We use cookies for behaviour analytics. Learn more
Consumer Cyclical · Equity Analysis
Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) Stock Analysis - DCF Valuation & AI Disruption Risk
By Anton Ladnyi, CFA · ex-Goldman Sachs · ex-J.P. MorganPublished Updated
FLUT — trading near 18x P/E after a 63% crash + FanDuel's #1 US share (39.6%) and international growth vs. structural prediction-market share-loss risk from Kalshi.
Quantitative model rating — not individualized investment advice.
How Is This Rating Calculated?
A.L. Capital Advisory Equity Composite model · calculated 2026-08-22. Four calculation steps, in order — steps 1, 2 and 4 are rules-based; step 3 is a disclosed qualitative analyst overlay mapped to a fixed numerical scale:
1. Margin of safety → quantitative grade
FLUT's margin of safety is +25.35% (base case $137 vs. price $102.61). Margin of safety here is defined as (fair value − price) / fair value — this is the formula the quant grade below is actually assigned from. It is not the same figure as the gauge's "Upside to Base" pill above, which uses (fair value − price) / price and will read a larger number for the same inputs. For comparison, the pure (unblended) DCF output alone implies a margin of safety of +17.16% (pure DCF base $124 vs. price $102.61) — the gap between this and the +25.35% blended figure above reflects the analyst-consensus blend.
Blended valuation margin-of-safety bands
Margin of safety
Quant grade
Score
MOS > 20.00%
Strong Buy
5.0
10.00% < MOS ≤ 20.00%
Buy
4.0
−10.00% < MOS ≤ 10.00%
Hold
3.0
−20.00% < MOS ≤ −10.00%
Reduce
2.0
MOS ≤ −20.00%
Avoid
1.0
2. Auto fundamental penalty
No fundamental red flags triggered · total: +0.0
Automatic fundamental-penalty rules
Rule
Threshold
Penalty
P/E extreme
Forward (or trailing) P/E > 80x
−1.0
P/E elevated
Forward (or trailing) P/E 50–80x
−0.5
Earnings deterioration, significant
Earnings growth < −20%
−1.0
Earnings deterioration, mild
Earnings growth −5% to −20%
−0.5
Stagnant top-line
Revenue growth < 3%
−0.5
Unsustainable dividend
Payout ratio > 120%
−0.5
Rules are cumulative (multiple can fire on the same ticker) and purely mechanical — no analyst judgment is involved in step 2.
3. Thesis conviction modifier
Analyst conviction: medium · modifier: +0.00. This is a qualitative analyst judgment on the written thesis, mapped to a fixed numeric modifier below — it is not algorithmically derived from a measurable indicator.
Analyst-conviction modifier scale
Conviction level
Modifier
Very High
+1.00
High
+0.60
Medium
+0.00
Low
-0.60
Very Low
-1.00
General guidance for the assigning analyst (not an algorithmic rule — conviction is assigned by editorial judgment on the written thesis, not computed): Very High/High — multiple thesis pillars confirmed by the most recent reported quarter, no unresolved red flags. Medium — mixed evidence, or a thesis not yet differentiated enough to lean either direction. Low/Very Low — one or more thesis pillars deteriorating, or a material data-quality concern. Assigned and reviewed each time the underlying thesis is updated (see the thesis "last updated" date on this page).
This is the exact formula the model runs — not a post-hoc explanation. Source: composite_grade.py, A.L. Capital Advisory Equity Composite.
FLUT Price Target & Rating
FLUT's quantitative grade is Strong Buy, with significant tail risk (CVaR -42.8%), and quality metrics (net margin -4%, ROE -8%). Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) trades at $102.61 with a Strong Buy composite rating: net margins of -4.4%, a blended fair-value range of $91–$312 suggesting a +25% margin of safety, beta 1.08 (moderate risk profile).
What Is FLUT's DCF Intrinsic Value and Blended Fair Value Range?
FLUT's blended fair-value range is $91–$312 (base case $137), against a current price of $102.61.
FLUT blended fair-value gauge — bear case $91, base case $137, bull case $312, current price $102.61.
Price & DCF data as of
How Does FLUT's Margin of Safety Change as the Price Moves?
Drag to simulate FLUT's price moving between the blended bear ($91) and bull ($312) fair-value anchors — left for a price fall, right for a rise — and see how the margin of safety vs A.L. Capital Advisory's $137 blended base-case fair value changes. Starting point: the page's as-of price of $102.61 on 2026-08-22.
DCF Assumptions
Two-stage earnings-based DCF on forward EPS of $7.55 (Yahoo Finance forwardEps: provider-aggregated next-fiscal-year consensus estimate, not a fixed trailing-12-month window): explicit 5-year forecast at the stage-1 growth rate below, discounted at the CAPM cost of equity, plus a Gordon Growth terminal value at the terminal growth rate, also discounted at the CAPM cost of equity. This model discounts projected EPS — an equity-level metric — directly, not free cash flow, so the cost of equity is the theoretically correct discount rate; this is not a debt-weighted WACC (no cost of debt or capital-structure weighting is applied). Source: A.L. Capital Advisory DCF engine (api.py).
DCF assumptions by scenario
Input
Bear
Base
Bull
Stage-1 (near-term) growth
4.05%
9.00%
13.50%
Terminal growth
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
CAPM cost of equity (discount rate)
11.52%
10.67%
9.82%
Forecast horizon
5 years
5 years
5 years
CAPM cost of equity = risk-free rate (4.74%, a live 10-year Treasury yield (Yahoo Finance ^TNX) fetched at page-generation time, 2026-08-22T11:44:17+00:00 UTC) + beta (1.08) × 5.5% equity risk premium, floored at 6% and capped at 18%. Stage-1 growth is a sector-level base rate (bear/bull apply 0.45x/1.50x multipliers); terminal growth is held constant across scenarios. Bear/bull cost of equity applies a ±8% relative adjustment to the base rate, clamped to the same 6–18% band.
The DCF output above is not the final intrinsic value shown elsewhere on this page. It is blended with the Wall Street analyst consensus price target to avoid extreme single-model divergence, weighted by analyst coverage depth (30 analysts covering this stock → 25.00% DCF / 75.00% consensus). The blended figure is the intrinsic value used for margin-of-safety and the composite rating.
DCF-to-intrinsic-value blend by scenario
Scenario
Pure DCF value
Analyst target used
Blended intrinsic value (displayed)
Bear
$91.43
$91.00
$91.11
Base
$123.87
$141.97
$137.45
Bull
$166.48
$360.00
$311.62
Blended value = (25.00% × pure DCF) + (75.00% × analyst target). Bear/bull scenarios blend against the analyst low/high target rather than the mean.
Analyst-coverage-to-consensus-weight tiers
Analyst coverage
Weight
0–1 analysts
0.00% consensus / 100.00% DCF
2–4 analysts
40.00% consensus / 60.00% DCF
5–19 analysts
65.00% consensus / 35.00% DCF
20+ analysts
75.00% consensus / 25.00% DCF
The consensus weight is a fixed step function of analyst coverage depth (above), not adjusted for target age, dispersion, or outliers — the mean/low/high analyst targets are used as reported by the data provider with no filtering.
Key Takeaways
Valuation: Strong Buy grade — blended fair-value range $91–$312 implies +25% margin of safety
Risk: CVaR -42.8% (95th percentile, 1-month) indicates significant tail exposure; beta of 1.08 amplifies broad market moves in both directions
Strengths: -4% net margin, -8% ROE dominate the factor profile
Catalyst: Q2 2026 earnings report (~August 6, 2026), coinciding with FLUT's sole primary NYSE listing taking effect after LSE delisting on August 3, 2026
Bear catalyst: A second FY26 guidance cut takes group Adjusted EBITDA meaningfully below the $2.865B midpoint, US sportsbook market share falls below 35%, or additional state tax hikes push US gross margin structurally lower.
Main riskSignificant tail risk — CVaR -42.8% on a one-month horizon
Tail riskCVaR -42.8% over one month at the 95th percentile
Blended fair-value range$91–$312 blended fair-value range; margin of safety +25%
Best useCore large-cap Consumer Cyclical holding — not a source of diversified sector exposure
Next watchEarnings surprise deceleration trend — monitor next quarter delivery closely
How Does FLUT Score on the Five-Factor Quantitative Model?
FLUT's composite five-factor score is 2.6/5, led by Value (3.0/5) and weakest on Quality (1.0/5).
FLUT five-factor radar — Value 3.0, Quality 1.0, Momentum 3.0, Volatility 3.0, Size 3.0 (out of 5).
Value
3.0 / 5
Quality
1.0 / 5
Momentum
3.0 / 5
Volatility
3.0 / 5
Size
3.0 / 5
FLUT Five-Factor Quantitative Scores
Factor
Score
Value
3.0 / 5
Quality
1.0 / 5
Momentum
3.0 / 5
Volatility
3.0 / 5
Size
3.0 / 5
What Is FLUT's AI-Era Durability and Disruption Risk?
AI Disruption Risk: Elevated
Flutter Entertainment, parent of FanDuel, faces the same 2026 regulatory squeeze as DraftKings rather than an AI disruption story: Illinois' new 15% tax on daily-fantasy-sports operators named FanDuel alongside DraftKings, and the state's new per-wager prediction-market tax pushed Illinois sports-wagering tax revenue from $393 million in FY25 to $612 million in FY26. The bigger structural risk is the same one confronting DraftKings: CFTC-regulated prediction-market entrants Kalshi, Polymarket, and Robinhood offer functionally similar sports contracts while suing to avoid state sportsbook licensing costs and gross-revenue taxes FanDuel must absorb. AI-driven odds-setting and personalization are real product improvements for Flutter but are not differentiating against federally regulated challengers that compete on a structurally lower cost base. The watch trigger is whether the Kalshi v. Illinois lawsuit outcome, or any federal clarification of prediction-market jurisdiction, sets a precedent other states adopt.
Key Metrics
FLUT Key Metrics — Flutter Entertainment plc 2026
Metric
Value
Current Price
$102.61
Forward P/E
13.6x
P/S Ratio
1.0
EV/EBITDA
18.5
Beta
1.08
Net Margin
-4.4%
ROE
-7.9%
Debt/Equity
134.5%
CVaR (95%, 1M)
-42.8%
Market Cap
$17.8B
1-Month CVaR Methodology
The 1M CVaR-95 figure shown in Key Metrics, the peer comparison table and this page's hero card is computed as follows:
Lookback: most recent 1 year of daily prices.
Return input: daily log returns on dividend/split-adjusted close prices.
Confidence level: 95% (worst 5% of the resulting rolling-month observations).
Quantile convention: floor-based cutoff — the worst floor(N × 0.05) rolling-month observations (minimum 1), not a rounded or interpolated percentile.
CVaR: arithmetic mean of that worst-5% tail, expressed as a percentage.
Corporate actions: reflected via adjusted-close pricing (dividends and splits are accounted for).
1M CVaR-95 by lookback window
Method
1M CVaR-95
Trailing 1-year historical
-42.8%
Trailing 3-year historical
-34.9%
Trailing 5-year historical
-32.3%
The 1-year figure is what appears elsewhere on this page. Because it is built from overlapping 21-day windows over a single year, it reflects roughly the last ~11 non-independent tail events and is sensitive to the specific market regime of that year — treat it as a trailing-window historical estimate, not a structurally stable long-run risk parameter. The 3- and 5-year figures use the same methodology over longer, more regime-diverse histories.
This is a separate calculation from the 1-Day VaR/CVaR shown in the Tail Risk Profile chart below, which uses raw (non-overlapping) daily returns rather than rolling monthly sums — see that chart's own methodology note for the daily-horizon convention.
Tail Risk Profile
Historical Simulation · Daily Log Returns
FLUT — Daily Return Distribution
Flutter Entertainment plc · 250 trading days · CVaR illustrated on real data
Aug 2025 – Aug 2026
Daily log returns
95%
-4.97%
1-Day VaR · 95%
95th-percentile loss threshold
-8.69%
1-Day CVaR · 95%
Avg loss in tail
13
Days in tail
of 250 sessions
250
Daily returns
Aug 2025 – Aug 2026
Historical VaR uses the nearest-rank convention: the worst observation within the tail (empirical (1−confidence) fraction of trading days). Historical CVaR is the arithmetic mean of all observations at or below that VaR threshold — so VaR is always included inside the CVaR tail, not one observation outside it.
Anton Ladnyi, CFA · A.L. Capital AdvisoryUpdated 2026-08-22
Rating Rationale
FLUT — trading near 18x P/E after a 63% crash + FanDuel's #1 US share (39.6%) and international growth vs. structural prediction-market share-loss risk from Kalshi.
Investment Thesis
↑ Bull Case
39.6% US sportsbook market share (vs. DraftKings' 35.3%) with FanDuel iGaming revenue up 19% YoY driving structural profit-pool expansion beyond single-game sports betting.
$18.3 billion FY26 group revenue guidance (~12% YoY growth) reaffirmed despite tax headwinds, with International Adjusted EBITDA of $587M in Q1 2026 growing on SNAI/Italy integration and MyCombo parlay penetration.
71% average analyst upside implied by the ~$163 consensus price target (24 analysts), with 20 of 26 covering analysts still rating Buy/Outperform even after the selloff.
28% Group iGaming revenue growth in Q1 2026 shows diversification away from volatile sportsbook hold rates, with 10% AMP growth in FanDuel iGaming.
$200-300 million FanDuel Predicts investment in 2026 leverages FanDuel's existing customer base to contest prediction markets rather than cede the category outright.
↓ Bear Case
63% stock decline over the past year (52-week range $91.52-$313.69) reflects a structural derating on fears that Kalshi/Polymarket-style prediction markets permanently erode sportsbook hold and tax advantages.
220 basis points of Q1 2026 US gross margin compression from New Jersey, Illinois, and Louisiana tax increases, with further state hikes a live risk into 2027.
$720 million in single-week NFL bets captured by Kalshi during the 2025-26 playoffs signals real volume migration to lightly-regulated exchanges at Flutter/DraftKings' expense.
1% US sportsbook AMP decline YoY in Q1 2026 despite 6% revenue growth points to a shrinking active player base masked by pricing/promo mix, with consensus FY26 EPS cut from $6.78 to $5.14.
What Changes the Rating
↑Catalyst:FanDuel Predicts shows real monetization traction with EBITDA drag narrowing below the low end of the $200-300M guided range, US sportsbook AMPs return to positive YoY growth, and Kalshi/prediction-market sports betting volume growth visibly decelerates.
↓Model downgrade conditions:A second FY26 guidance cut takes group Adjusted EBITDA meaningfully below the $2.865B midpoint, US sportsbook market share falls below 35%, or additional state tax hikes push US gross margin structurally lower.
Anton’s personal note
The model points to a strong buy and the DCF math backs it — there is real margin of safety here, which is rare at this stage of the cycle. The factor model flags quality as the weak link here, and it is right to. What I watch is return on capital — specifically whether the business can convert revenue growth into durable returns, not just reported earnings. That transition is the key to making the current rating look correct in hindsight. If the thesis holds across the next two quarters, I would be comfortable carrying this at a meaningful weight. If not — specifically, if margins disappoint or the earnings beat streak breaks — I would reduce before the market fully reprices.
— Anton Ladnyi, CFA
Earnings History
FLUT Earnings History — EPS Surprise Rate 2026
Quarter
EPS Est. (consensus)
EPS Actual (adjusted, consensus basis)
Surprise
Q2 2026
$0.55
$0.49
-11.7% ✗
Q1 2026
$1.09
$1.22
+12.3% ✓
Q4 2025
$1.57
$1.74
+10.7% ✓
Q3 2025
$0.50
$1.64
+227.5% ✓
EPS Actual is on the same adjusted/non-GAAP basis as the consensus estimate it is compared against (excludes one-time items, consistent with how Wall Street EPS estimates are typically constructed) — it will generally differ from the company's GAAP diluted EPS as reported in its official financial statements. Verify the GAAP figure against the issuer's original earnings release if that basis is what you need.
How Has FLUT Performed vs. Wall Street EPS Estimates?
FLUT has beaten consensus EPS estimates in 3 of the last 4 reported quarters (75%).
FLUT quarterly EPS — estimate vs. actual, 4 most recent reported quarters, 75% beat rate.
Earnings Projections
FLUT Forward EPS Consensus Estimates 2026
Quarter
EPS Est.
YoY EPS
Analysts
Q3 2026
$0.31
-81.1%
11
Q4 2026
$2.95
+69.3%
11
Q1 2027
~$1.28
+4.9%
22
Q2 2027
~$0.48
-2.0%
10
~ Estimated from annual consensus — not a direct analyst survey
What Are Wall Street's EPS Estimates for FLUT?
Wall Street's next-quarter consensus EPS estimate for FLUT is $0.31.
FLUT consensus EPS estimates, next quarter $0.31, 4 quarters shown.
Composite rating: Strong Buy • CVaR from one-year daily history · historical simulation
Editorial Analyst Scenarios
Revenue growth × exit multiple (editorial, not mechanically reproducible from disclosed inputs) · hover each scenario for detail · current price $102.61
▼
Bear Case
$70
-31.8%
Implied NTM P/E: 14.0x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
5% revenue CAGR · 12x exit multiple
◆
Base Case
$150
+46.2%
Implied NTM P/E: 29.9x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
10% revenue CAGR · 16x exit multiple
▲
Bull Case
$230
+124.1%
Implied NTM P/E: 45.9x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
15% revenue CAGR · 20x exit multiple
How Correlated Is FLUT With Its Sector Peers?
1 of 10 peer pairs correlated above 0.60, indicating meaningful historical diversification across the selected names, although all remain exposed to common equity, sector and macro factors.
FLUT pairwise correlation heatmap across 5 peers — 1 of 10 pairs above 0.60.
1 of 10 peer pairs correlated above 0.60, indicating meaningful historical diversification across the selected names, although all remain exposed to common equity, sector and macro factors.
Extended Analysis — Buy, Hold or Sell? Risk Factors. Portfolio Fit.
Is FLUT a buy, hold, or sell?
FLUT carries a quantitative grade of Strong Buy. Our two-stage, EPS-based DCF model produces a pure model range of $91–$166. After blending with Street consensus targets, the displayed fair-value range is $91–$312 — implying a +25% margin of safety vs. blended base fair value at the current price of $102.61. The width of the range reflects genuine uncertainty in the terminal growth rate assumption: the correct framework is a probability-weighted distribution over scenarios, not a single point estimate. See the DCF valuation framework for full methodology.
The company has beaten estimates in 75% of the last 4 reported quarters. The most recent quarter missed by an 11.7% earnings surprise. Analyst estimate revisions are trending downward.
What are FLUT's key risk factors?
With a beta of 1.08, FLUT exhibits a broadly market-like risk profile relative to the broad market. The 95th-percentile CVaR of -42.8% on a one-month horizon should inform position sizing directly: at a 10% portfolio weight, this standalone tail outcome corresponds to approximately 4.3% of portfolio value before accounting for correlations with other holdings — not a marginal portfolio CVaR contribution, which depends on the full covariance structure. Net margins of -4.4% fall below the Consumer Cyclical sector average of 10%, suggesting margin pressure. Leverage is moderate with debt-to-equity at 134%.
The options market shows a put/call ratio of 2.30, reflecting a notably bearish skew in derivative positioning. Implied volatility of 47.5% is below realized volatility of 66.0%, potentially making options relatively cheap. Insiders have been net sellers to the tune of $22.6M over the disclosed transactions from 2025-03-06 to 2026-08-19. While routine dispositions are common, the magnitude bears watching. Short interest stands at 7.4% of float, a moderate level.
How does FLUT fit in a diversified portfolio?
At typical HENRY portfolio weights — 10–20% of the equity allocation — FLUT carries a beta of 1.08, meaning it amplifies broad market moves proportionally. The appropriate weight is not a function of conviction alone, but of the full covariance structure across all holdings. See the Ledoit-Wolf covariance framework for the methodology behind these calculations.
Among closely correlated names, FLUT shows the strongest co-movement with DKNG (0.71), BKNG (0.30), ABNB (0.27). Investors seeking diversification should note these correlation dynamics when constructing multi-asset portfolios. With the top peer correlation at 0.71, adding FLUT to a portfolio that already holds these names provides limited marginal diversification benefit — particularly during stress events when correlations converge toward 1.0.
True portfolio risk is a function of the full covariance structure across all holdings — not individual stock metrics. The Portfolio Health Check quantifies this at the portfolio level: it surfaces hidden concentration, marginal CVaR contributions, and the degree to which your overall allocation deviates from an optimal risk-adjusted mandate. The FLUT analysis here is a single node in that larger structure.
For the portfolio construction framework underpinning FLUT’s position sizing and conviction rating — including IPS guardrails, Black-Litterman allocation, and CVaR constraints — see: Investment Policy Statement Framework →
Investor FAQ
What is FLUT's AI-Era Durability & Disruption Risk Score?
Flutter Entertainment, parent of FanDuel, faces the same 2026 regulatory squeeze as DraftKings rather than an AI disruption story: Illinois' new 15% tax on daily-fantasy-sports operators named FanDuel alongside DraftKings, and the state's new per-wager prediction-market tax pushed Illinois sports-wagering tax revenue from $393 million in FY25 to $612 million in FY26. The bigger structural risk is the same one confronting DraftKings: CFTC-regulated prediction-market entrants Kalshi, Polymarket, and Robinhood offer functionally similar sports contracts while suing to avoid state sportsbook licensing costs and gross-revenue taxes FanDuel must absorb. AI-driven odds-setting and personalization are real product improvements for Flutter but are not differentiating against federally regulated challengers that compete on a structurally lower cost base. The watch trigger is whether the Kalshi v. Illinois lawsuit outcome, or any federal clarification of prediction-market jurisdiction, sets a precedent other states adopt.
What is FLUT's intrinsic value and DCF price target?
A.L. Capital Advisory's model produces a blended fair-value range (25% pure DCF, 75% analyst consensus for well-covered names) of $91 (bear case) to $312 (bull case) for Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT). At $102.61, the margin of safety vs. blended base case is +25% (positive = discount to fair value; negative = premium). The bear-to-bull spread reflects genuine sensitivity to the two dominant DCF inputs: the terminal growth rate and the CAPM cost of equity (this model discounts EPS, an equity-level metric, so the cost of equity rather than a debt-weighted WACC is the applicable discount rate). Terminal value typically accounts for 60-80% of total intrinsic value in most equity DCF models, which is why a range is more analytically sound than a point estimate. The central analytical question is not what the DCF outputs as a single number but which growth trajectory the current market price already discounts. All DCF analysis follows CFA Institute standards and is conducted by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: DCF Valuation Framework →
Is FLUT a buy or sell in 2026?
Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) carries a Strong Buy quantitative rating from A.L. Capital Advisory, set by Discounted Cash Flow margin-of-safety band with no analyst-conviction overlay applied. Five-factor model scoring (Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, Size) and CVaR tail risk measurement are shown separately on the page. At $102.61, the margin of safety vs. blended base fair value is +25% (blended fair-value range: $91 bear – $312 bull). That places the current price in the Fair Range zone of A.L. Capital Advisory's DCF framework, which sets the quantitative grade component that determines this rating. Composite factor score: 2.6/5. Strongest factor: Value (3.0/5). Weakest factor: Quality (1.0/5). Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Rating Methodology (this page) →
What is the average analyst target price for FLUT?
Wall Street consensus target for FLUT: $141.97 (+38.4% upside from the current price of $102.61). The analyst target range spans $91.00 (most bearish) to $360.00 (most bullish). Consensus recommendation: Buy. Note that analyst price targets typically reflect a 12-month forward horizon and are derived from a blend of DCF, comparable-company, and sum-of-the-parts analysis. A.L. Capital Advisory's Strong Buy composite rating is calculated from the blended margin-of-safety grade, applicable automatic fundamental penalties, and a disclosed qualitative analyst-conviction overlay — not from five-factor scores or CVaR, which are supporting diagnostics shown elsewhere on this page. The displayed blended fair value combines the standalone DCF output with Street consensus for well-covered names (see the DCF Assumptions box for the exact blend weight), so it does not track Street consensus mechanically, but it is not fully independent of it either. When the composite rating and the Street consensus recommendation diverge, the divergence itself is informative: it can reflect differences in time horizon, valuation methodology, or the degree to which the current price already discounts the consensus case. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Data & Sources (this page) →
How does FLUT score on Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, and Size?
FLUT five-factor scores (A.L. Capital Advisory, 1–5 scale): Value 3.0/5 (neutral) — measures the trailing P/E multiple versus the sector median (not the DCF or blended fair-value range, which are separate metrics on this page); Quality 1.0/5 (weak) — captures profitability metrics including return on equity (ROE: -7.9%) and net margin (-4.4%) — sustained above-peer ROE and margins are the model's proxy for economic moat and pricing power; Momentum 3.0/5 (neutral) — reflects recent price trajectory and earnings surprise consistency; Volatility 3.0/5 (neutral) — inverse measure derived from beta, where lower historical volatility earns a higher score; Size 3.0/5 (neutral) — market capitalisation rank (mega-cap $1T+ scores 5/5). Composite: 2.6/5. Factor scores above 4.0 signal a tailwind in that dimension; below 2.0 signals a material headwind. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory.
What is FLUT's tail risk and CVaR?
The 95th-percentile Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) for FLUT on a one-month horizon is -42.8%. CVaR represents the expected average loss in the worst 5% of monthly outcomes — a more conservative tail risk measure than standard VaR, which only marks the loss threshold. Beta of 1.08 indicates broadly market-level systematic sensitivity — beta measures historical sensitivity to market moves, not total volatility. For reference, a diversified S&P 500 ETF carries a one-month CVaR of roughly -8% to -12% in normal market conditions; individual equity CVaR is higher due to idiosyncratic risk. At the portfolio level, what matters is the marginal CVaR contribution of each holding — not its standalone figure. The A.L. Capital Advisory Portfolio Health Check quantifies each position's marginal tail-risk contribution across your entire holdings. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology →
What would trigger a rating upgrade or downgrade for FLUT?
Higher-conviction trigger: Continued earnings momentum, improving factor scores, and a wider margin of safety would reinforce the current Strong Buy rating. Downgrade trigger: a sustained reversal in the Quality and Momentum factor scores for two or more consecutive quarters. These triggers are reassessed each time the underlying fundamentals, price, or earnings data refresh — the current Strong Buy rating is not held on a fixed review calendar. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Rating Methodology (this page) →
Does FLUT consistently beat earnings estimates?
FLUT has beaten consensus EPS estimates in 3 of the 4 most recently reported quarters (75%) — indicating consistent delivery across the latest 4 reported quarters. The most recent reported quarter missed consensus by 11.7%. Sustained above-consensus delivery supports both the Momentum and Quality factor scores and provides a tailwind to the current rating. Across the 4 most recently reported quarters with valid consensus data, a beat rate above 70% signals consistent execution in this model, while a rate below 50% typically corresponds to a Momentum factor score of 3.0/5 or below. Earnings surprise magnitude and direction are incorporated into the Momentum and Quality dimensions of the five-factor scoring model. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Earnings History (this page) →
How does FLUT contribute to portfolio risk and diversification?
FLUT carries a beta of 1.08 (moderate-volatility relative to the broad equity market). A beta above 1.0 means the position amplifies market moves in both directions at a typical portfolio weight. Strongest peer co-movement: DKNG (0.71), BKNG (0.30), ABNB (0.27). Holding FLUT alongside these names in the same portfolio increases concentration risk. True portfolio risk is a function of the full covariance structure — a single stock's beta does not reveal its marginal contribution to portfolio tail loss. The A.L. Capital Advisory Portfolio Health Check quantifies concentration risk (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index), pairwise correlations, and marginal CVaR contribution across all your holdings. If a single position such as this one makes up an outsized share of your net worth — employer stock, RSUs, or concentrated equity compensation — a Strategic Session builds the sequencing plan and the written allocation that follows from it. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Ledoit-Wolf Covariance Framework →
What quantitative methodology does A.L. Capital Advisory use to analyse FLUT?
A.L. Capital Advisory analyses Flutter Entertainment plc (FLUT) using a four-part quantitative research framework grounded in CFA Institute standards (not all four parts feed the composite rating formula directly — see below). (1) DCF Valuation: a two-stage earnings-based DCF that projects EPS (not free cash flow) under bear and bull assumptions, discounts at the CAPM cost of equity (the applicable rate for an equity-level metric like EPS, not a debt-weighted WACC) to produce an intrinsic value range with margin-of-safety calculation. (2) Five-Factor Scoring: each equity is scored 1–5 on Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, and Size. (3) CVaR Tail Risk: 95th-percentile Conditional Value at Risk from historical simulation of daily returns on a one-month horizon. (4) Earnings Surprise Analysis: quarterly beat rate and magnitude, shown for context alongside the factor scores. The current Strong Buy composite rating for FLUT is calculated separately from this broader framework: it consists of a Strong Buy quantitative grade, any automatic fundamental penalty, and a disclosed qualitative analyst-conviction overlay — see this page's Rating Methodology section for the exact formula. Five-factor scoring, CVaR and earnings surprise analysis below are supporting research diagnostics shown separately on this page; they are not direct numerical inputs into this specific composite-rating calculation. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: DCF Valuation Framework → · CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology →
Stress-Test This View Live
Run FLUT in Asset Lens
Live DCF valuation, Monte Carlo simulation, options flow intelligence, and full factor decomposition — updated in real time. Free, no account required.
Retrieved 2026-08-22T11:44:17+00:00 (UTC); see per-quarter analyst counts in Earnings Forecast; individual target ages/dates are not disclosed by the data provider
Most recent exchange settlement date on file with the data provider (exact settlement date not exposed by the provider's API; retrieved 2026-08-22T11:44:17+00:00 UTC)
[6] DCF valuation, five-factor model & composite rating
Calculated 2026-08-22T11:44:17+00:00 (UTC); see Rating Methodology above for the exact formula
Hand-authored thesis commentary (bull/bear case, catalysts, AI-Era Durability Score narrative) is cross-checked against the company's own investor-relations disclosures at time of writing; figures presented as A.L. Capital Advisory estimates are proprietary forecasts, not company guidance, unless explicitly attributed to the issuer.
Market-session status above is derived from the page's UTC generation time using standard NYSE hours (9:30am–4:00pm ET regular session); it does not account for US market holidays and may be inaccurate on those dates.
Download this page's underlying data: JSON → · CSV →
Legal Disclaimer & Important Notices
This analysis is produced using a systematic quantitative framework applied to market data and does not constitute investment advice. Prose commentary is AI-assisted and generated from structured quantitative inputs. All data and metrics are as of 2026-08-22 and are point-in-time estimates subject to revision without notice. CVaR figures are based on historical simulation and do not guarantee future outcomes. DCF ranges and upgrade/downgrade triggers are forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and may not materialise. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This analysis does not account for individual circumstances, tax position, or investment objectives — consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions. This content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute regulated investment advice under MiFID II or FCA guidelines. This content is not intended for US persons or residents of jurisdictions where its distribution would be contrary to local law or regulation. This service is not directed at residents of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, or Poland. The author may hold long or short positions in securities mentioned in this analysis. Nothing on this page represents a solicitation to buy or sell any security. A.L. Capital Advisory is an independent private advisory practice and is not affiliated with Flutter Entertainment plc.
CFA Portfolio Advisory — FLUT
Discuss this analysis, position sizing, or your full portfolio mandate with Anton Ladnyi, CFA.
