Filing Flows › Companies › Axon Enterprise › Analysis traps
Axon Enterprise (AXON): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q3 2026, to Sep 30, 2026, filed Nov 6, 2026; rules v1.1
Axon Enterprise (AXON): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 30, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost. 1 to review; 2 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 $634M, 22.8% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 4.9%. '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.
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is -3.38 a share (price 313.00); 103% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from -29.82 to 23.06; across every method the research ran the range is -192 to 700. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
Innocent reading: A stable, mature business with a narrow range of outcomes, where the point value is a fair summary.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Not triggered confidence high
Free cash flow did not rise ($330M → $75M): the trap does not arise.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY2024 |
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $408M |
| Operating cash flow | $211M |
| Capex, year before | $79M |
| Capex | $136M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $330M |
| Free cash flow | $75M |
| Change in FCF | −$254M |
| Change in capex | $57M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | −$306M |
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: FY2025 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY2024 (cash flow statement, fiscal year before)
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered severity high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $634M, 22.8% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 4.9%. '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 | FY2025 |
| Stock compensation | $634M |
| Revenue | $2.8B |
| SBC / revenue | +22.8% |
| Buybacks | 0 |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 78.6M shares |
| Diluted shares | 82.4M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +4.9% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY2025 (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 Insufficient data
fewer than five quarters with receivables and revenue on file (a year-over-year comparison needs five)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Insufficient data
1 quarter with a reconciliation table on file (three are needed) and fewer than three quarters with both an adjusted and a GAAP EPS
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Not triggered confidence medium
Nothing comes due within a year; net debt is $1.2B.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $1.6B |
| Debt | $2.9B |
| Net debt | $1.2B |
| Due within a year | 0 |
| Read from | the debt maturity table |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | $81M |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $1.7B |
| Coverage of what is due | — |
| Due in the second year | $81M |
| Balance sheet date | 2026-09-30 |
due within a year from the maturity table (else the current portion of debt), against cash and investments plus free cash flow over the last twelve months (zero if negative); no credit lines assumed
Source: FY2025 (debt maturities, cash and investments)
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 Not triggered confidence medium
Net income of $258M is not at a cyclical high against the last eight years (median $125M, best $377M): the P/E of 101.3× is on a normal year.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $26.2B |
| net income ttm | $258M |
| pe ttm | 101.30 |
| net income median fy | $125M |
| pe mid cycle | 210.10 |
| net income peak fy | $377M |
| years | FY2018 / 29.0; FY2019 / 1.0; FY2020 / -2.0; FY2021 / -60.0; FY2022 / 147.0; FY2023 / 174.0; FY2024 / 377.0; FY2025 / 125.0 |
| down years in window | 4 |
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: Q3 2026 (net income, trailing twelve months)
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is -3.38 a share (price 313.00); 103% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from -29.82 to 23.06; across every method the research ran the range is -192 to 700. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | -3.38 |
| price | 313.00 |
| terminal value share | +103.3% |
| swing by input | Operating margin / ±3 pts / -29.82 / 23.06; Working capital per $ of growth / ±10 pts / -8.26 / 1.49; Capex (share of revenue) / ±1 pt / -6.33 / -0.43; WACC / ±1 pt / -5.11 / -1.15 |
| range all methods | -192.32; 700.0 |
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 → Axon Enterprise: 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.