NVT (NVT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 4.9. Beneish M-Score of -1.78 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 NVT display a compelling tension between aggressive growth and efficient capital deployment. The company is generating substantial returns on equity, driven primarily by an exceptional net margin expansion strategy rather than asset turnover or leverage; the 18.2% net margin acts as the dominant force in achieving a 19.0% ROE, while the low equity multiplier of 1.84x suggests management prioritizes operational efficiency over financial engineering. This high-quality earnings profile is corroborated by strong credit metrics: a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 indicates solid fundamental improvements, and a Beneish M-Score of -1.78 signals a very low probability of earnings manipulation. However, the underlying capital allocation efficiency remains modest with an ROIC-WACC spread anchored at just 8.4%, which constrains long-term compounding potential despite robust revenue growth of 29.5% year-over-year and healthy gross margins near 38%.
Valuation metrics suggest the market is pricing in significant future expansion that may exceed current operational realities. Trading at a forward P/E of 43.9x, the stock commands a substantial premium relative to its historical norms and likely sector averages, implying investor expectations for sustained high-growth execution. This multiple appears disconnected from the company's intrinsic value when assessed via discounted cash flow models, which place fair value at $22; such a disparity indicates that current market prices embed aggressive assumptions regarding future margin durability and growth sustainability that are not fully supported by the 8.4% return on invested capital currently observed.
Risk assessment reveals a divergent signal between institutional ownership patterns and fundamental quality scores. While the Piotroski score supports the narrative of improving fundamentals, insider activity over the last ninety days tells a contrasting story, with $4.67 million in net selling suggesting insiders may be taking profits or lack confidence in near-term trajectory relative to the elevated valuation. This divergence between strong credit metrics and active insider liquidation warrants close monitoring as it introduces uncertainty regarding whether current price levels reflect genuine growth prospects or speculative premium pricing detached from management's internal view of value.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 10.1% | 12.1% | 14.1% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $26 | $20 | $15 |
| 3% | $30 | $22 | $16 |
| 4% | $35 | $24 | $18 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=12.1%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $22 (+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 MDYG or IJK, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell NVT shares regardless of NVT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $2.9B of passive capital is structurally linked to NVT 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 NVT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If NVT (NVT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies FLEX LTD (FLEX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with NVT. 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.
NVT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest NVT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 16 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
NVT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does NVT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
NVT converts 45% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 55% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-3.7%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-29 | 25 | $138.30 | $3,457.5 |
| 2026-04-20 | 64 | $134.69 | $8,620.16 |
| 2026-04-02 | 3,463 | $121.26 | $419,923.38 |
| 2026-03-26 | 2,613 | $127.01 | $331,877.13 |
| 2026-03-25 | 1,239 | $125.61 | $155,630.79 |
| 2026-03-24 | 432 | $121.00 | $52,272 |
| 2026-03-23 | 26,357 | $116.30 | $3.1M |
| 2026-03-19 | 388 | $120.27 | $46,664.76 |
| 2026-03-17 | 96 | $114.30 | $10,972.8 |
| 2026-03-04 | 176 | $111.65 | $19,650.4 |
| 2026-03-02 | 177 | $118.36 | $20,949.72 |
| 2026-02-23 | 1,245 | $116.87 | $145,503.15 |
| 2026-02-13 | 52 | $111.90 | $5,818.8 |
| 2026-02-10 | 102 | $114.62 | $11,691.24 |
| 2026-02-05 | 7 | $116.69 | $816.83 |
| 2026-01-20 | 400 | $112.50 | $45,000 |
| 2026-01-16 | 855 | $107.98 | $92,322.9 |
| 2025-12-11 | 9 | $108.87 | $979.83 |
| 2025-12-03 | 2,498 | $105.36 | $263,189.28 |
| 2025-11-19 | 395 | $104.31 | $41,202.45 |
| 2025-11-14 | 9,928 | $105.92 | $1.1M |
| 2025-11-05 | 218 | $109.62 | $23,897.16 |
| 2025-11-03 | 726 | $114.35 | $83,018.1 |
| 2025-10-30 | 200 | $106.28 | $21,256 |
| 2025-10-29 | 1,115 | $104.22 | $116,205.3 |
| 2025-10-28 | 1,864 | $103.91 | $193,688.24 |
| 2025-10-27 | 1,068 | $102.20 | $109,149.6 |
| 2025-10-24 | 2,426 | $100.62 | $244,104.12 |
| 2025-10-23 | 8,480 | $96.93 | $821,966.4 |
| 2025-10-22 | 56 | $99.65 | $5,580.4 |
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 NVT 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.