LH (LH)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 3.1 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of the firm reveal a capital allocation challenge where returns on invested capital, at 6.8%, trail the cost of equity by 2.8%, indicating value erosion from operations rather than efficient growth deployment. Despite this negative spread, earnings quality appears robust with an Altman Z-Score of 3.1 and a high-quality Beneish M-Score of -2.57, while the Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 signals strong financial momentum. The DuPont decomposition illustrates that the current ROE of 10.2% is driven primarily by leverage (Equity Multiplier at 2.13x) rather than operational efficiency or pricing power, as evidenced by a modest net margin of 6.3%. While revenue expands at a healthy 7.2% annually and gross margins hold steady near 29%, the reliance on financial leverage to boost returns suggests limited organic scalability in the core business model.
Valuation metrics present a divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value estimates, with shares trading at a forward P/E of 25.9x against a DCF-derived fair value of $126. This premium implies the market is anticipating growth rates that must significantly exceed current levels to justify the multiple relative to the company's historical cost of capital. The gap between the implied return required by the current price and the actual ROIC-WACC spread suggests investors are pricing in substantial future margin expansion or asset turnover improvements not yet reflected in the income statement.
Recent insider activity introduces a notable counterweight to these optimistic valuations, as net selling totaling $4.78 million over the last 90 days indicates management may view current levels as fully valued or potentially elevated given the weak ROIC profile. While the balance sheet strength and revenue trajectory provide some defensive characteristics, the combination of negative capital spread and insider distribution warrants a cautious assessment of whether the market is adequately compensating for the risk that future returns will continue to underperform the cost of equity.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 7.6% | 9.6% | 11.6% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $165 | $108 | $74 |
| 3% | $203 | $126 | $85 |
| 4% | $262 | $150 | $98 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=9.6%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $126 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
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 XHS or XLV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LH shares regardless of LH's individual fundamentals. We estimate $2.9B of passive capital is structurally linked to LH through 8 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.
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 LH to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LH (LH) 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 LH. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 27 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LH Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest LH Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 28 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LH Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does LH convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
LH converts 60% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-2.8%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-28 | 4 | $263.43 | $1,053.72 |
| 2026-04-15 | 2,950 | $268.87 | $793,166.5 |
| 2026-04-13 | 13 | $260.93 | $3,392.09 |
| 2026-03-25 | 13 | $266.12 | $3,459.56 |
| 2026-03-24 | 3,007 | $264.42 | $795,110.94 |
| 2026-03-17 | 1,010 | $266.85 | $269,518.5 |
| 2026-03-13 | 7,142 | $262.91 | $1.9M |
| 2026-03-10 | 241 | $273.61 | $65,940.01 |
| 2026-03-06 | 144 | $275.92 | $39,732.48 |
| 2026-03-05 | 144 | $280.85 | $40,442.4 |
| 2026-02-23 | 2,771 | $282.67 | $783,278.57 |
| 2026-02-20 | 1 | $282.48 | $282.48 |
| 2026-02-18 | 18 | $276.67 | $4,980.06 |
| 2026-02-04 | 7,571 | $272.20 | $2.1M |
| 2026-02-03 | 4,184 | $270.29 | $1.1M |
| 2026-01-12 | 4,032 | $251.81 | $1.0M |
| 2026-01-09 | 3,492 | $254.67 | $889,307.64 |
| 2025-12-01 | 15 | $268.78 | $4,031.7 |
| 2025-11-24 | 25 | $265.64 | $6,641 |
| 2025-11-18 | 344 | $261.37 | $89,911.28 |
| 2025-11-12 | 51,445 | $268.21 | $13.8M |
| 2025-10-09 | 2 | $277.51 | $555.02 |
| 2025-10-07 | 453 | $275.05 | $124,597.65 |
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 LH 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.