LFST (LFST)

$2.9B
Market Cap
376.5
P/E Ratio
1.13
Beta
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 8/9Beneish M -2.93 Clean

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Strong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 8/9).

Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The capital allocation efficiency of LFST is critically constrained by a return on invested capital (ROIC) of 1.0%, which generates negligible value creation against any reasonable cost of equity, indicating that the business model currently operates well below its hurdle rate despite robust revenue expansion. This operational weakness masks within an impressive Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 and a negative Beneish M-Score of -2.93, suggesting strong financial statement quality and low probability of manipulation even as profitability metrics remain fragile; the DuPont decomposition reveals that while gross margins hold steady at 32.4%, net margins have been compressed to merely 0.7%, forcing reliance on leverage or asset turnover rather than operational leverage to drive returns.

Valuation multiples reflect extreme market dispersion, with a current price-to-earnings ratio of 376.5x towering over historical norms and sector averages, implying the market is pricing in sustained hyper-growth that contradicts the thin bottom-line economics currently observed. A discounted cash flow analysis suggests an intrinsic fair value of $10, highlighting a profound disconnect between the stock's trading price and its fundamental cash generation capabilities; this disparity indicates that current valuations rely entirely on forward-looking growth assumptions rather than present earnings power or asset backing.

The divergence between high-quality balance sheet signals and deteriorating profitability creates a complex risk profile where the strong Piotroski score may offer some defensive cushion against downside volatility, yet the unsustainable P/E multiple leaves little margin for error if revenue growth slows or net margins compress further. Investors must weigh whether the 13.9% year-over-year revenue growth can eventually translate into higher net margins to justify the current premium, as the gap between the DCF-implied value and market price suggests significant headwinds ahead unless fundamental economics improve substantially.

Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.

DCF Sandbox

Interactive

Sensitivity Matrix

TG ↓ / WACC →8%10%12%
2%$12$9$7
3%$14$10$8
4%$18$11$8

Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs .

Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $10 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

8/9
Piotroski F-Score
Strong — high operational efficiency and profitability signals
-2.93
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

32.4%
Gross Margin
0.7%
Net Margin
1.0%
ROIC
+13.9%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+116.8%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
110.0M
Free Cash Flow

Balance Sheet Health

0.45x
Debt / Equity
1.65x
Current Ratio
2.1x
Interest Coverage
0.2x
Net Debt / EBITDA
78.8M
EBITDA

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✓ Beat
Est: $0.01
Act: $0.05
+311.6%
Q3
✗ Miss
Est: $0.03
Act: $0.03
-0.9%
Q2
✗ Miss
Est: $0.04
Act: $0.01
-63.7%
Q1
✓ Beat
Est: $0.05
Act: $0.09
+64.3%

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.

Loading drawdown chart...

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.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Fundamentals

19.7
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
1.92
Price/Book
3M
Avg Volume
$8.09
52W High
$3.74
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$44M
Tracked Passive Exposure
7
ETFs Holding LFST
0.05%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$92B
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like XHS or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LFST shares regardless of LFST's individual fundamentals. We estimate $44M of passive capital is structurally linked to LFST through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on LFST'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 LFST to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

LFST Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
LFSTEpicenterVBKETFVHTETFSPSMETFBTSGLow RiskMOHLow RiskHUMLow RiskCLOVUnknownCNCMed Risk
LFST Price Drop (%)0

If LFST (LFST) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES (BTSG) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with LFST. 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.

LFST Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
LFST

Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

LFST Capital Efficiency

How efficiently does LFST convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.

Free Cash Flow
$110M
EBITDA
$79M
FCF Conversion
140%
Reinvestment Rate
-40%
140% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)

LFST converts 140% 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.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-05-1164,122$7.70$493,739.4
2026-03-2493$6.53$607.29
2026-03-23888$6.40$5,683.2
2026-03-02461$7.24$3,337.64
2026-02-2751,898$6.96$361,210.08
2026-02-2375$7.15$536.25
2026-02-055$6.93$34.65
2026-02-0212,496$7.07$88,346.72
2026-01-308,747$7.07$61,841.29
2026-01-16168$7.44$1,249.92
2026-01-0996,410$7.38$711,505.8
2026-01-027,660$7.04$53,926.4
2025-12-22600$7.05$4,230
2025-12-15347$6.91$2,397.77
2025-12-027,354$6.41$47,139.14
2025-11-17921$6.40$5,894.4
2025-11-05572$4.98$2,848.56
2025-11-03607$4.90$2,974.3

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 LFST 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.