Is LIND a high-quality business?

AlphaMadera's AlphaQuality grade scores Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc. on six pillars — profitability, capital efficiency, balance-sheet strength, growth durability, cash generation, and shareholder yield. The composite letter grade reflects how LIND compares to a Buffett-style quality bar.

What is Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc.'s AlphaQuality grade?

AlphaQuality assigns a letter grade (A through F) to LIND based on a six-pillar quantitative model. The live page shows the composite grade plus each pillar's individual score with the underlying metrics.

What makes LIND a quality stock?

AlphaQuality looks at return on capital, free-cash-flow margins, debt-to-equity, revenue stability, dividend and buyback policy, and operating-margin trend. Stocks scoring well across all six pillars earn higher grades — the methodology favors compounders over cyclicals.

LIND - Lindblad Expeditions Holdings, Inc.

Price: -- -- | CONSENSUS: Buy DETAILS | PRICE TARGET: $32.33 DETAILS

AlphaQuality

Quantitative six-pillar business-quality grade

Platform & Compounding FCF

AlphaQuality — archetype-weighted quantitative grade

F 30.0 / 100 pillar composite

Composite Grade

Composite of six pillars weighted for platform & compounding fcf businesses. Purely quantitative — the six pillars score only reported financials, no analyst input.

⚠ 5 of the last 5 fiscal years showed negative net income — AlphaQuality will not grade above F for persistent unprofitability in a platform & compounding fcf business.

Grade overrides the 30.0 pillar composite because hard gates always win. Use the pillar breakdown below to see where the underlying numbers sit.

Profitability

Weight: 25%

D- 32.4

5yr Avg ROIC -3.3% 3/100
Operating Margin Trend +18.08 pp/yr 100/100

Capital Efficiency

Weight: 15%

D- 32.2

5yr Share-Count CAGR 2.0% 32/100

Growth Quality

Weight: 25%

A+ 100.0

5yr Revenue CAGR 56.4% 100/100
Revenue-Growth Years (5) 5/5 100/100

Cash Generation

Weight: 20%

F 0.0

5yr FCF Margin -7.3% 0/100
5yr FCF/NI Conversion 0.00x 0/100

Balance Sheet

Weight: 10%

F 16.0

Net Debt / EBITDA 4.72x 19/100
Interest Coverage (EBIT/Int) 0.52x 7/100
Altman Z-Score 1.24 21/100

Stability

Weight: 5%

C+ 57.9

EPS Volatility (σ/μ) 0.52 29/100
Negative-Revenue Years (5) 0/5 100/100
Piotroski F-Score 6 67/100

3 of 3 gurus held; 2 new buys; 1 trimmed.

Holders: 3 +2
Avg Δ position: -7.6%
New buys: 2
Full exits: 0

Greenblatt new
Wood new
Cooperman decreased -8%

How this is calculated

AlphaQuality grades six pillars from 0-100 and weights each by archetype:

Profitability (25%) — 5yr Avg ROIC, Operating Margin Trend
Capital Efficiency (15%) — 5yr Share-Count CAGR
Growth Quality (25%) — 5yr Revenue CAGR, Revenue-Growth Years (5)
Cash Generation (20%) — 5yr FCF Margin, 5yr FCF/NI Conversion
Balance Sheet (10%) — Net Debt / EBITDA, Interest Coverage (EBIT/Int), Altman Z-Score
Stability (5%) — EPS Volatility (σ/μ), Negative-Revenue Years (5), Piotroski F-Score

The six pillars read only reported financial-statement fields — no analyst targets or consensus ratings. The archetype that picks which pillar formulas apply is not fully price-free, though: it can route a company to the distressed/ungradable archetype based on price vs. its 52-week high, and beta affects one classification check. A minimum of 5 fiscal years of audited statements is required. Insurers and banks are graded on their own methodology — insurers on loss ratio, its trend and stability, and premiums-to-surplus; banks on the efficiency ratio, its trend and stability, and equity-to-assets — rather than on industrial margin/ROIC signals. Distressed, highly leveraged infrastructure, asset-manager, and other financial businesses are declared ungradable rather than forced into a numeric score.