Filing Flows › Companies › Arm Holdings › Analysis traps
Arm Holdings (ARM): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q2 FY27, to Sep 30, 2026, filed Nov 4, 2026; rules v1.1
Arm Holdings (ARM): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 30, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost; FCF growth = the business improved. 2 to review; 2 with insufficient data; 2 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 $1.1B, 21.4% of revenue, in FY26; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and buybacks did not cover it. '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.
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $801M (+450%), from $178M to $979M, but working capital released $868M more cash than the year before: more than the whole increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $259M.
Innocent reading: An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good.
Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued To review · confidence medium
Net income of $936M is at a high against a median of $549M over eight years; at 199.5× the market is not pricing it as cheap, but a multiple on this year's profit still understates the mid-cycle one (340.2×).
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Triggered severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $801M (+450%), from $178M to $979M, but working capital released $868M more cash than the year before: more than the whole increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $259M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY25 |
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $397M |
| Operating cash flow | $1.5B |
| Capex, year before | $219M |
| Capex | $545M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $178M |
| Free cash flow | $979M |
| Change in FCF | $801M |
| Change in capex | $326M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $868M |
| Of which: capex cut | 0.00 |
| Of which: working capital released | $868M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +108.4% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 259000000.00 |
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)
What would explain it innocently
- An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good
- Suppliers agreed longer payment terms in a contract
- Inventory was brought down after a glut and will stay down
What to look for in the filing
- Maintenance capex (what it costs to keep the assets working)
- Supplier payment terms and any supply-chain financing
- Management's capex guidance for next year
What would show the trap does not apply
- Next year's FCF holds or rises with capex back at its earlier level and working capital no longer releasing cash
- The 10-K's capex guidance and the segment capex show the cut is a completed programme, not deferral
- The working-capital release matches a disclosed change in terms or a divestiture, not stretched payables or a collection push
Look again: next filing.
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered severity high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $1.1B, 21.4% of revenue, in FY26; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and buybacks did not cover it. '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 | $1.1B |
| Revenue | $4.9B |
| SBC / revenue | +21.4% |
| Buybacks | 0 |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 1,063.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 1,068.0M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +0.5% |
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 -3% against revenue 27% in Q2 FY27; DSO 70 against a median of 85: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q2 FY27 |
| Revenue, year over year | +27.1% |
| Receivables, year over year | -2.9% |
| Quarter before | Q1 FY27 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +22.4% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | -14.9% |
| Days sales outstanding | 70.3 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 85.4 |
| Receivables | $1.1B |
| Revenue | $1.4B |
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 Insufficient data
no reconciliation table read from the releases yet and fewer than three quarters with both an adjusted and a GAAP EPS
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 triggered confidence high
EPS fell 46% and net income fell 45% in Q2 FY27; the share count rose 0.9%: EPS growth follows profit growth.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q2 FY27 |
| Quarter before | Q2 FY26 |
| EPS, year before | $0.22 |
| EPS | $0.12 |
| Net income, year before | $238M |
| Net income | $130M |
| Diluted shares, year before | 1,069.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 1,079.0M shares |
| EPS growth | -46.2% |
| Net income growth | -45.4% |
| Diluted shares: change | +0.9% |
| eps from profit | -$0.10 |
| eps from share count | $0.00 |
EPS and net income against the same quarter a year earlier; the EPS bridge attributes the change to profit first, then to the share count (the order is fixed and disclosed)
Source: Q2 FY27 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q2 FY26 (the same quarter a year earlier)
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued To review confidence medium
Net income of $936M is at a high against a median of $549M over eight years; at 199.5× the market is not pricing it as cheap, but a multiple on this year's profit still understates the mid-cycle one (340.2×).
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $186.8B |
| net income ttm | $936M |
| pe ttm | 199.50 |
| net income median fy | $549M |
| pe mid cycle | 340.20 |
| net income peak fy | $904M |
| years | FY22 / 549.0; FY23 / 524.0; FY24 / 306.0; FY25 / 792.0; FY26 / 904.0 |
| down years in window | 2 |
P/E on the trailing twelve months' net income against the P/E on the median net income of the last eight fiscal years (a mid-cycle stand-in); 'at a peak' = this year's profit at or above 90% of the best year and at least 1.3× the median
Source: Q2 FY27 (net income, trailing twelve months)
What would show the trap does not apply
- Profit holds at this level through the next two years (the eight-year peak was a new base, not a top)
- The industry's capacity and prices stay where they are rather than reverting
Look again: next filing.
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 11.67 a share (price 173.25); 73% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from 9.96 to 13.39; across every method the research ran the range is 1 to 500. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 11.67 |
| price | 173.25 |
| terminal value share | +72.7% |
| swing by input | Operating margin / ±3 pts / 9.96 / 13.39; Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 10.32 / 13.27; WACC / ±1 pt / 10.89 / 12.62; Tax rate / ±5 pts / 11.08 / 12.26 |
| range all methods | 0.75; 500.0 |
the DCF's point value against the share of it that is the terminal value and the value at each input moved by one step (growth ±5 pts, WACC ±1 pt, margin ±3 pts …); the range across every method the research ran
Source: 2026-11-08 (valuation research)
What would explain it innocently
- A stable, mature business with a narrow range of outcomes, where the point value is a fair summary
- The inputs that matter most are themselves well known (a regulated return, a long contract)
What to look for in the filing
- Which input you believe differs from the research's and why
- What the price implies for growth (the reverse DCF on the fair-value page)
What would show the trap does not apply
- The DCF's value is robust to the terminal growth and discount rate (the range's low end is still above the price)
- The company's cash flows over the next three years track the DCF's early years
Look again: next filing.
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 → Arm Holdings: cash flow → Earnings quality score →
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.