Filing Flows › Companies › Bellring Brands › Analysis traps
Bellring Brands (BRBR): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q3 FY26, to Jun 30, 2026, filed Aug 4, 2026; rules v1.1
Bellring Brands (BRBR): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Jun 30, 2026: FCF growth = the business improved. 1 to review; 1 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
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity high · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $58M (+29%), from $198M to $256M, but working capital released $118M more cash than the year before: more than the whole increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital fell by $57M.
Innocent reading: An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good.
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 49.80 a share (price 9.16); 84% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving wacc by ±1 pt alone takes it from 36.73 to 73.39; across every method the research ran the range is -158 to 168. 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 Triggered severity high · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $58M (+29%), from $198M to $256M, but working capital released $118M more cash than the year before: more than the whole increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital fell by $57M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY24 |
| Fiscal year | FY25 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $200M |
| Operating cash flow | $261M |
| Capex, year before | $2M |
| Capex | $5M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $198M |
| Free cash flow | $256M |
| Change in FCF | $58M |
| Change in capex | $3M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $118M |
| Of which: capex cut | 0.00 |
| Of which: working capital released | $118M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +203.3% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | -57100000.00 |
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: FY25 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY24 (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 Not triggered confidence high
Stock compensation is 1.0% of revenue: small enough that adding it back changes little.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY25 |
| Stock compensation | $22M |
| Revenue | $2.3B |
| SBC / revenue | +0.9% |
| Buybacks | $475M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 21.5 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 132.3M shares |
| Diluted shares | 128.5M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -2.9% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY25 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew -11% against revenue 4% in Q3 FY26; DSO 39 against a median of 38: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 FY26 |
| Revenue, year over year | +4.2% |
| Receivables, year over year | -11.3% |
| Quarter before | Q2 FY26 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +1.8% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | +2.3% |
| Days sales outstanding | 39.0 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 38.0 |
| Receivables | $216M |
| Revenue | $570M |
receivables and revenue against the same quarter a year earlier; DSO = receivables / quarterly revenue × days, against the median of the eight quarters before
Source: Q3 FY26 (receivables and revenue) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Not triggered confidence low
Adjusted and GAAP EPS were within 10% of each other in the last 3 quarters.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter / adjusted EPS / GAAP EPS / gap | 2025-12-31 / 0.37 / 0.36 / 0.027; 2026-03-31 / 0.14 / 0.29 / -1.071; 2026-06-30 / 0.3 / 0.29 / 0.033 |
| Quarters with adjusted ≥ 10% above GAAP | 0 |
| Quarters compared | 3 |
| Latest gap | +3.3% |
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: 2025-12-31 (adjusted 0.37 vs GAAP 0.36) · 2026-03-31 (adjusted 0.14 vs GAAP 0.29) · 2026-06-30 (adjusted 0.30 vs GAAP 0.29)
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Insufficient data
neither a maturity table nor the current portion of debt is on file
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not triggered confidence high
EPS rose 79% and net income rose 63% in Q3 FY26; the share count fell 8.9%: EPS growth follows profit growth.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 FY26 |
| Quarter before | Q3 FY25 |
| EPS, year before | $0.16 |
| EPS | $0.29 |
| Net income, year before | $21M |
| Net income | $34M |
| Diluted shares, year before | 128.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 116.6M shares |
| EPS growth | +78.7% |
| Net income growth | +62.9% |
| Diluted shares: change | -8.9% |
| eps from profit | $0.10 |
| eps from share count | $0.03 |
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: Q3 FY26 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Not triggered confidence medium
Net income of $171M is not at a cyclical high against the last eight years (median $82M, best $246M): the P/E of 6.2× is on a normal year.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $1.1B |
| net income ttm | $171M |
| pe ttm | 6.20 |
| net income median fy | $82M |
| pe mid cycle | 13.00 |
| net income peak fy | $246M |
| years | FY18 / 0.0; FY19 / 0.0; FY20 / 24.0; FY21 / 28.0; FY22 / 82.0; FY23 / 166.0; FY24 / 246.0; FY25 / 216.0 |
| 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: Q3 FY26 (net income, trailing twelve months)
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 49.80 a share (price 9.16); 84% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving wacc by ±1 pt alone takes it from 36.73 to 73.39; across every method the research ran the range is -158 to 168. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 49.80 |
| price | 9.16 |
| terminal value share | +83.8% |
| swing by input | WACC / ±1 pt / 36.73 / 73.39; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 36.43 / 63.18; Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 38.17 / 63.8; Terminal growth / ±0.5 pt / 44.16 / 57.33 |
| range all methods | -157.82; 167.98 |
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 → Bellring Brands: 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.