Filing Flows › Companies › Hims & Hers Health › Analysis traps
Hims & Hers Health (HIMS): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q2 2026, to Jun 30, 2026, filed Aug 10, 2026; rules v1.1
Hims & Hers Health (HIMS): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Jun 30, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost; 3 with insufficient data; 4 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 medium · confidence high
Stock compensation was $135M, 5.8% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $90M (0.7× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 9.0%. '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.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Not triggered confidence high
Free cash flow did not rise ($198M → $57M): the trap does not arise.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY2024 |
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $251M |
| Operating cash flow | $300M |
| Capex, year before | $53M |
| Capex | $243M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $198M |
| Free cash flow | $57M |
| Change in FCF | −$141M |
| Change in capex | $190M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | −$111M |
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 medium · confidence high
Stock compensation was $135M, 5.8% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $90M (0.7× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 9.0%. '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 | $135M |
| Revenue | $2.3B |
| SBC / revenue | +5.8% |
| Buybacks | $90M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.7 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 236.8M shares |
| Diluted shares | 258.2M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +9.0% |
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 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 | 2025-09-30 / 0.06 / 0.06 / 0.0; 2026-03-31 / -0.4 / -0.4 / 0.0; 2026-06-30 / -0.37 / -0.37 / 0.0 |
| Quarters with adjusted ≥ 10% above GAAP | 0 |
| Quarters compared | 3 |
| Latest gap | +0.0% |
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: 2025-09-30 (adjusted 0.06 vs GAAP 0.06) · 2026-03-31 (adjusted -0.40 vs GAAP -0.40) · 2026-06-30 (adjusted -0.37 vs GAAP -0.37)
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 Not applicable
a loss on a trailing or mid-cycle basis: the P/E has no meaning
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 → Hims & Hers 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.