LBRT (LBRT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicBelow-average fundamentals indicated by Piotroski score of 3/9. DCF fair value of $3 implies 88% downside based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of LBRT reveal a company struggling with deteriorating operational efficiency and thin profitability margins. Despite an equity multiplier of 1.71x providing the primary mechanical boost to its 7.1% DuPont ROE, this leverage is insufficient to offset a net margin compression to just 3.7%, while revenue contracts by 7.2% year-over-year. This contraction in top-line growth coincides with a low Piotroski F-Score of 3/9, signaling significant financial weakness and declining fundamentals, even as the Beneish M-Score of -2.63 suggests management earnings manipulation is not currently a primary concern. The combination of shrinking revenues, minimal margins, and weak balance sheet health indicates that current returns are driven more by capital structure than operational excellence or sustainable competitive advantages.
Valuation metrics present a stark divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at a 31.0x P/E multiple significantly above historical norms and likely exceeding sector averages given the negative revenue trajectory, the stock appears heavily mispriced relative to its cash flow generation potential. A DCF analysis anchors fair value at $3, implying an 88.7% downside from current levels based on a required return profile that discounts future flows against this depressed valuation baseline. Notably, the model assumes a theoretical ten-year free cash flow growth rate of 40.1%, which creates a massive gap between implied hyper-growth expectations and the observed -7.2% revenue decline, suggesting the market is pricing in an unrealistic recovery scenario rather than current operational reality.
Insider activity further complicates the risk-reward profile, with $1,019,500 of net selling recorded over the last 90 days. While the low Beneish M-Score mitigates immediate fraud concerns, the convergence of negative revenue growth, a poor Piotroski score, and significant insider outflows paints a picture where downside risks substantially outweigh potential catalysts for re-rating. The data suggests that until operational metrics stabilize to support higher margins or turnover, any valuation expansion would require a fundamental shift in business model execution rather than cyclical recovery.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
The growth rate the market implicitly expects over the next 10 years to justify today's price. Compare with historical growth of -7% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.8% | 9.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $4 | $3 | $2 |
| 3% | $6 | $3 | $2 |
| 4% | $10 | $4 | $2 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $31.25.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.8%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $3 (-88.2%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedAt $33.39, LBRT is trading within a range that invites scrutiny regarding institutional positioning through the lens of moving average dynamics and volume profiles. While specific crossover events are not explicitly detailed in the provided snapshot, the current price level often serves as a pivot point where larger market participants assess trend validity against longer-term averages. If recent price action has hovered near or above key short-term SMAs while lagging behind longer-term counterparts, it may suggest that institutions are currently consolidating gains rather than aggressively accumulating new positions at these levels. Conversely, if the price is pulling back toward support defined by major moving averages without significant volume decay, this could indicate a pause in distribution as larger players wait for clearer directional confirmation before committing additional capital. Volume trends act as the critical filter to distinguish between retail noise and institutional intent during such phases. A lack of substantial volume spikes accompanying current price movements might imply that large entities are not actively driving the market up or down at this specific juncture, potentially signaling a period of strategic waiting or repositioning. Without an uptick in trading activity coinciding with price breaks above resistance zones, it remains unclear whether institutional order flow is supporting further appreciation or if they are quietly reducing exposure to lock in profits from prior rallies. The absence of definitive breakout volume suggests that the broader market structure has not yet fully aligned with a strong consensus on immediate direction for this security.
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
⚠️ Dividend consumes >80% of FCF — sustainability risk.
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.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-04 | $0.0900 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-04 | $0.0900 | +12.5% |
| 2025-09-04 | $0.0800 | 0.0% |
| 2025-06-06 | $0.0800 | 0.0% |
| 2025-03-06 | $0.0800 | 0.0% |
| 2024-12-06 | $0.0800 | +14.3% |
| 2024-09-06 | $0.0700 | 0.0% |
| 2024-06-06 | $0.0700 | 0.0% |
| 2024-03-05 | $0.0700 | 0.0% |
| 2023-12-05 | $0.0700 | +40.0% |
| 2023-09-05 | $0.0500 | 0.0% |
| 2023-06-05 | $0.0500 | 0.0% |
Dividend and split data from SEC filings and market data. Amounts are per share, not adjusted for splits. Source: yfinance.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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 XES or SLYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LBRT shares regardless of LBRT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $253M of passive capital is structurally linked to LBRT through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on LBRT'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 LBRT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LBRT (LBRT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with LBRT. 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.
LBRT Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 15 LBRT shares, reducing daily market volatility.
LBRT (LBRT) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 3.9% of the XES (XES) and 0.6% of the SLYV (SLYV). Across 10 tracked ETFs, approximately 11M shares (6.5% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. As passive ownership grows, index inclusion changes may increasingly drive price discovery.
ETFs with Highest LBRT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 10 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LBRT Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for LBRT over the past year sits near $11.67 (15% of 252-day volume). The current price of $31.25 trades 167.8% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target. The highly concentrated volume profile (15% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
LBRT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does LBRT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
LBRT converts 2% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a low conversion rate suggesting heavy reinvestment. This may indicate a growth phase (building capacity) or structural capital intensity. The 98% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-1.2%), 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.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-30 | 72,082 | $33.82 | $2.4M |
| 2026-04-29 | 25,991 | $33.05 | $859,002.55 |
| 2026-04-13 | 9 | $27.63 | $248.67 |
| 2026-04-08 | 6,346 | $28.44 | $180,480.24 |
| 2026-03-31 | 95 | $28.86 | $2,741.7 |
| 2026-03-27 | 35,800 | $29.86 | $1.1M |
| 2026-03-23 | 4 | $31.45 | $125.8 |
| 2026-03-18 | 12,714 | $31.14 | $395,913.96 |
| 2026-03-17 | 52 | $30.02 | $1,561.04 |
| 2026-03-16 | 327 | $30.22 | $9,881.94 |
| 2026-03-11 | 194,215 | $28.32 | $5.5M |
| 2026-03-10 | 18,025 | $27.76 | $500,374 |
| 2026-03-04 | 400 | $27.83 | $11,132 |
| 2026-03-02 | 279 | $28.09 | $7,837.11 |
| 2026-02-27 | 12 | $27.92 | $335.04 |
| 2026-02-26 | 8,900 | $28.37 | $252,493 |
| 2026-02-23 | 4,730 | $26.85 | $127,000.5 |
| 2026-02-18 | 24 | $26.68 | $640.32 |
| 2026-02-17 | 1,459 | $25.90 | $37,788.1 |
| 2026-02-09 | 20 | $25.23 | $504.6 |
| 2026-01-23 | 378 | $21.51 | $8,130.78 |
| 2026-01-22 | 405 | $21.22 | $8,594.1 |
| 2026-01-21 | 401 | $20.13 | $8,072.13 |
| 2025-12-22 | 248 | $17.48 | $4,335.04 |
| 2025-12-10 | 10,983 | $19.75 | $216,914.25 |
| 2025-12-09 | 171,200 | $19.40 | $3.3M |
| 2025-12-04 | 76,146 | $19.18 | $1.5M |
| 2025-12-01 | 166 | $17.78 | $2,951.48 |
| 2025-11-24 | 9,687 | $16.40 | $158,866.8 |
| 2025-10-17 | 267 | $11.94 | $3,187.98 |
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.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| PTEN | 0.547 | 0.354 | Moderate |
| HP | 0.528 | 0.366 | Moderate |
| WHD | 0.499 | 0.355 | Moderate |
| NOV | 0.487 | 0.290 | Moderate |
| HAL | 0.482 | 0.264 | Moderate |
| BKR | 0.473 | 0.268 | Moderate |
| OII | 0.459 | 0.303 | Moderate |
| SDRL | 0.454 | 0.347 | Moderate |
| NE | 0.443 | 0.287 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare LBRT to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.