PACS (PACS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company exhibits a distinct divergence between its operational efficiency and capital allocation effectiveness. While the Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 signals strong financial health regarding profitability trends, leverage management, and operating cash flow, this is juxtaposed against an ROIC of only 5.4%. This low return on invested capital suggests that despite robust revenue growth of 29.3%, the firm struggles to generate returns exceeding its cost of equity, resulting in a negligible or negative ROIC-WACC spread. The DuPont decomposition reveals that earnings are driven primarily by high turnover rather than margin expansion; however, with net margins compressed at just 3.6% and gross margins at 14.8%, the business model appears highly sensitive to input costs. Furthermore, the Beneish M-Score of -2.70 indicates a low probability of financial statement manipulation, lending credibility to these reported figures despite the thin profit profile relative to sales growth.
Valuation metrics present a significant discrepancy between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow analysis. Trading at 27.0x earnings, the stock commands a premium multiple that likely reflects expectations for sustained high-growth execution similar to its recent 29.3% revenue expansion. However, if the DCF fair value is anchored near $9 while current trading prices imply a much higher per-share valuation based on the elevated P/E ratio, the market may be pricing in growth rates or margin improvements that are not yet realized within the fundamental data provided. The combination of high multiple compression and low absolute returns on capital suggests that future performance must materially improve to justify existing share price levels without requiring massive multiples expansion.
The risk profile is characterized by a tension between verified operational stability and inefficient capital deployment. Although insider activity, Fama-French alpha, or specific sector deltas are not provided in the available data, the structural weakness of generating low ROIC against aggressive revenue growth warrants caution regarding long-term shareholder value creation. The market's willingness to pay 27.0x earnings for a firm with such thin net margins implies that any deceleration in sales velocity could trigger a sharp re-rating as valuation multiples contract toward more sustainable levels commensurate with the observed return on capital.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $11 | $8 | $7 |
| 3% | $13 | $9 | $7 |
| 4% | $16 | $11 | $8 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $9 (+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 XHS or VFMO, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell PACS shares regardless of PACS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $25M of passive capital is structurally linked to PACS through 4 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on PACS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 4 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in PACS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If PACS (PACS) 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 2 ETFs with PACS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 4 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
PACS Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest PACS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 4 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
PACS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does PACS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
PACS converts 42% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 58% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion.
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 | 79 | $41.30 | $3,262.7 |
| 2026-05-07 | 12 | $33.83 | $405.96 |
| 2026-05-05 | 59 | $32.52 | $1,918.68 |
| 2026-04-06 | 983 | $32.14 | $31,593.62 |
| 2026-03-09 | 6 | $34.28 | $205.68 |
| 2026-02-20 | 2,004 | $38.63 | $77,414.52 |
| 2026-02-11 | 34,157 | $39.47 | $1.3M |
| 2026-02-06 | 913 | $36.87 | $33,662.31 |
| 2026-01-30 | 202 | $34.18 | $6,904.36 |
| 2026-01-29 | 202 | $34.35 | $6,938.7 |
| 2026-01-28 | 202 | $34.38 | $6,944.76 |
| 2026-01-27 | 25 | $35.03 | $875.75 |
| 2026-01-26 | 24,914 | $34.97 | $871,242.58 |
| 2026-01-21 | 64 | $35.69 | $2,284.16 |
| 2026-01-16 | 64,660 | $39.37 | $2.5M |
| 2026-01-12 | 55 | $41.27 | $2,269.85 |
| 2026-01-02 | 9,482 | $38.39 | $364,013.98 |
| 2025-12-29 | 113 | $38.11 | $4,306.43 |
| 2025-12-26 | 158 | $37.31 | $5,894.98 |
| 2025-12-24 | 10,794 | $37.24 | $401,968.56 |
| 2025-12-22 | 572 | $36.39 | $20,815.08 |
| 2025-12-17 | 2 | $34.20 | $68.4 |
| 2025-12-12 | 11,418 | $33.38 | $381,132.84 |
| 2025-12-03 | 300 | $31.47 | $9,441 |
| 2025-12-02 | 200 | $33.52 | $6,704 |
| 2025-11-25 | 948 | $29.96 | $28,402.08 |
| 2025-11-24 | 66,535 | $27.50 | $1.8M |
| 2025-11-21 | 2,130 | $26.14 | $55,678.2 |
| 2025-11-19 | 85 | $14.43 | $1,226.55 |
| 2025-11-13 | 1,657 | $11.46 | $18,989.22 |
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 PACS 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.