LAZ (LAZ)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe equity economics reveal a capital-efficient operator where the 23.9% ROE is primarily driven by significant financial leverage, evidenced by an Equity Multiplier of 5.00x, rather than operational expansion or margin compression. While the net margin sits at a healthy 7.5%, supported by robust gross margins near 34%, revenue growth has stagnated at just 2% year-over-year, suggesting limited organic tailwinds despite strong asset utilization ratios. Credibility metrics further reinforce this profile; a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 indicates solid fundamental stability, while the Beneish M-Score of -2.56 strongly signals low earnings manipulation risk and high integrity in reported financials.
Valuation dynamics present an interesting divergence between intrinsic models and market pricing. The DCF model assigns a fair value of $152, implying that current market prices may be discounting future cash flows relative to the company's implied growth trajectory or carrying excessive leverage risk premiums. This premium valuation persists even as insider activity over the past 90 days shows net selling totaling approximately $3.3 million, which often precedes downward revisions in analyst expectations or reflects portfolio rebalancing by informed stakeholders. The market appears willing to pay up for the quality of earnings and low manipulation risk, yet this willingness must be weighed against the modest revenue expansion rate.
The risk-reward profile is defined by a tension between high-quality fundamentals and stagnant top-line momentum. While the combination of strong margins, low fraud indicators, and efficient capital deployment suggests durable profitability, the lack of revenue acceleration limits upside potential absent significant multiple re-rating or strategic shifts. Investors must determine whether the current valuation adequately compensates for the growth ceiling implied by the 2% revenue trajectory versus the safety provided by the company's clean balance sheet metrics and insider confidence levels.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $187 | $136 | $106 |
| 3% | $219 | $152 | $115 |
| 4% | $268 | $174 | $127 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $152 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
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 DVY or ONEY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LAZ shares regardless of LAZ's individual fundamentals. We estimate $290M of passive capital is structurally linked to LAZ through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on LAZ'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 LAZ to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LAZ (LAZ) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Seagate Technology Holdings PL (STX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with LAZ. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 9 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LAZ Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest LAZ Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 10 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LAZ Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does LAZ convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
LAZ converts 108% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag.
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 | 8,878 | $45.25 | $401,729.5 |
| 2026-05-11 | 271 | $48.08 | $13,029.68 |
| 2026-05-08 | 48 | $46.44 | $2,229.12 |
| 2026-05-06 | 152,176 | $45.10 | $6.9M |
| 2026-05-05 | 145 | $43.76 | $6,345.2 |
| 2026-04-28 | 2,631 | $49.28 | $129,655.68 |
| 2026-04-27 | 1,291 | $47.30 | $61,064.3 |
| 2026-04-20 | 95 | $49.04 | $4,658.8 |
| 2026-04-15 | 6,364 | $50.02 | $318,327.28 |
| 2026-04-09 | 122,236 | $44.80 | $5.5M |
| 2026-03-26 | 25 | $40.90 | $1,022.5 |
| 2026-03-24 | 118 | $40.16 | $4,738.88 |
| 2026-03-23 | 2,967 | $39.25 | $116,454.75 |
| 2026-03-19 | 792 | $39.89 | $31,592.88 |
| 2026-02-09 | 3,553 | $56.80 | $201,810.4 |
| 2026-01-21 | 165,553 | $51.97 | $8.6M |
| 2026-01-13 | 2,327 | $52.50 | $122,167.5 |
| 2025-12-22 | 100 | $49.68 | $4,968 |
| 2025-12-01 | 12 | $50.50 | $606 |
| 2025-11-19 | 15,208 | $46.61 | $708,844.88 |
| 2025-11-13 | 271 | $51.91 | $14,067.61 |
| 2025-10-30 | 4 | $47.86 | $191.44 |
| 2025-10-14 | 18,174 | $49.20 | $894,160.8 |
| 2025-10-10 | 426 | $49.17 | $20,946.42 |
| 2025-10-06 | 97 | $51.79 | $5,023.63 |
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 LAZ 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.