KGS (KGS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 1.6. DCF fair value of $15 implies 76% downside based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency for KGS appears structurally constrained, as the return on invested capital of 6.3% falls below the weighted average cost of capital at 8.2%, resulting in a negative ROIC-WACC spread that erodes intrinsic value over time. Despite this capital inefficiency, profitability is supported by robust gross margins of 42.2% and positive net margins of 6.2%, while revenue expands at an annualized rate of 12.8%. Credit risk metrics present a mixed signal; the Altman Z-Score of 1.6 suggests potential vulnerability to bankruptcy under stress, yet the Beneish M-Score of -3.27 indicates strong earnings quality with minimal likelihood of manipulation. The Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 reflects solid fundamental health relative to peers, though it does not fully offset the drag from capital destruction inherent in the current spread dynamics.
Valuation metrics indicate a significant divergence between market pricing and modeled fair value, with the stock trading at 70.3x earnings compared to its five-year historical average of 44.7x and an implied premium of approximately 53% over recent norms. This elevated multiple suggests the market is anticipating growth rates substantially higher than the conservative 10-year free cash flow expansion rate of 7.9%. A discounted cash flow analysis places fair value at $15, implying a discount of roughly 76.2% from current levels when adjusted for the implied terminal growth assumptions embedded in the model. The disparity between the high multiple and the negative spread implies that current pricing relies heavily on future operational improvements to justify the premium over cost of capital.
No specific risk factor deltas, insider transaction data, or Fama-French alpha figures were provided in the input dataset; consequently, a synthesis regarding short-term volatility drivers or style-based performance relative to value/growth factors cannot be constructed from the available information. The investment thesis rests entirely on whether management can reverse the negative ROIC-WACC spread and sustain revenue growth sufficient to bridge the 76% gap between current prices and DCF-derived fair values without relying on excessive leverage, which remains unquantified in the provided metrics.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
The growth rate the market implicitly expects over the next 10 years to justify today's price. Compare with historical growth of 13% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6.2% | 8.2% | 10.2% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $27 | $9 | $1 |
| 3% | $41 | $15 | $3 |
| 4% | $68 | $23 | $7 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $67.19.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=8.2%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $15 (-76.2%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedThe current trading environment for KGS at $73.71 presents a complex risk profile where price action sits in tension with underlying volatility and fundamental constraints. While the specific drawdown metrics are not quantified here, the presence of significant volatility suggests that momentum may be fragile rather than structural, particularly if recent gains were achieved amidst widening spreads or erratic volume patterns typical of distressed assets. Without corroborating positive earnings growth or a stabilizing macroeconomic backdrop, such price levels often reflect speculative positioning prone to rapid correction when liquidity tightens. The fundamental backdrop appears insufficient to fully support the current valuation without further clarification on revenue stability or debt obligations, which are critical for assessing long-term sustainability in this sector. When technical indicators align with weak fundamentals, the resulting momentum frequently lacks durability, exposing participants to heightened downside risk even if short-term charts appear favorable. The interplay between elevated volatility and an ambiguous fundamental landscape implies that any upward movement could be easily reversed by minor shifts in market sentiment or liquidity conditions. Ultimately, the setup indicates a high-risk environment where structural support is not clearly established at these levels. Traders must weigh the potential for continued erratic price swings against the possibility of a deeper retracement driven by the same volatility that fueled recent advances. The absence of clear fundamental catalysts suggests caution is warranted, as current prices may be more reflective of temporary market dislocation than enduring value creation in this specific asset class.
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.
Balance Sheet Health
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-18 | $0.4900 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-13 | $0.4900 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | $0.4900 | +8.9% |
| 2025-08-04 | $0.4500 | 0.0% |
| 2025-05-05 | $0.4500 | +9.8% |
| 2025-02-14 | $0.4100 | 0.0% |
| 2024-11-01 | $0.4100 | 0.0% |
| 2024-08-12 | $0.4100 | +7.9% |
| 2024-05-10 | $0.3800 | 0.0% |
| 2024-02-15 | $0.3800 | 0.0% |
| 2023-11-02 | $0.3800 | — |
Dividend and split data from SEC filings and market data. Amounts are per share, not adjusted for splits. Source: yfinance.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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 XES or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell KGS shares regardless of KGS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $229M of passive capital is structurally linked to KGS through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on KGS's daily trading dynamics.
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 KGS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If KGS (KGS) 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 KGS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 8 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
KGS Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 28 KGS shares, reducing daily market volatility.
KGS (KGS) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 4.5% of the XES (XES) and 0.8% of the SLYG (SLYG). Across 8 tracked ETFs, approximately 4M shares (3.6% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. As passive ownership grows, index inclusion changes may increasingly drive price discovery.
ETFs with Highest KGS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
KGS Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for KGS over the past year sits near $33.00 (26% of 252-day volume). The current price of $67.19 trades 103.6% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target. The highly concentrated volume profile (26% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
KGS Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does KGS convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
KGS converts 48% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 52% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-1.9%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 30,697 | $75.14 | $2.3M |
| 2026-05-12 | 1,154 | $75.52 | $87,150.08 |
| 2026-05-11 | 1,154 | $69.65 | $80,376.1 |
| 2026-05-01 | 374 | $67.80 | $25,357.2 |
| 2026-04-20 | 100 | $63.25 | $6,325 |
| 2026-04-16 | 1,064 | $61.61 | $65,553.04 |
| 2026-04-09 | 481 | $60.23 | $28,970.63 |
| 2026-04-07 | 106 | $58.22 | $6,171.32 |
| 2026-03-23 | 6 | $55.90 | $335.4 |
| 2026-03-13 | 31 | $54.35 | $1,684.85 |
| 2026-02-13 | 7,000 | $50.24 | $351,680 |
| 2026-01-20 | 99 | $37.73 | $3,735.27 |
| 2025-12-29 | 15 | $36.35 | $545.25 |
| 2025-12-16 | 24 | $37.34 | $896.16 |
| 2025-11-10 | 7,437 | $33.75 | $250,998.75 |
| 2025-11-03 | 8 | $36.88 | $295.04 |
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.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| AROC | 0.782 | 0.744 | High co-movement |
| TRGP | 0.458 | 0.318 | Moderate |
| FTI | 0.387 | 0.359 | Moderate |
| EGP | 0.367 | 0.404 | Moderate |
| BAC | 0.367 | 0.340 | Moderate |
| OII | 0.360 | 0.269 | Moderate |
| WTFC | 0.357 | 0.334 | Moderate |
| KMI | 0.352 | 0.325 | Moderate |
| PTEN | 0.348 | 0.294 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare KGS to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.