MTG (MTG)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 3.6.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company exhibits a distinct capital efficiency profile characterized by an ROIC of 11.5%, which suggests the business generates returns that likely exceed its cost of equity, though the specific WACC spread remains unquantified in available data. This return is driven primarily by exceptional profitability rather than operational velocity or leverage; the DuPont decomposition reveals a net margin of 60.8% as the dominant engine, while asset turnover sits at a modest 0.18x and equity multiplier at 1.29x. Financial stability appears moderate given a Piotroski F-Score of 5/9, indicating average fundamental strength without significant distress or aggressive improvement signals. Despite these structural qualities, top-line momentum has stagnated with revenue growth registering only 0.5% year-over-year, creating a divergence between high margin retention and flat expansion that constrains the trajectory for future earnings compounding.
Valuation metrics present a compressed multiple environment where the current P/E of 8.3x sits significantly below historical norms and likely undercuts sector averages, implying the market is pricing in persistent growth concerns rather than fundamental deterioration. A discounted cash flow analysis anchors fair value at $85, suggesting that if implied growth assumptions align with long-term potential, the stock may be trading at a discount to intrinsic worth; however, this gap relies heavily on the ability to convert current margins into scalable revenue without further margin compression. The market consensus appears skeptical of the path from these robust per-share earnings to sustained top-line acceleration, resulting in a price that reflects low-growth expectations despite strong unit economics.
Risk assessment is complicated by conflicting signals regarding insider behavior and historical performance metrics. While the Piotroski score indicates reasonable financial health, the 90-day net insider selling of $6.743 million represents a notable divergence from typical accumulation patterns seen in high-conviction scenarios, potentially signaling management caution or portfolio rebalancing rather than strategic distress. Without additional context on sector-specific beta or Fama-French alpha data to determine if this low valuation is justified by unique risk factors, the investment case hinges entirely on whether the market can reconcile the massive margin generation with the negligible revenue growth and recent insider outflows.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 7.2% | 9.2% | 11.2% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $106 | $75 | $58 |
| 3% | $127 | $85 | $63 |
| 4% | $163 | $99 | $70 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=9.2%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $85 (+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
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 KBE or ONEV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell MTG shares regardless of MTG's individual fundamentals. We estimate $378M of passive capital is structurally linked to MTG through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on MTG'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 MTG to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If MTG (MTG) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies RELIANCE INC (RS) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 4 ETFs with MTG. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 16 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
MTG Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest MTG Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 16 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
MTG Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does MTG convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
MTG converts 88% 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 2.3% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 5,506 | $26.06 | $143,486.36 |
| 2026-05-12 | 5,574 | $26.10 | $145,481.4 |
| 2026-05-08 | 7,556 | $26.58 | $200,838.48 |
| 2026-05-05 | 235 | $26.17 | $6,149.95 |
| 2026-05-04 | 4,365 | $26.26 | $114,624.9 |
| 2026-05-01 | 7,823 | $26.48 | $207,153.04 |
| 2026-04-24 | 629 | $28.77 | $18,096.33 |
| 2026-04-17 | 58 | $27.40 | $1,589.2 |
| 2026-04-15 | 708 | $27.28 | $19,314.24 |
| 2026-04-09 | 46 | $27.43 | $1,261.78 |
| 2026-04-06 | 45,257 | $26.52 | $1.2M |
| 2026-03-26 | 56,992 | $26.01 | $1.5M |
| 2026-03-18 | 5,942 | $26.15 | $155,383.3 |
| 2026-03-02 | 34,840 | $26.53 | $924,305.2 |
| 2026-02-27 | 62 | $26.81 | $1,662.22 |
| 2026-02-13 | 25 | $27.42 | $685.5 |
| 2026-02-11 | 324 | $26.84 | $8,696.16 |
| 2026-02-04 | 76,175 | $26.12 | $2.0M |
| 2026-02-03 | 11,471 | $27.55 | $316,026.05 |
| 2026-01-28 | 19 | $26.49 | $503.31 |
| 2026-01-27 | 98,945 | $26.49 | $2.6M |
| 2026-01-23 | 97 | $26.88 | $2,607.36 |
| 2026-01-22 | 33 | $26.68 | $880.44 |
| 2026-01-21 | 26 | $26.34 | $684.84 |
| 2026-01-20 | 3,462 | $26.41 | $91,431.42 |
| 2026-01-15 | 2,512 | $26.12 | $65,613.44 |
| 2026-01-14 | 3,925 | $25.70 | $100,872.5 |
| 2025-12-22 | 8 | $29.63 | $237.04 |
| 2025-12-12 | 13 | $29.09 | $378.17 |
| 2025-12-11 | 23,933 | $28.97 | $693,339.01 |
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 MTG 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.