Filing Flows › Companies › Cardinal Health › Analysis traps
Cardinal Health (CAH): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q1 FY27, to Sep 30, 2026, filed Nov 5, 2026; rules v1.1
Cardinal Health (CAH): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 30, 2026: FCF growth = the business improved. 2 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 medium · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $2.7B (+145%), from $1.9B to $4.5B, but working capital released $2.2B more cash than the year before: 83% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $567M.
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 $1.7B is at a high against a median of $852M over eight years; at 37.2× the market is not pricing it as cheap, but a multiple on this year's profit still understates the mid-cycle one (74.5×).
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 187.31 a share (price 267.82); 100% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from -690.85 to 930.99; across every method the research ran the range is -3,946 to 1,488. 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 medium · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $2.7B (+145%), from $1.9B to $4.5B, but working capital released $2.2B more cash than the year before: 83% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $567M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY25 |
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $2.4B |
| Operating cash flow | $5.2B |
| Capex, year before | $547M |
| Capex | $649M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $1.9B |
| Free cash flow | $4.5B |
| Change in FCF | $2.7B |
| Change in capex | $102M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $2.2B |
| Of which: capex cut | 0.00 |
| Of which: working capital released | $2.2B |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +82.6% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 567000000.00 |
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 Not triggered confidence high
Stock compensation is 0.1% of revenue: small enough that adding it back changes little.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Stock compensation | $367M |
| Revenue | $254.2B |
| SBC / revenue | +0.1% |
| Buybacks | $1.4B |
| Buybacks / SBC | 3.7 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 242.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 237.0M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -2.1% |
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)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew 6% against revenue 5% in Q1 FY27; DSO 19 against a median of 20: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q1 FY27 |
| Revenue, year over year | +5.5% |
| Receivables, year over year | +5.6% |
| Quarter before | Q2 FY26 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +18.8% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | +10.4% |
| Days sales outstanding | 19.3 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 19.6 |
| Receivables | $14.5B |
| Revenue | $67.5B |
receivables and revenue against the same quarter a year earlier; DSO = receivables / quarterly revenue × days, against the median of the eight quarters before
Source: Q1 FY27 (receivables and revenue) · Q1 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 Not triggered confidence medium
$1.9B comes due within a year, 5.2× covered by cash and investments of $4.9B plus $4.9B of free cash flow.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $4.9B |
| Debt | $8.9B |
| Net debt | $4.0B |
| Due within a year | $1.9B |
| Read from | the debt maturity table |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | $4.9B |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $9.8B |
| Coverage of what is due | 5.2 |
| Due in the second year | $741M |
| Balance sheet date | 2026-06-30 |
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: FY26 (debt maturities, cash and investments)
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not triggered confidence high
EPS rose 26% and net income rose 23% in Q1 FY27; the share count fell 2.5%: EPS growth follows profit growth.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q1 FY27 |
| Quarter before | Q1 FY26 |
| EPS, year before | $1.88 |
| EPS | $2.38 |
| Net income, year before | $450M |
| Net income | $554M |
| Diluted shares, year before | 239.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 233.0M shares |
| EPS growth | +26.3% |
| Net income growth | +23.1% |
| Diluted shares: change | -2.5% |
| eps from profit | $0.44 |
| eps from share count | $0.06 |
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: Q1 FY27 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q1 FY26 (the same quarter a year earlier)
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued To review confidence medium
Net income of $1.7B is at a high against a median of $852M over eight years; at 37.2× the market is not pricing it as cheap, but a multiple on this year's profit still understates the mid-cycle one (74.5×).
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $63.5B |
| net income ttm | $1.7B |
| pe ttm | 37.20 |
| net income median fy | $852M |
| pe mid cycle | 74.50 |
| net income peak fy | $1.7B |
| years | FY19 / 1363.0; FY20 / -3696.0; FY21 / 611.0; FY22 / -933.0; FY23 / 261.0; FY24 / 852.0; FY25 / 1561.0; FY26 / 1714.0 |
| 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: Q1 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 187.31 a share (price 267.82); 100% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from -690.85 to 930.99; across every method the research ran the range is -3,946 to 1,488. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 187.31 |
| price | 267.82 |
| terminal value share | +100.0% |
| swing by input | Operating margin / ±3 pts / -690.85 / 930.99; Capex (share of revenue) / ±1 pt / 125.67 / 248.96; Working capital per $ of growth / ±10 pts / 130.09 / 244.54; WACC / ±1 pt / 142.85 / 257.0 |
| range all methods | -3946.42; 1488.34 |
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 → Cardinal Health: 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.