08 |
| 2026-03-18 | 56,987 | $0.98 | $55,847.26 |
| 2026-03-17 | 33,722 | $0.96 | $32,373.12 |
| 2026-03-16 | 25,908 | $0.93 | $24,094.44 |
| 2026-03-13 | 35,986 | $0.93 | $33,466.98 |
| 2026-03-11 | 6,352 | $0.99 | $6,288.48 |
| 2026-02-27 | 127,149 | $1.17 | $148,764.33 |
| 2026-02-06 | 1,000 | $1.24 | $1,240 |
| 2026-01-28 | 5,734 | $1.48 | $8,486.32 |
| 2026-01-27 | 5,836 | $1.53 | $8,929.08 |
| 2026-01-23 | 100 | $1.61 | $161 |
| 2026-01-21 | 4,350 | $1.51 | $6,568.5 |
| 2026-01-16 | 30,963 | $1.58 | $48,921.54 |
| 2026-01-14 | 10,971 | $1.63 | $17,882.73 |
| 2026-01-09 | 200 | $1.54 | $308 |
| 2026-01-05 | 7,884 | $1.27 | $10,012.68 |
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 LAB 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.