GSK (GSK)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 8/9) with Altman Z of 2.6.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency of this entity demonstrates robust value creation, evidenced by a ROIC-WACC spread of +9.5%, indicating returns on invested capital significantly exceed the cost of financing. This high-quality earnings profile is driven primarily by exceptional pricing power rather than operational velocity or leverage; specifically, a net margin of 17.5% and gross margin of 72.4% suggest strong brand moats, while an asset turnover of only 0.53x reveals that revenue generation relies heavily on capital intensity rather than rapid inventory cycling. The DuPont decomposition confirms this structure with a 35.8% ROE fueled by these expansive margins and a moderate equity multiplier of 3.83x. Financial stability is further corroborated by an Altman Z-Score of 2.6, placing the firm in the "gray zone" between safety and distress, yet bolstered by a Piotroski F-Score of 8/9, which signals strong financial health based on balance sheet strength and earnings quality trends over time.
Valuation metrics present a divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow modeling. Trading at a forward P/E of 14.7x, the stock appears compressed relative to its historical performance and likely undervalued if compared against sector peers who typically command higher multiples for similar growth profiles. The DCF analysis anchors fair value at $25, implying that current market prices may not fully reflect expected future cash flows or assume a lower terminal growth rate than warranted by the company's 4.1% revenue expansion. This gap suggests the market is pricing in potential headwinds or demanding a higher risk premium despite the underlying fundamentals supporting sustainable double-digit returns on capital.
Risk assessment remains neutral regarding insider sentiment, with zero net buying or selling activity observed over the last ninety days, offering no clear signal of management confidence or distress. While the Altman Z-Score warrants monitoring for potential liquidity constraints given its proximity to the bankruptcy threshold, the high Piotroski score mitigates immediate solvency concerns. The combination of moderate revenue growth and a valuation that appears disconnected from DCF fair value creates an asymmetric setup where downside protection is theoretically supported by strong margins, yet upside realization depends on whether market sentiment corrects its perception of future cash flow potential.
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% | $23 | $16 | $11 |
| 3% | $30 | $19 | $13 |
| 4% | $45 | $24 | $15 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $19 (+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
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 VGK or VYMI, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell GSK shares regardless of GSK's individual fundamentals. We estimate $3.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to GSK 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 GSK to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If GSK (GSK) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies ASML Holding NV (ASML) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with GSK. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 9 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
GSK Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest GSK Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
GSK Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does GSK convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
GSK converts 46% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 54% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 8.5% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 546 | $50.99 | $27,840.54 |
| 2026-05-13 | 5,998 | $50.90 | $305,298.2 |
| 2026-05-12 | 18,705 | $49.81 | $931,696.05 |
| 2026-05-11 | 893 | $50.41 | $45,016.13 |
| 2026-05-08 | 66,369 | $50.50 | $3.4M |
| 2026-04-29 | 2,171 | $54.47 | $118,254.37 |
| 2026-04-28 | 36,129 | $54.22 | $2.0M |
| 2026-04-20 | 154,822 | $58.35 | $9.0M |
| 2026-04-15 | 5,189 | $59.18 | $307,085.02 |
| 2026-04-13 | 62,138 | $58.21 | $3.6M |
| 2026-04-10 | 80,697 | $58.36 | $4.7M |
| 2026-04-08 | 101,252 | $55.84 | $5.7M |
| 2026-04-02 | 261,160 | $55.99 | $14.6M |
| 2026-03-27 | 28,657 | $53.94 | $1.5M |
| 2026-03-26 | 273 | $54.70 | $14,933.1 |
| 2026-03-25 | 16 | $52.95 | $847.2 |
| 2026-03-23 | 1,165 | $51.84 | $60,393.6 |
| 2026-03-19 | 1,831 | $52.06 | $95,321.86 |
| 2026-03-13 | 1,866 | $54.28 | $101,286.48 |
| 2026-03-09 | 325 | $54.51 | $17,715.75 |
| 2026-03-04 | 70 | $57.07 | $3,994.9 |
| 2026-02-26 | 2,653 | $59.54 | $157,959.62 |
| 2026-02-23 | 600 | $59.52 | $35,712 |
| 2026-02-20 | 66,299 | $60.85 | $4.0M |
| 2026-02-19 | 240 | $61.18 | $14,683.2 |
| 2026-02-18 | 187 | $60.87 | $11,382.69 |
| 2026-02-12 | 56 | $58.49 | $3,275.44 |
| 2026-02-11 | 200 | $58.82 | $11,764 |
| 2026-02-10 | 96 | $59.01 | $5,664.96 |
| 2026-02-09 | 100 | $60.23 | $6,023 |
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 GSK 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.