Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 11.9x earnings — a 73% discount to the sector average of 44.7x — BAH is in the lower valuation range. Financial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 4.0 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedBooz Allen Hamilton exhibits robust fundamental economics characterized by a high-quality capital allocation profile, evidenced by an ROIC of 20.4% which suggests efficient generation of returns relative to the cost of equity. The DuPont decomposition reveals that this strong performance is driven primarily by significant financial leverage (Equity Multiplier of 7.29x) rather than operational efficiency in terms of asset turnover or margin expansion, as net margins sit at a moderate 7.8%. This structural reliance on leverage is reinforced by the equity multiplier component while maintaining solid profitability metrics; the company posts a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.45, indicating strong financial health with low probability of earnings manipulation despite the aggressive use of debt to boost return ratios.
Valuation analysis presents a stark divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value models. The stock trades at a P/E multiple of 11.9x, which is substantially discounted relative to both its historical norms and the broader Industrials sector average of 45.2x. This significant compression suggests the market may be underweighting the company's growth prospects or reacting negatively to specific risk factors not fully captured in standard multiples. Meanwhile, a DCF model implies a fair value of $416, suggesting that if the firm can sustain its revenue growth trajectory of 12.4% and maintain current margin profiles, there is potential for substantial re-rating as valuation gaps close over time.
Risk assessment highlights conflicting signals regarding ownership dynamics versus fundamental quality. While the Piotroski score points to operational stability, recent insider activity shows $27,506 in net selling over the last 90 days, a delta that warrants scrutiny given the company's otherwise strong balance sheet indicators. This outflow contrasts with the high F-Score and low manipulation risk, potentially signaling concerns about short-term positioning or management outlook despite the attractive long-term valuation metrics derived from cash flow assumptions. Investors must weigh whether this insider selling reflects private knowledge of near-term headwinds or simply portfolio rebalancing in a fundamentally sound asset trading at a deep discount to its intrinsic value.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 6.8% | 8.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $342 | $276 | $185 |
| 3% | $451 | $345 | $214 |
| 4% | $669 | $461 | $256 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=6.8%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $345 (+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.
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 MDYV or ONEY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell BAH shares regardless of Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation's individual fundamentals. We estimate $681M of passive capital is structurally linked to BAH through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on BAH'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 Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (BAH) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies RELIANCE INC (RS) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 4 ETFs with BAH. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 15 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
BAH Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest BAH Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 15 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
BAH Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation converts 58% 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 13.5% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-29 | 63 | $76.24 | $4,803.12 |
| 2026-04-08 | 134 | $84.08 | $11,266.72 |
| 2026-03-26 | 3,038 | $80.12 | $243,404.56 |
| 2026-03-23 | 9,472 | $79.95 | $757,286.4 |
| 2026-03-10 | 142 | $81.43 | $11,563.06 |
| 2026-03-09 | 27,882 | $81.89 | $2.3M |
| 2026-02-13 | 75,622 | $77.93 | $5.9M |
| 2026-02-11 | 14,080 | $89.95 | $1.3M |
| 2026-01-30 | 281 | $88.73 | $24,933.13 |
| 2026-01-29 | 568 | $91.10 | $51,744.8 |
| 2026-01-21 | 89,019 | $93.46 | $8.3M |
| 2026-01-20 | 620 | $97.40 | $60,388 |
| 2026-01-09 | 78,803 | $94.22 | $7.4M |
| 2026-01-08 | 65 | $90.26 | $5,866.9 |
| 2026-01-07 | 122,877 | $90.04 | $11.1M |
| 2025-12-23 | 236,656 | $86.49 | $20.5M |
| 2025-12-22 | 21,232 | $85.26 | $1.8M |
| 2025-12-12 | 553 | $94.38 | $52,192.14 |
| 2025-11-26 | 112,810 | $83.65 | $9.4M |
| 2025-11-21 | 27 | $79.90 | $2,157.3 |
| 2025-11-10 | 3,771 | $87.45 | $329,773.95 |
| 2025-11-06 | 651 | $86.61 | $56,383.11 |
| 2025-10-27 | 420 | $91.40 | $38,388 |
| 2025-10-20 | 63,821 | $98.04 | $6.3M |
| 2025-10-03 | 143 | $103.11 | $14,744.73 |
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 BAH 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.