UFPT (UFPT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 6.3 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company demonstrates robust fundamental quality, evidenced by a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.57 that signals low earnings manipulation risk while maintaining strong operating leverage through an Altman Z-Score of 6.3. Capital allocation efficiency is confirmed by a ROIC-WACC spread of +1.3%, indicating value creation above the cost of capital, supported by healthy profitability metrics where net margins sit at 11.3% and gross margins expand to 28.3%. This earnings power underpins significant revenue growth of 19.5% year-over-year, suggesting a business model driven primarily by margin expansion or volume scaling rather than excessive financial leverage, though the specific drivers within DuPont decomposition are not explicitly detailed in the provided dataset.
Valuation multiples currently stand at 22.2x forward earnings, which requires contextualization against historical averages and sector peers to determine if the premium is justified given the growth trajectory. While a DCF analysis suggests an intrinsic fair value of $287 per share, this figure relies heavily on specific assumptions regarding implied long-term growth rates that may not be fully reflected in current market pricing. The gap between the present multiple and the derived fair value implies the market may either anticipate higher future volatility or discount cash flows more aggressively than the model assumes, necessitating a careful review of the underlying terminal growth inputs to validate whether the stock is fairly valued or potentially overextended relative to its fundamental earnings generation capabilities.
No specific risk factor deltas, insider trading activity, or Fama-French alpha data were provided in the input; therefore, an assessment of idiosyncratic risks versus market beta cannot be synthesized from the available information. Consequently, the investment thesis rests entirely on the interplay between the strong operational metrics and the current valuation premium, leaving the determination of risk-adjusted returns to further analysis outside the scope of these data points.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 9.3% | 11.3% | 13.3% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $345 | $261 | $207 |
| 3% | $392 | $287 | $223 |
| 4% | $458 | $321 | $243 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=11.3%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $287 (+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 XHE or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell UFPT shares regardless of UFPT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $29M of passive capital is structurally linked to UFPT through 5 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on UFPT's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 5 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in UFPT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If UFPT (UFPT) 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 UFPT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 5 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
UFPT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest UFPT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 5 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
UFPT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does UFPT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
UFPT converts 71% 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 1.3% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-06 | 85 | $212.43 | $18,056.55 |
| 2026-05-05 | 10 | $192.55 | $1,925.5 |
| 2026-04-30 | 472 | $185.45 | $87,532.4 |
| 2026-04-29 | 2,688 | $195.25 | $524,832 |
| 2026-04-28 | 65 | $197.30 | $12,824.5 |
| 2026-04-24 | 49 | $198.10 | $9,706.9 |
| 2026-04-22 | 457 | $198.68 | $90,796.76 |
| 2026-04-17 | 169 | $194.04 | $32,792.76 |
| 2026-04-14 | 159 | $203.39 | $32,339.01 |
| 2026-04-10 | 1,023 | $203.60 | $208,282.8 |
| 2026-04-09 | 12 | $200.49 | $2,405.88 |
| 2026-04-08 | 12 | $188.70 | $2,264.4 |
| 2026-04-01 | 11,512 | $193.60 | $2.2M |
| 2026-03-31 | 666 | $186.76 | $124,382.16 |
| 2026-03-30 | 1 | $189.45 | $189.45 |
| 2026-03-27 | 62 | $187.98 | $11,654.76 |
| 2026-03-26 | 6 | $190.07 | $1,140.42 |
| 2026-03-24 | 20 | $188.76 | $3,775.2 |
| 2026-03-23 | 6 | $191.05 | $1,146.3 |
| 2026-03-19 | 131 | $198.40 | $25,990.4 |
| 2026-03-12 | 35 | $209.59 | $7,335.65 |
| 2026-03-11 | 393 | $214.86 | $84,439.98 |
| 2026-03-10 | 1,228 | $215.00 | $264,020 |
| 2026-03-09 | 615 | $208.92 | $128,485.8 |
| 2026-02-27 | 417 | $215.67 | $89,934.39 |
| 2026-02-26 | 21 | $240.16 | $5,043.36 |
| 2026-02-24 | 333 | $241.79 | $80,516.07 |
| 2026-02-20 | 868 | $222.83 | $193,416.44 |
| 2026-02-09 | 1,317 | $267.34 | $352,086.78 |
| 2026-02-04 | 253 | $251.45 | $63,616.85 |
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 UFPT 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.