WTW (WTW)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 1.4.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of WTW reveal a capital-efficient operator generating returns via moderate leverage rather than operational velocity. With an ROIC-WACC spread implied by the 19.9% DuPont-derived return on equity, the business model relies heavily on its 3.67x equity multiplier to amplify earnings, as asset turnover sits at a modest 0.33x. This capital structure supports robust profitability metrics, evidenced by a net margin of 16.5% and a gross margin expanding to 42.1%, while quality indicators remain strong with a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.59 suggesting low earnings manipulation risk. However, this financial resilience contrasts sharply with the current revenue trajectory, which contracted by 2.2% year-over-year, indicating that high margins are sustaining returns despite top-line headwinds rather than being driven by volume expansion.
Valuation metrics present a divergence between historical context and intrinsic models. The stock currently trades at a P/E multiple of 17.6x; while specific sector averages or historical ranges were not provided to establish relative positioning, the data indicates this premium pricing exists against a backdrop of declining revenue growth. In contrast, discounted cash flow analysis assigns a fair value of $816 per share, implying that current market prices may be detached from intrinsic worth if future cash flows align with conservative DCF assumptions or if the implied growth rate required to justify the multiple exceeds realistic expectations given the recent contraction. The gap between these valuation anchors suggests the market is pricing in either significant mean reversion potential or a premium for the company's high-margin, leveraged quality that DCF models may not fully capture under current recessionary headwinds.
Risk and reward dynamics are further nuanced by insider behavior and factor exposures. Despite the revenue decline, insiders have executed $152,125 in net buying over the last 90 days, a signal often interpreted as management confidence in future operational turns or undervaluation relative to current fundamentals. While specific Fama-French alpha data is absent from the provided dataset, the combination of high leverage (Equity Multiplier >3) and negative revenue growth introduces solvency sensitivity during economic downturns, even though quality scores mitigate fraud risk. The convergence of insider accumulation with a DCF-based upside to $816 suggests a potential asymmetric opportunity, yet investors must weigh this against the precariousness of sustaining 42% gross margins while shrinking top-line revenues.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.9% | 9.9% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $1055 | $689 | $494 |
| 3% | $1382 | $816 | $557 |
| 4% | $2038 | $1008 | $640 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.9%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $816 (+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 KIE or VFMV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell WTW shares regardless of WTW's individual fundamentals. We estimate $2.7B of passive capital is structurally linked to WTW 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 WTW to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If WTW (WTW) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B (BRK.B) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with WTW. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 19 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
WTW Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest WTW Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 19 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
WTW Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does WTW convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
WTW converts 59% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 18 | $251.44 | $4,525.92 |
| 2026-05-07 | 29 | $252.41 | $7,319.89 |
| 2026-04-30 | 46 | $290.11 | $13,345.06 |
| 2026-04-27 | 2,777 | $287.73 | $799,026.21 |
| 2026-03-31 | 39 | $289.72 | $11,299.08 |
| 2026-03-27 | 3 | $286.80 | $860.4 |
| 2026-03-25 | 9 | $293.36 | $2,640.24 |
| 2026-03-24 | 428 | $293.43 | $125,588.04 |
| 2026-03-23 | 271 | $291.25 | $78,928.75 |
| 2026-03-10 | 22,595 | $294.67 | $6.7M |
| 2026-02-27 | 50 | $308.29 | $15,414.5 |
| 2026-02-25 | 10,809 | $291.27 | $3.1M |
| 2026-02-19 | 1 | $301.92 | $301.92 |
| 2026-02-18 | 1,582 | $295.50 | $467,481 |
| 2026-02-06 | 3 | $327.32 | $981.96 |
| 2026-02-05 | 2 | $339.74 | $679.48 |
| 2026-01-21 | 56 | $321.79 | $18,020.24 |
| 2026-01-02 | 900 | $328.60 | $295,740 |
| 2025-12-29 | 2,429 | $334.60 | $812,743.4 |
| 2025-12-18 | 10 | $329.84 | $3,298.4 |
| 2025-12-17 | 400 | $329.76 | $131,904 |
| 2025-12-15 | 6,033 | $326.93 | $2.0M |
| 2025-12-05 | 1 | $320.00 | $320 |
| 2025-11-28 | 76 | $321.23 | $24,413.48 |
| 2025-11-21 | 121 | $314.88 | $38,100.48 |
| 2025-11-20 | 1 | $317.37 | $317.37 |
| 2025-11-19 | 1 | $319.52 | $319.52 |
| 2025-11-14 | 3,844 | $324.30 | $1.2M |
| 2025-11-12 | 17 | $322.14 | $5,476.38 |
| 2025-11-06 | 2,348 | $323.06 | $758,544.88 |
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 WTW 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.