TTMI (TTMI)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 4.3 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics reveal a significant capital allocation challenge where the company generates an ROIC of 7.0% while facing a WACC of 14.5%, resulting in a negative spread of -7.5%. This indicates that current operations are destroying shareholder value relative to their cost of capital, despite robust top-line expansion driven by revenue growth of 19.0%. While the DuPont components suggest margins remain healthy with a net margin of 6.1% and gross margin of 20.7%, the low return on invested capital implies that high leverage or inefficient asset turnover is diluting equity returns. Qualitative financial health metrics present a mixed picture; the strong Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 signals solid fundamental stability, yet the Altman Z-Score of 4.3 suggests moderate distress risk, while a Beneish M-Score of -2.45 points to low probability of earnings manipulation.
Valuation metrics indicate substantial market premium relative to historical norms and sector peers, as evidenced by the current P/E ratio of 53.8x. This multiple is difficult to justify given the negative ROIC-WACC spread and implies that investors are pricing in aggressive future growth rates that far exceed current profitability efficiency. The disconnect between high revenue velocity and capital-destructive returns suggests the market may be overvaluing top-line momentum while underestimating the drag on equity value from inefficient capital deployment, creating a scenario where fair value derived from DCF models would likely be significantly compressed if terminal assumptions align with current operational realities.
The risk-reward profile is skewed heavily toward downside volatility due to the fundamental mismatch between growth rates and return metrics. Although insider activity or specific Fama-French alpha data were not provided in this dataset, the negative spread alone acts as a critical delta against long-term compounding potential. Investors must weigh whether the 19% revenue surge can fundamentally shift the capital structure to generate positive spreads before the current valuation multiple collapses under the weight of persistent value destruction.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. 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 IWN or MDYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TTMI shares regardless of TTMI's individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.8B of passive capital is structurally linked to TTMI 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 TTMI to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TTMI (TTMI) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies FLEX LTD (FLEX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with TTMI. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 14 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
TTMI Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest TTMI Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 12 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TTMI Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does TTMI convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
TTMI converts -0% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, negative FCF conversion — the company is consuming cash faster than it generates EBITDA, which is unsustainable long-term. The 100% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-7.5%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 1,306 | $168.82 | $220,478.92 |
| 2026-05-13 | 6,142 | $163.36 | $1.0M |
| 2026-05-12 | 920 | $162.99 | $149,950.8 |
| 2026-05-04 | 211 | $158.99 | $33,546.89 |
| 2026-05-01 | 268 | $158.22 | $42,402.96 |
| 2026-04-28 | 31 | $144.17 | $4,469.27 |
| 2026-04-27 | 71 | $149.01 | $10,579.71 |
| 2026-04-24 | 72 | $132.98 | $9,574.56 |
| 2026-04-22 | 1,183 | $125.25 | $148,170.75 |
| 2026-04-20 | 6,400 | $126.24 | $807,936 |
| 2026-04-17 | 42 | $116.93 | $4,911.06 |
| 2026-04-02 | 5 | $97.08 | $485.4 |
| 2026-03-24 | 148 | $101.42 | $15,010.16 |
| 2026-03-23 | 100 | $91.54 | $9,154 |
| 2026-03-17 | 629 | $96.51 | $60,704.79 |
| 2026-03-11 | 1 | $96.43 | $96.43 |
| 2026-03-10 | 3,497 | $96.80 | $338,509.6 |
| 2026-03-04 | 82 | $104.05 | $8,532.1 |
| 2026-03-02 | 70 | $104.24 | $7,296.8 |
| 2026-02-27 | 1,371 | $107.56 | $147,464.76 |
| 2026-02-25 | 23 | $106.70 | $2,454.1 |
| 2026-02-24 | 167 | $106.85 | $17,843.95 |
| 2026-02-23 | 398 | $107.93 | $42,956.14 |
| 2026-02-19 | 115 | $93.97 | $10,806.55 |
| 2026-02-13 | 13 | $92.33 | $1,200.29 |
| 2026-02-11 | 1 | $93.77 | $93.77 |
| 2026-02-10 | 3 | $97.98 | $293.94 |
| 2026-02-06 | 300 | $92.58 | $27,774 |
| 2026-01-30 | 98,075 | $96.48 | $9.5M |
| 2026-01-27 | 5 | $94.63 | $473.15 |
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 TTMI 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.