Filing Flows › Companies › Our Bond › Analysis traps
Our Bond (OBAI): 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 14, 2026; rules v1.1
Our Bond (OBAI): 3 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Jun 30, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost; low net debt = no refinancing risk; FCF growth = the business improved; 4 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 high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $1M, 10.9% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 68.7%. '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 high · confidence medium
$2M of debt comes due within a year against $599K of cash and investments and no free cash flow to add: $956K short, to be refinanced or raised. Net debt of $7M says nothing about when the debt falls due.
Innocent reading: A committed, undrawn credit facility covers the gap (not visible in the balance sheet).
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $1M, from −$8M to −$7M, but working capital released $844K more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $28K: 69% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $391K.
Innocent reading: An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Triggered severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $1M, from −$8M to −$7M, but working capital released $844K more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $28K: 69% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $391K.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY2024 |
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | −$8M |
| Operating cash flow | −$7M |
| Capex, year before | 62,000 |
| Capex | 34,000 |
| Free cash flow, year before | −$8M |
| Free cash flow | −$7M |
| Change in FCF | $1M |
| Change in capex | -28,000 |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $844K |
| Of which: capex cut | 28,000 |
| Of which: working capital released | $844K |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +69.0% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 391000.00 |
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: FY2025 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY2024 (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 Triggered severity high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $1M, 10.9% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 68.7%. '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 | $1M |
| Revenue | $10M |
| SBC / revenue | +10.9% |
| Buybacks | 0 |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 147 shares |
| Diluted shares | 248 shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +68.7% |
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 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 high · confidence medium
$2M of debt comes due within a year against $599K of cash and investments and no free cash flow to add: $956K short, to be refinanced or raised. Net debt of $7M says nothing about when the debt falls due.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $599K |
| Debt | $7M |
| Net debt | $7M |
| Due within a year | $2M |
| Read from | the current portion of debt on the balance sheet |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | −$12M |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $599K |
| Coverage of what is due | 0.4 |
| Due in the second year | — |
| Balance sheet date | 2025-12-31 |
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: 2025-12-31 (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 Not applicable
a loss in one of the quarters: EPS growth has no meaning
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Insufficient data
no market value or trailing net income in the valuation research
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 → Our Bond: 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.