LMAT (LMAT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 8.7 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe underlying economics demonstrate a robust capital efficiency profile, characterized by an ROIC-WACC spread of +2.2%, indicating value creation that exceeds the cost of capital despite moderate leverage within the DuPont decomposition. Fundamental strength is further corroborated by high-quality earnings metrics: a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 signals strong financial health and balance sheet resilience, while an Altman Z-Score of 8.7 places the entity well above typical bankruptcy thresholds. Earnings quality appears particularly secure given a Beneish M-Score of -2.61, which suggests earnings are unlikely to be manipulated, supported by expansive gross margins at 71.5% and net margins near 23%. These factors collectively point to a business model with durable pricing power and disciplined cost management driving revenue growth of 13.5% year-over-year.
Valuation dynamics present a notable divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow analysis, which implies a fair value of $127 per share. The stock currently trades at a P/E multiple of 42.3x; without specific historical or sector comparative data provided in the input, this premium valuation suggests the market is pricing in aggressive future growth expectations that may exceed the implied growth rate embedded in the DCF model. This discrepancy creates an environment where realized returns could depend heavily on whether actual earnings expansion matches the high multiples already factored into current share prices.
While specific risk factor deltas and insider activity data were not included in the provided dataset, the combination of a solid Piotroski score and low Beneish M-Score mitigates typical concerns regarding financial distress or accounting irregularities. The primary exposure remains valuation sensitivity; if revenue growth decelerates from its 13.5% trajectory or margins compress below current levels, the high P/E multiple could face significant downward pressure as the market re-ratios expectations against fundamental performance.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6.8% | 8.8% | 10.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $163 | $110 | $82 |
| 3% | $203 | $127 | $91 |
| 4% | $272 | $151 | $102 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=8.8%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $127 (+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 XHE or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LMAT shares regardless of LMAT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $59M of passive capital is structurally linked to LMAT through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on LMAT'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 LMAT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LMAT (LMAT) 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 LMAT. 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.
LMAT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest LMAT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LMAT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does LMAT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
LMAT converts 82% 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 2.2% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 1,751 | $98.17 | $171,895.67 |
| 2026-05-01 | 479 | $109.75 | $52,570.25 |
| 2026-04-22 | 423 | $111.90 | $47,333.7 |
| 2026-04-21 | 404 | $115.00 | $46,460 |
| 2026-04-15 | 1,229 | $117.39 | $144,272.31 |
| 2026-04-07 | 316 | $109.16 | $34,494.56 |
| 2026-04-06 | 96 | $108.49 | $10,415.04 |
| 2026-04-02 | 25 | $108.75 | $2,718.75 |
| 2026-04-01 | 1,329 | $109.17 | $145,086.93 |
| 2026-03-31 | 3 | $106.87 | $320.61 |
| 2026-03-27 | 2 | $110.33 | $220.66 |
| 2026-03-25 | 4,707 | $109.99 | $517,722.93 |
| 2026-03-24 | 10 | $107.86 | $1,078.6 |
| 2026-03-23 | 785 | $106.31 | $83,453.35 |
| 2026-03-20 | 8,198 | $109.00 | $893,582 |
| 2026-03-18 | 25 | $112.23 | $2,805.75 |
| 2026-03-17 | 7,475 | $110.75 | $827,856.25 |
| 2026-03-16 | 600 | $108.06 | $64,836 |
| 2026-03-10 | 2,916 | $110.07 | $320,964.12 |
| 2026-03-05 | 2,000 | $106.41 | $212,820 |
| 2026-03-04 | 2,000 | $107.85 | $215,700 |
| 2026-03-02 | 110 | $108.18 | $11,899.8 |
| 2026-02-27 | 588 | $113.69 | $66,849.72 |
| 2026-02-25 | 4,489 | $90.75 | $407,376.75 |
| 2026-02-24 | 5,950 | $91.38 | $543,711 |
| 2026-02-23 | 859 | $92.94 | $79,835.46 |
| 2026-02-20 | 3,101 | $91.86 | $284,857.86 |
| 2026-02-19 | 15 | $90.61 | $1,359.15 |
| 2026-02-18 | 8,060 | $89.25 | $719,355 |
| 2026-02-17 | 18,031 | $87.66 | $1.6M |
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 LMAT 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.