Filing Flows › Companies › WD 40 › Analysis traps
WD 40 (WDFC): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q4 FY26, to Aug 31, 2026, filed Oct 26, 2026; rules v1.1
WD 40 (WDFC): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Aug 31, 2026: 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
FCF growth = the business improved Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium
Free cash flow rose $14M (+17%), from $83M to $98M, but working capital released $12M more cash than the year before: 84% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $5M.
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 177.13 a share (price 204.01); 81% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving wacc by ±1 pt alone takes it from 142.72 to 232.88; across every method the research ran the range is -33 to 499. 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 $14M (+17%), from $83M to $98M, but working capital released $12M more cash than the year before: 84% of the increase came from sources that need not repeat. Operating cash flow before working capital rose by $5M.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY25 |
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $88M |
| Operating cash flow | $105M |
| Capex, year before | $5M |
| Capex | $7M |
| Free cash flow, year before | $83M |
| Free cash flow | $98M |
| Change in FCF | $14M |
| Change in capex | $3M |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | $12M |
| Of which: capex cut | 0.00 |
| Of which: working capital released | $12M |
| Share of the increase that need not repeat | +83.9% |
| Operating cash flow before working capital: change | 5162000.00 |
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: FY26 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY25 (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 1.1% of revenue: small enough that adding it back changes little.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Stock compensation | $8M |
| Revenue | $688M |
| SBC / revenue | +1.1% |
| Buybacks | $30M |
| Buybacks / SBC | 3.9 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 13.6M shares |
| Diluted shares | 13.5M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -0.5% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY26 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not triggered confidence medium
Receivables grew 2% against revenue 8% in Q4 FY26; DSO 71 against a median of 66: collections are keeping pace with sales.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q4 FY26 |
| Revenue, year over year | +8.1% |
| Receivables, year over year | +1.7% |
| Quarter before | Q3 FY26 |
| Revenue y/y, quarter before | +24.3% |
| Receivables y/y, quarter before | +33.5% |
| Days sales outstanding | 71.0 |
| DSO, median of eight quarters | 65.6 |
| Receivables | $123M |
| Revenue | $177M |
receivables and revenue against the same quarter a year earlier; DSO = receivables / quarterly revenue × days, against the median of the eight quarters before
Source: Q4 FY26 (receivables and revenue) · Q4 FY25 (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
neither a maturity table nor the current portion of debt is on file
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not triggered confidence high
EPS rose 45% and net income rose 44% in Q3 FY26; the share count fell 0.6%: EPS growth follows profit growth.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 FY26 |
| Quarter before | Q3 FY25 |
| EPS, year before | $1.55 |
| EPS | $2.24 |
| Net income, year before | $21M |
| Net income | $30M |
| Diluted shares, year before | 13.6M shares |
| Diluted shares | 13.5M shares |
| EPS growth | +45.0% |
| Net income growth | +44.0% |
| Diluted shares: change | -0.6% |
| eps from profit | $0.68 |
| eps from share count | $0.01 |
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 FY26 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Not triggered confidence medium
Net income of $82M is not at a cyclical high against the last eight years (median $70M, best $91M): the P/E of 33.4× is on a normal year.
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $2.8B |
| net income ttm | $82M |
| pe ttm | 33.40 |
| net income median fy | $70M |
| pe mid cycle | 39.50 |
| net income peak fy | $91M |
| years | FY19 / 56.0; FY20 / 61.0; FY21 / 70.0; FY22 / 67.0; FY23 / 66.0; FY24 / 70.0; FY25 / 91.0; FY26 / 82.0 |
| down years in window | 3 |
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: Q4 FY26 (net income, trailing twelve months)
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 177.13 a share (price 204.01); 81% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving wacc by ±1 pt alone takes it from 142.72 to 232.88; across every method the research ran the range is -33 to 499. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 177.13 |
| price | 204.01 |
| terminal value share | +81.3% |
| swing by input | WACC / ±1 pt / 142.72 / 232.88; Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 142.75 / 218.21; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 142.98 / 211.28; Terminal growth / ±0.5 pt / 163.63 / 194.22 |
| range all methods | -33.1; 498.66 |
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 → WD 40: 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.