FRSH (FRSH)

$2.3B
Market Cap
13.1
P/E Ratio
0.87
Beta
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 7/9Altman Z 0.4 DistressBeneish M -2.29 CleanROIC−WACC -9.2%

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Strong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 0.4.

Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The capital allocation efficiency presents a critical divergence from the reported profitability metrics. Despite commanding robust gross margins of 85% and achieving net income growth that supports a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9, indicating strong financial health on an accrual basis, the return on invested capital stands at merely 1%. This creates a negative spread of -9.2% against a weighted average cost of capital of 10.1%, suggesting that while earnings are being generated efficiently in terms of margin and turnover, the underlying asset base is not yielding sufficient returns to cover the cost of equity and debt financing. The Altman Z-Score of 0.4 further flags potential distress risks despite the high Beneish M-Score of -2.29, which typically signals low earnings manipulation risk but may reflect aggressive accounting or specific industry dynamics that compress investment efficiency.

Valuation metrics appear compressed relative to the company's historical profitability profile and current growth trajectory. Trading at a forward P/E of 13.1x, the stock is priced significantly below its calculated DCF fair value of $29, implying the market may be discounting future cash flows heavily due to concerns regarding capital efficiency or solvency rather than earnings quality alone. This disparity suggests investors are pricing in a scenario where high margins and double-digit revenue growth fail to translate into sustainable economic returns on invested capital, potentially leaving room for re-rating if ROIC improves or if the cost of capital stabilizes below current levels.

The risk-reward landscape is bifurcated between fundamental distress signals and earnings integrity indicators. The low Altman Z-Score introduces significant bankruptcy risk considerations that likely anchor valuations lower than justified by pure earnings power, while the high Beneish M-Score offers some reassurance regarding the authenticity of reported net margins. Investors must weigh whether the current valuation gap reflects a temporary market overreaction to capital inefficiency or a structural inability for the business model to generate adequate returns on its asset base given the prevailing cost of capital.

Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.

DCF Sandbox

Interactive

Sensitivity Matrix

TG ↓ / WACC →8.1%10.1%12.1%
2%$35$26$21
3%$40$29$23
4%$49$33$25

Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs .

Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.1%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $29 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

7/9
Piotroski F-Score
Strong — high operational efficiency and profitability signals
0.4
Altman Z-Score
Distress Zone — below 1.8 threshold per academic model. Thresholds: >3 safe, 1.8–3 grey, <1.8 distress.
-2.29
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

85.0%
Gross Margin
21.9%
Net Margin
1.0%
ROIC
10.1%
WACC
ROIC − WACC Spread: -9.2%— Negative spread.
+16.4%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+292.6%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
220.9M
Free Cash Flow

Balance Sheet Health

0.55x
Debt / Equity
2.20x
Current Ratio
-13.6x
Net Debt / EBITDA
12.22%
FCF Yield
39.5M
EBITDA

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✓ Beat
Est: $0.13
Act: $0.18
+39.4%
Q3
✓ Beat
Est: $0.11
Act: $0.18
+57.8%
Q2
✓ Beat
Est: $0.13
Act: $0.16
+25.5%
Q1
✓ Beat
Est: $0.11
Act: $0.14
+23.8%

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.

Loading drawdown chart...

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.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Fundamentals

11.9
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
2.26
Price/Book
6M
Avg Volume
$16.14
52W High
$6.79
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$65M
Tracked Passive Exposure
5
ETFs Holding FRSH
0.04%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$163B
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like XSW or VFQY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FRSH shares regardless of FRSH's individual fundamentals. We estimate $65M of passive capital is structurally linked to FRSH through 5 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on FRSH's daily trading dynamics.

Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 5 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.

ETF Contagion Visualizer

Simulate a price drop in FRSH to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

FRSH Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
FRSHEpicenterVGTETFVBKETFVFVAETFNVDALow RiskAAPLLow RiskMSFTLow RiskAVGOLow RiskLRCXLow Risk
FRSH Price Drop (%)0

If FRSH (FRSH) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with FRSH. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 5 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

FRSH Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
FRSH

Float lock-up computed from 5 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

FRSH Capital Efficiency

How efficiently does FRSH convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.

Free Cash Flow
$221M
EBITDA
$39M
FCF Conversion
560%
Reinvestment Rate
-460%
560% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)
ROIC
1.0%
ROIC − WACC Spread
-9.2%

FRSH converts 560% 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 (-9.2%), 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.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-05-076$8.89$53.34
2026-05-061,023$9.19$9,401.37
2026-04-30419,134$8.25$3.5M
2026-04-14224$7.89$1,767.36
2026-04-101,072$7.94$8,511.68
2026-04-09368$8.04$2,958.72
2026-03-311,878$8.04$15,099.12
2026-03-231,855$8.03$14,895.65
2026-03-09209$8.63$1,803.67
2026-03-0211,584$7.82$90,586.88
2026-02-23200$7.46$1,492
2026-01-301,458$10.64$15,513.12
2026-01-266,543$11.84$77,469.12
2025-12-311,883$12.33$23,217.39
2025-12-221,250$12.53$15,662.5
2025-12-01100$12.14$1,214
2025-11-072,328$10.85$25,258.8

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 FRSH 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.