Baker Hughes Company (BKR)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 20.4x earnings — a 41% discount to the sector average of 34.8x — BKR is in the lower valuation range. Strong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 2.7. DCF fair value of $91 implies 45% upside from current prices based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of Baker Hughes reveal a company generating returns that currently underperform its cost of capital, with an ROIC-WACC spread contracting to -0.6%. Despite this negative capital efficiency metric, the equity valuation is supported by a DuPont decomposition where leverage (2.15x) and solid net margins (9.3%) drive a 13.6% ROE, masking weak asset turnover at 0.68x amidst flat revenue growth of -0.3%. Solvency indicators present a mixed picture; while the Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 suggests robust financial strength and the Beneish M-Score of -2.68 indicates low earnings manipulation risk, an Altman Z-Score of 2.5 places the firm in a zone warranting caution regarding potential distress.
Valuation metrics suggest significant divergence between current pricing and intrinsic value models. The stock trades at a P/E multiple of 23.2x, which remains slightly below the sector average of 24.0x, yet the DCF model implies a fair value of $93 with an upside potential of 53%. This substantial gap relies on an assumption of sustained free cash flow growth averaging 9.2% over the next decade, implying that current market pricing may not fully account for this long-term expansion trajectory or is compensating for near-term cyclical headwinds in the energy sector.
Risk-adjusted performance data highlights a complex factor profile alongside notable insider activity. The stock exhibits strong exposure to value and profitability factors, evidenced by a Value Factor (HML) of 0.842 and a Profitability Factor (RMW) of 0.256, while simultaneously generating an annualized Fama-French Alpha of 16.18%, indicating outperformance relative to its risk profile over the measurement period. However, this technical strength contrasts sharply with insider behavior, as net selling totaling $44,481,302 occurred within the last ninety days, suggesting internal stakeholders may be reallocating capital despite the positive factor loadings and valuation spread.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
The growth rate the market implicitly expects over the next 10 years to justify today's price. Compare with historical growth of -0% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 7.9% | 9.9% | 11.9% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $112 | $81 | $63 |
| 3% | $132 | $91 | $68 |
| 4% | $163 | $104 | $76 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $64.54.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=9.9%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $91 (+45.4%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Currently trading 26% above its 5-year average P/E of 19.2x.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedBaker Hughes Company is currently trading at $64.12 within the energy sector, presenting a snapshot where institutional positioning may be shifting in response to recent price dynamics. The observed technical setup suggests that larger market participants could be reacting to a potential trend reversal or consolidation phase, as indicated by moving average interactions and accompanying volume profiles. If short-term averages have begun crossing above longer-term counterparts while volume remains elevated, this pattern often reflects increased accumulation activity among sophisticated traders who are anticipating upward momentum. Conversely, if price action is struggling to sustain gains despite these crossover signals, it might imply that institutional buyers are facing resistance or that profit-taking pressures from larger entities are emerging at current levels. The interplay between the $64.12 mark and surrounding support structures reveals critical inflection points where significant capital flows could be occurring. Sustained trading activity near this price level without a decisive breakout suggests caution among major holders, who may be waiting for clearer confirmation before committing additional resources to either side of the trade. Volume trends serve as a crucial validator here; rising volume on up-days would strengthen the thesis that institutions are building long positions, whereas diminishing volume during rallies could indicate waning interest from these key market drivers. Ultimately, the current configuration highlights a period of strategic indecision or realignment for large players, who appear to be closely monitoring whether the energy sector's broader trajectory will support further appreciation at these specific valuations before adjusting their exposure accordingly.
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.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-05 | $0.2300 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-17 | $0.2300 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-04 | $0.2300 | 0.0% |
| 2025-08-05 | $0.2300 | 0.0% |
| 2025-05-06 | $0.2300 | 0.0% |
| 2025-02-11 | $0.2300 | +9.5% |
| 2024-11-04 | $0.2100 | 0.0% |
| 2024-08-06 | $0.2100 | 0.0% |
| 2024-05-03 | $0.2100 | 0.0% |
| 2024-02-12 | $0.2100 | +5.0% |
| 2023-11-03 | $0.2000 | 0.0% |
| 2023-08-07 | $0.2000 | +5.3% |
Dividend and split data from SEC filings and market data. Amounts are per share, not adjusted for splits. Source: yfinance.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this stock's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XES or XLE, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell BKR shares regardless of Baker Hughes Company's individual fundamentals. We estimate $12.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to BKR through 8 tracked ETFs. This substantial passive exposure means that ETF inflows and outflows — not company fundamentals — can dominate daily volume on this stock.
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 Baker Hughes Company to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Baker Hughes Company (BKR) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies EXXON MOBIL CORP (XOM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with BKR. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 33 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
BKR Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 5 BKR shares, reducing daily market volatility.
Baker Hughes Company (BKR) exerts notable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 3.9% of the XES (XES) and 3.6% of the State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLE). Across 30 tracked ETFs, approximately 188M shares (18.9% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. This level of passive ownership means index rebalances can create outsized volume events.
ETFs with Highest BKR Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 30 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
BKR Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for Baker Hughes Company over the past year sits near $47.39 (11% of 252-day volume). The current price of $64.54 trades 36.2% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
BKR Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Baker Hughes Company convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Baker Hughes Company converts 59% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-0.8%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 74 | $65.41 | $4,840.34 |
| 2026-05-07 | 4 | $66.67 | $266.68 |
| 2026-05-05 | 51 | $69.01 | $3,519.51 |
| 2026-04-21 | 79 | $59.17 | $4,674.43 |
| 2026-04-17 | 48 | $60.60 | $2,908.8 |
| 2026-04-16 | 2 | $60.07 | $120.14 |
| 2026-04-15 | 9 | $61.49 | $553.41 |
| 2026-04-13 | 6,870 | $62.83 | $431,642.1 |
| 2026-04-07 | 15,420 | $60.70 | $935,994 |
| 2026-04-02 | 6 | $60.34 | $362.04 |
| 2026-03-31 | 2 | $60.68 | $121.36 |
| 2026-03-27 | 2 | $62.36 | $124.72 |
| 2026-03-25 | 98 | $63.49 | $6,222.02 |
| 2026-03-24 | 25 | $62.53 | $1,563.25 |
| 2026-03-23 | 7 | $60.35 | $422.45 |
| 2026-03-16 | 1,710 | $54.26 | $92,784.6 |
| 2026-03-09 | 886 | $59.81 | $52,991.66 |
| 2026-03-05 | 164 | $60.88 | $9,984.32 |
| 2026-03-03 | 74 | $64.83 | $4,797.42 |
| 2026-02-17 | 1,800 | $61.20 | $110,160 |
| 2026-02-06 | 1,963 | $57.36 | $112,597.68 |
| 2026-02-04 | 98 | $58.00 | $5,684 |
| 2026-01-27 | 3,115 | $56.29 | $175,343.35 |
| 2026-01-26 | 114 | $53.92 | $6,146.88 |
| 2026-01-22 | 1,837 | $53.59 | $98,444.83 |
| 2026-01-21 | 103,171 | $51.26 | $5.3M |
| 2026-01-20 | 100 | $51.75 | $5,175 |
| 2026-01-15 | 200 | $49.98 | $9,996 |
| 2026-01-09 | 1,187 | $50.20 | $59,587.4 |
| 2025-12-19 | 25 | $44.47 | $1,111.75 |
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.
SEC Comment Letters
SEC correspondence with the company regarding their filings. Comment letters often flag disclosure deficiencies, accounting concerns, or material omissions.
Source: SEC EDGAR correspondence. Comment letters are public records of SEC staff review of company filings.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| SLB | 0.687 | 0.718 | Moderate |
| NOV | 0.654 | 0.664 | Moderate |
| WFRD | 0.630 | 0.602 | Moderate |
| HAL | 0.625 | 0.608 | Moderate |
| OII | 0.593 | 0.548 | Moderate |
| HP | 0.571 | 0.517 | Moderate |
| FTI | 0.553 | 0.580 | Moderate |
| NE | 0.546 | 0.542 | Moderate |
| WHD | 0.538 | 0.490 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare BKR to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.