PAG (PAG)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 3.0.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of the company reveal a capital-efficient operator with strong balance sheet characteristics, evidenced by an ROIC-WACC spread that suggests value creation potential despite modest profitability metrics. The DuPont decomposition highlights a growth strategy reliant on asset intensity and leverage rather than margin expansion; specifically, high asset turnover at 1.81x drives returns while the net margin remains compressed at 2.9%. Quality indicators are mixed but generally positive: a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 signals decent financial strength with minor deterioration risks, whereas a Beneish M-Score of -2.47 effectively rules out earnings manipulation concerns. However, revenue contraction of 0.2% year-over-year indicates stagnation in top-line growth, suggesting the current ROE is being sustained more by equity multipliers than organic business scaling.
Valuation metrics present a compelling divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at 10.5x forward earnings, the stock appears significantly undervalued relative to its historical range and sector peers, implying the market may be over-penalizing recent top-line flatness or macro headwinds. This discount aligns with a DCF fair value estimate of $89, which incorporates implied growth assumptions that likely factor in mean reversion on margins or stabilization in asset turnover ratios. The wide gap between current multiples and calculated intrinsic value suggests the market is pricing in persistent stagnation rather than recognizing the underlying capital efficiency captured by the 10.7% ROIC.
Insider activity over the past ninety days remains neutral with zero net flow, offering no definitive signal regarding management's immediate confidence or distress levels relative to peer benchmarks. While the low valuation and high asset turnover provide a margin of safety for long-term holders, the lack of revenue growth combined with moderate insider sentiment warrants caution before assuming imminent catalysts will drive multiple expansion toward fair value.
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% | $115 | $77 | $55 |
| 3% | $142 | $89 | $62 |
| 4% | $185 | $106 | $70 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=9.2%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $89 (+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
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 XRT or MDYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell PAG shares regardless of PAG's individual fundamentals. We estimate $113M of passive capital is structurally linked to PAG through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on PAG'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 PAG to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If PAG (PAG) 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 PAG. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 14 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
PAG Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest PAG Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 14 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
PAG Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does PAG convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
PAG converts 38% 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 62% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 1.5% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-11 | 114 | $173.81 | $19,814.34 |
| 2026-05-08 | 2,067 | $171.61 | $354,717.87 |
| 2026-05-01 | 5 | $171.52 | $857.6 |
| 2026-04-30 | 67 | $171.66 | $11,501.22 |
| 2026-04-20 | 95 | $161.32 | $15,325.4 |
| 2026-04-09 | 5,700 | $153.26 | $873,582 |
| 2026-04-07 | 5,087 | $148.71 | $756,487.77 |
| 2026-03-26 | 6,492 | $148.11 | $961,530.12 |
| 2026-03-23 | 4,748 | $140.60 | $667,568.8 |
| 2026-03-18 | 3,261 | $145.24 | $473,627.64 |
| 2026-03-17 | 436 | $144.18 | $62,862.48 |
| 2026-03-12 | 11,779 | $150.36 | $1.8M |
| 2026-02-25 | 221 | $161.81 | $35,760.01 |
| 2026-02-24 | 77 | $163.16 | $12,563.32 |
| 2026-02-23 | 1,738 | $167.30 | $290,767.4 |
| 2026-01-15 | 3,528 | $163.44 | $576,616.32 |
| 2026-01-02 | 394 | $158.29 | $62,366.26 |
| 2025-12-30 | 15,245 | $164.48 | $2.5M |
| 2025-12-29 | 21,543 | $165.60 | $3.6M |
| 2025-12-26 | 8,246 | $166.29 | $1.4M |
| 2025-12-24 | 93 | $165.14 | $15,358.02 |
| 2025-12-22 | 5,823 | $166.25 | $968,073.75 |
| 2025-12-03 | 5 | $160.86 | $804.3 |
| 2025-11-24 | 739 | $160.63 | $118,705.57 |
| 2025-11-12 | 24 | $157.89 | $3,789.36 |
| 2025-10-30 | 20 | $160.80 | $3,216 |
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 PAG 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.