Filing Flows › Companies › Lumentum Holdings › Analysis traps
Lumentum Holdings (LITE): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q1 FY27, to Sep 26, 2026, filed Nov 3, 2026; rules v1.1
Lumentum Holdings (LITE): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 26, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost; low net debt = no refinancing risk. 1 to review; 3 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 medium · confidence high
Stock compensation was $170M, 5.6% of revenue, in FY26; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 7.2%. '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.
Low net debt = no refinancing risk Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium
$2.7B of debt comes due within a year against $2.0B of cash and investments and $356M of free cash flow over the last twelve months: $385M short, to be refinanced or raised. Net debt of $780M says nothing about when the debt falls due.
Innocent reading: A committed, undrawn credit facility covers the gap (not visible in the balance sheet).
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 97.90 a share (price 538.59); 74% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving revenue growth (each year) by ±5 pts alone takes it from 80.79 to 117.80; across every method the research ran the range is -36 to 1,425. 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 medium
Free cash flow rose $405M to $300M; working capital and lower capex explain 0% of it, so most of the gain is in operating cash flow itself.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY25 |
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $126M |
| Operating cash flow | $751M |
| Capex, year before | $231M |
| Capex | $451M |
| Free cash flow, year before | −$105M |
| Free cash flow | $300M |
| Change in FCF | $405M |
| Change in capex | $220M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | −$146M |
| Of which: capex cut | 0.00 |
| Of which: working capital released | 0.00 |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +0.0% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 771000000.00 |
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)
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered severity medium · confidence high
Stock compensation was $170M, 5.6% of revenue, in FY26; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 7.2%. '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 | $170M |
| Revenue | $3.0B |
| SBC / revenue | +5.7% |
| Buybacks | 0 |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 69.6M shares |
| Diluted shares | 74.6M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +7.2% |
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 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
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 Triggered severity medium · confidence medium
$2.7B of debt comes due within a year against $2.0B of cash and investments and $356M of free cash flow over the last twelve months: $385M short, to be refinanced or raised. Net debt of $780M says nothing about when the debt falls due.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $2.0B |
| Debt | $2.8B |
| Net debt | $780M |
| Due within a year | $2.7B |
| Read from | the current portion of debt on the balance sheet |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | $356M |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $2.3B |
| Coverage of what is due | 0.9 |
| Due in the second year | — |
| Balance sheet date | 2026-09-26 |
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: 2026-09-26 (debt maturities, cash and investments)
What would explain it innocently
- A committed, undrawn credit facility covers the gap (not visible in the balance sheet)
- The notes are routinely rolled over in the commercial-paper or bond market at an investment-grade rating
- Cash held abroad or in subsidiaries can be moved to where the debt is
- A sale of a business or asset already agreed brings the cash
What to look for in the filing
- Undrawn committed facilities and their covenants
- The cost and rating of the refinancing
- Restricted cash and the operating minimum
What would show the trap does not apply
- The 10-K lists an undrawn credit facility that covers the debt due, or the maturity is refinanced before it falls due
- Cash plus FCF of the next quarter exceeds the debt due within a year
Look again: next filing.
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Insufficient data
no quarter with EPS, net income and diluted shares for both this year and last
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 To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 97.90 a share (price 538.59); 74% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving revenue growth (each year) by ±5 pts alone takes it from 80.79 to 117.80; across every method the research ran the range is -36 to 1,425. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 97.90 |
| price | 538.59 |
| terminal value share | +73.5% |
| swing by input | Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 80.79 / 117.8; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 81.5 / 114.3; WACC / ±1 pt / 87.74 / 110.09; Tax rate / ±5 pts / 89.78 / 106.01 |
| range all methods | -35.56; 1425.0 |
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 → Lumentum Holdings: cash flow →
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.