TDY (TDY)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 4.8 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of TDY reveal a capital allocation profile where the ROIC-WACC spread remains modest at 6.8%, suggesting limited excess returns on deployed equity despite a robust Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 indicating strong financial health. The DuPont decomposition highlights that an ROE of 8.5% is primarily driven by superior pricing power, evidenced by a net margin of 14.6% and gross margin of 42.8%, rather than operational efficiency or leverage; this is corroborated by a conservative asset turnover ratio of 0.40x and an equity multiplier of only 1.45x. While the Beneish M-Score of -2.43 effectively signals low earnings manipulation risk, the growth trajectory appears constrained with revenue expanding at just 7.9% year-over-year, creating a tension between high-quality balance sheet metrics and moderate top-line velocity.
Valuation metrics present a significant divergence from intrinsic value estimates, as the current P/E ratio of 31.2x stands substantially elevated relative to implied growth rates derived from the DCF model. The discrepancy between market pricing and a calculated fair value of $721 suggests that investors are currently assigning a premium multiple likely anticipating acceleration in revenue or margin expansion not yet reflected in historical performance. This valuation gap implies that future returns may be heavily dependent on the realization of higher-than-consensus growth assumptions, as current prices embed optimistic expectations regarding the sustainability of its high-margin business model beyond existing 7.9% growth rates.
Risk assessment is complicated by a notable divergence between fundamental strength and insider behavior; while the balance sheet exhibits resilience with a low manipulation score, nine days of net insider selling totaling $7.2 million introduces potential headwinds for sentiment. This activity could signal management's expectation that current valuations are unsustainable or indicate a lack of confidence in near-term catalysts required to justify the 31x multiple. Consequently, the risk/reward profile hinges on whether operational execution can bridge the gap between modest ROIC generation and aggressive market expectations without further dilution from insider dispositions.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.4% | 10.4% | 12.4% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $882 | $646 | $502 |
| 3% | $1028 | $721 | $546 |
| 4% | $1241 | $820 | $601 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.4%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $721 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
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 ARKX or ARKQ, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TDY shares regardless of TDY's individual fundamentals. We estimate $4.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to TDY 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 TDY to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TDY (TDY) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies ROCKET LAB (RKLB UQ) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with TDY. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 29 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
TDY Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest TDY Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 29 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TDY Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does TDY convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
TDY converts 72% 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 (-3.6%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-15 | 3 | $647.59 | $1,942.77 |
| 2026-03-26 | 498 | $625.37 | $311,434.26 |
| 2026-03-25 | 5 | $626.06 | $3,130.3 |
| 2026-03-24 | 93 | $623.80 | $58,013.4 |
| 2026-03-17 | 27 | $645.66 | $17,432.82 |
| 2026-03-16 | 6 | $638.91 | $3,833.46 |
| 2026-03-13 | 1,757 | $646.57 | $1.1M |
| 2026-03-11 | 55 | $655.29 | $36,040.95 |
| 2026-03-10 | 274 | $654.06 | $179,212.44 |
| 2026-03-02 | 5,386 | $681.10 | $3.7M |
| 2026-02-27 | 4,298 | $678.82 | $2.9M |
| 2026-02-26 | 10,809 | $677.38 | $7.3M |
| 2026-02-24 | 1,045 | $672.42 | $702,678.9 |
| 2026-01-20 | 3,461 | $581.72 | $2.0M |
| 2026-01-02 | 525 | $510.73 | $268,133.25 |
| 2025-12-30 | 9 | $516.27 | $4,646.43 |
| 2025-12-29 | 543 | $517.35 | $280,921.05 |
| 2025-12-19 | 23 | $504.46 | $11,602.58 |
| 2025-12-10 | 10 | $512.94 | $5,129.4 |
| 2025-11-24 | 6,301 | $494.87 | $3.1M |
| 2025-11-03 | 1,052 | $526.82 | $554,214.64 |
| 2025-10-31 | 1,499 | $517.75 | $776,107.25 |
| 2025-10-22 | 16 | $573.75 | $9,180 |
| 2025-10-14 | 2,066 | $567.82 | $1.2M |
| 2025-10-09 | 173 | $588.01 | $101,725.73 |
| 2025-10-06 | 32 | $587.62 | $18,803.84 |
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 TDY 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.