NTCT (NTCT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 2.2.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of the enterprise reveal a precarious balance between high gross efficiency and severe operational losses. While the company maintains an impressive 78.3% gross margin, indicating strong pricing power or favorable cost structures at the production level, this advantage is completely eroded by net margins contracting to -44.6%. This divergence suggests that operating expenses are consuming nearly half of total revenue, a dynamic that undermines profitability despite top-line stability shown by negligible year-over-year revenue decline of 0.8%. The capital allocation efficiency is notably impaired, evidenced by an ROIC of -15.9%, which signals that the business is currently destroying value relative to its cost of equity rather than generating returns above the hurdle rate. However, solvency and earnings quality metrics present a conflicting narrative; while the Altman Z-Score of 2.2 places the firm in the "grey zone" regarding bankruptcy risk, the Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 indicates moderate fundamental strength compared to peers, and a Beneish M-Score of -3.93 strongly suggests low probability of earnings manipulation.
Valuation metrics currently reflect significant optimism that appears misaligned with current cash flow generation. The stock trades at a P/E multiple of 23.7x, implying the market prices in substantial future profitability or expects an imminent turnaround in operating leverage. This premium valuation stands in stark contrast to the DCF-derived fair value of $59, which likely incorporates assumptions about normalized earnings that have not yet materialized given the negative net margins. The discrepancy between the current trading price and the model's intrinsic value suggests the market is heavily weighting potential growth options or strategic pivots over present-day operational reality, creating a scenario where any failure to execute on margin expansion could precipitate a sharp re-rating downward.
Risk assessment highlights a tension between financial distress indicators and earnings credibility. The negative ROIC combined with deep net losses exposes significant downside risk if operating expense discipline cannot be restored quickly enough to reverse the value destruction trend. Conversely, the low Beneish M-Score provides some confidence that these poor fundamentals are genuine operational challenges rather than accounting artifacts designed to inflate stock price artificially. Investors must weigh whether the current valuation adequately compensates for the high probability of continued capital erosion or if the market is sufficiently pricing in a rapid recovery in operating leverage and return on invested capital.
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.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $71 | $53 | $42 |
| 3% | $83 | $59 | $46 |
| 4% | $101 | $67 | $50 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $43.55.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $59 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
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 XTL or VFVA, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell NTCT shares regardless of NTCT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $146M of passive capital is structurally linked to NTCT through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on NTCT'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 NTCT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If NTCT (NTCT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies VIASAT INC (VSAT) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with NTCT. 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.
NTCT Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 11 NTCT shares, reducing daily market volatility.
NTCT (NTCT) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 2.9% of the XTL (XTL) and 0.2% of the VFVA (VFVA). Across 10 tracked ETFs, approximately 5M shares (9.0% 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 NTCT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 10 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
NTCT 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 NTCT over the past year sits near $27.99 (14% of 252-day volume). The current price of $43.55 trades 55.6% 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 (14% 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.
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 | 1,071 | $39.40 | $42,197.4 |
| 2026-05-13 | 5,306 | $38.22 | $202,795.32 |
| 2026-04-29 | 89 | $32.73 | $2,912.97 |
| 2026-03-23 | 83 | $30.05 | $2,494.15 |
| 2026-03-18 | 4 | $30.74 | $122.96 |
| 2026-03-13 | 635 | $30.06 | $19,088.1 |
| 2026-03-12 | 306 | $30.33 | $9,280.98 |
| 2026-03-10 | 34 | $30.43 | $1,034.62 |
| 2026-03-09 | 1 | $29.80 | $29.8 |
| 2026-02-27 | 313 | $29.33 | $9,180.29 |
| 2026-01-27 | 1,523 | $27.87 | $42,446.01 |
| 2025-12-30 | 3 | $27.57 | $82.71 |
| 2025-12-29 | 58 | $27.85 | $1,615.3 |
| 2025-12-24 | 9,971 | $27.80 | $277,193.8 |
| 2025-12-17 | 673 | $27.51 | $18,514.23 |
| 2025-12-03 | 164 | $27.31 | $4,478.84 |
| 2025-11-10 | 948 | $28.71 | $27,217.08 |
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 NTCT to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-30.
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.