LYFT (LYFT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z -0.1.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of LYFT reveal a stark divergence between profitability metrics and capital efficiency. While the company reports robust margin expansion with net margins at 45.0% and gross margins holding steady at 41.5%, this top-line performance is not translating into value creation for shareholders, as evidenced by an ROIC-WACC spread of -14.9%. This negative spread indicates that capital allocation is destroying value relative to the cost of equity, a conclusion reinforced by an Altman Z-Score of -0.1 which signals distress territory despite a moderate Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 suggesting some operational stability remains intact.
Valuation metrics present a complex picture where current multiples appear compressed yet potentially misaligned with intrinsic value calculations. The stock trades at a P/E ratio of 1.9x, significantly below typical historical averages and sector benchmarks for profitable entities, implying the market is pricing in severe structural deterioration or permanent impairment. However, this depressed multiple contrasts sharply with a DCF-derived fair value estimate of $58, suggesting that if future cash flow assumptions materialize as expected by long-term models, the current price may represent substantial downside potential relative to intrinsic worth rather than immediate safety.
The risk-reward profile is defined by high uncertainty regarding capital efficiency versus valuation compression. The negative Altman score and wide ROIC-WACC gap suggest significant operational headwinds or balance sheet fragility that standard profitability ratios like net margin fail to capture, creating a fundamental delta between earnings quality and economic reality. Conversely, the extreme discount in the P/E multiple offers a theoretical safety margin if turnaround strategies succeed, but the lack of positive return on invested capital means any recovery must first overcome the substantial hurdle of generating returns above the 14.4% cost of capital before accretive growth can occur.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 12.4% | 14.4% | 16.4% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $66 | $54 | $46 |
| 3% | $72 | $58 | $48 |
| 4% | $79 | $62 | $51 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=14.4%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $58 (+0.0%). 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
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XTN or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LYFT shares regardless of LYFT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $217M of passive capital is structurally linked to LYFT through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on LYFT's daily trading dynamics.
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 LYFT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LYFT (LYFT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies RXO INC (RXO) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with LYFT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 10 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LYFT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest LYFT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 12 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LYFT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does LYFT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
LYFT converts 1086% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-14.9%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 507 | $13.88 | $7,037.16 |
| 2026-05-12 | 9 | $13.87 | $124.83 |
| 2026-05-11 | 33,475 | $14.35 | $480,366.25 |
| 2026-05-08 | 177,842 | $14.16 | $2.5M |
| 2026-05-07 | 34,442 | $14.23 | $490,109.66 |
| 2026-05-06 | 35 | $14.09 | $493.15 |
| 2026-05-01 | 269,087 | $14.15 | $3.8M |
| 2026-04-30 | 103,001 | $14.34 | $1.5M |
| 2026-04-28 | 127 | $14.49 | $1,840.23 |
| 2026-04-27 | 137 | $14.24 | $1,950.88 |
| 2026-04-22 | 1,024,982 | $14.75 | $15.1M |
| 2026-04-21 | 100,085 | $14.42 | $1.4M |
| 2026-04-20 | 51,918 | $14.95 | $776,174.1 |
| 2026-04-17 | 370 | $14.72 | $5,446.4 |
| 2026-04-08 | 69,308 | $13.77 | $954,371.16 |
| 2026-04-07 | 19,898 | $13.70 | $272,602.6 |
| 2026-03-27 | 228 | $13.00 | $2,964 |
| 2026-03-24 | 1,148 | $13.34 | $15,314.32 |
| 2026-03-23 | 293,941 | $13.47 | $4.0M |
| 2026-03-20 | 294,285 | $13.38 | $3.9M |
| 2026-03-02 | 900 | $13.84 | $12,456 |
| 2026-02-25 | 4 | $13.53 | $54.12 |
| 2026-02-12 | 398,642 | $13.99 | $5.6M |
| 2026-02-05 | 44,362 | $16.16 | $716,889.92 |
| 2026-02-04 | 83,542 | $16.76 | $1.4M |
| 2026-01-23 | 27,408 | $18.20 | $498,825.6 |
| 2026-01-20 | 7,964 | $18.33 | $145,980.12 |
| 2025-12-31 | 8,563 | $19.31 | $165,351.53 |
| 2025-12-22 | 18,256 | $19.42 | $354,531.52 |
| 2025-12-17 | 900 | $19.19 | $17,271 |
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 LYFT 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.