Financial Services

Everest Group, Ltd. (EG)

$13.0B
Market Cap
8.5
P/E Ratio
0.33
Beta
2.52%
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 5/9Altman Z 0.9 DistressROIC−WACC -4.5%

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

At 8.5x earnings — a 56% discount to the sector average of 19.2x — EG is in the lower valuation range. Financial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 0.9.

Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

Everest Group, Ltd. presents a fundamental profile characterized by modest capital efficiency and moderate profitability leverage. The company's Return on Invested Capital stands at 2.6%, suggesting limited value creation relative to the cost of equity in this financial services sector. However, DuPont decomposition reveals that ROE is currently driven primarily by high financial leverage (Equity Multiplier of 4.04x) rather than operational excellence or pricing power; while net margins remain healthy at 9.2%, asset turnover is constrained at just 0.28x. This structural reliance on debt to generate returns, coupled with a Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 and stagnant revenue growth of merely 0.8% year-over-year, indicates an enterprise facing operational headwinds that are not being offset by margin expansion or balance sheet strength.

Valuation metrics suggest the market is pricing in significant distress or expects a reversion to mean regarding asset quality and leverage. The current P/E ratio of 8.5x trades at less than half the sector average of 18.0x, implying that investors have already incorporated substantial downside risk into the price. Although no specific DCF fair value was provided in the data points, such a deep discount relative to peers typically signals that expected future growth rates are viewed as negligible or negative. The lack of insider activity over the past ninety days further neutralizes any signal of management confidence in near-term turnaround prospects, leaving the valuation gap largely driven by fundamental deterioration rather than temporary market dislocation.

The risk-reward dynamic here hinges on whether the low P/E reflects a permanent impairment of earnings power or a cyclical trough that has not yet bottomed out. With revenue growth effectively flat and capital efficiency remaining subpar, any improvement in asset turnover or reduction in leverage would be required to justify multiple expansion toward sector norms. Conversely, if the high equity multiplier continues without corresponding margin improvements, the thin ROIC spread could compress further, reinforcing the current discount. The absence of positive insider flow combined with weak operational metrics suggests that the market is currently pricing for stability rather than growth, creating a scenario where upside depends entirely on a fundamental inflection in asset utilization or profitability.

Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.

Valuation Context

8.5x
EG P/E
19.2x
Sector Avg
-56%
vs Sector

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

5/9
Piotroski F-Score
Average — mixed operational signals
0.9
Altman Z-Score
Distress Zone — below 1.8 threshold per academic model. Thresholds: >3 safe, 1.8–3 grey, <1.8 distress.

Profitability & Value Creation

9.2%
Net Margin
2.6%
ROIC
7.1%
WACC
ROIC − WACC Spread: -4.5%— Negative spread.
+0.8%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+15.9%
Earnings Growth (YoY)

DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition

Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.

9.2%
Net Profit Margin
NI ÷ Revenue
×
0.28x
Asset Turnover
Revenue ÷ Assets
×
4.04x
Equity Multiplier
Assets ÷ Equity
=
10.3%
Return on Equity
⚠️ High equity multiplier — ROE is being amplified by leverage, not operational excellence.

Balance Sheet Health

3.04x
Debt / Equity
13.5x
Interest Coverage
1.1x
Net Debt / EBITDA
2.0B
EBITDA

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✗ Miss
Est: $7.74
Act: $6.45
-16.7%
Q3
✓ Beat
Est: $14.82
Act: $17.36
+17.1%
Q2
✗ Miss
Est: $14.52
Act: $7.54
-48.1%
Q1
✗ Miss
Est: $13.83
Act: $13.26
-4.1%

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.

Loading drawdown chart...

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.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Fundamentals

5.2
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
0.85
Price/Book
360237
Avg Volume
$368.29
52W High
$302.44
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$1.2B
Tracked Passive Exposure
8
ETFs Holding EG
0.04%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$2.8T
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like KIE or VBR, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell EG shares regardless of Everest Group, Ltd.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to EG through 8 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.

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 Everest Group, Ltd. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

EG Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
EGEpicenterVOOETFSPYETFVBETFBRK.BUnknownJPMHigh RiskVLow RiskMALow RiskBACHigh Risk
EG Price Drop (%)0

If Everest Group, Ltd. (EG) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B (BRK.B) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with EG. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 20 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

EG Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
EG

Float lock-up computed from 20 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History

SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-04-2790$343.38$30,904.2
2026-04-241,433$350.81$502,710.73
2026-04-20292$351.49$102,635.08
2026-03-254$323.77$1,295.08
2026-03-131$322.34$322.34
2026-03-022$335.49$670.98
2026-02-23541$342.48$185,281.68
2026-02-192,145$345.51$741,118.95
2026-02-09256$328.39$84,067.84
2026-02-05119$333.42$39,676.98
2026-02-0219$331.28$6,294.32
2026-01-0812$331.43$3,977.16
2025-12-29402$337.53$135,687.06
2025-12-2299$331.31$32,799.69
2025-12-0515,144$313.71$4.8M
2025-12-0230$312.09$9,362.7
2025-11-2875$312.03$23,402.25
2025-11-2675$314.04$23,553
2025-11-19180$320.02$57,603.6
2025-11-1411$327.49$3,602.39
2025-10-31231$309.18$71,420.58
2025-10-23990$348.42$344,935.8
2025-10-1714,700$340.85$5.0M
2025-10-14948$351.02$332,766.96
2025-10-0793$361.56$33,625.08

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 EG 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.