Filing Flows › Companies › Macom Technology Solutions Holdings › Earnings quality
Macom Technology Solutions Holdings earnings quality score
How much of the reported profit is backed by cash, and how many markers of managed earnings the filings show
Score74 / 100 · grade B · rank 188 of 1027
Macom Technology Solutions Holdings (MTSI) scores 74 of 100 for earnings quality, grade B: rank 188 of 1027 companies and 41 of 203 in technology. It loses the most points on Montier C-score 4 of 6 checks failed, discretionary accruals of -6.3% of assets (modified Jones), larger than most, Piotroski F-score 5 of 9. It earns full or near-full marks for accruals of -15.0% of assets, lower than 93% of companies (profit backed by cash), Beneish M-score -2.88: clean (below −2.22), Dechow F-score 0.71 (normal).
What earned and lost points
| Component | What the filings show | Points | Of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accruals | accruals of -15.0% of assets, lower than 93% of companies (profit backed by cash) | 21 | 22 |
| Beneish M-score | Beneish M-score -2.88: clean (below −2.22) | 17 | 17 |
| Dechow F-score | Dechow F-score 0.71 (normal) | 17 | 17 |
| Montier C-score | Montier C-score 4 of 6 checks failed | 6 | 17 |
| Discretionary accruals | discretionary accruals of -6.3% of assets (modified Jones), larger than most | 3 | 11 |
| Piotroski F-score | Piotroski F-score 5 of 9 | 6 | 11 |
| Earnings smoothness | profit about as variable as cash flow (smoothness 5.90) | 6 | 6 |
How the score is built
Eight published measures, each scored against the whole universe or on its own scale and weighted: accruals 20, discretionary accruals 10, Beneish M 15, Dechow F 15, Montier C 15, Piotroski F 10, the non-GAAP gap 10, smoothness 5. A measure that cannot be computed (Beneish for a bank, say) drops out and the rest is rescaled, so every company is scored on what applies to it.
Every company ranked → The full quality workbench, live → Macom Technology Solutions Holdings: cash flow →
Computed from the companies’ own XBRL filings (latest fiscal year) by published formulas; a statistical screen, not an audit or an accusation. A low score means the reported profit shows more of the markers of managed or low-quality earnings than its peers. Not investment advice.