Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 23.0x earnings — a 49% discount to the sector average of 44.7x — AWI is in the lower valuation range. Financial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 7.1 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedArmstrong World Industries demonstrates robust fundamental economics, characterized by a substantial ROIC-WACC spread of 8.2%, indicating strong value creation relative to the cost of capital. The DuPont decomposition reveals that this performance is driven primarily by operational efficiency rather than leverage or margin expansion alone; specifically, the company sustains healthy net margins at 19.1% while generating revenue growth of 12.1%. This high-quality earnings profile is corroborated by a Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 and an Altman Z-Score of 7.1, which collectively signal strong financial health and low distress risk. Furthermore, the Beneish M-Score of -2.63 suggests that reported earnings are unlikely to be manipulated, reinforcing the credibility of these fundamental metrics within the Industrials sector.
Valuation analysis presents a distinct divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value models. While Armstrong trades at a P/E multiple of 23.0x—significantly below the sector average of 44.9x—this discount may reflect specific idiosyncratic concerns rather than poor relative valuation. A DCF model estimates a fair value of $94, implying that current market prices are priced for lower growth trajectories or carry a risk premium not fully captured in traditional multiples. The gap between the historical multiple and sector peers suggests the market is pricing in slower expansion compared to industry norms, yet the company's own revenue growth rate of 12.1% challenges assumptions underlying such a steep discount relative to its peer group.
The synthesis of these factors highlights a risk-reward profile where strong operational fundamentals contrast with a valuation that appears compressed against sector benchmarks. The combination of high profitability metrics and low distress indicators suggests the business model is resilient, yet the market's willingness to assign a P/E nearly half that of peers indicates significant skepticism regarding future scalability or competitive positioning. Investors must weigh whether the current price adequately compensates for perceived growth risks given the company's demonstrated ability to generate returns well above its cost of capital and maintain rigorous financial discipline as evidenced by the low Beneish score.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 10.5% | 12.5% | 14.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $110 | $86 | $70 |
| 3% | $123 | $94 | $75 |
| 4% | $139 | $103 | $81 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=12.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $94 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
Balance Sheet Health
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 SLYG or SPSM, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell AWI shares regardless of Armstrong World Industries, Inc.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $419M of passive capital is structurally linked to AWI through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on AWI'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 Armstrong World Industries, Inc. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (AWI) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Lam Research Corp. (LRCX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with AWI. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 12 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
AWI Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest AWI Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 12 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
AWI Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Armstrong World Industries, Inc. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. converts 44% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 56% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 8.1% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-11 | 21 | $161.76 | $3,396.96 |
| 2026-04-22 | 154 | $177.66 | $27,359.64 |
| 2026-04-20 | 14 | $179.52 | $2,513.28 |
| 2026-03-31 | 18 | $159.73 | $2,875.14 |
| 2026-03-23 | 16 | $163.86 | $2,621.76 |
| 2026-03-20 | 9,753 | $165.39 | $1.6M |
| 2026-02-24 | 250 | $192.83 | $48,207.5 |
| 2026-02-13 | 39 | $196.94 | $7,680.66 |
| 2026-01-26 | 1 | $187.28 | $187.28 |
| 2026-01-23 | 71 | $189.04 | $13,421.84 |
| 2026-01-15 | 1 | $195.76 | $195.76 |
| 2025-11-14 | 36 | $184.58 | $6,644.88 |
| 2025-11-04 | 73 | $192.58 | $14,058.34 |
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 AWI 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.