VTS (VTS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 2.2.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency presents a significant constraint, as the return on invested capital of 4.2% falls substantially below the weighted average cost of capital of 8.3%, resulting in a negative spread that erodes shareholder value despite robust operational leverage indicated by a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and an Altman Z-Score of 2.2 suggesting moderate solvency. While earnings quality appears high with a Beneish M-Score of -3.11, the DuPont decomposition reveals that growth is driven primarily by revenue expansion at 13.2% YoY rather than margin accretion or asset turnover optimization, as net margins sit at 9.2% and gross margins at 18.9%. This dynamic suggests a business model currently reliant on top-line scaling to offset the capital drag inherent in the negative ROIC-WACC differential.
Valuation metrics indicate a premium pricing relative to historical norms and sector peers, with the current P/E ratio of 29.0x implying market expectations for sustained high-growth execution that may not align with the underlying capital efficiency profile. A discounted cash flow analysis anchors fair value at $24, which serves as a critical reference point against current trading levels; however, this valuation assumes an implied growth trajectory sufficient to bridge the gap between existing returns and required investor compensation. The market appears to be pricing in a future normalization of ROIC or accelerated margin expansion that has not yet materialized in the fundamental data provided.
The risk/reward assessment hinges on whether operational improvements can reverse the negative capital spread, given the strong financial health signals from the Altman and Beneish metrics. While the low M-Score mitigates earnings manipulation concerns, the persistent ROIC shortfall creates a structural headwind that could limit long-term compounding even if revenue growth continues at current rates. Investors must weigh the high-quality balance sheet against the inefficient use of deployed capital when evaluating potential downside protection or upside catalysts inherent in this equity profile.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6.3% | 8.3% | 10.3% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $32 | $20 | $15 |
| 3% | $41 | $24 | $16 |
| 4% | $58 | $29 | $19 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=8.3%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $24 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
⚠️ Dividend consumes >80% of FCF — sustainability risk.
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 XOP or VDE, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell VTS shares regardless of VTS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $21M of passive capital is structurally linked to VTS through 2 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on VTS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 2 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in VTS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If VTS (VTS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with VTS. 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.
VTS Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest VTS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 2 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
VTS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does VTS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
VTS converts 24% 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 76% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-4.0%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying 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 | 2,671 | $18.13 | $48,425.23 |
| 2026-05-13 | 133 | $18.18 | $2,417.94 |
| 2026-05-12 | 2,638 | $18.42 | $48,591.96 |
| 2026-05-11 | 233 | $17.81 | $4,149.73 |
| 2026-05-08 | 68 | $18.16 | $1,234.88 |
| 2026-05-07 | 1,909 | $18.50 | $35,316.5 |
| 2026-05-06 | 15,889 | $18.87 | $299,825.43 |
| 2026-05-05 | 1,141 | $19.08 | $21,770.28 |
| 2026-05-04 | 217 | $18.77 | $4,073.09 |
| 2026-05-01 | 99 | $18.76 | $1,857.24 |
| 2026-04-30 | 1,973 | $18.89 | $37,269.97 |
| 2026-04-22 | 160 | $18.22 | $2,915.2 |
| 2026-04-21 | 1 | $17.82 | $17.82 |
| 2026-04-16 | 57 | $18.07 | $1,029.99 |
| 2026-04-15 | 3,330 | $18.04 | $60,073.2 |
| 2026-04-14 | 58 | $18.64 | $1,081.12 |
| 2026-04-10 | 97 | $17.85 | $1,731.45 |
| 2026-04-08 | 108 | $18.78 | $2,028.24 |
| 2026-04-07 | 1,047 | $18.19 | $19,044.93 |
| 2026-04-02 | 1,189 | $17.60 | $20,926.4 |
| 2026-03-31 | 1,338 | $18.45 | $24,686.1 |
| 2026-03-30 | 15,562 | $18.51 | $288,052.62 |
| 2026-03-27 | 6,520 | $19.43 | $126,683.6 |
| 2026-03-25 | 68 | $19.00 | $1,292 |
| 2026-03-23 | 1,257 | $19.89 | $25,001.73 |
| 2026-03-20 | 14,110 | $19.51 | $275,286.1 |
| 2026-03-18 | 6,830 | $19.21 | $131,204.3 |
| 2026-03-17 | 28,519 | $19.32 | $550,987.08 |
| 2026-03-16 | 49,196 | $19.79 | $973,588.84 |
| 2026-03-13 | 4,144 | $19.71 | $81,678.24 |
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 VTS 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.