NYT (NYT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 11.3 (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 entity demonstrate robust capital efficiency, evidenced by a return on invested capital significantly exceeding its weighted average cost of capital. This 3.7% spread indicates value creation that outpaces financing costs, underpinned by an exceptionally strong Piotroski F-Score of 8 and an Altman Z-Score of 11.3, which collectively signal high financial health with minimal distress risk. The return on equity is primarily driven by superior operational leverage rather than balance sheet magnification; a net margin of 12.2% combined with a gross margin near 51% suggests pricing power and cost discipline are the core engines of profitability. Furthermore, the Beneish M-Score of -2.73 points to low likelihoods of earnings manipulation, reinforcing the integrity of these high-margin figures amidst double-digit revenue growth.
Valuation metrics present a divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow analysis. The stock trades at approximately 40 times trailing earnings, a premium multiple that implies significant future growth expectations are already embedded in share prices. However, the DCF model suggests a fair value of $87 per share; if this target is materially below current market levels, it indicates the asset may be overvalued relative to its projected cash flows and risk profile. Conversely, if the implied growth rate required to justify the 39.9x multiple exceeds historical averages or sector norms, the premium could reflect a justified bet on sustained expansion rather than speculative excess.
The convergence of high-quality fundamentals with elevated valuation multiples creates a scenario where downside protection is theoretically strong due to the wide ROIC-WACC spread and low distress scores, yet upside potential may be constrained if growth decelerates from current 9.2% trajectories. Investors must weigh whether the market has fully priced in the durability of these margins or if the high multiple leaves little room for error should revenue momentum slow. The data suggests a company with exceptional operational characteristics trading at a price that demands flawless execution to validate its premium status over time.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 9.6% | 11.6% | 13.6% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $103 | $80 | $65 |
| 3% | $116 | $87 | $70 |
| 4% | $134 | $97 | $75 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=11.6%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $87 (+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 VOX or MDYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell NYT shares regardless of NYT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $798M of passive capital is structurally linked to NYT through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on NYT'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 NYT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If NYT (NYT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Facebook Inc. Class A (META) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with NYT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 15 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
NYT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest NYT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 15 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
NYT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does NYT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
NYT converts 101% 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 3.7% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 15,698 | $77.98 | $1.2M |
| 2026-04-22 | 616 | $81.62 | $50,277.92 |
| 2026-04-20 | 309 | $79.48 | $24,559.32 |
| 2026-03-31 | 3 | $83.25 | $249.75 |
| 2026-03-24 | 94 | $82.69 | $7,772.86 |
| 2026-03-23 | 14,637 | $80.97 | $1.2M |
| 2026-03-20 | 1,221 | $81.28 | $99,242.88 |
| 2026-03-19 | 249 | $80.40 | $20,019.6 |
| 2026-02-17 | 10,863 | $72.94 | $792,347.22 |
| 2026-02-10 | 122 | $68.66 | $8,376.52 |
| 2026-02-02 | 416 | $73.31 | $30,496.96 |
| 2026-01-23 | 11 | $71.26 | $783.86 |
| 2026-01-20 | 443 | $71.49 | $31,670.07 |
| 2026-01-06 | 1,298 | $70.11 | $91,002.78 |
| 2025-12-29 | 137 | $70.16 | $9,611.92 |
| 2025-12-23 | 311 | $70.52 | $21,931.72 |
| 2025-12-22 | 2,811 | $70.79 | $198,990.69 |
| 2025-12-17 | 892 | $67.30 | $60,031.6 |
| 2025-12-12 | 267 | $67.75 | $18,089.25 |
| 2025-12-05 | 437 | $64.04 | $27,985.48 |
| 2025-12-04 | 5 | $64.20 | $321 |
| 2025-11-25 | 1 | $63.85 | $63.85 |
| 2025-11-14 | 95 | $64.49 | $6,126.55 |
| 2025-11-10 | 105,232 | $61.35 | $6.5M |
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 NYT 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.