GPI (GPI)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 3.4.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency for GPI demonstrates a modest positive spread between its return on invested capital of 8.3% and the weighted average cost of capital at 7.5%, indicating value creation albeit with limited margin of safety given the narrow +0.9% differential. This operational profile is supported by robust financial health metrics, evidenced by a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 which signals strong fundamental stability, while an Altman Z-Score of 3.4 places the firm in a safe zone regarding bankruptcy risk and a Beneish M-Score of -2.69 suggests low probability of earnings manipulation. However, the DuPont decomposition reveals that profitability is heavily reliant on volume rather than pricing power; despite revenue growth accelerating at 13.2% year-over-year, net margins remain compressed at just 1.4%, suggesting that top-line expansion has not yet translated into significant bottom-line leverage or high-margin operations.
Valuation multiples currently sit at 13.1x forward earnings, which requires contextualization against historical ranges and sector peers to determine if the market is pricing in excessive optimism regarding future margin expansion or sustainable growth rates. While a discounted cash flow model implies an intrinsic fair value of $827, this figure must be weighed carefully against the current trading price and the assumption embedded within the DCF inputs, particularly given the modest spread between returns and capital costs. The market's pricing appears to hinge on whether management can successfully convert rapid revenue growth into higher net margins over time, as the current low margin structure limits the durability of any valuation premium above historical norms.
Risk assessment indicates a moderate risk/reward profile where the strong fundamental scores provide downside protection against distress or fraud concerns, yet the narrow ROIC-WACC spread and thin net margins constrain upside potential if growth decelerates. The combination of high revenue velocity with low profitability creates an asymmetric scenario where stock price appreciation relies entirely on margin expansion rather than organic volume scaling alone. Investors must evaluate whether the current valuation adequately compensates for the execution risk inherent in transforming a growing top line into sustainable, compounding returns within this specific economic model.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.5% | 9.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $996 | $670 | $440 |
| 3% | $1339 | $827 | $514 |
| 4% | $2025 | $1073 | $615 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $827 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
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 XRT or SLYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell GPI shares regardless of GPI's individual fundamentals. We estimate $136M of passive capital is structurally linked to GPI through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on GPI'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 GPI to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If GPI (GPI) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with GPI. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 8 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
GPI Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest GPI Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
GPI Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does GPI convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
GPI converts 50% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 50% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 0.8% confirms that reinvested capital creates 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | 542 | $350.16 | $189,786.72 |
| 2026-04-30 | 13 | $349.21 | $4,539.73 |
| 2026-03-25 | 19 | $317.85 | $6,039.15 |
| 2026-03-23 | 7 | $318.33 | $2,228.31 |
| 2026-03-03 | 828 | $320.32 | $265,224.96 |
| 2026-02-27 | 94 | $334.38 | $31,431.72 |
| 2026-02-26 | 72 | $335.30 | $24,141.6 |
| 2026-02-25 | 72 | $335.07 | $24,125.04 |
| 2026-02-24 | 35 | $332.92 | $11,652.2 |
| 2026-02-18 | 14 | $330.32 | $4,624.48 |
| 2026-02-13 | 48 | $336.01 | $16,128.48 |
| 2026-01-28 | 58 | $396.96 | $23,023.68 |
| 2026-01-23 | 6 | $402.62 | $2,415.72 |
| 2026-01-08 | 7 | $394.12 | $2,758.84 |
| 2025-12-26 | 1 | $406.38 | $406.38 |
| 2025-12-22 | 34 | $405.21 | $13,777.14 |
| 2025-12-12 | 1 | $426.91 | $426.91 |
| 2025-12-11 | 24 | $419.98 | $10,079.52 |
| 2025-11-28 | 45 | $402.93 | $18,131.85 |
| 2025-11-17 | 195 | $391.91 | $76,422.45 |
| 2025-11-07 | 1,672 | $384.85 | $643,469.2 |
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 GPI 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.