FAF (FAF)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 1.3.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company demonstrates robust capital efficiency with a 4.8% ROIC, indicating that returns on deployed capital are modest relative to typical cost of equity benchmarks in growth sectors. The DuPont decomposition reveals an earnings profile driven primarily by high leverage (Equity Multiplier at 2.94x) rather than operational excellence or pricing power; while the net margin sits comfortably at 8.3%, asset turnover remains constrained at 0.46x, suggesting significant room for efficiency gains before leveraging further becomes risky. Despite this structural reliance on debt magnification to achieve an 11.3% ROE, the Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 signals strong fundamental health and financial stability, which is corroborated by impressive revenue growth of 21.6% year-over-year, pointing to a business capable of expanding its asset base without immediate distress.
Valuation metrics present a compelling divergence between historical norms and intrinsic value estimates. Trading at a current P/E of 9.8x, the stock appears significantly undervalued relative to its implied growth trajectory if the market were pricing in sustainable expansion rather than just cyclical recovery or leverage effects. A DCF analysis suggests a fair value of $263, implying that current market prices may not fully account for the potential re-rating associated with such high single-digit margins combined with double-digit revenue acceleration. This disconnect between the low multiple and the intrinsic valuation floor indicates that the market is likely discounting future cash flows aggressively or assigning a higher risk premium than warranted by the company's recent operational performance.
Risk assessment is further nuanced by significant insider activity, as $4.05 million in net buying over the last 90 days suggests management confidence aligns with the attractive valuation thesis. While the high leverage component of the DuPont analysis introduces solvency risks that could be exacerbated if revenue growth slows or interest rates rise, the strong F-Score and insider accumulation provide a counterweight to these concerns. The combination of aggressive capital structure, accelerating top-line growth, and substantial internal conviction creates an asymmetric risk/reward profile where downside protection is supported by fundamentals while upside potential remains tethered to valuation re-rating dynamics rather than immediate earnings contraction fears.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.8% | 10.8% | 12.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $281 | $212 | $168 |
| 3% | $322 | $234 | $182 |
| 4% | $380 | $262 | $198 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.8%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $234 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
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 KIE or MDYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FAF shares regardless of FAF's individual fundamentals. We estimate $497M of passive capital is structurally linked to FAF through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on FAF'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 FAF to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If FAF (FAF) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies UNUM GROUP (UNM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with FAF. 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.
FAF Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest FAF Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 15 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
FAF Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does FAF convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
FAF converts 64% 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 (-6.0%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-14 | 1 | $62.90 | $62.9 |
| 2026-03-13 | 19,772 | $63.39 | $1.3M |
| 2026-03-02 | 992 | $70.11 | $69,549.12 |
| 2026-02-24 | 39 | $66.34 | $2,587.26 |
| 2026-02-23 | 186 | $67.36 | $12,528.96 |
| 2026-02-13 | 8,879 | $66.14 | $587,257.06 |
| 2026-02-09 | 10,956 | $67.34 | $737,777.04 |
| 2026-01-28 | 15 | $64.73 | $970.95 |
| 2026-01-06 | 85 | $62.18 | $5,285.3 |
| 2025-12-22 | 668 | $62.99 | $42,077.32 |
| 2025-12-12 | 168 | $64.39 | $10,817.52 |
| 2025-11-21 | 2,812 | $62.71 | $176,340.52 |
| 2025-11-20 | 41 | $62.82 | $2,575.62 |
| 2025-11-12 | 38 | $64.10 | $2,435.8 |
| 2025-10-30 | 85 | $61.38 | $5,217.3 |
| 2025-10-29 | 85 | $62.82 | $5,339.7 |
| 2025-10-16 | 22 | $59.76 | $1,314.72 |
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 FAF 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.