Filing Flows › Companies › Teradata › Analysis traps
Teradata (TDC): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q3 2026, to Sep 30, 2026, filed Nov 6, 2026; rules v1.1
Teradata (TDC): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 30, 2026: low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued; FCF growth = the business improved. 1 to review; 2 with insufficient data; 2 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.
Check these first
Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Triggered · severity high · confidence medium
The shares trade at 6.7× this year's net income of $456M, but that profit is at a high: the median of the last eight fiscal years is $114M, on which the same market value is 26.6×. A low multiple of peak profit is not a low multiple of normal profit.
Innocent reading: The business has changed for good (a merger, a new line, a pricing regime) and the old years are not its normal.
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity medium · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $7M (+3%), from $279M to $286M, but capital expenditure fell by $5M: 71% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $38M.
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 22.10 a share (price 31.80); 61% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from 15.97 to 28.23; across every method the research ran the range is 0 to 326. 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 high
Free cash flow rose $7M (+3%), from $279M to $286M, but capital expenditure fell by $5M: 71% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $38M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY2024 |
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $303M |
| Operating cash flow | $305M |
| Capex, year before | $24M |
| Capex | $19M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $279M |
| Free cash flow | $286M |
| Change in FCF | $7M |
| Change in capex | −$5M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | −$36M |
| Of which: capex cut | $5M |
| Of which: working capital released | 0.00 |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +71.4% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 38000000.00 |
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 Not triggered confidence high
Stock compensation is 6.7% of revenue, but buybacks of $140M covered it (1.2×) and the diluted share count fell 1.6%: the dilution has been paid for in cash.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Stock compensation | $112M |
| Revenue | $1.7B |
| SBC / revenue | +6.7% |
| Buybacks | $140M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 1.2 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 98.2M shares |
| Diluted shares | 96.6M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -1.6% |
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)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew -35% against revenue -4% in Q3 2026; DSO 53 against a median of 61: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 2026 |
| Revenue, year over year | -4.1% |
| Receivables, year over year | -34.6% |
| Quarter before | Q2 2026 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +0.5% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | -12.6% |
| Days sales outstanding | 52.8 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 61.2 |
| Receivables | $202M |
| Revenue | $399M |
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 2026 (receivables and revenue) · Q3 2025 (the same quarter a year earlier)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Insufficient data
1 quarter with a reconciliation table on file (three are needed) and fewer than three quarters with both an adjusted and a GAAP EPS
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 triggered confidence high
EPS fell 5% and net income fell 5% in Q3 2026; the share count rose 0.0%: EPS growth follows profit growth.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 2026 |
| Quarter before | Q3 2025 |
| EPS, year before | $0.42 |
| EPS | $0.40 |
| Net income, year before | $40M |
| Net income | $38M |
| Diluted shares, year before | 95.5M shares |
| Diluted shares | 95.5M shares |
| EPS growth | -5.0% |
| Net income growth | -5.0% |
| Diluted shares: change | +0.0% |
| eps from profit | -$0.02 |
| eps from share count | $0.00 |
EPS and net income against the same quarter a year earlier; the EPS bridge attributes the change to profit first, then to the share count (the order is fixed and disclosed)
Source: Q3 2026 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q3 2025 (the same quarter a year earlier)
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Triggered severity high · confidence medium
The shares trade at 6.7× this year's net income of $456M, but that profit is at a high: the median of the last eight fiscal years is $114M, on which the same market value is 26.6×. A low multiple of peak profit is not a low multiple of normal profit.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $3.0B |
| net income ttm | $456M |
| pe ttm | 6.70 |
| net income median fy | $114M |
| pe mid cycle | 26.60 |
| net income peak fy | $147M |
| years | FY2018 / 30.0; FY2019 / -20.0; FY2020 / 129.0; FY2021 / 147.0; FY2022 / 33.0; FY2023 / 62.0; FY2024 / 114.0; FY2025 / 130.0 |
| down years in window | 2 |
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 2026 (net income, trailing twelve months)
What would explain it innocently
- The business has changed for good (a merger, a new line, a pricing regime) and the old years are not its normal
- The market is right that profit will fall, and the price already says so
- Capacity has left the industry, so the cycle's trough is higher than before
What to look for in the filing
- Where the industry's prices and volumes stand against their own history
- Capacity on order across the industry
- Management's view of the cycle in the MD&A
What would show the trap does not apply
- Profit holds at this level through the next two years (the eight-year peak was a new base, not a top)
- The industry's capacity and prices stay where they are rather than reverting
Look again: next filing.
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 22.10 a share (price 31.80); 61% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving operating margin by ±3 pts alone takes it from 15.97 to 28.23; across every method the research ran the range is 0 to 326. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 22.10 |
| price | 31.80 |
| terminal value share | +60.5% |
| swing by input | Operating margin / ±3 pts / 15.97 / 28.23; Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 19.13 / 25.64; WACC / ±1 pt / 20.03 / 24.92; Tax rate / ±5 pts / 21.15 / 23.04 |
| range all methods | 0.22; 325.87 |
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 → Teradata: 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.