MGM Resorts International (MGM)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicMGM trades at 59.8x earnings — a 71% premium to its sector average of 35.0x — without a dominant ROIC-WACC spread. Financial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 0.7. DCF fair value of $175 implies 376% upside from current prices based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economic profile of MGM Resorts International presents a significant divergence between operational leverage and capital efficiency. While the DuPont decomposition reveals that returns on equity are driven almost entirely by high financial leverage (an equity multiplier of 12.63x) rather than margin expansion or asset turnover, this structure is undermined by a negative ROIC-WACC spread of -8.3%, indicating value destruction relative to the cost of capital. Despite a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 suggesting reasonable financial strength and a Beneish M-Score of -2.76 pointing away from earnings manipulation, the Altman Z-Score of 0.7 signals elevated distress risk within this highly leveraged framework. This tension is further highlighted by stagnant revenue growth of just 1.7% YoY paired with thin net margins of 1.2%, contrasting sharply with a gross margin of 44.4%.
Valuation metrics suggest the market is pricing in substantial future recovery that current fundamentals do not support, creating a wide gap between implied and intrinsic value. The stock trades at a premium P/E multiple of 49.1x compared to its sector average of 34.6x, yet a DCF analysis based on negative ten-year free cash flow growth of -3.7% implies a fair value significantly higher than current levels, resulting in an apparent upside of over 365%. However, this optimistic valuation assumption conflicts with the stock's historical underperformance relative to size and book-to-market factors, evidenced by a Fama-French alpha of -17.56% annually. The presence of a positive value tilt (HML: 0.524) suggests the asset may eventually revert toward mean if growth expectations normalize, though current pricing appears detached from the reality of declining cash flow generation.
Recent insider activity shows net buying totaling approximately $36 million over ninety days, which contrasts with the negative risk factors presented by the low Altman score and weak profitability factor (RMW: 0.080). While insider confidence may signal belief in future operational improvements or a bottoming out of leverage pressures, the combination of distressed Z-Score metrics and persistent value destruction from operations warrants caution regarding capital preservation. The data indicates an asset with high volatility driven by financial engineering rather than organic growth efficiency, leaving investors to weigh the potential for mean reversion against the immediate risks associated with its precarious balance sheet structure.
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 2% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 7.6% | 9.6% | 11.6% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $220 | $154 | $116 |
| 3% | $264 | $175 | $128 |
| 4% | $332 | $204 | $143 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $48.36.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=9.6%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $175 (+376.2%). Not investment advice.
Valuation Context
Currently trading 17% above its 5-year average P/E of 41.8x.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Technical Setup
AI GeneratedMGM Resorts International is currently trading at $37.32, a position that requires contextualization against its moving average envelope to assess relative value dynamics. While the specific location of price within the upper or lower bands of this volatility channel remains undefined in the provided data points, the gap between current valuation and these statistical means often signals potential mean-reversion opportunities. If the stock were trading near an extreme boundary of such a range, it might suggest a temporary divergence from its established trend, whereas positioning closer to the center would imply continued stability within historical norms. In the consumer cyclical sector, where earnings sensitivity can be high, observing whether $37.32 represents a compression or expansion relative to recent averages is critical for gauging momentum shifts. A price situated far outside these smoothed lines typically precedes a corrective move back toward the mean, driven by statistical probability rather than fundamental catalysts alone. Conversely, sustained proximity to an outer band without immediate reversal could indicate a strengthening trend that defies standard deviation expectations. Ultimately, the technical narrative hinges on the precise distance between the current quote and the surrounding moving averages, which dictates the likelihood of a bounce or continuation. Market participants must evaluate whether this specific price level aligns with historical support or resistance zones defined by these envelopes to infer potential future trajectories without relying solely on absolute figures.
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-08 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2022-09-08 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2022-06-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2022-03-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2021-12-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2021-09-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2021-06-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2021-03-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2020-12-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2020-09-09 | $0.0030 | 0.0% |
| 2020-06-09 | $0.0030 | -98.0% |
| 2020-03-09 | $0.1500 | +15.4% |
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
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like RSP or VCR, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell MGM shares regardless of MGM Resorts International's individual fundamentals. We estimate $826M of passive capital is structurally linked to MGM through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on MGM'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 MGM Resorts International to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If MGM Resorts International (MGM) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies AMAZON.COM INC (AMZN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with MGM. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 18 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
MGM Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 11 MGM shares, reducing daily market volatility.
MGM Resorts International (MGM) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 0.2% of the RSP (RSP) and 0.2% of the VCR (VCR). Across 19 tracked ETFs, approximately 24M shares (9.4% 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 MGM Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 19 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
MGM 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 MGM Resorts International over the past year sits near $36.46 (19% of 252-day volume). The current price of $48.36 trades 32.6% 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 (19% 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.
MGM Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does MGM Resorts International convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
MGM Resorts International converts 85% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-8.2%), 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 | 8 | $37.41 | $299.28 |
| 2026-05-01 | 349,889 | $38.94 | $13.6M |
| 2026-04-28 | 10,910 | $40.55 | $442,400.5 |
| 2026-04-20 | 54 | $38.59 | $2,083.86 |
| 2026-04-17 | 54 | $38.49 | $2,078.46 |
| 2026-04-13 | 626 | $37.32 | $23,362.32 |
| 2026-04-09 | 1,000 | $37.10 | $37,100 |
| 2026-04-02 | 26 | $36.78 | $956.28 |
| 2026-04-01 | 1,800 | $37.01 | $66,618 |
| 2026-03-31 | 1,202 | $35.62 | $42,815.24 |
| 2026-03-26 | 7,328 | $37.49 | $274,726.72 |
| 2026-03-25 | 21 | $37.11 | $779.31 |
| 2026-03-24 | 790 | $36.95 | $29,190.5 |
| 2026-03-23 | 8,897 | $35.37 | $314,686.89 |
| 2026-03-17 | 3,737 | $35.98 | $134,457.26 |
| 2026-03-12 | 698 | $36.29 | $25,330.42 |
| 2026-03-09 | 1,142 | $35.57 | $40,620.94 |
| 2026-03-04 | 2,601 | $35.85 | $93,245.85 |
| 2026-03-03 | 11,868 | $35.72 | $423,924.96 |
| 2026-02-27 | 28,996 | $37.62 | $1.1M |
| 2026-02-26 | 3,228 | $35.56 | $114,787.68 |
| 2026-02-25 | 29,817 | $35.05 | $1.0M |
| 2026-02-24 | 142 | $34.25 | $4,863.5 |
| 2026-02-23 | 20,487 | $36.79 | $753,716.73 |
| 2026-02-11 | 37,301 | $37.36 | $1.4M |
| 2026-02-09 | 85,075 | $37.49 | $3.2M |
| 2026-02-06 | 70,406 | $36.28 | $2.6M |
| 2026-01-27 | 4,985 | $34.10 | $169,988.5 |
| 2026-01-20 | 400 | $34.98 | $13,992 |
| 2026-01-16 | 4,887 | $35.41 | $173,048.67 |
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 | |
| CZR | 0.675 | 0.660 | Moderate |
| WYNN | 0.627 | 0.527 | Moderate |
| HST | 0.616 | 0.543 | Moderate |
| USB | 0.586 | 0.548 | Moderate |
| KEY | 0.582 | 0.529 | Moderate |
| ASB | 0.577 | 0.533 | Moderate |
| COF | 0.564 | 0.504 | Moderate |
| AXP | 0.561 | 0.507 | Moderate |
| SWK | 0.554 | 0.510 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare MGM 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.