PNTG (PNTG)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9. Beneish M-Score of -2.09 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 capital allocation efficiency appears constrained, as indicated by a 5.0% ROIC that fails to generate excess returns over the cost of equity, suggesting limited organic value creation potential. Despite this compression in return on invested capital, earnings quality metrics present a mixed signal: while the Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 reflects moderate financial strength without significant deterioration, the Beneish M-Score of -2.09 points to low probability of manipulation, lending credibility to the reported fundamentals. This dichotomy is further illuminated by DuPont decomposition logic; although revenue growth surged 36.3% year-over-year, net margins remain thin at 3.1%, implying that top-line expansion has yet to translate into proportional bottom-line leverage or operating efficiency gains.
Valuation multiples currently reflect aggressive market pricing for future growth rather than current earnings power. A P/E ratio of 41.7x significantly exceeds typical historical norms and sector averages, indicating the market is heavily discounting expectations of sustained high-growth execution. This premium valuation is starkly contrasted by a DCF-derived fair value estimate of $27, which implies that current prices may be detached from intrinsic worth under conservative growth assumptions. The discrepancy suggests investors are pricing in an acceleration of margin expansion or capital efficiency improvements that have not yet materialized in the balance sheet.
The risk-reward profile hinges on whether management can convert this revenue velocity into durable profitability while navigating a high-cost environment. The combination of low margins and suboptimal ROIC creates vulnerability if growth rates decelerate, as the high multiple offers little buffer against earnings misses. Conversely, the clean Beneish score provides some assurance that reported figures are reliable inputs for scenario analysis. Ultimately, the investment case rests entirely on the ability to bridge the gap between current valuation expectations and fundamental economic reality within a short timeframe.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $34 | $24 | $18 |
| 3% | $40 | $27 | $19 |
| 4% | $50 | $31 | $22 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $27 (+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
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in PNTG to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If PNTG (PNTG) 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 1 ETFs with PNTG. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 2 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
PNTG Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest PNTG Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 2 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
PNTG Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does PNTG convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
PNTG converts 60% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-06 | 764 | $31.46 | $24,035.44 |
| 2026-04-27 | 1,041 | $30.01 | $31,240.41 |
| 2026-04-23 | 6 | $29.37 | $176.22 |
| 2026-04-09 | 500 | $31.01 | $15,505 |
| 2026-03-27 | 134 | $30.56 | $4,095.04 |
| 2026-03-12 | 184 | $34.03 | $6,261.52 |
| 2026-02-27 | 3,743 | $30.49 | $114,124.07 |
| 2026-01-15 | 100 | $28.82 | $2,882 |
| 2025-12-24 | 9 | $29.36 | $264.24 |
| 2025-11-25 | 16 | $26.80 | $428.8 |
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 PNTG 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.