NCLH (NCLH)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 0.3.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics reveal a company generating returns below its cost of capital, with an ROIC-WACC spread of -2.9% indicating value destruction despite reported profitability. The DuPont decomposition highlights that the 19.1% ROE is entirely leverage-driven via an equity multiplier of 10.20x, masking thin operating margins of just 4.3% and modest asset turnover of 0.44x. While the Beneish M-Score of -2.60 suggests low earnings manipulation risk and a Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 indicates moderate financial strength, an Altman Z-Score of 0.3 signals significant distress territory regarding solvency. This structural reliance on high leverage to inflate returns creates substantial downside volatility if revenue growth fails to accelerate beyond the current 3.7% YoY pace.
Valuation metrics present a divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value constraints, with the stock trading at a forward P/E of 21.7x that appears elevated relative to its low net margin profile. Although specific historical and sector benchmarks are unavailable in the provided dataset, the current multiple implies aggressive growth expectations that may not align with the observed fundamentals or implied DCF fair values given the negative spread between return on invested capital and the weighted average cost of capital. The market is currently pricing in a scenario where leverage can continue to sustain returns without triggering solvency concerns, yet the Altman Z-Score suggests this margin for error is dangerously narrow.
Neutral insider flow over the last 90 days offers no directional signal from management regarding future strategy or capital allocation priorities. Without additional data on Fama-French alpha factors or specific risk factor deltas, the investment case rests heavily on whether operational efficiency can improve to reduce leverage dependence before solvency metrics deteriorate further. The current setup presents a high-risk profile where potential upside is capped by margin constraints while downside exposure remains amplified by extreme financial gearing and proximity to insolvency thresholds defined by the Altman model.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. 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
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 VBK or VFVA, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell NCLH shares regardless of NCLH's individual fundamentals. We estimate $594M of passive capital is structurally linked to NCLH through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on NCLH'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 NCLH to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If NCLH (NCLH) 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 NCLH. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 13 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
NCLH Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest NCLH Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 14 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
NCLH Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does NCLH convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
NCLH converts -46% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, negative FCF conversion — the company is consuming cash faster than it generates EBITDA, which is unsustainable long-term. The 146% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-2.9%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-06 | 915 | $16.94 | $15,500.1 |
| 2026-05-05 | 1,249,761 | $17.20 | $21.5M |
| 2026-04-30 | 69,992 | $17.77 | $1.2M |
| 2026-04-29 | 69,992 | $17.79 | $1.2M |
| 2026-04-28 | 8,868 | $18.19 | $161,308.92 |
| 2026-04-20 | 500 | $20.99 | $10,495 |
| 2026-04-15 | 10,028 | $21.09 | $211,490.52 |
| 2026-04-09 | 4,442 | $20.16 | $89,550.72 |
| 2026-04-06 | 1,937 | $18.93 | $36,667.41 |
| 2026-03-26 | 913 | $20.22 | $18,460.86 |
| 2026-03-23 | 194,791 | $18.95 | $3.7M |
| 2026-03-17 | 1,040 | $19.84 | $20,633.6 |
| 2026-03-12 | 2,027 | $20.45 | $41,452.15 |
| 2026-03-06 | 198 | $20.92 | $4,142.16 |
| 2026-03-05 | 710,333 | $21.11 | $15.0M |
| 2026-03-04 | 692,935 | $21.27 | $14.7M |
| 2026-02-23 | 1,000 | $24.31 | $24,310 |
| 2026-02-12 | 15,724 | $22.95 | $360,865.8 |
| 2026-02-11 | 1,223,938 | $23.56 | $28.8M |
| 2026-02-09 | 6,193 | $23.32 | $144,420.76 |
| 2026-02-03 | 625 | $23.64 | $14,775 |
| 2026-02-02 | 22,739 | $21.96 | $499,348.44 |
| 2026-01-30 | 6,264 | $22.92 | $143,570.88 |
| 2026-01-20 | 201,600 | $22.01 | $4.4M |
| 2026-01-16 | 1,479,725 | $22.87 | $33.8M |
| 2026-01-15 | 1,647,997 | $23.09 | $38.1M |
| 2026-01-14 | 2,034,823 | $23.82 | $48.5M |
| 2026-01-13 | 14 | $24.34 | $340.76 |
| 2026-01-12 | 21,381 | $24.53 | $524,475.93 |
| 2026-01-09 | 5,208 | $24.37 | $126,918.96 |
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 NCLH 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.