UHS (UHS)

$11.1B
Market Cap
7.9
P/E Ratio
1.26
Beta
0.44%
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 8/9Altman Z 3.1 SafeBeneish M -2.44 CleanROIC−WACC +3.4%

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Financial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 3.1 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).

Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The fundamental economics of UHS exhibit a robust quality profile, anchored by an ROIC-WACC spread that suggests strong capital efficiency relative to cost of equity. The 20.1% DuPont-decomposed return on equity is driven primarily by high operating leverage rather than aggressive financial engineering; while the equity multiplier sits at 2.10x indicating moderate leverage, the engine is fueled by exceptional gross margins of 90.5% and a net margin of 8.6%, amplified by an asset turnover ratio of 1.12x. This operational strength is corroborated by a Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.44, signaling high financial integrity with no evidence of earnings manipulation despite the elevated gross margin structure. Revenue growth remains steady at 9.7% year-over-year, reinforcing the sustainability of these margins without relying on one-off gains or distressed asset sales.

Valuation metrics present a significant divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at a P/E ratio of 7.9x, the stock appears substantially discounted relative to its historical norms and likely peers within its sector, suggesting the market may be underweighting the durability of the margin expansion. A DCF analysis implies a fair value of $394, which would necessitate a substantial multiple compression or growth acceleration for the current price to align with this intrinsic estimate; conversely, if the market is pricing in stagnation, the spread between the trading level and the DCF target represents a wide safety margin. This disconnect forces an assessment of whether the low valuation reflects temporary headwinds or structural flaws that the Piotroski score has not yet captured.

Despite the compelling fundamental metrics, insider activity introduces a conflicting signal into the risk-reward calculus. Over the past 90 days, insiders have executed $128,099 in net selling, creating a delta between management's confidence and the attractive valuation floor suggested by the DCF model. While high gross margins and strong F-scores typically shield against downside volatility, persistent insider distribution warrants scrutiny regarding future capital allocation or anticipated market conditions not yet reflected in the financial statements. The convergence of deep value metrics with active insider selling requires a careful assessment of whether the price discount is an opportunity or a warning sign of undisclosed pressures.

Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.

DCF Sandbox

Interactive

Sensitivity Matrix

TG ↓ / WACC →8.3%10.3%12.3%
2%$492$347$260
3%$582$394$287
4%$714$454$321

Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs .

Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.3%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $394 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

8/9
Piotroski F-Score
Strong — high operational efficiency and profitability signals
3.1
Altman Z-Score
Safe Zone — above 3.0 threshold per academic model. Thresholds: >3 safe, 1.8–3 grey, <1.8 distress.
-2.44
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

90.5%
Gross Margin
8.6%
Net Margin
13.7%
ROIC
10.3%
WACC
ROIC − WACC Spread: +3.4%— Positive spread.
+9.7%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+30.4%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
824.5M
Free Cash Flow
6%
FCF Payout Ratio

✅ 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.

8.6%
Net Profit Margin
NI ÷ Revenue
×
1.12x
Asset Turnover
Revenue ÷ Assets
×
2.10x
Equity Multiplier
Assets ÷ Equity
=
20.1%
Return on Equity
Balanced ROE composition across margins, turnover, and leverage.

Balance Sheet Health

1.10x
Debt / Equity
1.05x
Current Ratio
14.0x
Interest Coverage
1.4x
Net Debt / EBITDA
5.50%
FCF Yield
2.7B
EBITDA

Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)

Net Insider Flow
$-128,099
Net Selling
0
Buy Transactions
1
Sale Transactions
2026-03-13SUSSMAN ELLIOT JSold 3/8 qtrsSale$128,099
2026-03-13SUSSMAN ELLIOT JSold 3/8 qtrsGrant$347,000
2026-03-12MILLER MARC DGrant$15M
2026-03-12SINGER MARIA RUDERMANSold 4/8 qtrsGrant$347,000
2026-03-12FILTON STEVEN G.Grant$12M

Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✓ Beat
Est: $4.36
Act: $4.84
+11.1%
Q3
✓ Beat
Est: $4.96
Act: $5.35
+8.0%
Q2
✓ Beat
Est: $4.95
Act: $5.69
+14.9%
Q1
✗ Miss
Est: $5.91
Act: $5.88
-0.5%

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.

Loading drawdown chart...

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.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Fundamentals

7.1
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
1.53
Price/Book
778977
Avg Volume
$246.33
52W High
$152.33
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$1.2B
Tracked Passive Exposure
8
ETFs Holding UHS
0.03%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$3.7T
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like XHS or ONEV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell UHS shares regardless of UHS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to UHS 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 UHS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

UHS Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
UHSEpicenterVOOETFIVVETFSPYETFHUMLow RiskCAHLow RiskCNCMed RiskCIMed RiskMCKLow Risk
UHS Price Drop (%)0

If UHS (UHS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies HUMANA INC (HUM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with UHS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 24 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

UHS Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
UHS

Float lock-up computed from 25 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

UHS Capital Efficiency

How efficiently does UHS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.

Free Cash Flow
$825M
EBITDA
$2.7B
FCF Conversion
30%
Reinvestment Rate
70%
30% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)
ROIC
13.7%
ROIC − WACC Spread
3.4%

UHS converts 30% 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 70% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 3.4% 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.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-05-143$171.01$513.03
2026-04-2413,020$181.18$2.4M
2026-04-0915,839$186.76$3.0M
2026-04-0217$177.94$3,024.98
2026-03-255$185.92$929.6
2026-03-246,811$188.09$1.3M
2026-03-188$193.46$1,547.68
2026-01-14195$201.81$39,352.95
2026-01-13195$205.96$40,162.2
2026-01-0288$218.02$19,185.76
2025-12-0557$230.59$13,143.63
2025-11-261$243.74$243.74
2025-11-21159$225.38$35,835.42
2025-11-14250$227.57$56,892.5
2025-11-05177$224.19$39,681.63
2025-10-288$214.03$1,712.24
2025-10-2356$210.40$11,782.4
2025-10-222$206.80$413.6
2025-10-2085$204.56$17,387.6
2025-10-0752$206.84$10,755.68
2025-10-06160$207.24$33,158.4

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 UHS 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.