LULU (LULU)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 6.4. Beneish M-Score of -1.71 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of LULU demonstrate a robust capital allocation profile, evidenced by an ROIC-WACC spread of +23.7%, which indicates the company generates returns significantly above its cost of capital. This high-quality earnings generation is primarily driven by superior operational efficiency rather than leverage; the DuPont decomposition reveals that a 17.1% net margin and robust 1.39x asset turnover are the core engines fueling a 42.0% ROE, while equity multipliers remain moderate at 1.76x. Financial integrity metrics further reinforce this stability, with a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 signaling strong financial health and an Altman Z-Score of 6.9 placing the firm well within safe territory regarding bankruptcy risk. Additionally, the Beneish M-Score of -2.48 suggests earnings are unlikely to be materially manipulated, supported by consistent revenue growth of 10.1% YoY and gross margins expanding to 59.2%.
Valuation metrics present a compelling divergence between current pricing and intrinsic value models. The stock trades at a P/E ratio of 11.7x, which appears compressed relative to its historical performance given the high-quality earnings profile, while the DCF model implies a fair value of $261. This suggests the market may be discounting future growth potential or pricing in macro headwinds not yet reflected in the cash flow assumptions used for valuation. The gap between current prices and the modeled fair value indicates that either the required rate of return is elevated relative to risk-free rates, or the consensus on long-term sustainable growth rates differs from the DCF inputs driving the $261 target.
Recent insider activity provides a counter-narrative signal to potential market pessimism, with net buying totaling $438,157 over the last 90 days. This accumulation by insiders often precedes or accompanies periods where management believes the stock is undervalued relative to its intrinsic worth. However, without specific sector benchmarks for P/E multiples or explicit Fama-French alpha data in the provided dataset, a definitive assessment of whether this premium pricing is justified remains dependent on how the market resolves the discrepancy between the 11.7x current multiple and the DCF-derived fair value.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.5% | 10.5% | 12.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $315 | $236 | $187 |
| 3% | $363 | $261 | $202 |
| 4% | $432 | $294 | $221 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $261 (+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 VOT or XLY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LULU shares regardless of LULU's individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.8B of passive capital is structurally linked to LULU 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 LULU to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If LULU (LULU) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies AMAZON.COM INC (AMZN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with LULU. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 25 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LULU Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest LULU Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 27 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LULU Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does LULU convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
LULU converts 34% 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 66% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 16.0% confirms that reinvested capital creates 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 | 507 | $121.21 | $61,453.47 |
| 2026-05-04 | 70 | $133.58 | $9,350.6 |
| 2026-04-30 | 3 | $138.16 | $414.48 |
| 2026-04-27 | 26,041 | $143.80 | $3.7M |
| 2026-04-23 | 1 | $163.45 | $163.45 |
| 2026-04-21 | 401 | $166.81 | $66,890.81 |
| 2026-04-20 | 6,505 | $167.28 | $1.1M |
| 2026-04-17 | 274 | $162.92 | $44,640.08 |
| 2026-04-15 | 85 | $160.60 | $13,651 |
| 2026-04-13 | 1,012 | $163.86 | $165,826.32 |
| 2026-04-10 | 1 | $166.51 | $166.51 |
| 2026-04-06 | 800 | $155.72 | $124,576 |
| 2026-04-01 | 147 | $153.10 | $22,505.7 |
| 2026-03-31 | 1,246 | $145.83 | $181,704.18 |
| 2026-03-27 | 1 | $151.39 | $151.39 |
| 2026-03-25 | 8,116 | $160.95 | $1.3M |
| 2026-03-24 | 6 | $164.38 | $986.28 |
| 2026-03-18 | 100 | $159.27 | $15,927 |
| 2026-03-17 | 227 | $159.91 | $36,299.57 |
| 2026-03-13 | 228 | $158.19 | $36,067.32 |
| 2026-03-11 | 1,530 | $166.43 | $254,637.9 |
| 2026-03-10 | 1,285 | $169.76 | $218,141.6 |
| 2026-03-09 | 12,508 | $170.13 | $2.1M |
| 2026-03-03 | 18,027 | $176.17 | $3.2M |
| 2026-03-02 | 834 | $185.17 | $154,431.78 |
| 2026-02-25 | 40,000 | $179.49 | $7.2M |
| 2026-02-23 | 7,916 | $187.30 | $1.5M |
| 2026-02-19 | 76 | $182.13 | $13,841.88 |
| 2026-02-17 | 500 | $176.42 | $88,210 |
| 2026-02-11 | 3,323 | $180.62 | $600,200.26 |
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 LULU 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.