Filing Flows › Companies › Zevra Therapeutics › Analysis traps
Zevra Therapeutics (ZVRA): 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 3, 2026; rules v1.1
Zevra Therapeutics (ZVRA): 1 rule of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 30, 2026: stock compensation added back = no economic cost. 1 to review; 3 with insufficient data; 4 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 $13M, 11.9% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 23.8%. '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.
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 46.49 a share (price 10.31); 74% 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 39.35 to 54.81; across every method the research ran the range is -1 to 343. 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 Insufficient data
fewer than two fiscal years with operating cash flow and capital expenditure on file
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Triggered severity high · confidence high
Stock compensation was $13M, 11.9% of revenue, in FY2025; buybacks were $0 (0.0× the SBC) and the diluted share count still rose 23.8%. '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 | $13M |
| Revenue | $106M |
| SBC / revenue | +11.9% |
| Buybacks | 0 |
| Buybacks / SBC | 0.0 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 46.3M shares |
| Diluted shares | 57.3M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | +23.8% |
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 Not triggered confidence medium
Nothing comes due within a year; net debt is −$134M.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $196M |
| Debt | $62M |
| Net debt | −$134M |
| Due within a year | 0 |
| Read from | the debt maturity table |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | $38M |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $234M |
| Coverage of what is due | — |
| Due in the second year | 0 |
| Balance sheet date | 2026-09-30 |
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: FY2025 (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 applicable
a loss on a trailing or mid-cycle basis: the P/E has no meaning
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 46.49 a share (price 10.31); 74% 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 39.35 to 54.81; across every method the research ran the range is -1 to 343. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 46.49 |
| price | 10.31 |
| terminal value share | +73.7% |
| swing by input | Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 39.35 / 54.81; WACC / ±1 pt / 41.03 / 53.75; Tax rate / ±5 pts / 44.22 / 48.75; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 44.36 / 48.62 |
| range all methods | -1.13; 342.68 |
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 → Zevra Therapeutics: 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.