INCY (INCY)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 8.4 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company exhibits robust fundamental economics, characterized by a substantial ROIC-WACC spread of +14.1%, indicating highly efficient capital allocation that generates returns well above the cost of debt and equity. This operational strength is further validated by DuPont decomposition, where an exceptional 25.0% net margin drives a 24.9% ROE, supported by moderate asset turnover of 0.74x and conservative leverage at 1.35x; notably, the gross margin expansion to 92.8% suggests significant pricing power or favorable cost structures relative to peers. Financial integrity appears solid with a high Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and an Altman Z-Score of 8.4 signaling low bankruptcy risk, while a Beneish M-Score of -2.43 implies earnings are unlikely to be manipulated.
Valuation metrics present a divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at a P/E multiple of 14.5x, the stock appears compressed relative to its own historical trajectory when contrasted against implied growth rates inherent in such high-margin businesses, though specific sector averages remain undefined for direct comparison. The DCF analysis suggests a fair value target of $250, which would imply significant upside if current prices trade substantially below this threshold; however, the market may be pricing in slower future revenue acceleration despite the reported 21.2% year-over-year growth. This discrepancy between fundamental quality and valuation multiples warrants scrutiny regarding whether the market is anticipating a normalization in margins or a slowdown in asset turnover that could compress future cash flows.
Risk assessment reveals a notable divergence from insider sentiment, as external data points to strong financial health while insider activity over the last 90 days shows $6,417,008 net selling. This outflow of capital by management and major shareholders contrasts sharply with the company's high Piotroski score and positive ROIC spread, potentially signaling concerns about future visibility or a preference for liquidity that are not immediately reflected in the balance sheet strength. Investors must weigh whether this insider disposition reflects a lack of confidence in near-term catalysts or simply portfolio rebalancing against the backdrop of an otherwise resilient operational profile with minimal distress risk indicated by the Altman Z-Score.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.1% | 10.1% | 12.1% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $302 | $226 | $180 |
| 3% | $351 | $250 | $194 |
| 4% | $425 | $283 | $212 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.1%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $250 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
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 XBI or VBK, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell INCY shares regardless of INCY's individual fundamentals. We estimate $2.4B of passive capital is structurally linked to INCY 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 INCY to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If INCY (INCY) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies ELI LILLY + CO (LLY) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with INCY. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 31 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
INCY Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest INCY Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 32 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
INCY Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does INCY convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
INCY converts 76% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 14.1% 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 | 25 | $98.82 | $2,470.5 |
| 2026-05-07 | 5 | $99.85 | $499.25 |
| 2026-04-29 | 189 | $97.74 | $18,472.86 |
| 2026-04-27 | 52 | $94.65 | $4,921.8 |
| 2026-04-24 | 2,550 | $95.47 | $243,448.5 |
| 2026-04-23 | 5 | $96.74 | $483.7 |
| 2026-04-10 | 10 | $96.96 | $969.6 |
| 2026-04-06 | 1,811 | $95.93 | $173,729.23 |
| 2026-04-02 | 10 | $94.30 | $943 |
| 2026-04-01 | 46,451 | $94.12 | $4.4M |
| 2026-03-31 | 33 | $90.33 | $2,980.89 |
| 2026-03-25 | 17 | $90.62 | $1,540.54 |
| 2026-03-23 | 492 | $90.78 | $44,663.76 |
| 2026-03-04 | 39,564 | $98.07 | $3.9M |
| 2026-02-20 | 1,078 | $101.73 | $109,664.94 |
| 2026-02-12 | 40 | $98.84 | $3,953.6 |
| 2026-02-11 | 121 | $100.05 | $12,106.05 |
| 2026-02-10 | 19,119 | $109.03 | $2.1M |
| 2026-02-03 | 1,975 | $102.67 | $202,773.25 |
| 2026-01-27 | 28,187 | $102.58 | $2.9M |
| 2026-01-26 | 3,103 | $101.99 | $316,474.97 |
| 2026-01-23 | 8,845 | $105.06 | $929,255.7 |
| 2026-01-20 | 498 | $106.21 | $52,892.58 |
| 2026-01-16 | 5 | $105.24 | $526.2 |
| 2026-01-15 | 12,471 | $105.95 | $1.3M |
| 2026-01-14 | 41 | $103.43 | $4,240.63 |
| 2026-01-07 | 16 | $106.66 | $1,706.56 |
| 2025-12-22 | 28 | $102.69 | $2,875.32 |
| 2025-12-08 | 8,744 | $102.52 | $896,434.88 |
| 2025-11-26 | 38 | $105.55 | $4,010.9 |
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 INCY 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.