Filing Flows › Companies › Trex › Analysis traps
Trex (TREX): 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 4, 2026; rules v1.1
Trex (TREX): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 30, 2026: FCF growth = the business improved; EPS growth = profit growth. 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
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity high · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $223M, from −$88M to $135M, but working capital released $230M more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $9M: more than the whole increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital fell by $16M.
Innocent reading: An expansion programme finished, so capex fell back to maintenance levels for good.
EPS growth = profit growth Triggered · severity medium · confidence high
EPS rose 7% in Q3 2026 (0.48 → 0.52) while net income was flat ($52M → $52M): the diluted share count fell 5.1%, and most of the EPS growth is the smaller denominator.
Innocent reading: Buybacks at prices below the shares' value do add value per share; the question is the price paid and how they were financed.
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 22.76 a share (price 54.74); 71% 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 18.66 to 27.65; across every method the research ran the range is 6 to 82. 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 high · confidence high
Free cash flow rose $223M, from −$88M to $135M, but working capital released $230M more cash than the year before and capital expenditure fell by $9M: more than the whole increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital fell by $16M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY2024 |
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $144M |
| Operating cash flow | $358M |
| Capex, year before | $232M |
| Capex | $224M |
| Free cash flow, year before | −$88M |
| Free cash flow | $135M |
| Change in FCF | $223M |
| Change in capex | −$9M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $230M |
| Of which: capex cut | $9M |
| Of which: working capital released | $230M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +107.3% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | -16281000.00 |
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 0.8% of revenue: small enough that adding it back changes little.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY2025 |
| Stock compensation | $9M |
| Revenue | $1.2B |
| SBC / revenue | +0.8% |
| Buybacks | $54M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 6.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 108.3M shares |
| Diluted shares | 107.1M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -1.1% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY2025 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew 36% against revenue 26% in Q3 2026; DSO 62 against a median of 63: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 2026 |
| Revenue, year over year | +26.0% |
| Receivables, year over year | +35.9% |
| Quarter before | Q2 2026 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +7.8% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | -9.8% |
| Days sales outstanding | 62.1 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 63.5 |
| Receivables | $223M |
| Revenue | $360M |
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
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 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 Triggered severity medium · confidence high
EPS rose 7% in Q3 2026 (0.48 → 0.52) while net income was flat ($52M → $52M): the diluted share count fell 5.1%, and most of the EPS growth is the smaller denominator.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 2026 |
| Quarter before | Q3 2025 |
| EPS, year before | $0.48 |
| EPS | $0.52 |
| Net income, year before | $52M |
| Net income | $52M |
| Diluted shares, year before | 107.3M shares |
| Diluted shares | 101.8M shares |
| EPS growth | +7.0% |
| Net income growth | +1.4% |
| Diluted shares: change | -5.1% |
| eps from profit | $0.01 |
| eps from share count | $0.03 |
| EPS growth from the share count | +5.6% |
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)
What would explain it innocently
- Buybacks at prices below the shares' value do add value per share; the question is the price paid and how they were financed
- A one-off item depressed this quarter's net income
- Shares were cancelled after a disposal whose proceeds were returned
What to look for in the filing
- The average price paid for the buybacks against the shares' value
- Whether the buybacks were funded by debt
- Next quarter's net income trend
What would show the trap does not apply
- Net income grows at the pace of EPS in the next two quarters
- The buybacks were made below the shares' later value (the share count fell and book value per share rose)
Look again: next filing.
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Not triggered confidence medium
Net income of $178M is not at a cyclical high against the last eight years (median $190M, best $226M): the P/E of 31.3× is on a normal year.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $5.6B |
| net income ttm | $178M |
| pe ttm | 31.30 |
| net income median fy | $190M |
| pe mid cycle | 29.30 |
| net income peak fy | $226M |
| years | FY2018 / 135.0; FY2019 / 145.0; FY2020 / 176.0; FY2021 / 209.0; FY2022 / 185.0; FY2023 / 205.0; FY2024 / 226.0; FY2025 / 190.0 |
| 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)
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 22.76 a share (price 54.74); 71% 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 18.66 to 27.65; across every method the research ran the range is 6 to 82. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 22.76 |
| price | 54.74 |
| terminal value share | +71.4% |
| swing by input | Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 18.66 / 27.65; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 18.96 / 26.57; WACC / ±1 pt / 20.13 / 26.16; Tax rate / ±5 pts / 21.11 / 24.42 |
| range all methods | 6.16; 81.66 |
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 → Trex: 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.