Filing Flows › Companies › Ambarella › Analysis traps
Ambarella (AMBA): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q2 FY27, to Jul 31, 2026, filed Sep 4, 2026; rules v1.1
Ambarella (AMBA): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Jul 31, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost; adjusted profit = economic profit; 3 with insufficient data; 3 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.
Check these first
Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered · severity high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $98M, 25.1% of revenue, in FY26; buybacks were $1M (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 3.4%. 'Adjusted' figures that add SBC back treat pay in shares as free; the cost is borne by every shareholder as dilution, or by the cash spent to buy the shares back.
Innocent reading: A young company paying in equity while it scales; intensity falls as revenue grows.
Adjusted profit = economic profit Triggered · severity high · confidence low
Adjusted EPS was at least 10% above GAAP in 3 of the last 3 quarters (on average 295% above). Costs excluded every quarter (restructuring, stock compensation, amortisation of acquired intangibles, litigation) are a recurring cost of the business, not a one-off.
Innocent reading: A genuine one-off this year (an impairment, a settlement) that happens to span several quarters.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Not triggered confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $35M to $58M; working capital and lower capex explain 11% of it, so most of the gain is in operating cash flow itself.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY25 |
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $34M |
| Operating cash flow | $74M |
| Capex, year before | $10M |
| Capex | $16M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $23M |
| Free cash flow | $58M |
| Change in FCF | $35M |
| Change in capex | $5M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $4M |
| Of which: capex cut | 0.00 |
| Of which: working capital released | $4M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +10.7% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 35981000.00 |
FCF = operating cash flow − cash capex; ΔFCF = ΔOCF − ΔCapEx; the working-capital part is the change in the cash-bridge items (receivables, inventory, payables, accruals), with the sign of the cash flow statement
Source: FY26 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY25 (cash flow statement, fiscal year before)
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered severity high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $98M, 25.1% of revenue, in FY26; buybacks were $1M (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 3.4%. 'Adjusted' figures that add SBC back treat pay in shares as free; the cost is borne by every shareholder as dilution, or by the cash spent to buy the shares back.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Stock compensation | $98M |
| Revenue | $391M |
| SBC / revenue | +25.1% |
| Buybacks | $1M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 41.3M shares |
| Diluted shares | 42.7M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +3.4% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY26 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
What would explain it innocently
- A young company paying in equity while it scales; intensity falls as revenue grows
- Buybacks at prices below intrinsic value make up for the dilution over time
- A one-off grant (an acquisition, a founder award) rather than a steady level
What to look for in the filing
- The share count after the latest buybacks (the next 10-Q's cover)
- The price paid for the buybacks against the shares' value
- Unvested awards outstanding
What would show the trap does not apply
- The diluted share count falls over two years with buybacks at least equal to the stock compensation
- Stock compensation falls as a share of revenue in each of the next two years
Look again: next filing.
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew -13% against revenue 13% in Q2 FY27; DSO 33 against a median of 35: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q2 FY27 |
| Revenue, year over year | +13.2% |
| Receivables, year over year | -12.7% |
| Quarter before | Q1 FY27 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +16.9% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | +29.6% |
| Days sales outstanding | 32.6 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 34.9 |
| Receivables | $37M |
| Revenue | $108M |
receivables and revenue against the same quarter a year earlier; DSO = receivables / quarterly revenue × days, against the median of the eight quarters before
Source: Q2 FY27 (receivables and revenue) · Q2 FY26 (the same quarter a year earlier)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Triggered severity high · confidence low
Adjusted EPS was at least 10% above GAAP in 3 of the last 3 quarters (on average 295% above). Costs excluded every quarter (restructuring, stock compensation, amortisation of acquired intangibles, litigation) are a recurring cost of the business, not a one-off.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter / adjusted EPS / GAAP EPS / gap | 2025-10-31 / 0.27 / -0.35 / 2.296; 2026-04-30 / 0.11 / -0.41 / 4.727; 2026-07-31 / 0.18 / -0.15 / 1.833 |
| Quarters with adjusted ≥ 10% above GAAP | 3 |
| Quarters compared | 3 |
| Latest gap | +183.3% |
the analysts' 'actual' (usually the company's adjusted EPS) against GAAP net income ÷ diluted shares for the matching quarter; a gap of 10% or more counts (the stand-in until three releases' reconciliation tables are on file)
Source: 2025-10-31 (adjusted 0.27 vs GAAP -0.35) · 2026-04-30 (adjusted 0.11 vs GAAP -0.41) · 2026-07-31 (adjusted 0.18 vs GAAP -0.15)
What would explain it innocently
- A genuine one-off this year (an impairment, a settlement) that happens to span several quarters
- Amortisation of acquired intangibles, which many investors also exclude by choice
- The analysts' 'actual' is not the company's own adjusted figure
What to look for in the filing
- The reconciliation table in the earnings release: which items, how much, how often
- Whether the same items were excluded in earlier years
What would show the trap does not apply
- The reconciliation shows the excluded items ending (a restructuring with its final charge, a settlement paid) and the gap to GAAP closes in the next quarters
- The excluded items are only amortisation of acquired intangibles and the cash paid for the deals is in the investing cash flow
Look again: next filing.
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Insufficient data
no debt figure could be read from the balance sheet (the filing may tag it in other lines)
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not applicable
a loss in one of the quarters: EPS growth has no meaning
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Insufficient data
no market value or trailing net income in the valuation research
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value Insufficient data
no DCF in the valuation research for this company
J06 A bank's low P/E and high profit = safe Not applicable
not a bank
J08 A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe Not applicable
not a REIT
What the statuses mean
Triggered: the filings show the pattern; read the normal explanations and the missing evidence before concluding anything. To review: one quarter or a weak signal; a reader's judgement, not a pattern. Not triggered: the pattern is absent on these figures. Insufficient data: the filings read so far do not hold what the rule needs; this is not a clean bill. Not applicable: the rule is not meant for this kind of company (a bank's working capital, a loss-making quarter's EPS growth). Out of date: the latest filing is more than fifteen months old.
Severity is what the pattern could mean for cash, value or solvency; confidence is how reliable the inputs and the reading are. The two are kept apart.
Record a view
A reader's judgement, grounds, what would change it and the next review; kept in the browser (needs JavaScript).
Every rule and the companies it triggers on → Ambarella: cash flow →
Each rule reads the company's own filings by a fixed formula and says what would explain the same figures innocently. A triggered rule is a question to verify, not a finding of manipulation, and not a view on the stock. Missing data is shown as missing, never as clear. Not investment advice.