CNH Industrial N.V. (CNH)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 25.8x earnings — a 42% discount to the sector average of 44.7x — CNH is in the lower valuation range. Financial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 1.6.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of CNH Industrial reveal a capital-intensive operation characterized by low absolute returns on invested capital, with an ROIC of 5.8% that fails to generate significant value creation relative to the cost of equity. The DuPont decomposition illustrates that this modest return is primarily driven by high financial leverage (Equity Multiplier of 5.46x) rather than operational efficiency or pricing power; while gross margins remain robust at 31.5%, net profitability is compressed to a slender 2.8% due to the heavy cost structure and current revenue contraction of -8.8%. Quality metrics present a mixed signal, with a Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 indicating moderate financial stability but lacking strong improvement trends, whereas the Beneish M-Score of -2.69 suggests management earnings quality is unlikely to be materially overstated despite the cyclical headwinds evident in recent turnover dynamics.
Valuation metrics currently reflect a significant discount relative to broader industrial peers, trading at 25.8x forward earnings compared to a sector average of 44.2x. This compression appears partially justified by the deteriorating revenue trajectory and thin net margins, yet it implies substantial downside risk if growth does not stabilize quickly. A discounted cash flow analysis suggests an intrinsic fair value of $41; however, without knowing the current market price to calculate a precise premium or discount percentage, the gap between this model-based valuation and actual trading levels remains ambiguous regarding immediate overvaluation status. The market appears to be pricing in persistent cyclical weakness rather than anticipating a rapid turnaround, as evidenced by the lack of insider activity which has remained neutral with zero net flow over the past 90 days.
The risk-reward profile hinges on whether the company can convert its high asset turnover and leverage into sustained margin expansion once revenue growth stabilizes from its -8.8% decline. While the low valuation multiple offers a potential entry point for contrarian investors, the underlying capital efficiency remains suboptimal given the 5.8% ROIC. Investors must weigh the safety of the negative Beneish score against the structural drag on returns posed by high leverage and shrinking top-line revenue before concluding that current pricing adequately compensates for these operational constraints.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.9% | 9.9% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $55 | $33 | $21 |
| 3% | $75 | $41 | $25 |
| 4% | $114 | $52 | $30 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.9%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $41 (+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
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 SPMD, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell CNH shares regardless of CNH Industrial N.V.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $580M of passive capital is structurally linked to CNH through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on CNH'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 CNH Industrial N.V. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If CNH Industrial N.V. (CNH) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with CNH. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 13 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
CNH Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest CNH Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 14 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
CNH Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does CNH Industrial N.V. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
CNH Industrial N.V. converts 49% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 51% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-2.1%), 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 | 8 | $10.76 | $86.08 |
| 2026-05-12 | 64,391 | $10.97 | $706,369.27 |
| 2026-05-11 | 7,498 | $10.96 | $82,178.08 |
| 2026-05-07 | 57,362 | $10.82 | $620,656.84 |
| 2026-05-06 | 36,544 | $10.32 | $377,134.08 |
| 2026-05-04 | 35,624 | $10.48 | $373,339.52 |
| 2026-05-01 | 1 | $10.71 | $10.71 |
| 2026-04-27 | 105,905 | $10.25 | $1.1M |
| 2026-04-24 | 5,707 | $10.50 | $59,923.5 |
| 2026-04-23 | 3,545 | $10.47 | $37,116.15 |
| 2026-04-21 | 76,442 | $10.84 | $828,631.28 |
| 2026-04-16 | 1,040 | $10.64 | $11,065.6 |
| 2026-04-15 | 3,092 | $11.49 | $35,527.08 |
| 2026-04-14 | 3 | $11.58 | $34.74 |
| 2026-04-09 | 34,009 | $11.43 | $388,722.87 |
| 2026-04-08 | 10,471 | $10.70 | $112,039.7 |
| 2026-04-07 | 10,276 | $10.73 | $110,261.48 |
| 2026-03-31 | 40 | $10.40 | $416 |
| 2026-03-26 | 11,956 | $11.16 | $133,428.96 |
| 2026-03-23 | 912,379 | $9.94 | $9.1M |
| 2026-03-17 | 2,493 | $10.52 | $26,226.36 |
| 2026-03-12 | 16,677 | $10.98 | $183,113.46 |
| 2026-03-11 | 235,373 | $11.03 | $2.6M |
| 2026-03-06 | 3 | $11.40 | $34.2 |
| 2026-03-03 | 295 | $12.33 | $3,637.35 |
| 2026-02-26 | 14 | $12.35 | $172.9 |
| 2026-02-25 | 264,932 | $12.75 | $3.4M |
| 2026-02-24 | 948 | $12.73 | $12,068.04 |
| 2026-02-23 | 1,800 | $13.06 | $23,508 |
| 2026-02-20 | 4,008 | $12.98 | $52,023.84 |
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 CNH 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.