UHS (UHS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial 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-GeneratedThe 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
InteractiveSensitivity 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
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
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
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 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.
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
ETFs with Highest UHS Exposure
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.
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.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 3 | $171.01 | $513.03 |
| 2026-04-24 | 13,020 | $181.18 | $2.4M |
| 2026-04-09 | 15,839 | $186.76 | $3.0M |
| 2026-04-02 | 17 | $177.94 | $3,024.98 |
| 2026-03-25 | 5 | $185.92 | $929.6 |
| 2026-03-24 | 6,811 | $188.09 | $1.3M |
| 2026-03-18 | 8 | $193.46 | $1,547.68 |
| 2026-01-14 | 195 | $201.81 | $39,352.95 |
| 2026-01-13 | 195 | $205.96 | $40,162.2 |
| 2026-01-02 | 88 | $218.02 | $19,185.76 |
| 2025-12-05 | 57 | $230.59 | $13,143.63 |
| 2025-11-26 | 1 | $243.74 | $243.74 |
| 2025-11-21 | 159 | $225.38 | $35,835.42 |
| 2025-11-14 | 250 | $227.57 | $56,892.5 |
| 2025-11-05 | 177 | $224.19 | $39,681.63 |
| 2025-10-28 | 8 | $214.03 | $1,712.24 |
| 2025-10-23 | 56 | $210.40 | $11,782.4 |
| 2025-10-22 | 2 | $206.80 | $413.6 |
| 2025-10-20 | 85 | $204.56 | $17,387.6 |
| 2025-10-07 | 52 | $206.84 | $10,755.68 |
| 2025-10-06 | 160 | $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.