Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. (ABG)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 7.9x earnings — a 77% discount to the sector average of 35.0x — ABG is in the lower valuation range. Financial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 2.5.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of Asbury Automotive Group reveal a capital-efficient operator generating an ROIC-WACC spread indicative of moderate quality, underpinned by a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 and a robust Beneish M-Score of -2.60 that signals low earnings manipulation risk. The DuPont decomposition highlights asset turnover as the primary engine for value creation; with equity multipliers at nearly three times leverage driving returns, the business relies heavily on efficient inventory cycling rather than margin expansion or financial engineering to sustain its 12.6% ROE against a modest 2.7% net margin structure. While revenue growth remains subdued at 4.7%, the alignment of high gross margins with strong turnover suggests operational discipline in a cyclical environment, though the reliance on leverage introduces sensitivity to balance sheet stress during downturns.
Valuation metrics present a stark divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow models. Trading at approximately eight times earnings significantly below both historical norms and the broader consumer cyclical sector average of 34.6x, the stock appears deeply undervalued relative to its peers. However, this compression implies that the market is pricing in substantial downside risks or expects a material deterioration in future growth trajectories not yet reflected in current fundamentals. The DCF model suggests a fair value considerably higher than current levels, creating a wide valuation gap that must be reconciled by assessing whether the low multiple reflects temporary distress or structural headwinds specific to this franchisee model.
Recent insider activity shows net buying totaling over $1.1 million within the last ninety days, potentially signaling management confidence in future cash flows despite the depressed share price. When combined with the company's strong fraud resistance metrics and significant discount to intrinsic value, the risk-reward profile appears skewed toward potential mean reversion, provided macroeconomic conditions do not exacerbate the cyclical pressures already embedded in the low multiple. The convergence of insider accumulation, a clean balance sheet signal from the Beneish score, and an aggressive valuation gap creates a scenario where upside catalysts are theoretically priced for patience rather than immediate correction.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.1% | 9.1% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $844 | $635 | $423 |
| 3% | $1122 | $788 | $491 |
| 4% | $1677 | $1040 | $587 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.1%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $788 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XRT or SLY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell ABG shares regardless of Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $312M of passive capital is structurally linked to ABG through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on ABG's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. (ABG) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies China Construction Bank Corp (939) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with ABG. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 18 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
ABG Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest ABG Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 17 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
ABG Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. converts 56% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 2.1% confirms that reinvested capital creates shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 58 | $193.68 | $11,233.44 |
| 2026-05-06 | 6,154 | $198.50 | $1.2M |
| 2026-04-21 | 20,878 | $212.71 | $4.4M |
| 2026-04-14 | 323 | $205.73 | $66,450.79 |
| 2026-03-31 | 4,462 | $193.45 | $863,173.9 |
| 2026-03-23 | 513 | $185.08 | $94,946.04 |
| 2026-02-13 | 11 | $234.06 | $2,574.66 |
| 2026-02-10 | 2 | $223.51 | $447.02 |
| 2026-02-06 | 123 | $220.55 | $27,127.65 |
| 2026-02-02 | 1,417 | $234.51 | $332,300.67 |
| 2026-01-20 | 11 | $247.57 | $2,723.27 |
| 2026-01-08 | 111 | $241.77 | $26,836.47 |
| 2026-01-05 | 74 | $234.76 | $17,372.24 |
| 2025-12-26 | 374 | $240.89 | $90,092.86 |
| 2025-12-16 | 19 | $242.43 | $4,606.17 |
| 2025-12-15 | 1,914 | $243.64 | $466,326.96 |
| 2025-12-12 | 42 | $248.57 | $10,439.94 |
| 2025-12-08 | 154 | $238.90 | $36,790.6 |
| 2025-12-02 | 69 | $232.12 | $16,016.28 |
| 2025-11-25 | 69 | $223.80 | $15,442.2 |
| 2025-11-21 | 105 | $210.94 | $22,148.7 |
| 2025-10-31 | 442 | $238.22 | $105,293.24 |
| 2025-10-22 | 11 | $251.37 | $2,765.07 |
| 2025-10-15 | 90 | $246.21 | $22,158.9 |
| 2025-10-14 | 698 | $239.35 | $167,066.3 |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Compare ABG to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.