The setup
Ingram Micro's third quarter produced $251.4M of operating cash because its vendors waited longer to be paid, not because the inventory build unwound. Our call is that the build is still seasonal, and the test is dated: working capital dollars at or below $4.14B on the fiscal year-end balance sheet of ; above $4.95B, the build has become a floor and we are wrong.
Ingram Micro Holding Corporation (INGM, NYSE) reported on for the thirteen weeks ended . Net sales were $15.22B, up 20.8% on the year and $1.27B above the top of the $13,550M to $13,950M range the company gave in July. Gross profit was $996.9M against a guide top of $955M. Operating income was $293.8M (+31.4%), net income $131.1M (+31.8%), and non-GAAP diluted EPS $0.91 against a $0.72 to $0.82 guide. The fourth-quarter guide is $17.5B to $17.9B of net sales and $1.05 to $1.15 of non-GAAP EPS. The stock closed at $28.41 on , against $28.61 the session before (market data, not from the filing).
In September we argued that Ingram's second-quarter cash burn was the same shape as TD SYNNEX's but the opposite balance sheet: working capital dollars at $4.90B sat inside an eight-quarter range of $3.55B to $4.95B, so the build looked seasonal and priced, not structural. We named an early tell for this print, cash used in operations smaller than the $146.0M of a year earlier. The tell held: the quarter produced cash. The range did not. Working capital dollars reached $5.04B, above the $4.95B top. Both things are true at once, and the reason is the most important line on the balance sheet: accounts payable rose $1.26B in thirteen weeks to $13.05B.
The thesis library calls the distributor version of this same burn, different floor: two distributors can print the same cash line for opposite reasons, and the test is where working capital dollars sit against their own range. This quarter adds a third case. The cash line improved while the floor rose. That is what vendor terms do: they move the cash without moving the asset.
The numbers
| $ millions | Q3 25 | Q2 26 | Q3 26 | Y/Y | vs July guide |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net sales | 12,603.8 | 14,531.1 | 15,220.5 | +20.8% | top was 13,950 |
| Gross profit | 869.6 | 958.7 | 996.9 | +14.6% | top was 955 |
| Gross margin | 6.90% | 6.60% | 6.55% | −0.35 pts | |
| Gross margin excluding large AI deals | 7.10% | 6.90% | 7.06% | roughly flat | |
| Operating expenses | 646.1 | 722.7 | 703.2 | 4.62% of sales | |
| Income from operations | 223.5 | 236.0 | 293.8 | +31.4% | |
| Adjusted EBITDA | 342.2 | 355.8 | 390.1 | +14.0% | |
| Net income | 99.5 | 110.9 | 131.1 | +31.8% | |
| Non-GAAP diluted EPS | $0.72 | $0.82 | $0.91 | +26.4% | top was $0.82 |
| Operating cash flow | (146.0) | (533.2) | 251.4 | +397.4 | |
| Adjusted free cash flow | (109.9) | (527.3) | 249.5 | +359.5 | |
| Accounts payable (quarter-end) | 9,611.3 | 11,795.1 | 13,053.2 | +35.8% | |
| Inventory (quarter-end) | 5,366.3 | 6,020.1 | 6,566.7 | +22.4% | |
| Trade receivables (quarter-end) | 9,194.9 | 10,677.1 | 11,528.4 | +25.4% | |
| Working capital dollars | 4,949.9 | 4,902.1 | 5,041.9 | +92.0 | |
| Total debt | 3,795.3 | 3,795.4 | 3,900.6 |
All figures are from the company's results releases and the third-quarter 10-Q. Working capital dollars are the company's own definition: trade receivables plus inventory less accounts payable. The excluding-AI-deals margins are as the releases state them; the company does not disclose the size of the deals. Second-quarter operating expenses are SG&A of $714.4M plus restructuring of $8.3M. Year-earlier total debt is long-term debt of $3,059.6M plus short-term debt of $735.7M, from the ROIC reconciliation.
Three things stand out before any argument. Net sales beat the top of guidance by $1.27B, and gross profit beat by only $41.9M. Payables grew 35.8% on the year while sales grew 20.8%. And the quarter's cash came with working capital dollars at a series high.
The release explains the margin in one sentence: "The year-over-year gross margin trend was largely driven by growth of lower-margin, low cost-to-serve GPU and AI-infrastructure product sets." Decode: excluding those deals, gross margin was 7.06% against 7.10%. Including them it was 6.55% against 6.90%. The gap between the two lines was 0.51 points this quarter, 0.30 points in the second quarter and 0.20 points a year ago. The AI deals are growing faster than the rest of the business, and each one carries a thinner margin than the average sale.
The rest of this dive is for paid subscribers.
The headline numbers are above. The 11 sections below carry the mechanism, the peer read, the valuation work, and the dated tests that decide it.
- Seven quarters: the level before the delta
- Where the growth went: North America and the AI deals
- Who paid for the build
- The cost line: expenses, interest and the extra week
- Connecting the dots
- The year-end bar
- Valuation
- The strongest case against this read
- What we'd watch
- The trade (analysis, not advice)
- Bottom line
Not ready to pay? Get the free Monday issue and one full dive a week by email.
Already a subscriber? Sign in.