Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.

Price story Before the numbers, the tape. A stock price moves through four repeating seasons: a flat base (stage 1), an advance (2), a top (3), a decline (4). Where the price sits in that cycle frames everything below.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. trades at $114, between stages. It sits at 9% of a 52-week range of $107 to $191. On relative strength it is currently behind the S&P 500 on a trailing-13-week view (9 weeks and counting).

Today the stock is between stages. At $114 it trades near its long-run average and sits at 9% of its 52-week range ($107–$191).

Against the market, two honest reads. Cumulative: over the last 1.0 years the stock moved −11% while the S&P 500 moved +18% — behind the index over the full window. Recent form: on a trailing-13-week view the stock is currently behind (9 weeks and counting; last ahead the week of 2026-05-28) — the ribbon below is that same metric, week by week.

What would end the trend, mechanically: two Friday closes in a row below the 200-day line. That is the exit rule — no debates.

→ The trend is one thing; the bill is another. Are you paying up for it? Next: the P/E sits at the 0th percentile of its own range.

Valuation P/E is the price of $1 of annual profit: how many dollars the market pays for each dollar the company earns in a year.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. trades at 2.7× P/E, about the cheapest it has ever traded. Its long-run median P/E is 4.3×, measured across 1.0 years of weekly readings. This places the multiple against the stock’s own record, and says nothing about what the business is worth.

Today's P/E of 2.7× is about the cheapest it has ever traded, against a long-run median of 4.3× measured over 1.0 years of weekly readings. This is a comparison against the stock's own history — not a claim about what it is worth.

Why the multiple sits where it does: over the past year annual EPS moved +654.2% against a −10.2% price move — earnings outran the price, pushing the multiple DOWN its own range.

Put together: the multiple is low against its own past, so the story rests on the earnings line underneath it, not the multiple.

→ Cheap or dear rides on the earnings. Are they actually growing? Next: the fundamental stage — where the business sits in its arc, and how growth has compounded.

Stage: Mixed Every business sits somewhere on a fundamental arc, and this page names the spot before anything else. The last twelve quarters of revenue, profit and EPS growth — plus the return the business earns on its capital — are read as curves: Deteriorating (the curves are falling), Turning around (a trough has just formed and the last few quarters lift off it), Improving (the climb off the trough is sustained), Consistent (steadily positive with healthy returns), Topping out (still high but decelerating from the peak). When the curves genuinely disagree the read is Mixed; too little history is No read. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is the smooth yearly pace that turns the starting value into the latest one — the fairest way to compare growth across different time spans. Read the columns together: if the 1-year number towers over the 10-year, recent growth is running hotter than the long-run trend. A dash means that window is not held, or the base year was a loss (where a growth rate is not meaningful).

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. reads as mixed on its fundamental arc. Mixed — the growth curves are steadily positive, but ROCE at 11.4% is below the 15% bar this page requires to call it Consistent. The read is built from 12 quarters across 4 curves, on full evidence.

Why it matters: when the curves disagree, the per-curve reads above matter more than any single verdict.

→ The stage names the trajectory. Next: the revenue line that produces it, quarter by quarter.

4-Factor Sector Score

No sector-relative score — Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. is not among the largest members shown in this industry comparison for Information Technology Services.

The score is a rank WITHIN a peer set: every metric is scored by percentile against the other members. Without the peer set there is no score to state, so none is invented here.

Revenue Revenue is the top line: everything the company billed its customers in the period.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. reported $0.7 B of revenue in the Mar 26 quarter, +19.4% year on year. That is the 4th straight quarter of year-on-year growth. Over 4 years it has compounded at 2.3% a year. The last full year, FY25, came in at $2.6 B. The last four reported quarters add to $2.9 B.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. reported $0.7 B of revenue in the Mar 26 quarter, +19.4% year on year. That is the 4th straight quarter of year-on-year growth. Over 4 years it has compounded at 2.3% a year. The last full year, FY25, came in at $2.6 B. The last four reported quarters add to $2.9 B.

FY25 revenue came in at $2.6 B (+18.5% on the year), capping 4 years at 2.3% compound. The latest quarter (Mar 26) printed $0.7 B, +19.4% year on year — the 4th consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth.

Pace check: the last four quarters averaged +20.4% growth against the decade's 2.3% — the current year is running faster than its own long-run rate.

Acceleration check: trailing-twelve-month revenue grew +19.9% over the last 4 quarters against +4.4%/yr over the last 8 — accelerating; TTM profit +0.0% vs −6.5%/yr — accelerating.

→ Revenue grew — did margins hold as it scaled? Next: 10.8% this quarter (+2.7 pp YoY).

Operating margin Operating margin is what is left of every $100 of sales after running the business, before interest and tax. It is the cleanest read on pricing power and cost control.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.'s operating margin is 10.8% in the Mar 26 quarter, +2.7 percentage points against the same quarter a year ago. Across 5 fiscal years the operating margin has ranged 7.6% to 10.9%. The current quarter sits inside that band.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.'s operating margin is 10.8% in the Mar 26 quarter, +2.7 percentage points against the same quarter a year ago. Across 5 fiscal years the operating margin has ranged 7.6% to 10.9%. The current quarter sits inside that band.

The latest quarter's operating margin is 10.8%, +2.7 pp against the same quarter a year ago. Across 5 fiscal years the operating margin has ranged 7.6%–10.9%.

Why the margin moved: operating margin went +2.7 pp year on year while gross margin went +0.9 pp — the gain came mostly below the gross line: operating leverage, with costs spread over a bigger revenue base.

→ Margins held — did that reach the bottom line? Next: profit +100.0% in the latest quarter.

Net profit Net profit is what survives every cost, interest and tax — the number EPS, dividends and book value all grow from.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. earned $0.1 B of net profit in the Mar 26 quarter, +100.0% year on year. Full-year FY25 profit was $0.1 B. The 4-year compound rate is −5.9%. That is 8.1% of the quarter's revenue. The same quarter a year earlier earned $0.0 B.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. earned $0.1 B of net profit in the Mar 26 quarter, +100.0% year on year. Full-year FY25 profit was $0.1 B. The 4-year compound rate is −5.9%. That is 8.1% of the quarter's revenue. The same quarter a year earlier earned $0.0 B.

Mar 26 profit was $0.1 B, +100.0% year on year. On the full year, FY25 printed $0.1 B (−8.3%), and the 4-year compound rate is −5.9%.

Why profit moved: revenue contributed +19.4% and the margin +2.7 pp — the quarter was margin-led: most of the profit growth came from keeping more of each sale.

Pace comparison, last four quarters: profit +3.3% vs revenue +20.4%. Profit is growing slower than sales — costs are eating the growth before it reaches the bottom line.

→ Profit rose — but did the cash follow? Next: 300% of the last 3 years' profit arrived as cash.

Cash flow — the router The P&L says what was earned; the cash-flow statement says what actually arrived. Operating cash flow (CFO) against profit is the cleanest lie detector in the accounts.

Over the last 3 fiscal years 300% of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.'s reported profit arrived as operating cash — the cash follows the profit. In FY25 that was $0.4 B of operating cash against $0.1 B of profit. After $0.0 B of capital spending, $0.4 B was left as free cash.

FY25: operating cash of $0.4 B against reported profit of $0.1 B, leaving free cash of $0.4 B after $0.0 B of capital spending. Across the last 3 fiscal years the conversion rate is 300% of profit.

Cash-flow readings here are annual — that is the resolution our series carries, so this section moves once a year.

Why: conversion is measured cleanly, but the working-capital day-counts behind it sit below what we hold — the move is shown without inventing its driver.

Router verdict: the visible cash user is investment — the next section checks what the spending is buying.

→ So follow the cash to where it goes. Next: $0.0 B of building over 3 years.

Where the cash goes Working capital is the cash tied up between paying suppliers and getting paid: debtor days (customers owe), inventory days (stock waits), and the cash conversion cycle (the whole loop, in days of sales).

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. does not report the debtor, inventory and payable day-counts a cash cycle is built from, so this section reads the investment side instead. Capital spending ran $0.0 B over the last 3 years. Averaged over those years that is 0.0% of FY25 revenue a year.

Working-capital day-counts are not in our numbers for this stock, so this section reads the investment side — where the cash is being put to work.

On the investment side: capital spending of $0.0 B over the last 3 fiscal years.

The synthesis: the cash is going into capacity, not disappearing into the cycle — the question becomes whether the new capacity earns.

→ Does all this activity actually earn its cost of capital? Next: ROE is 9% and the ROIC − WACC spread is +9.8 pp.

Return on equity Return on equity (ROE) is the profit the business earns on its shareholders’ money. With the full capital-employed split not in our numbers, ROE is the cleanest long ladder we can draw here.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. earns a ROE of 6% in FY25. Return on invested capital clears the cost of that capital by +9.8 percentage points, so growth here adds value rather than only size. The wiring behind it is 4.2% net margin on 0.73× asset turns.

FY25 ROE is 6%.

Why the return is what it is — the wiring (FY25): 4.2% net margin × 0.73× asset turns × 2.01× balance-sheet leverage ≈ 6.2% on equity. Margin does its share; leverage is a meaningful part of the equation.

The capstone test — ROIC − WACC: 14.4% − 4.6% = a +9.8 pp spread. The 4.6% is an estimate of this company's own cost of capital — read the sign and the size of the spread, not the decimals. A spread this wide means every dollar reinvested creates more than a dollar of value — the engine compounds.

→ Returns like these — is the balance sheet borrowing to make them? Next: debt-to-equity is 0.37.

Dividend A dividend is cash paid out per share. Dividend per share is the declared amount for the period; the trailing twelve-month total is the four most recent quarters added together.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. paid $1.68 per share over the last four reported quarters, down 20.4% on a year ago. The most recent declaration was $0.06 for Dec 25. Against the current price of $114 that is a trailing yield of 1.47%, measured on dividends already paid rather than on a forecast.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. paid $1.68 per share over the last four reported quarters, down 20.4% on a year ago. The most recent declaration was $0.06 for Dec 25. Against the current price of $114 that is a trailing yield of 1.47%, measured on dividends already paid rather than on a forecast.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. paid $1.68 per share across the last four reported quarters, most recently $0.06 for Dec 25. That is down 20.4% against the same quarter a year earlier. Against the current price of $114 the trailing twelve months work out to 1.47% — trailing dividends measured against today's price, not a forward estimate.

→ A payout is cash leaving the business. Next: what the balance sheet looks like behind it.

Debt Debt-to-equity says how much of the business is funded by borrowings. Low is the safe corner; the trend matters as much as the level.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. carries total debt of $0.7 B against shareholder equity of $1.8 B as of Mar 26, a debt-to-equity of 0.37. On the annual view that ratio went from 0.60 in FY21 to 0.33 in FY25. Read the returns elsewhere on this page with that leverage in mind.

Mar 26: total debt of $0.7 B against shareholder equity of $1.8 B — a debt-to-equity of 0.37. On the annual view, debt-to-equity went from 0.60 (FY21) to 0.33 (FY25). Read the returns on this page with that leverage in mind.

→ Who owns this, and are they adding or leaving? Next: the register.

Ownership There is no quarter-by-quarter holder register to read here, so we read the crowd through short interest — the slice of tradable shares currently sold short, positioned for a fall.

No ownership or positioning reading is held for Formula Systems (1985) Ltd., so this section names the gap rather than filling it. At typical trading volumes those positions would take about 0.4 days to buy back. There is no quarter-by-quarter holder register to read for this filer, so the crowd is read through short interest instead.

We hold no ownership or positioning reading for this stock, so this section says that plainly.

→ One last check: does the safety math agree? Next: the balance-sheet safety line.

Safety line The Z-score estimates how far a company sits from balance-sheet distress — above roughly 3 is safe, below roughly 1.8 is the danger zone. It was built for manufacturers, so it is not applied to banks and lenders.

Formula Systems (1985) Ltd.: the Z-score is not available for this stock, so we say so rather than invent one. It is a distance-to-distress estimate from the balance sheet, not a forecast of failure. The debt, cash-flow and return sections above carry the balance-sheet evidence this page does hold, and each of them states its own reporting date.

The safety line in one sentence: the Z-score is not available for this stock, so we say so rather than invent one.

Frequently asked questions