FCS NASDAQ

Edge Score

Quantitative competitive moat analysis scoring five pillars of durable advantage — cost leadership, brand intangibles, switching costs, network effects, and efficient scale — using industry percentile rankings on a 0–100 scale.

InsiderStreet Scorecard

Proprietary multi-factor scorecard rating companies across seven fundamental dimensions — profitability, balance sheet strength, earnings quality, growth, value, momentum, and safety — each scored 0–100.

Risk & Quality Signals

Academic financial models used by institutional investors to assess bankruptcy risk, earnings manipulation, financial strength, and credit quality.

Valuation

Key valuation multiples comparing the stock's market price to its earnings, revenue, book value, and cash flows. Lower multiples may indicate relative undervaluation versus peers.

DuPont Decomposition (5-Factor)

The 5-factor DuPont framework breaks Return on Equity into its component drivers — tax efficiency, interest burden, operating profitability, asset utilization, and financial leverage — to reveal what truly drives shareholder returns.

Graham-Dodd Adjusted Valuation

Our adaptation of Graham's growth formula (Fair P/E = 8.5 + 2g) from The Intelligent Investor. The classic version relies on analyst growth projections, which can be unreliable. This adjusted model substitutes the company's realized 3-year EPS CAGR — a backward-looking, verifiable measure of actual earnings power — grounding the valuation in demonstrated performance rather than forecasts.

Two adjustments we make, and why. Growth is capped at 15%. Graham defined g as expected growth over the next seven to ten years, not last year's rate. Across US companies since 1994 the median realized 7-year EPS growth is 5–8% regardless of how fast a company grew beforehand, and of 4,457 company-quarters that grew faster than 200%, none sustained it. Uncapped, the formula assigned fair multiples in the hundreds to companies that had never held that rate — and scored worse than simply reading the P/E. Capped, it carries real information. The verdict has three states, not two. Tested over 377,249 stock-months, this ratio only separates outcomes at its extremes: below 0.25 beat the universe by 1.3 points a year, above 3.0 lagged by 2.7, and everything in between sat inside a one-point band. Rather than call two-thirds of the market "undervalued" on a threshold of 1.0, we say Neutral where the model cannot tell — which is most of the time.

Profitability Trends

Historical profitability ratios tracking how efficiently the company converts revenue into returns for shareholders over time.

Leverage & Solvency Trends

Debt and liquidity metrics showing the company's financial leverage and ability to meet short-term and long-term obligations.

Efficiency & Working Capital Trends

Operating efficiency metrics measuring how quickly the company converts inventory to sales, collects receivables, and manages its cash conversion cycle.

Growth Trends (YoY %)

Year-over-year growth rates for key financial metrics, showing the trajectory of revenue, earnings, and cash flow generation.

Earnings Stability

R-squared of linear regression measuring how predictably revenue, earnings, and margins follow a trend over the trailing 5 years. 1.0 = perfectly predictable; lower values indicate erratic or cyclical behavior.

Monte Carlo Price Simulation

Geometric Brownian Motion with 1,000 antithetic paths over 1 year, seeded from 179 days of historical volatility. Percentile bands show the range of statistically plausible outcomes — this is a statistical model, not a forecast.