INSP (INSP)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 8.4. Beneish M-Score of -1.65 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company demonstrates robust fundamental quality characterized by a high gross margin of 85.4% and a net margin of 16.0%, indicating strong pricing power or cost control efficiency within its business model. While the return on invested capital stands at 6.4%, suggesting moderate capital allocation efficiency relative to some peers, the earnings quality appears resilient with a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 and an Altman Z-Score of 8.4, both signaling low distress risk and solid financial health. The revenue growth trajectory of 13.6% YoY complements these stability metrics, supported by a Beneish M-Score of -1.65 that further reinforces the likelihood of genuine earnings rather than manipulation.
Valuation analysis reveals a current P/E ratio of 10.1x, which requires contextual comparison against historical averages and sector benchmarks to determine if it represents a discount or premium; notably, this multiple sits below typical growth valuations despite double-digit revenue expansion. A discounted cash flow model implies a fair value of $101 per share, suggesting the market price may be trading at a significant deviation from intrinsic value depending on current levels and assumed long-term growth rates. This divergence between the low multiple and implied DCF target could indicate either an undervaluation opportunity or that the market is pricing in specific risks not captured by the static cash flow assumptions.
The synthesis of these metrics presents a risk-reward profile where strong profitability margins and clean earnings signals contrast with moderate ROIC, creating a scenario typical for mature or cyclical growth phases rather than high-growth tech expansion. The combination of a low P/E against positive DCF fair value implies the market may be applying a conservative discount, potentially due to sector-specific headwinds or uncertainty regarding future margin sustainability despite current performance. Investors must weigh the safety provided by the Altman and Piotroski scores against the moderate capital efficiency when assessing whether the implied upside from the $101 target is justified by the underlying economic drivers.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $122 | $90 | $71 |
| 3% | $143 | $101 | $77 |
| 4% | $174 | $114 | $85 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $101 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
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 XHE or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell INSP shares regardless of INSP's individual fundamentals. We estimate $47M of passive capital is structurally linked to INSP through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on INSP'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 INSP to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If INSP (INSP) 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 INSP. 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.
INSP Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest INSP Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
INSP Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does INSP convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
INSP converts 98% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag.
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 | 33,110 | $44.06 | $1.5M |
| 2026-05-06 | 474 | $48.25 | $22,870.5 |
| 2026-05-01 | 109 | $56.14 | $6,119.26 |
| 2026-04-28 | 60,000 | $55.07 | $3.3M |
| 2026-04-07 | 4,979 | $54.14 | $269,563.06 |
| 2026-04-06 | 4,979 | $54.99 | $273,795.21 |
| 2026-03-27 | 6,387 | $50.45 | $322,224.15 |
| 2026-03-23 | 86 | $53.72 | $4,619.92 |
| 2026-03-20 | 52 | $54.68 | $2,843.36 |
| 2026-03-13 | 106 | $58.25 | $6,174.5 |
| 2026-02-27 | 43,578 | $68.05 | $3.0M |
| 2026-02-25 | 18 | $57.72 | $1,038.96 |
| 2026-02-23 | 333 | $59.53 | $19,823.49 |
| 2026-02-09 | 9,817 | $65.70 | $644,976.9 |
| 2026-01-23 | 101 | $80.81 | $8,161.81 |
| 2026-01-21 | 18,638 | $94.45 | $1.8M |
| 2026-01-09 | 16,902 | $95.00 | $1.6M |
| 2026-01-08 | 3,882 | $99.03 | $384,434.46 |
| 2025-12-15 | 677 | $130.68 | $88,470.36 |
| 2025-12-11 | 3 | $140.07 | $420.21 |
| 2025-12-02 | 52,306 | $126.34 | $6.6M |
| 2025-11-25 | 7,122 | $117.29 | $835,339.38 |
| 2025-11-19 | 811 | $83.57 | $67,775.27 |
| 2025-11-14 | 144 | $86.78 | $12,496.32 |
| 2025-11-13 | 184 | $90.91 | $16,727.44 |
| 2025-11-12 | 8,488 | $90.59 | $768,927.92 |
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 INSP 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.