SIGI (SIGI)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 1.1.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of SIGI reveal a capital allocation efficiency that warrants scrutiny, characterized by an ROIC-WACC spread implied to be narrow given the 3.3% return on invested capital relative to typical cost of equity benchmarks in financial services or consumer staples sectors. Despite this modest absolute return on assets, earnings quality is supported by a DuPont-decomposed ROE of 12.9%, driven primarily by operational leverage rather than margin expansion; specifically, an asset turnover of only 0.35x suggests significant idle capital, yet the equity multiplier of 4.20x indicates substantial financial leverage amplifying returns for shareholders. This structural reliance on debt is corroborated by a Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 and insider activity showing $123,501 in net selling over the last ninety days, signaling potential concerns regarding balance sheet optimization or management confidence that counterbalance the steady 9.8% year-over-year revenue growth.
Valuation metrics present a mixed picture where the current P/E of 10.1x appears compressed relative to historical averages and likely below sector peers, suggesting the market is pricing in persistent risks rather than acknowledging the company's ability to generate double-digit returns on equity through leverage. A discounted cash flow analysis implies a fair value of $742 per share; however, without knowing the current trading price or implied growth rates embedded in that model, it remains unclear whether this target represents significant upside or simply reflects conservative assumptions about future margin durability and capital intensity. The divergence between the low P/E multiple and the high equity multiplier indicates investors may be discounting earnings due to fears of deleveraging constraints rather than poor operational performance.
The risk-reward profile is further complicated by conflicting signals: while revenue growth remains robust at nearly 10%, the combination of a sub-par Piotroski score, active insider selling, and low asset turnover creates a defensive posture that limits total shareholder return potential unless capital efficiency improves dramatically. The data suggests SIGI operates as a leveraged machine with stable top-line expansion but faces headwinds in generating high absolute returns on deployed capital, leaving the investment case dependent entirely on whether management can successfully navigate balance sheet risks without eroding the margin structure that currently supports its ROE.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.3% | 9.3% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $544 | $401 | $284 |
| 3% | $709 | $482 | $321 |
| 4% | $1039 | $613 | $373 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.3%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $482 (+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 MDYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell SIGI shares regardless of SIGI's individual fundamentals. We estimate $271M of passive capital is structurally linked to SIGI through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on SIGI'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 SIGI to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If SIGI (SIGI) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies UNUM GROUP (UNM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with SIGI. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 12 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
SIGI Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest SIGI Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 12 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
SIGI Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does SIGI convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
SIGI converts 178% 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 (-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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 7,548 | $85.89 | $648,297.72 |
| 2026-04-27 | 23 | $82.48 | $1,897.04 |
| 2026-04-24 | 57 | $84.38 | $4,809.66 |
| 2026-04-23 | 450 | $77.63 | $34,933.5 |
| 2026-04-22 | 6,201 | $80.88 | $501,536.88 |
| 2026-04-16 | 62 | $80.62 | $4,998.44 |
| 2026-04-13 | 12 | $79.94 | $959.28 |
| 2026-04-01 | 49 | $75.39 | $3,694.11 |
| 2026-03-24 | 1 | $75.07 | $75.07 |
| 2026-03-23 | 364 | $74.04 | $26,950.56 |
| 2026-03-10 | 31 | $77.78 | $2,411.18 |
| 2026-02-27 | 1 | $83.79 | $83.79 |
| 2026-02-12 | 1,440 | $88.65 | $127,656 |
| 2026-02-11 | 1,463 | $89.24 | $130,558.12 |
| 2026-02-04 | 8,241 | $86.82 | $715,483.62 |
| 2026-01-26 | 2 | $80.07 | $160.14 |
| 2026-01-22 | 19 | $82.83 | $1,573.77 |
| 2026-01-13 | 2 | $83.12 | $166.24 |
| 2025-12-30 | 24 | $84.54 | $2,028.96 |
| 2025-12-16 | 1,938 | $83.74 | $162,288.12 |
| 2025-12-12 | 76 | $81.20 | $6,171.2 |
| 2025-12-10 | 42 | $78.15 | $3,282.3 |
| 2025-12-08 | 1 | $77.54 | $77.54 |
| 2025-12-04 | 19 | $78.05 | $1,482.95 |
| 2025-11-28 | 179 | $79.42 | $14,216.18 |
| 2025-11-26 | 52 | $79.13 | $4,114.76 |
| 2025-11-25 | 52 | $78.06 | $4,059.12 |
| 2025-11-24 | 52 | $77.97 | $4,054.44 |
| 2025-11-21 | 1,056 | $76.94 | $81,248.64 |
| 2025-11-18 | 1,004 | $77.76 | $78,071.04 |
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.
Compare SIGI 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.