Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 18.7x earnings — a 47% discount to the sector average of 35.0x — LVS is in the lower valuation range. Strong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 2.4. DCF fair value of $16 implies 70% downside based on model assumptions. Beneish M-Score of -2.17 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 fundamental economics of Las Vegas Sands Corp. present a distinct dichotomy between capital efficiency and profitability quality. While the company generates value at an attractive rate, evidenced by a 13.2% ROIC that exceeds its 8.5% WACC to create a +4.7% spread, this return is heavily leveraged rather than driven by operational intensity or pricing power. The DuPont decomposition reveals that an equity multiplier of 11.33x accounts for the majority of the 84.1% ROE, masking underlying weaknesses where net margins sit at only 12.5% and asset turnover remains modest at 0.59x. Financial health indicators further complicate this picture; a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 suggests strong operational stability, yet the Altman Z-Score of 2.4 signals elevated bankruptcy risk due to leverage, while the negative Beneish M-Score of -2.17 indicates low earnings manipulation concerns despite the weak profitability factor (RMW) alpha of -0.168.
Valuation metrics suggest a significant disconnect between current market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at 23.1x forward earnings, LVS commands a substantial premium relative to its sector average of 57.0x, though this appears misaligned with DCF fair value calculations implying $16 per share—a level representing nearly -70% downside from current levels. This steep discount likely reflects market skepticism regarding the sustainability of implied free cash flow growth in the low single digits (9.7%) over a decade, despite robust revenue expansion of 15.2%. The stock's negative profitability alpha further challenges its ability to justify such a valuation multiple when compared against historical peers or broader sector norms.
Risk and reward dynamics are nuanced by conflicting factor exposures and insider behavior. Although the value tilt (HML) is positive at 0.381, suggesting potential reversion benefits for undervalued assets, the combination of high leverage and weak profitability alpha creates a fragile risk profile. Compounding this uncertainty, net insider selling totaling $3.29 million over the past ninety days suggests management may be taking advantage of current pricing conditions or hedging exposure, adding another layer of caution to the investment thesis before any conclusion on future performance can be drawn.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
The growth rate the market implicitly expects over the next 10 years to justify today's price. Compare with historical growth of 15% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6.5% | 8.5% | 10.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $24 | $13 | $7 |
| 3% | $32 | $16 | $9 |
| 4% | $48 | $21 | $11 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $51.21.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=8.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $16 (-70.4%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Currently trading 0% above its 5-year average P/E of 22.7x.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current technical configuration for Las Vegas Sands Corp. presents a complex picture of institutional positioning, characterized by the stock trading at $53.45 within the consumer cyclical sector. The presence of significant Short Term Moving Average crossovers above their long-term counterparts often suggests that larger market participants may be accumulating positions or anticipating near-term upside momentum, as these averages typically lag behind aggressive buying pressure. However, without concurrent volume expansion to confirm this thesis, such crossovers can sometimes indicate a lack of broad institutional conviction rather than sustained accumulation. Volume trends serve as the critical filter for interpreting price action in this context; if trading activity remains subdued despite upward price movements, it may imply that institutions are limiting their exposure or utilizing algorithmic strategies rather than engaging in direct capital deployment. Conversely, rising volume alongside these technical signals would strengthen the case that major players view the current level of $53.45 as a strategic entry point or support zone. The interplay between these moving average dynamics and actual share turnover rates offers insight into whether the broader market structure is shifting toward bullish sentiment or if larger entities are merely managing existing portfolios without altering their fundamental stance on the asset's future trajectory.
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.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-05 | $0.3000 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-09 | $0.3000 | +20.0% |
| 2025-11-04 | $0.2500 | 0.0% |
| 2025-08-05 | $0.2500 | 0.0% |
| 2025-05-06 | $0.2500 | 0.0% |
| 2025-02-10 | $0.2500 | +25.0% |
| 2024-11-05 | $0.2000 | 0.0% |
| 2024-08-06 | $0.2000 | 0.0% |
| 2024-05-06 | $0.2000 | 0.0% |
| 2024-02-05 | $0.2000 | 0.0% |
| 2023-11-06 | $0.2000 | 0.0% |
| 2023-08-07 | $0.2000 | -74.7% |
Dividend and split data from SEC filings and market data. Amounts are per share, not adjusted for splits. Source: yfinance.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this stock's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like VOT or XLY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LVS shares regardless of Las Vegas Sands Corp.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $2.4B of passive capital is structurally linked to LVS 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 Las Vegas Sands Corp. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS) 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 LVS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 28 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LVS Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 14 LVS shares, reducing daily market volatility.
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 0.4% of the VOT (VOT) and 0.3% of the State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLY). Across 28 tracked ETFs, approximately 48M shares (7.2% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. As passive ownership grows, index inclusion changes may increasingly drive price discovery.
ETFs with Highest LVS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 28 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LVS Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for Las Vegas Sands Corp. over the past year sits near $54.02 (16% of 252-day volume). The current price of $51.21 sits 5.2% below the POC — suggesting potential mean-reversion upside if institutional demand reasserts at this level. The highly concentrated volume profile (16% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
LVS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Las Vegas Sands Corp. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Las Vegas Sands Corp. converts 40% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a moderate conversion rate — significant EBITDA is consumed by capital expenditures, working capital changes, or interest payments. The 60% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 4.7% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-17 | 7,623 | $56.71 | $432,300.33 |
| 2026-04-15 | 3 | $55.52 | $166.56 |
| 2026-04-06 | 5 | $54.34 | $271.7 |
| 2026-03-31 | 29,515 | $51.62 | $1.5M |
| 2026-03-25 | 30 | $54.90 | $1,647 |
| 2026-03-23 | 54 | $52.93 | $2,858.22 |
| 2026-02-26 | 239 | $55.07 | $13,161.73 |
| 2026-02-19 | 18 | $58.84 | $1,059.12 |
| 2026-02-09 | 1,000 | $57.80 | $57,800 |
| 2026-02-03 | 37 | $55.64 | $2,058.68 |
| 2026-01-26 | 2,000 | $59.95 | $119,900 |
| 2026-01-21 | 833 | $58.54 | $48,763.82 |
| 2026-01-06 | 263 | $64.64 | $17,000.32 |
| 2025-12-31 | 7 | $65.10 | $455.7 |
| 2025-12-22 | 82,414 | $66.95 | $5.5M |
| 2025-12-09 | 35 | $67.08 | $2,347.8 |
| 2025-12-01 | 200 | $68.16 | $13,632 |
| 2025-11-26 | 99 | $67.63 | $6,695.37 |
| 2025-11-25 | 53,336 | $65.67 | $3.5M |
| 2025-11-24 | 15,857 | $64.31 | $1.0M |
| 2025-11-19 | 23 | $64.78 | $1,489.94 |
| 2025-11-17 | 131 | $65.38 | $8,564.78 |
| 2025-11-10 | 600 | $65.21 | $39,126 |
| 2025-11-07 | 98,200 | $62.79 | $6.2M |
| 2025-11-05 | 5,000 | $61.28 | $306,400 |
| 2025-11-04 | 36,154 | $61.73 | $2.2M |
| 2025-11-03 | 11,093 | $59.35 | $658,369.55 |
| 2025-10-30 | 77 | $58.78 | $4,526.06 |
| 2025-10-29 | 24 | $58.20 | $1,396.8 |
| 2025-10-28 | 1,302 | $59.44 | $77,390.88 |
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.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| WYNN | 0.700 | 0.626 | High co-movement |
| DOV | 0.501 | 0.502 | Moderate |
| MGM | 0.478 | 0.308 | Moderate |
| CRS | 0.422 | 0.534 | Moderate |
| USB | 0.403 | 0.275 | Moderate |
| CALX | 0.401 | 0.436 | Moderate |
| DD | 0.400 | 0.278 | Moderate |
| CFG | 0.399 | 0.291 | Moderate |
| CMI | 0.396 | 0.325 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare LVS to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.