For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Tecnoglass Holdings Inc. (TGLS) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Low · Gem Score -23 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 36 · Value -71 · Sentiment -51 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $31.06 vs $46.80 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Tecnoglass Holdings Inc.
TGLS NYSETecnoglass Holdings Inc. is a holding company in the building products sector, centered on the design, manufacturing, distribution, and installation of architectural glass, windows, and related aluminum and vinyl systems for commercial and residential construction. Through its subsidiaries, the company provides a broad range of high-specification products, including energy-efficient, impact-resistant, insulated, thermo-acoustic, tempered, and laminated glass solutions tailored to building-envelope applications such as facades, windows, doors, and interior partitions. Tecnoglass Holdings Inc. serves multi-family, single-family, and commercial end markets across North, Central, and South America, with a strong focus on the United States. Its operations are vertically integrated, encompassing glass processing, aluminum extrusion, system fabrication, and installation, which supports quality control and coordinated delivery for architects, developers, and contractors. The company is headquartered in the Americas region, with principal manufacturing operations based in Colombia, giving it efficient access to key coastal and urban construction markets. Founded in the 1980s, Tecnoglass Holdings Inc. today plays a significant role in supplying advanced glazing and window systems for modern, high-performance buildings.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 3.42
Total Equity: $713.05M
Shares: 46,678,093
Total Debt: $171.63M
Cash: $100.90M
EBITDA: $264.14M
Total Debt: $171.63M
Cash: $100.90M
Revenue: $983.61M
Revenue: $983.61M
Revenue: $983.61M
Total Equity: $713.05M
Tax Rate: 32.2%
Equity: $713.05M
Total Debt: $171.63M
Cash: $100.90M
Current Liabilities: $351.75M
Long-Term Debt: $171.20M
Total Debt: $171.63M
Total Equity: $713.05M
Shares: 46,678,093
Shares: 46,678,093
CapEx: -$101.26M
Shares: 46,678,093
Stock Price: $46.80
Net Income: $159.57M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:13pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $496.8M | $716.6M | $833.3M | $890.2M | $983.6M |
| Cost of Revenue | $294.2M | $367.1M | $442.3M | $510.2M | $562.2M |
| Gross Profit | $202.6M | $349.5M | $390.9M | $380.0M | $421.4M |
| Operating Expenses | $85.6M | $123.1M | $131.2M | $153.0M | $190.7M |
| Operating Income | $117.0M | $226.4M | $259.8M | $227.0M | $230.7M |
| Net Income | $68.4M | $155.7M | $182.9M | $161.3M | $159.6M |
| EBITDA | $136.6M | $244.3M | $279.5M | $250.7M | $264.1M |
| EPS | $1.43 | $3.28 | $3.85 | $3.43 | $3.42 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $1.43 | $3.28 | $3.85 | $3.43 | $3.42 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:50pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $85.0M | $103.7M | $129.5M | $134.9M | $100.9M |
| Total Current Assets | $326.3M | $432.1M | $535.8M | $560.0M | $653.6M |
| Total Assets | $591.6M | $734.3M | $962.7M | $1.0B | $1.3B |
| Current Liabilities | $155.0M | $209.8M | $235.9M | $265.8M | $351.7M |
| Long-Term Debt | $188.4M | $169.0M | $163.0M | $108.2M | $171.2M |
| Total Liabilities | $346.9M | $384.0M | $414.7M | $385.5M | $547.3M |
| Total Equity | $244.7M | $350.3M | $548.0M | $631.2M | $713.1M |
| Retained Earnings | $91.0M | $234.3M | $400.0M | $538.8M | $670.6M |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:13pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $117.3M | $141.9M | $138.8M | $170.5M | $135.8M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$51.5M | -$71.3M | -$78.0M | -$79.6M | -$101.3M |
| Free Cash Flow | $65.7M | $70.6M | $60.9M | $91.0M | $34.5M |
| Acquisitions (net) | — | — | — | — | -$6.8M |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | -$28.4M | -$31.9M | $196,000 | -$62.0M | $61.6M |
| Dividends Paid | -$5.2M | -$12.9M | -$16.4M | -$19.7M | -$28.1M |
| Stock Buybacks | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | $17.3M | $18.7M | $25.8M | $5.4M | -$34.0M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:13pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +44.2% | +16.3% | +6.8% | +10.5% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +72.5% | +11.9% | -2.8% | +10.9% |
| Operating Income Growth | +93.5% | +14.7% | -12.6% | +1.6% |
| Net Income Growth | +127.6% | +17.4% | -11.8% | -1.1% |
| EBITDA Growth | +78.8% | +14.4% | -10.3% | +5.4% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:52pm (20d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-30 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2026-03-31 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2025-06-30 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2025-03-31 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2024-12-31 | $0.15 | — | — | — |
| 2024-09-30 | $0.11 | — | — | — |
| 2024-06-28 | $0.11 | — | — | — |
| 2024-03-27 | $0.11 | — | — | — |
| 2023-12-28 | $0.09 | — | — | — |
| 2023-09-28 | $0.09 | — | — | — |
| 2023-06-29 | $0.09 | — | — | — |
| 2023-03-30 | $0.09 | — | — | — |
| 2022-12-29 | $0.08 | — | — | — |
| 2022-09-29 | $0.08 | — | — | — |
| 2022-06-29 | $0.07 | — | — | — |
| 2022-03-30 | $0.07 | — | — | — |
| 2021-12-30 | $0.07 | — | — | — |
| 2021-09-29 | $0.03 | — | — | — |
| 2021-06-29 | $0.03 | — | — | — |
| 2021-03-30 | $0.03 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 11:09Recovery pays +26%; another quarter like the worst recent one costs 69%. Ratio 0.4:1.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($46.80) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +21% | 21.6% | $59.15 | +26% |
| Base — stabilizes | +14% | 18.8% | $42.20 | -10% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +7% | 16.0% | $29.39 | -37% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +2% | 8.1% | $14.40 | -69% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
Looking at the raw quarterly print first: revenue is holding up (Q1'26 $249M vs Q1'25 $222M, +12%), but net income tells the real story — Q4'25 margin collapsed to 10.6% from 19.6% a year earlier, and Q1'26's 12.8% is well off the 17-20% band that prevailed through mid-2025. Something structural shifted in H2 2025. Annual 2025 op income of $230.7M was flat vs 2024's $227M despite $93M more revenue, meaning incremental margin was ~4% — abysmal for a manufacturer with supposed operating leverage. Gross margin held at 42.8%, so the compression is below the line: likely SG&A, FX (Colombian peso), or freight/tariff-related given US-Colombia exposure. FCF of $34.5M on $159.6M net income is a 22% conversion rate — that's the most damning number in the file, and capex of $101M against $135M operating cash flow means they're plowing back to defend/grow capacity into a decelerating demand backdrop.
Now the models. The synthesis verdict of $32.68 fair value (-30% downside) and Market Forces' "avoid" both key off the same weak-FCF, decelerating-earnings pattern I see. But they're underweighting two things. First, the insider activity is not ambiguous: seven separate P-Purchases in March 2026 totaling ~630,000 shares, plus follow-ons in May 2026 for another 100,000. That August 2025 sale of 1.5M shares looks like a secondary/planned distribution, not a signal — and the March cluster looks like insiders stepping in after the drawdown from what were presumably $70+ highs. This is a real tell that contradicts the "avoid" call. Second, the Market Narrative layer calls this "cyclical-late-stage" but Tecnoglass's Florida-heavy multifamily/commercial mix is not the same cycle as US single-family housing starts — the models are treating it as a generic homebuilder derivative when the business is more idiosyncratic (impact-resistant windows, Florida building code tailwind).
The contrarian case against the bearish synthesis: at 13.7x trailing P/E, 8.1x EV/EBITDA, and 3.1x book with 22% ROE and 20% ROIC, this is not a stretched multiple even if you haircut earnings 20% for cycle normalization. Normalized NI of ~$130M on 44.4M shares = ~$2.93 EPS; at 13-14x that's $38-41 — closer to synthesis fair value than current price, but not the $32.68 disaster case. The $32.68 DCF appears to be assuming both margin normalization AND terminal cyclicality, which double-counts. The real question is whether Q4'25/Q1'26 margin compression is a one-off (FX, tariff pre-buy, mix) or the new run rate. If margins revert to 17%+, this is cheap; if 11-13% is the new normal, synthesis is right.
Where I land: I partially dissent from the synthesis. The bear case correctly identifies weak FCF conversion and margin deterioration, but overstates downside by applying a cyclical-peak framework to a company whose insiders are aggressively buying at $45-50 and whose balance sheet (debt/equity 0.24, current ratio 1.86) gives it room to weather a real slowdown. However, I don't think this is "undervalued" either — the H2 2025 margin break is real and unexplained in the file, and FCF of $34M against a $2.08B market cap (1.7% FCF yield) is not a bargain. Fair value probably sits at $38-42, roughly 10-20% below current price, not the -30% synthesis implies. The insider buying is the strongest bull signal in the file and the models are giving it insufficient weight — but insider buying at levels 40% below highs is anchoring behavior, not necessarily a bottom call. I'd want to see Q2'26 margins recover above 15% before committing capital; without that, this is a pass, not a short.
GPT Reading
What stands out to me is that the business is still executing better than the “late-cycle collapse” narrative implies, but the stock is no longer obviously cheap because the quality of those earnings has slipped. Revenue keeps moving up: $890.2M in 2024 to $983.6M in 2025, and the latest quarter at $249.0M was up 12.0% from $222.3M a year earlier. Even after a strong run, TGLS is not a low-margin commodity fabricator: 2025 gross margin was 42.8%, operating margin 23.5%, net margin 16.2%, with ROIC near 20% and ROE 22.4%. That is unusually strong for building products. Balance sheet risk also looks modest, with $171.6M of debt against $100.9M of cash and $713.1M of equity. At about 13.7x earnings and 8.1x EV/EBITDA, the market is not paying a heroic multiple for a company that has nearly doubled revenue since 2021.
The catch is that earnings have plainly stopped following revenue. Net income was $182.9M in 2023, $161.3M in 2024, and $159.6M in 2025 despite revenue climbing each year from $833.3M to $890.2M to $983.6M. That means the company is selling more but keeping less, and the quarterly pattern confirms it. Q1 2025 net margin was 19.0%; Q1 2026 fell to 12.8%. Q4 2024 was 19.6%; Q4 2025 was 10.6%. Some of that may be mix, project timing, or temporary cost pressure, but the burden of proof has shifted. This is not a case where a screen says “cheap” while the underlying business is compounding cleanly. It is a case where valuation looks reasonable because the market has already noticed margin normalization. The other key issue is cash conversion: 2025 operating cash flow was only $135.8M versus $159.6M of net income, and free cash flow was just $34.5M because capex hit $101.3M. If that capex is highly productive, fine; if this is the new maintenance level needed to support growth, then the earnings multiple is flattering.
That is why I do not buy the most bearish model output calling the stock 30%+ overvalued. A business with 42%+ gross margins, 23%+ operating margins, modest leverage, and double-digit top-line growth should not be treated like a no-mo commodity name. The recent insider activity matters too: after a large sale in August 2025, there were repeated insider purchases in March through May 2026 totaling well over 600,000 shares. Insiders do not always get timing right, but clustered open-market buying after a period of margin pressure is a meaningful counter-signal to the idea that something is fundamentally broken. If normalized earnings are still in the $140M-$160M range, today’s $2.08B market cap is hardly demanding. That frames the stock less as “overvalued” and more as a solid cyclical franchise trading around fair value while investors wait to see whether margins stabilize in the mid-teens or continue sliding.
The strongest case against my read is straightforward: the deterioration may be early, not temporary. The quarterly data are not a one-off wobble; Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 were both materially weaker on margin than the comparable prior-year quarters. Annual operating income was $259.8M in 2023, then $227.0M in 2024 and $230.7M in 2025, so even as sales grew, operating profit failed to recover to peak. Free cash flow has also weakened materially on the provided trend, and if construction demand softens while the company is spending heavily, the market could decide that 13.7x earnings is actually expensive for a business heading into a downcycle. On that view, the low multiple is not an opportunity but a value trap, and the DCF-style skepticism in the prior work is justified because “earnings” are proving less durable than the income statement suggests.
What would change my mind either way are the next two or three quarters of margin and cash conversion. If revenue keeps growing around 8-12% but net margin stays stuck near 10-13%, or if full-year free cash flow again trails earnings badly despite the capex step-up, then I would move bearish and see the right price closer to the mid-$30s. Conversely, if TGLS can show that the recent pressure was temporary by returning to roughly 16-18% net margins on a $1.0B+ revenue base and converting that into at least $100M of free cash flow, then the current price will look too low and a re-rate above $55 would be justified.
Grok Reading
The raw numbers describe a business that is still compounding the top line while the bottom line has stalled and free cash flow has been sacrificed. Revenue climbed from $496.8M in 2021 to $983.6M in 2025, an 8.7% CAGR, and the latest four quarters still print $222–260M with recent year-over-year growth of 10.5%. Yet net income peaked at $182.9M in 2023, slipped to $161.3M in 2024 and $159.6M in 2025, and the two most recent quarters show the real fracture: net margins collapsed to 10.6% and 12.8% from the 17–21% range that prevailed through most of 2024–early 2025. Operating cash flow of $135.8M looks healthy until you subtract $101.3M of capex and are left with only $34.5M of free cash flow; that is the clearest quantitative red flag. Balance-sheet quality remains excellent—net debt roughly $71M against $713M of equity, debt-to-equity 0.24, current ratio 1.86—and returns on capital are still elite at 22% ROE and 20% ROIC. At 13.7x trailing earnings, 8.1x EV/EBITDA and 2.2x sales, the market is not paying a growth multiple; it is already discounting the margin and cash-flow deterioration.
What stands out most against the mechanical “overvalued at $33” verdict is the combination of still-high structural margins (gross 42.8%, operating 23.5%) and aggressive insider buying. Between March and May 2026 insiders accumulated well over 600,000 shares in repeated open-market purchases after a single large sale in August 2025. That pattern is inconsistent with a business whose economics are permanently impaired. The elevated capex is more plausibly growth and vertical-integration spend than distress maintenance; if the incremental capacity comes online into even a stable residential and commercial window market, the operating leverage that previously drove net margins above 18% can reappear. The quantitative models appear to be capitalizing trough-ish recent quarterly run-rates and high near-term reinvestment as if they are the steady state, which produces the $32–33 fair-value cluster and the 30% overvaluation signal. I read the same inputs as a high-ROIC manufacturer trading at a mid-cycle multiple while temporarily reinvesting heavily and absorbing cost or mix pressure.
The strongest opposing case is straightforward and data-backed. Earnings CAGR is already –6.6%, FCF CAGR –24.7%, and the last two quarters’ net-income run-rate annualizes closer to $115–130M than the $160M trailing figure; on that basis the multiple expands toward 16–18x and the stock looks fully priced for a cyclical peak. Construction is late-cycle, commercial real estate remains troubled, and the narrative layer correctly notes that any premium above a normalized DCF rests on the housing and specialty-glass tailwind lasting longer than history suggests. If gross margin begins to erode from the 43% level or if working-capital absorption accelerates, the 8x EV/EBITDA cushion disappears quickly. I weigh this less heavily than the models because the absolute leverage is low, the dividend is trivial (1.3% yield, 18% payout), and the insider buying is occurring at prices near the current $46.80—exactly the opposite of what smart money does when it sees a permanent earnings reset.
I would flip to a clear overvalued stance if two consecutive quarters show revenue declining year-over-year while net margins stay below 12%, or if free cash flow remains under $40M for a full year after the current capex wave, or if management begins net selling again at these levels. Conversely, a return to mid-teens net margins with FCF conversion above 50% of net income would make the stock look cheap even at $50-plus.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Claude — Second Response · fairly valued changed direction
VERDICT: Modestly overvalued to fairly valued at $46.80 with fair value $40-44; insider buying tightens the downside but does not resolve the unexplained H2'25 margin break — still a pass, not a buy, until Q2'26 print.
My colleagues both landed materially more constructive than I did (GPT at "fairly valued to modestly undervalued," Grok at "undervalued"), and they're pressing on the same two data points I flagged but weighted less: insider buying and the growth-capex interpretation. I want to check whether their arguments actually move my numbers, or whether they're rhetorical framings around the same margin problem.
Grok's specific claim that capitalizing recent quarterly run-rates produces the $33 cluster is correct and useful — I made a similar point about double-counting in the synthesis DCF. But when I annualize Q4'25 + Q1'26 net income, I get roughly $115-130M, which is exactly where Grok concedes the multiple expands to 16-18x. That's not undervalued; that's fully valued on trough earnings with a hope trade on mean reversion. GPT is more honest about this: he explicitly says his constructive read requires "earnings stabilize near $150M and FCF rebounds," and puts fair value in the mid-$30s if margins stay stuck at 10-13%. That is essentially my position stated with a different tilt on the base rate. Neither colleague has explained the H2'25 margin break — they've asserted it's temporary, mix, or growth-capex-related, but the file doesn't support that; it's an assumption. On capex specifically: $101M against $135M OCF is a 75% reinvestment rate, and if that were truly growth capex you'd expect revenue acceleration, not the 10-12% we're seeing (down from 2022's 44%).
The insider buying argument is the one place I'll give ground on degree, not direction. Seven purchases clustered in March 2026 plus May follow-ons at $45-50 is a stronger signal than I initially credited, particularly against a clean balance sheet (net debt $71M, current ratio 1.86). That argues against the -30% synthesis case more forcefully than I put it. But insider buying doesn't tell me margins revert; it tells me insiders don't think the business is broken. Those are different claims. I'm nudging my fair value band up slightly to $40-44 (from $38-42) to reflect that the downside tail is thinner than I first modeled, but I'm holding the core verdict: this is not buyable until Q2'26 shows margin recovery above 15%.
GPT — Second Response · overvalued changed direction
VERDICT: Modestly overvalued at $46.80; fair value looks closer to $38-$43 unless margins recover back above ~15% and FCF normalizes.
Claude moved me more than Grok because he sharpened the single most troubling datapoint in the file: 2025 generated just $34.5M of free cash flow against $159.6M of net income, and the H2’25/Q1’26 margin break is not just “some softness” but a real regime change until proven otherwise. I underweighted how poor the incremental economics were in 2025: roughly $93M of added revenue for only ~$3.7M more operating income is a bad signal for a company that had looked structurally advantaged. Grok is right that 42.8% gross margin, ~20% ROIC, low leverage, and clustered insider buying argue against the catastrophic $32-style bear case; that part still holds. But his leap from “not broken” to “undervalued compounder” asks me to assume the capex is growth capex and the lower margins are trough margins without evidence in the provided numbers.
So I am revising slightly bearish rather than staying neutral-to-modestly bullish. What failed to move me from Claude is the idea that this should be treated as a generic late-cycle construction name; I still think the Florida/product-code/idiosyncratic mix deserves some premium to a plain building-products cyclical, and the insider purchases are too large and too clustered to dismiss. But what did move me is that valuation is not actually cheap on the cash the business is currently producing: a 1.7% trailing FCF yield and recent net margins in the 10.6%-12.8% range do not justify paying up for a rebound that remains hypothetical. If normalized earnings are now closer to $125M-$140M than $150M-$160M, the current price is at best full. I no longer think “modestly undervalued” is the right lean; I think fair value is below the market until margins and cash conversion demonstrably recover, with roughly $38-$43 the zone that better reflects both franchise quality and current deterioration.
Grok — Second Response · fairly valued changed direction
VERDICT: Fairly valued to modestly undervalued at $46.80; $38-42 too low if margins stabilize, $33 models still too punitive
The colleagues’ sharpest data points did move me. Claude’s incremental-margin math is decisive: $93M of incremental 2025 revenue produced essentially flat operating income, implying ~4% drop-through—an outright failure of the operating leverage I had treated as latent. GPT’s observation that the 13.7x multiple already embeds the market’s recognition of margin normalization is equally fair; the stock is no longer screening as a pure trough multiple. Both correctly flag that 22% FCF conversion and the still-unexplained H2’25 break (gross margin steady, everything below the line compressed) keep the burden of proof on the bull case. Those facts undercut my original claim that $33 was “too punitive” enough to label the name clearly undervalued today.
What failed to persuade me toward Claude’s $38-42 / modestly-overvalued zone is the same evidence both colleagues themselves partially concede: clustered open-market insider buying >700k shares at $45-50 after the August distribution, fortress balance sheet (0.24 D/E, 1.86 current ratio), and the idiosyncratic Florida/impact-glass mix that is not a pure late-cycle housing beta. Those signals still make the synthesis DCF’s double-counting of trough margins plus terminal cyclicality look overly harsh. I therefore revise only one notch: the name is no longer a high-conviction undervalued compounder, but a high-ROIC franchise trading at the upper end of fair value while the market waits for proof that mid-teens net margins and >$80-100M FCF can reappear.
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Tecnoglass has scaled revenue from $496.8M in 2021 to $983.6M in 2025, roughly doubling over five years while sustaining operating margins above 23% throughout. Net income has held in the $155-183M range for four straight years and diluted share count has drifted down from 47.7M to 46.7M, so per-share economics are being protected rather than diluted. Earnings quality checks are clean: accruals -0.2% of assets, OCF/NI 1.06x, Beneish M -2.34, and Altman Z 4.69 in the safe zone. The soft spots are real but contained. Gross margin peaked at 48.8% in 2022 and has compressed to 42.8% in 2025; operating margin has similarly slipped from 31.6% to 23.5%, back to 2021 levels despite nearly 2x the revenue - operating leverage has gone the wrong way. FCF was $91.0M in 2024 but collapsed to $34.5M in 2025 against $159.6M net income (OCF/NI is a trailing metric that hasn't caught up), so 2025 cash conversion is poor and the company carries net debt of -$67.6M against only $104.1M of liquid cash. Insider behavior is the standout positive: Energy Holding Corp (a controlling vehicle) bought roughly $27M across seven separate open-market purchases in early 2026 after a large $118M sale in mid-2025. The buying pattern is concentrated, repeated, and at insider scale - a credible signal of conviction from those closest to the business.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- 2025 working-capital movements driving the FCF drop to $34.5M vs $159.6M net income
- Debt maturity schedule and covenants behind the -$67.6M net debt
- Customer and geographic concentration (Florida single-family construction exposure)
- Whether gross margin compression is FX/aluminum input costs or pricing/mix
- Related-party dynamics between Energy Holding Corp and the Daes family control block
- Capex intensity trend and whether recent spend supports future capacity
The three-method stack lands well below the tape: DCF at $18.50, EPV floor at $31.35, and an anchored-PE stretch case at $66.25 average to $33.65 and adjust to $32.68 after signals. Price is $46.80. Only the PE-anchor method - which extrapolates recent earnings power - supports today's quote, and that method leans on margins the quality lens flags as round-tripping to 2021 levels on nearly 2x revenue. The DCF and EPV, which discount cash, both say the deserved value sits in the low-$30s. Earnings quality is clean (score 2), so no haircut is warranted, but that also means there is no hidden accrual cushion to argue the fair values are too low. The bear read - cyclical commodity-adjacent business priced as if growth is permanent while FCF was only $34.5M against $160M of net income - is the more honest framing at this price. A Solid-quality industrial deserves a modest premium to EPV, but the current ~40-50% premium to the composite implies late-cycle earnings persist and re-accelerate. That is a heroic ask into a cooling resi and troubled CRE backdrop. Not a short thesis, but not a valuation with margin of safety either.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Backlog trend and commercial vs residential mix in latest 10-Q/transcript
- Working capital movements driving the FCF-to-NI gap - is it inventory build or receivables stretch?
- Guidance on 2025 volumes and pricing given resi cooldown
- Capex intensity and whether recent margin normalization is structural or transient
- Any one-time items inflating the $160M net income figure
TGLS sits on a cyclical-late-stage narrative with moderate intensity but explicitly fragile durability and low cult following - the market believes the residential construction and CRE recovery tailwinds persist, but there is no story loyalty to defend the stock if data softens. At $46.80 with the market pricing a 43% premium to normalized DCF, sentiment is doing heavy lifting that fundamentals do not underwrite, and any narrative crack (a soft housing print, a builder guide-down, a CRE headline) lands directly on this name. The tape itself is only mildly constructive (regime +22, VIX 16, S&P near highs), so there is no risk-on wave to ride either. With beta 1.41 and a Basic Materials/Building Materials label tied to housing, TGLS is a high-sensitivity vehicle to exactly the macro variables that are ambiguous here: 10y at 4.68% keeps mortgage rates punitive and pressures the residential thesis that supports the premium. Momentum is neutral, cash generation is weakening, and the 3yr trend has decayed - none of that is fundamental scoring, it is the tape refusing to confirm the bull story. Net: mild-to-moderate headwind. Nothing is actively collapsing, but the pressure vector points down because the story is fragile, the premium is narrative-dependent, and the macro backdrop offers no tailwind to housing-linked cyclicals.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- US housing starts and permits prints - any soft series accelerates the narrative crack
- CRE headlines or REIT tape action that could rerate builder-product names
- 10y yield direction - a break above 4.75% pressures housing sentiment further
- Homebuilder (ITB/XHB) relative strength - TGLS trades with the cohort
- Any analyst target revisions or downgrades citing cycle rollover
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Aug 5, 2026, TGLS was $46.26. We expect it to be $40.50 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $34.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 5, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.