Filing Flows › Companies › Spectrum Brands Holdings › Analysis traps
Spectrum Brands Holdings (SPB): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q3 FY26, to Jun 28, 2026, filed Aug 7, 2026; rules v1.1
Spectrum Brands Holdings (SPB): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Jun 28, 2026: adjusted profit = economic profit; FCF growth = the business improved. 1 to review; 3 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.
Check these first
Adjusted profit = economic profit Triggered · severity high · confidence low
Adjusted EPS was at least 10% above GAAP in 3 of the last 3 quarters (on average 60% above). Costs excluded every quarter (restructuring, stock compensation, amortisation of acquired intangibles, litigation) are a recurring cost of the business, not a one-off.
Innocent reading: A genuine one-off this year (an impairment, a settlement) that happens to span several quarters.
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $47M (+39%), from $119M to $165M, but working capital released $22M more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $6M: 58% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $19M.
Innocent reading: An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good.
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 65.14 a share (price 86.68); 60% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from 16.18 to 114.11; across every method the research ran the range is -419 to 15,059. 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 medium
Free cash flow rose $47M (+39%), from $119M to $165M, but working capital released $22M more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $6M: 58% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $19M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY24 |
| Fiscal year | FY25 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $163M |
| Operating cash flow | $204M |
| Capex, year before | $44M |
| Capex | $38M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $119M |
| Free cash flow | $165M |
| Change in FCF | $47M |
| Change in capex | −$6M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $22M |
| Of which: capex cut | $6M |
| Of which: working capital released | $22M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +58.5% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 19400000.00 |
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: FY25 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY24 (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 0.7% of revenue: small enough that adding it back changes little.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY25 |
| Stock compensation | $20M |
| Revenue | $2.8B |
| SBC / revenue | +0.7% |
| Buybacks | $326M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 15.9 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 30.5M shares |
| Diluted shares | 25.9M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -15.1% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY25 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew -4% against revenue 8% in Q3 FY26; DSO 69 against a median of 75: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 FY26 |
| Revenue, year over year | +7.7% |
| Receivables, year over year | -3.9% |
| Quarter before | Q2 FY26 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +4.9% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | -4.1% |
| Days sales outstanding | 68.9 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 74.6 |
| Receivables | $581M |
| Revenue | $753M |
receivables and revenue against the same quarter a year earlier; DSO = receivables / quarterly revenue × days, against the median of the eight quarters before
Source: Q3 FY26 (receivables and revenue) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Triggered severity high · confidence low
Adjusted EPS was at least 10% above GAAP in 3 of the last 3 quarters (on average 60% above). Costs excluded every quarter (restructuring, stock compensation, amortisation of acquired intangibles, litigation) are a recurring cost of the business, not a one-off.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter / adjusted EPS / GAAP EPS / gap | 2025-12-31 / 1.4 / 1.21 / 0.136; 2026-03-31 / 1.25 / 0.94 / 0.248; 2026-06-30 / 2.79 / -1.16 / 1.416 |
| Quarters with adjusted ≥ 10% above GAAP | 3 |
| Quarters compared | 3 |
| Latest gap | +141.6% |
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: 2025-12-31 (adjusted 1.40 vs GAAP 1.21) · 2026-03-31 (adjusted 1.25 vs GAAP 0.94) · 2026-06-30 (adjusted 2.79 vs GAAP -1.16)
What would explain it innocently
- A genuine one-off this year (an impairment, a settlement) that happens to span several quarters
- Amortisation of acquired intangibles, which many investors also exclude by choice
- The analysts' 'actual' is not the company's own adjusted figure
What to look for in the filing
- The reconciliation table in the earnings release: which items, how much, how often
- Whether the same items were excluded in earlier years
What would show the trap does not apply
- The reconciliation shows the excluded items ending (a restructuring with its final charge, a settlement paid) and the gap to GAAP closes in the next quarters
- The excluded items are only amortisation of acquired intangibles and the cash paid for the deals is in the investing cash flow
Look again: next filing.
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Not triggered confidence medium
Nothing comes due within a year; net debt is $237M.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $259M |
| Debt | $496M |
| Net debt | $237M |
| Due within a year | 0 |
| Read from | the debt maturity table |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | $292M |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $550M |
| Coverage of what is due | — |
| Due in the second year | 0 |
| Balance sheet date | 2026-06-28 |
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: FY25 (debt maturities, cash and investments)
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 triggered confidence medium
Net income of $85M is not at a cyclical high against the last eight years (median $190M, best $1.8B): the P/E of 23.6× is on a normal year.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $2.0B |
| net income ttm | $85M |
| pe ttm | 23.60 |
| net income median fy | $190M |
| pe mid cycle | 10.60 |
| net income peak fy | $1.8B |
| years | FY18 / 768.0; FY19 / 472.0; FY20 / 98.0; FY21 / 190.0; FY22 / 72.0; FY23 / 1802.0; FY24 / 125.0; FY25 / 100.0 |
| down years in window | 5 |
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: Q3 FY26 (net income, trailing twelve months)
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 65.14 a share (price 86.68); 60% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from 16.18 to 114.11; across every method the research ran the range is -419 to 15,059. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 65.14 |
| price | 86.68 |
| terminal value share | +60.2% |
| swing by input | Operating margin / ±3 pts / 16.18 / 114.11; Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 53.28 / 79.29; WACC / ±1 pt / 56.2 / 77.48; Capex (share of revenue) / ±1 pt / 60.07 / 70.21 |
| range all methods | -419.43; 15059.4 |
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 → Spectrum Brands Holdings: 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.