Eli Lilly and Company (LLY)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicAt 39.2x earnings — a 40% discount to the sector average of 65.2x — LLY is in the lower valuation range. Financial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 7.8 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold). DCF fair value of $296 implies 68% downside based on model assumptions. Beneish M-Score of -1.91 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency of this healthcare giant is exceptional, evidenced by an ROIC-WACC spread of 22.9%, indicating robust value creation relative to the cost of equity. This high return on invested capital is primarily driven by superior operational leverage rather than asset intensity or financial engineering; specifically, a net margin of 31.7% and gross margin of 83.0% fuel an ROE of 77.8%, while moderate leverage (Equity Multiplier at 4.24x) and modest turnover (0.58x) suggest earnings power stems from pricing strength or product mix rather than aggressive balance sheet expansion. Fundamental integrity appears solid with a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9, an Altman Z-Score of 8.1 signaling low bankruptcy risk, and a Beneish M-Score of -1.91 suggesting minimal earnings manipulation concerns, all underpinned by revenue growth accelerating at 44.7% year-over-year.
However, the current market valuation implies aggressive future expectations that may not align with intrinsic value models. Trading at a P/E ratio of 40.8x versus a sector average of 30.8x suggests the price has already priced in significant expansion, potentially leaving little room for error if growth decelerates. More critically, discounted cash flow analysis points to a fair value of $327 with an implied downside of -64.4% from current levels, highlighting a substantial divergence between market sentiment and model-based estimates based on assumed long-term free cash flow growth rates. This disconnect indicates the stock is trading at a premium justified only if the company can sustainably deliver revenue expansion far exceeding historical averages to maintain its high margin profile without eroding returns through excessive reinvestment.
Risk metrics present a nuanced picture where strong alpha generation conflicts with specific factor exposures and insider sentiment. Although the Fama-French annualized alpha of 14.67% demonstrates significant outperformance relative to standard benchmarks, the Profitability Factor (RMW) score of -0.238 flags potential weaknesses in profitability sustainability despite current high margins, while the Value Factor remains neutral at 0.067. Compounding these fundamental signals is a notable divergence between institutional pricing and insider behavior; over the last ninety days, net selling by insiders totaled approximately $324 million, which contrasts sharply with the bullish momentum implied by recent revenue surges and suggests management or major holders may perceive elevated valuation risks not fully captured in public 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 45% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.8% | 9.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $385 | $246 | $169 |
| 3% | $512 | $296 | $193 |
| 4% | $766 | $373 | $227 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $1064.15.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.8%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $296 (-68.2%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Currently trading 7% above its 5-year average P/E of 38.4x.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedEli Lilly and Company is currently trading at $874.00, a price point that warrants examination against its surrounding moving average envelope to gauge relative positioning. Without specific values for the short-term or long-term simple moving averages defining this envelope, it remains unclear whether the current share price resides within the established mean-reversion zone, above an upper boundary suggesting potential exhaustion, or below a lower boundary indicating possible oversold conditions. The absence of these critical reference lines prevents a definitive assessment of how far the asset has deviated from its historical average trend over recent periods. In technical analysis, proximity to the center of such an envelope often signals alignment with the mean, while extreme deviations can foreshadow a corrective move back toward equilibrium. Since the specific upper and lower bands are not provided in the current dataset, any inference regarding imminent reversal or continuation patterns would be speculative rather than factual. The market structure at $874.00 simply exists as an isolated data point until contextualized by the dynamic support and resistance levels generated by moving averages. Consequently, observers must await further clarification on where this price sits relative to the calculated mean to assess the validity of a mean-reversion thesis. Whether the current valuation implies significant upside potential if the trend corrects downward or downside risk if it rebounds upward depends entirely on the distance from these invisible boundaries. Until those parameters are defined, the technical setup remains indeterminate regarding its specific bias toward either regression to the mean or momentum continuation.
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
⚠️ Dividend consumes >80% of FCF — sustainability risk.
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.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-15 | $1.7300 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-13 | $1.7300 | +15.3% |
| 2025-11-14 | $1.5000 | 0.0% |
| 2025-08-15 | $1.5000 | 0.0% |
| 2025-05-16 | $1.5000 | 0.0% |
| 2025-02-14 | $1.5000 | +15.4% |
| 2024-11-15 | $1.3000 | 0.0% |
| 2024-08-15 | $1.3000 | 0.0% |
| 2024-05-15 | $1.3000 | 0.0% |
| 2024-02-14 | $1.3000 | +15.0% |
| 2023-11-14 | $1.1300 | 0.0% |
| 2023-08-14 | $1.1300 | 0.0% |
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.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this stock's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Fundamentals
10-K Risk Factor Expansion
Word count of Item 1A (Risk Factors) across annual filings. Rising counts often signal new regulatory, competitive, or operational risks.
Smart Money Flow
Institutional 13F filings from top hedge funds. Positions updated quarterly from SEC EDGAR.
| Fund | Quarter | Shares Change | % Change | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Point72 Asset Mgmt | 2026-Q1 | -7,100 | -24.8% | Decreased |
| Soros Fund Management | 2026-Q1 | -135 | -0.6% | Decreased |
| Renaissance Technologies | 2026-Q1 | -94,059 | -56.7% | Decreased |
| Two Sigma Investments | 2026-Q1 | +700 | +23.3% | Increased |
| Citadel Advisors | 2026-Q1 | -507,000 | -24.3% | Decreased |
| Bridgewater Associates | 2026-Q1 | -2,480 | -3.4% | Decreased |
| DE Shaw | 2026-Q1 | -80,600 | -30.3% | Decreased |
| Millennium Management | 2026-Q1 | -355,300 | -72.8% | Decreased |
| Citadel Advisors | 2025-Q4 | -133,800 | -6.0% | Decreased |
| DE Shaw | 2025-Q4 | -46,500 | -14.9% | Decreased |
| Two Sigma Investments | 2025-Q4 | +1,000 | +50.0% | Increased |
| Point72 Asset Mgmt | 2025-Q4 | +24,100 | +535.6% | Increased |
Source: SEC 13F-HR filings. 13F data is delayed ~45 days after quarter end. Not investment advice.
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XLV or IYH, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell LLY shares regardless of Eli Lilly and Company's individual fundamentals. We estimate $96.7B of passive capital is structurally linked to LLY through 8 tracked ETFs. This substantial passive exposure means that ETF inflows and outflows — not company fundamentals — can dominate daily volume on this stock.
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 Eli Lilly and Company to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with LLY. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 34 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
LLY Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 9 LLY shares, reducing daily market volatility.
Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 15.4% of the State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV) and 13.7% of the IYH (IYH). Across 31 tracked ETFs, approximately 103M shares (11.5% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. This level of passive ownership means index rebalances can create outsized volume events.
ETFs with Highest LLY Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 31 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
LLY 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 Eli Lilly and Company over the past year sits near $765.84 (11% of 252-day volume). The current price of $1064.15 trades 39.0% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target.
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.
LLY Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does Eli Lilly and Company convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
Eli Lilly and Company converts 19% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a low conversion rate suggesting heavy reinvestment. This may indicate a growth phase (building capacity) or structural capital intensity. The 81% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 22.5% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-12 | 1,800 | $966.99 | $1.7M |
| 2026-05-11 | 27 | $948.45 | $25,608.15 |
| 2026-05-08 | 4 | $974.96 | $3,899.84 |
| 2026-05-07 | 27 | $987.05 | $26,650.35 |
| 2026-05-04 | 5,994 | $963.33 | $5.8M |
| 2026-04-20 | 16,403 | $927.03 | $15.2M |
| 2026-04-17 | 13,384 | $903.99 | $12.1M |
| 2026-04-15 | 6 | $922.50 | $5,535 |
| 2026-04-14 | 28 | $929.55 | $26,027.4 |
| 2026-04-09 | 76 | $953.30 | $72,450.8 |
| 2026-04-01 | 4 | $919.77 | $3,679.08 |
| 2026-03-25 | 179 | $903.02 | $161,640.58 |
| 2026-03-23 | 3,358 | $906.70 | $3.0M |
| 2026-03-20 | 15 | $917.50 | $13,762.5 |
| 2026-03-17 | 18,453 | $989.12 | $18.3M |
| 2026-03-16 | 37 | $985.08 | $36,447.96 |
| 2026-03-10 | 36 | $1008.39 | $36,302.04 |
| 2026-03-09 | 5,000 | $990.33 | $5.0M |
| 2026-03-02 | 106 | $1051.99 | $111,510.94 |
| 2026-02-23 | 250 | $1009.52 | $252,380 |
| 2026-02-19 | 65 | $1020.56 | $66,336.4 |
| 2026-02-17 | 700 | $1040.00 | $728,000 |
| 2026-02-13 | 100 | $1038.27 | $103,827 |
| 2026-02-11 | 160 | $1025.00 | $164,000 |
| 2026-02-09 | 3,256 | $1058.18 | $3.4M |
| 2026-02-06 | 17 | $1020.84 | $17,354.28 |
| 2026-01-26 | 379 | $1064.29 | $403,365.91 |
| 2026-01-22 | 1,304 | $1078.52 | $1.4M |
| 2026-01-20 | 185 | $1038.40 | $192,104 |
| 2025-12-30 | 12,062 | $1078.73 | $13.0M |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Institutional Holdings (13F Filings)
Raw SEC 13F-HR filings from institutional investment managers. Shows exact share counts and portfolio values as reported to the SEC.
| Fund | Quarter | Shares | Value ($K) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citadel Advisors | 2026-Q1 | 1,581,800 | $1,454,892,186K |
| DE Shaw | 2026-Q1 | 185,700 | $170,801,289K |
| Millennium Management | 2026-Q1 | 132,900 | $122,237,433K |
| Renaissance Technologies | 2026-Q1 | 71,788 | $66,028,597K |
| Bridgewater Associates | 2026-Q1 | 70,812 | $65,130,753K |
| Soros Fund Management | 2026-Q1 | 22,199 | $20,417,974K |
| Point72 Asset Mgmt | 2026-Q1 | 21,500 | $19,775,055K |
| Two Sigma Investments | 2026-Q1 | 3,700 | $3,403,149K |
| Citadel Advisors | 2025-Q4 | 2,088,800 | $2,244,791,584K |
| Millennium Management | 2025-Q4 | 488,200 | $524,658,776K |
| DE Shaw | 2025-Q4 | 266,300 | $286,187,284K |
| Renaissance Technologies | 2025-Q4 | 165,847 | $178,232,454K |
| Bridgewater Associates | 2025-Q4 | 73,292 | $78,765,447K |
| Point72 Asset Mgmt | 2025-Q4 | 28,600 | $30,735,848K |
| Soros Fund Management | 2025-Q4 | 22,334 | $24,001,903K |
Source: SEC 13F-HR filings. Values reported in thousands. 13F data is delayed ~45 days after quarter end.
SEC Comment Letters
SEC correspondence with the company regarding their filings. Comment letters often flag disclosure deficiencies, accounting concerns, or material omissions.
Source: SEC EDGAR correspondence. Comment letters are public records of SEC staff review of company filings.
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 | |
| AMGN | 0.460 | 0.571 | Moderate |
| MRK | 0.439 | 0.287 | Moderate |
| AZN | 0.422 | 0.337 | Moderate |
| BMY | 0.402 | 0.388 | Moderate |
| PFE | 0.394 | 0.370 | Moderate |
| ABBV | 0.359 | 0.243 | Moderate |
| A | 0.352 | 0.303 | Moderate |
| VRTX | 0.345 | 0.407 | Moderate |
| JNJ | 0.344 | 0.330 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare LLY 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.