TDS (TDS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 8/9) with Altman Z of 1.6. DCF fair value of $58 implies 29% upside from current prices based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics present a stark dichotomy between operational efficiency and profitability. While the Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 and Beneish M-Score of -2.73 signal strong financial health with minimal earnings manipulation risk, the DuPont decomposition reveals that returns are structurally incapable of generating positive equity value; negative net margins (-0.5%) combined with low asset turnover (0.15x) result in a negligible ROE of -0.1%, despite an ROIC-WACC spread indicating capital deployment challenges. This profitability drag contrasts sharply with robust gross margin expansion at 59.0% and significant insider selling activity totaling $244,062 over the last ninety days, suggesting internal stakeholders may be concerned about near-term execution or valuation levels amidst a -5.3% revenue contraction year-over-year.
Valuation metrics reflect extreme market divergence from intrinsic value models. The current price-to-earnings ratio of 117.5x stands in direct conflict with the DCF-derived fair value estimate of $80, implying that the market is pricing in substantial future growth or a complete turnaround narrative not currently supported by trailing earnings power. This premium valuation persists even as revenue declines and operating leverage fails to offset margin compression, creating a scenario where traditional multiple expansion offers limited upside given the negative earnings base. The disparity between the high F-Score indicating stability and the inflated P/E suggests potential mean reversion risks if the company cannot reverse its trajectory from current contractionary trends.
The risk-reward profile is skewed by conflicting signals regarding corporate governance versus financial performance. Although low insider selling relative to market cap might not be alarming in isolation, it coincides with deteriorating top-line growth and negative bottom-line results, which could erode confidence if the turnaround plan fails to materialize quickly enough to justify current multiples. The combination of a high Piotroski score and deep undervaluation according to DCF models creates an asymmetric setup where downside protection is theoretically available at these levels, yet the immediate pressure from revenue declines and negative margins introduces significant execution risk that could compress valuations further before any fundamental inflection occurs.
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 -5% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.4% | 9.4% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $67 | $49 | $35 |
| 3% | $88 | $58 | $39 |
| 4% | $128 | $73 | $45 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $40.11.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.4%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $58 (+28.5%). 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.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-16 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-15 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2025-09-15 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2025-06-16 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2025-03-17 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2024-12-16 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2024-09-16 | $0.0400 | 0.0% |
| 2024-06-14 | $0.0400 | -78.9% |
| 2024-03-14 | $0.1900 | +2.7% |
| 2023-12-14 | $0.1850 | 0.0% |
| 2023-09-14 | $0.1850 | 0.0% |
| 2023-06-14 | $0.1850 | 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 XTL or SLYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TDS shares regardless of TDS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $162M of passive capital is structurally linked to TDS through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on TDS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 7 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in TDS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TDS (TDS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Facebook Inc. Class A (META) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with TDS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 7 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
TDS Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 23 TDS shares, reducing daily market volatility.
TDS (TDS) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 2.6% of the XTL (XTL) and 0.5% of the SLYV (SLYV). Across 8 tracked ETFs, approximately 5M shares (4.4% 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 TDS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TDS 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 TDS over the past year sits near $38.73 (20% of 252-day volume). The current price of $40.11 trades 3.5% 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 (20% 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.
TDS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does TDS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
TDS converts 35% 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 65% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-5.4%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-24 | 28,182 | $45.36 | $1.3M |
| 2026-04-22 | 2 | $45.11 | $90.22 |
| 2026-04-17 | 24 | $45.57 | $1,093.68 |
| 2026-04-07 | 249 | $45.35 | $11,292.15 |
| 2026-03-27 | 2,483 | $43.20 | $107,265.6 |
| 2026-02-13 | 47 | $46.82 | $2,200.54 |
| 2026-02-03 | 10,685 | $45.40 | $485,099 |
| 2026-01-29 | 5 | $43.63 | $218.15 |
| 2026-01-22 | 132 | $43.97 | $5,804.04 |
| 2026-01-15 | 3,393 | $44.34 | $150,445.62 |
| 2026-01-14 | 4,358 | $42.61 | $185,694.38 |
| 2026-01-13 | 17,877 | $42.18 | $754,051.86 |
| 2026-01-12 | 1,516 | $41.58 | $63,035.28 |
| 2026-01-09 | 2 | $40.73 | $81.46 |
| 2025-12-18 | 202 | $38.29 | $7,734.58 |
| 2025-12-12 | 1,365 | $38.45 | $52,484.25 |
| 2025-11-19 | 3,816 | $38.09 | $145,351.44 |
| 2025-11-12 | 66 | $39.09 | $2,579.94 |
| 2025-10-29 | 62 | $39.55 | $2,452.1 |
| 2025-10-27 | 2,443 | $38.90 | $95,032.7 |
| 2025-10-16 | 4 | $38.81 | $155.24 |
| 2025-10-14 | 4,585 | $38.46 | $176,339.1 |
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 | |
| NI | 0.305 | 0.387 | Moderate |
| HOLX | 0.302 | 0.061 | Moderate |
| VRTPX | 0.300 | 0.333 | Low correlation |
| MSI | 0.297 | 0.187 | Low correlation |
| XYZ | 0.290 | 0.201 | Low correlation |
| BRK.A | 0.286 | 0.199 | Low correlation |
| AAPL | 0.280 | 0.196 | Low correlation |
| ZBH | 0.272 | 0.179 | Low correlation |
| BRK-B | 0.270 | 0.174 | Low correlation |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare TDS 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.