LTC (LTC)

$1.8B
Market Cap
14.8
P/E Ratio
0.59
Beta
6.12%
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 6/9Altman Z 1.8 Gray ZoneBeneish M -2.31 CleanROIC−WACC -0.2%

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Financial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 1.8.

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

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The capital allocation efficiency presents a notable constraint, as the return on invested capital of 7.2% falls short of the weighted average cost of capital at 7.4%, resulting in a negative spread that suggests value erosion over time despite strong profitability metrics. This dynamic is underpinned by an ROE of 10.2% driven almost exclusively by exceptional net margins of 44.9% and high gross margins of 75.3%, rather than operational leverage or asset efficiency, evidenced by a low turnover ratio of 0.13x. While the Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 indicates solid fundamental stability and the negative Beneish M-Score of -2.31 points to minimal earnings manipulation risk, an Altman Z-Score of 1.8 signals elevated distress territory that warrants caution regarding long-term solvency.

Valuation currently trades at a P/E multiple of 14.8x, which appears compressed relative to the company's robust revenue growth trajectory of 25.3% YoY and its superior gross margin profile compared to typical peers in high-margin sectors. The market pricing may reflect skepticism regarding the sustainability of such elevated margins or concerns embedded within the distress signals from the Altman metric, potentially creating a divergence between intrinsic value based on cash flow generation and current equity valuation. This setup implies that while earnings power is strong, the cost of capital exceeding returns could cap long-term multiple expansion unless asset turnover improves significantly to boost overall efficiency.

Insider activity over the last 90 days shows $610,400 in net buying, suggesting management confidence despite the mixed fundamental signals regarding capital efficiency and distress risk. The combination of a negative ROIC-WACC spread and a Z-Score below 2.5 creates a high-risk profile where downside protection is thin, even as insider accumulation attempts to offset broader market concerns about asset utilization. Investors must weigh whether the current valuation adequately compensates for the capital destruction indicated by the negative economic profit margin versus the potential catalyst of improved operational leverage or strategic restructuring.

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

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

6/9
Piotroski F-Score
Average — mixed operational signals
1.8
Altman Z-Score
Grey Zone — between 1.8 and 3.0 thresholds. Thresholds: >3 safe, 1.8–3 grey, <1.8 distress.
-2.31
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

75.3%
Gross Margin
44.9%
Net Margin
7.2%
ROIC
7.4%
WACC
ROIC − WACC Spread: -0.2%— Negative spread.
+25.3%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+29.6%
Earnings Growth (YoY)

DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition

Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.

44.9%
Net Profit Margin
NI ÷ Revenue
×
0.13x
Asset Turnover
Revenue ÷ Assets
×
1.77x
Equity Multiplier
Assets ÷ Equity
=
10.2%
Return on Equity
✅ ROE driven primarily by strong profit margins — a sign of pricing power.

Balance Sheet Health

0.77x
Debt / Equity
2.67x
Current Ratio
4.5x
Interest Coverage
2.9x
Net Debt / EBITDA
197.2M
EBITDA

Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)

Net Insider Flow
+$610,400
Net Buying
2
Buy Transactions
0
Sale Transactions
2026-03-09SIMPSON WENDY LGrant$3M
2026-03-09CHIKHALE CAROLINE LGrant$408,148
2026-03-09SHELLEY-KESSLER PAMELA JGrant$1M
2026-03-09MALIN CLINT BSold 1/8 qtrsGrant$1M
2026-03-09SATTERWHITE JOHN GIBSONGrant$306,092

Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✓ Beat
Est: $0.46
Act: $0.46
+2.0%
Q3
✗ Miss
Est: $1.29
Act: $0.46
-64.1%
Q2
✓ Beat
Est: $0.47
Act: $0.48
+2.4%
Q1
✗ Miss
Est: $0.51
Act: $0.47
-8.2%

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

22.9
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
1.68
Price/Book
419655
Avg Volume
$40.80
52W High
$31.70
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$96M
Tracked Passive Exposure
6
ETFs Holding LTC
0.09%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$101B
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like VFMV or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LTC shares regardless of LTC's individual fundamentals. We estimate $96M of passive capital is structurally linked to LTC through 6 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on LTC's daily trading dynamics.

Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 6 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.

ETF Contagion Visualizer

Simulate a price drop in LTC to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

LTC Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
LTCEpicenterVNQETFSPSMETFSPTMETFVRTPXUnknownWELLLow RiskPLDMed RiskEQIXMed RiskAMTHigh Risk
LTC Price Drop (%)0

If LTC (LTC) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Vanguard Real Estate II Index Fund Institutional Plus Shares (VRTPX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with LTC. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 6 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

LTC Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
LTC

Float lock-up computed from 6 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.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-05-061,321$38.20$50,462.2
2026-04-2723$38.24$879.52
2026-03-23188$36.54$6,869.52
2026-03-1821$38.77$814.17
2026-03-171,652$38.99$64,411.48
2026-02-275,016$40.36$202,445.76
2026-02-26825$39.60$32,670
2026-02-11876$38.02$33,305.52
2026-02-091,435$37.39$53,654.65
2026-02-0533$36.68$1,210.44
2026-02-042,964$36.30$107,593.2
2026-02-035,768$36.14$208,455.52
2026-01-303,975$36.18$143,815.5
2026-01-21186$37.49$6,973.14
2026-01-162,096$36.36$76,210.56
2026-01-0692$35.00$3,220
2025-12-26346$34.25$11,850.5
2025-12-161,024$34.98$35,819.52
2025-11-20929$35.82$33,276.78
2025-11-057,549$35.58$268,593.42
2025-10-241$35.20$35.2
2025-10-22472$35.07$16,553.04
2025-10-162,026$34.67$70,241.42
2025-10-152,026$34.21$69,309.46
2025-10-14128$33.98$4,349.44

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 LTC 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.