Elbit Systems Ltd. (ESLT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicESLT trades at 72.0x earnings — a 61% premium to its sector average of 44.7x — without a dominant ROIC-WACC spread. Financial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 4.0 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe underlying capital allocation efficiency presents a notable divergence from the reported profitability metrics. While the DuPont decomposition indicates that return on equity is primarily driven by financial leverage rather than operational excellence, with an equity multiplier of 3.07x amplifying modest net margins and asset turnover, the firm maintains a robust Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 alongside a negative Beneish M-Score of -2.47. This combination suggests strong fundamental quality and low earnings manipulation risk despite the thin spread between return on invested capital at 7.5% and implied cost of equity; the high leverage masks the fact that core operating returns are relatively muted compared to the aggressive valuation multiple currently supported by a revenue growth rate of 16.3%.
Valuation metrics reflect extreme market optimism detached from current earnings power, as evidenced by a price-to-earnings ratio of 72.0x which significantly exceeds historical norms and sector averages implied by such high multiples for companies with sub-8% ROIC. The disparity between the current trading levels and a DCF-derived fair value of $899 implies that market participants are pricing in sustained hyper-growth or assume risk-adjusted returns far exceeding what the 7.5% ROIC-WACC spread can justify under standard discounting models. Such a compression suggests the stock is vulnerable to multiple contraction if growth rates decelerate, as the high valuation leaves little margin for error regarding future cash flow assumptions embedded in the DCF model.
Although specific risk factor deltas and insider activity data were not provided to complete a full Fama-French alpha analysis or assess recent management positioning, the structural reliance on leverage within an otherwise clean Piotroski profile creates a binary outcome scenario. The high P/E multiple acts as both a catalyst for potential appreciation if growth accelerates beyond current expectations and a primary downside risk should earnings miss or economic conditions tighten, forcing a re-rating of the equity multiplier component in the DuPont framework.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 8% | 10% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $227 | $157 | $121 |
| 3% | $288 | $179 | $132 |
| 4% | $409 | $214 | $147 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=8.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $179 (+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 ARKX or ARKQ, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell ESLT shares regardless of Elbit Systems Ltd.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $616M of passive capital is structurally linked to ESLT through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on ESLT's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 7 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in Elbit Systems Ltd. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Elbit Systems Ltd. (ESLT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies ROCKET LAB (RKLB UQ) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with ESLT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 7 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
ESLT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest ESLT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
ESLT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Elbit Systems Ltd. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Elbit Systems Ltd. converts 69% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-0.5%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 16 | $802.21 | $12,835.36 |
| 2026-05-11 | 63 | $782.21 | $49,279.23 |
| 2026-05-04 | 9 | $831.22 | $7,480.98 |
| 2026-04-29 | 38 | $834.05 | $31,693.9 |
| 2026-04-28 | 461 | $819.65 | $377,858.65 |
| 2026-04-27 | 258 | $821.96 | $212,065.68 |
| 2026-04-24 | 1 | $852.34 | $852.34 |
| 2026-04-22 | 24 | $865.48 | $20,771.52 |
| 2026-04-20 | 645 | $872.58 | $562,814.1 |
| 2026-04-17 | 18 | $869.79 | $15,656.22 |
| 2026-04-16 | 281 | $899.00 | $252,619 |
| 2026-04-15 | 20 | $920.79 | $18,415.8 |
| 2026-04-13 | 1,346 | $925.24 | $1.2M |
| 2026-04-10 | 5,813 | $928.47 | $5.4M |
| 2026-04-09 | 131 | $920.52 | $120,588.12 |
| 2026-04-02 | 2,680 | $896.53 | $2.4M |
| 2026-04-01 | 91 | $849.09 | $77,267.19 |
| 2026-03-31 | 212 | $816.77 | $173,155.24 |
| 2026-03-30 | 1 | $869.82 | $869.82 |
| 2026-03-25 | 3,372 | $894.80 | $3.0M |
| 2026-03-24 | 299 | $902.96 | $269,985.04 |
| 2026-03-23 | 98 | $920.75 | $90,233.5 |
| 2026-03-18 | 2,534 | $1014.33 | $2.6M |
| 2026-03-17 | 1,070 | $874.50 | $935,715 |
| 2026-03-12 | 4,164 | $881.17 | $3.7M |
| 2026-03-11 | 575 | $877.12 | $504,344 |
| 2026-03-09 | 19,745 | $936.14 | $18.5M |
| 2026-03-06 | 11,713 | $888.10 | $10.4M |
| 2026-03-05 | 1,253 | $885.00 | $1.1M |
| 2026-03-04 | 44 | $823.08 | $36,215.52 |
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 ESLT 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.