Z (Z)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 8.2 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics present a stark dichotomy between robust operational momentum and severely depressed capital efficiency. While the company demonstrates strong revenue expansion of 15.5% year-over-year, supported by exceptional gross margins at 74.1%, its ability to convert assets into returns is critically impaired; an ROIC of merely 0.7% coupled with a DuPont decomposition revealing low asset turnover (0.45x) and minimal leverage indicates that earnings are being generated without efficient capital deployment or significant financial engineering. Despite this operational inefficiency, the balance sheet appears secure given an Altman Z-Score of 8.2 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.30 suggesting low manipulation risk, further reinforced by a resilient Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 that signals overall financial strength despite the marginally compressed net return on equity relative to its inputs.
Valuation metrics reflect extreme market divergence from intrinsic value models and historical norms, with a current price-to-earnings ratio of 484.4x vastly outstripping reasonable multiples for an entity generating such thin bottom-line spreads. Discounted cash flow analysis anchors the fair value at $5 per share, implying that the prevailing market price incorporates unrealistic growth assumptions or ignores the drag on capital efficiency inherent in the current business model. This disconnect suggests the stock is priced as a high-growth speculative vehicle rather than a mature income generator, creating significant downside risk if earnings quality does not materially improve to support such elevated multiples over time.
Insider activity introduces an additional layer of caution, with $6.8 million in net selling recorded over the last ninety days, which often precedes or accompanies periods where management anticipates valuation compression. Although the low F-Score and high Z-Score mitigate immediate bankruptcy or fraud concerns, the combination of negligible ROIC, a massive valuation premium, and active insider offloading creates an asymmetric risk-reward profile that challenges traditional investment frameworks relying on sustainable cash flow conversion.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $8 | $7 | $6 |
| 3% | $9 | $8 | $7 |
| 4% | $10 | $8 | $7 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $8 (+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 ARKF or VNQ, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell Z shares regardless of Z's individual fundamentals. We estimate $616M of passive capital is structurally linked to Z through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on Z'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 Z to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Z (Z) 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 Z. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 8 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
Z Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest Z Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
Z Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Z convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Z converts 32% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a moderate conversion rate — significant EBITDA is consumed by capital expenditures, working capital changes, or interest payments. The 68% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion.
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 | 322,351 | $39.63 | $12.8M |
| 2026-04-08 | 7 | $40.79 | $285.53 |
| 2026-04-07 | 1,366 | $41.65 | $56,893.9 |
| 2026-03-23 | 6 | $43.95 | $263.7 |
| 2026-03-10 | 276,224 | $45.25 | $12.5M |
| 2026-03-06 | 22 | $46.66 | $1,026.52 |
| 2026-03-05 | 46,065 | $45.82 | $2.1M |
| 2026-02-23 | 7 | $45.46 | $318.22 |
| 2026-02-12 | 22,558 | $45.66 | $1.0M |
| 2026-02-09 | 29,127 | $54.97 | $1.6M |
| 2026-02-06 | 29,246 | $54.01 | $1.6M |
| 2026-02-05 | 145,294 | $56.54 | $8.2M |
| 2026-01-29 | 5 | $65.98 | $329.9 |
| 2026-01-20 | 2,147 | $68.53 | $147,133.91 |
| 2026-01-16 | 94 | $67.89 | $6,381.66 |
| 2026-01-12 | 8 | $68.75 | $550 |
| 2026-01-07 | 13,704 | $66.58 | $912,412.32 |
| 2026-01-02 | 1,432 | $68.22 | $97,691.04 |
| 2025-12-22 | 106 | $68.96 | $7,309.76 |
| 2025-12-12 | 13,991 | $75.78 | $1.1M |
| 2025-12-08 | 2,725 | $74.04 | $201,759 |
| 2025-11-26 | 720 | $74.08 | $53,337.6 |
| 2025-11-21 | 34,726 | $67.01 | $2.3M |
| 2025-11-17 | 77 | $68.80 | $5,297.6 |
| 2025-11-06 | 38 | $73.03 | $2,775.14 |
| 2025-11-05 | 19 | $73.03 | $1,387.57 |
| 2025-10-30 | 3 | $71.52 | $214.56 |
| 2025-10-22 | 1 | $77.33 | $77.33 |
| 2025-10-14 | 8,353 | $69.76 | $582,705.28 |
| 2025-10-10 | 4,377 | $70.82 | $309,979.14 |
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 Z 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.