SailPoint (SAIL) has seen its stock move lately, with investors keeping an eye on the company’s recent performance numbers and trends. Shares changed only slightly in the last day but have lagged over the past month, showing a cautious sentiment around the name.
See our latest analysis for SailPoint.
Looking at the bigger picture, SailPoint’s 1-month share price return of -15.04% highlights a notable loss of momentum. This result caps off an already weak trend so far this year, despite steady demand for its identity security solutions. In a single stroke, the stock has underperformed both recently and over the longer term, signaling that appetite for risk in this corner of enterprise software remains muted.
If you’re curious to see what else is out there, this could be the perfect time to broaden your search and discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership
With shares sitting well below analyst targets, the question facing investors now is whether SailPoint’s recent weakness signals a buying opportunity or if the market has already factored in all of its future growth prospects.
SailPoint trades at a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 10.6x, which is notably higher than both its peer group and industry averages. For investors, this premium valuation raises the question of whether the company’s revenue growth profile is strong enough to justify such a hefty price tag.
The price-to-sales ratio measures how much investors are willing to pay per dollar of revenue. It is a popular metric for software companies, many of which are still working towards consistent profitability, because it focuses on revenue generation rather than profit. When a P/S ratio stands well above the norm, the market is often anticipating robust revenue growth or defensibility.
In SailPoint’s case, the current P/S of 10.6x is elevated compared to both the US Software industry average of 4.9x and its peer group average of 8.6x. In addition, our fair P/S ratio estimate is 7.1x, suggesting further downside if expectations moderate. The market is clearly assigning a premium that is above historical or sector benchmarks, implying high confidence in future sales growth or strategic positioning.
Explore the SWS fair ratio for SailPoint
Result: Price-to-Sales of 10.6x (OVERVALUED)
However, slowing revenue growth or persistent operating losses could challenge investor confidence and force a reassessment of SailPoint’s elevated valuation.
Find out about the key risks to this SailPoint narrative.
While the price-to-sales ratio points to an overvalued stock, another angle comes from the SWS DCF model. This method looks at the present value of expected future cash flows, rather than just revenue.
Our DCF model finds SailPoint trading above its estimate of fair value. This suggests investors might be paying a premium for future growth that is not yet guaranteed. Could this mean further downside risk, or is the market simply seeing something others miss?
Look into how the SWS DCF model arrives at its fair value.
SAIL Discounted Cash Flow as at Nov 2025
Simply Wall St performs a discounted cash flow (DCF) on every stock in the world every day (check out SailPoint for example). We show the entire calculation in full. You can track the result in your watchlist or portfolio and be alerted when this changes, or use our stock screener to discover 914 undervalued stocks based on their cash flows. If you save a screener we even alert you when new companies match – so you never miss a potential opportunity.
If you see things differently or want to dig into the details yourself, building your own analysis is quick and straightforward. Try it out: Do it your way
A great starting point for your SailPoint research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 2 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.
Take control of your portfolio and seize opportunities now. Expand your watchlist by checking out these handpicked stock ideas, each targeting a key trend in today’s market.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Companies discussed in this article include SAIL.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
ASICS (TSE:7936) has seen its stock shift in recent trading sessions, drawing attention from investors curious about evolving trends. Looking at recent price moves, the shares have tracked a modest range this month with slight downward pressure.
See our latest analysis for ASICS.
Stepping back, ASICS has delivered standout long-term results, with a total shareholder return of 25.4% over the last year and an astonishing 415.75% in the past three years. While the last few months saw some mild share price weakness, the bigger picture still points to sustained momentum and renewed interest from investors looking for growth in consumer brands.
If you’re curious about what other fast-rising companies are catching attention lately, this is a great time to discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership
With shares still trading at a notable discount to analyst targets and robust fundamentals in play, the key question is whether ASICS remains undervalued or if the market has already accounted for its next stage of growth.
ASICS currently trades at a price-to-earnings (PE) ratio of 31.5x, far above both its peer average and the luxury sector as a whole. This raises questions about whether such a premium is warranted for the brand’s earnings outlook.
The price-to-earnings ratio measures how much investors are paying for each unit of profit. In consumer brands like ASICS, this multiple often reflects not just present profitability but also expectations for future growth and brand strength.
Despite strong recent earnings growth and a robust return on equity, this 31.5x multiple is more than double the industry average of 14.9x and also well above our estimated fair ratio of 23.1x. The current valuation suggests that the market is highly optimistic about future performance, potentially pricing in ambitious targets for sustained growth and profitability. If expectations fade, the multiple could contract significantly to better align with peers or its intrinsic potential.
Explore the SWS fair ratio for ASICS
Result: Price-to-Earnings of 31.5x (OVERVALUED)
However, slowing revenue growth and a potential pullback from recent highs could expose the stock to volatility if market sentiment shifts.
Find out about the key risks to this ASICS narrative.
Taking a different approach, our SWS DCF model estimates ASICS to be overvalued, with shares trading above the model’s calculated fair value of ¥3,286. While multiples suggest high optimism, the DCF model indicates that future cash flows may not fully support the current market price. Could analyst optimism be running ahead of fundamentals?
Look into how the SWS DCF model arrives at its fair value.
7936 Discounted Cash Flow as at Nov 2025
Simply Wall St performs a discounted cash flow (DCF) on every stock in the world every day (check out ASICS for example). We show the entire calculation in full. You can track the result in your watchlist or portfolio and be alerted when this changes, or use our stock screener to discover 914 undervalued stocks based on their cash flows. If you save a screener we even alert you when new companies match – so you never miss a potential opportunity.
If you see things differently or want to uncover your own perspective, it’s easy to analyze the numbers and tell your version of the story in just a few minutes. Do it your way
A good starting point is our analysis highlighting 3 key rewards investors are optimistic about regarding ASICS.
Every investor deserves the smartest tools. Open the door to new opportunities with Simply Wall Street’s screeners and stay a step ahead in today’s dynamic market.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Companies discussed in this article include 7936.T.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
Victor Martins was in supreme form as he claimed victory in the Lusail Feature Race, leading home Leonardo Fornaroli in second, a result good enough to give the Invicta Racing driver the 2025 FIA Formula 2 title.
Those not immersed in the world of gaming might not be familiar with Pax Australia: the enormous gaming conference and exhibition that takes over the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre every October. My favourite section is always Pax…
More than 250 languages were spoken across Australia before British colonisation. Now only half are still in use as a result of policies that suppressed and prevented First Nations people from speaking their mother tongues.
Indigenous affairs reporter Ella Archibald-Binge travels to two communities including her country to hear from elders, teachers and students about efforts to revive native languages and close the education gap
(Bloomberg) — As the US options market heads for a sixth straight year of record volume, some best-known names in the industry are growing nervous about its over-reliance on a small group of banks to guarantee trades for the biggest market makers.
Every listed US options trade goes through The Options Clearing Corp., a central counterparty that handles more than 70 million contracts a day during busy periods. The trades are submitted to the OCC by its members — who help trades get to the clearing house and act as guarantors in case their clients go bust.
Most Read from Bloomberg
There’s a small group of firms at the top. Out of dozens of members, the top five contributed almost half of the OCC’s default fund in the second quarter of 2025. Market participants cite Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and ABN Amro Bank NV as the three biggest, handling most positions from market makers, who take the other side of almost every options trade. The fact so much volume goes through such a small number of firms raises the risk of widespread losses if one of them should fail.
“I think there is significant concentration risk in clearing intermediation,” Craig Donohue, chief executive officer of Cboe Global Markets, Inc., said in an interview, without naming specific banks. “I do worry about that.”
The risk of a major bank failing is unlikely — but not unheard of. Donohue has his own battle scars from a clearing member default: in October 2011, when he was CEO of CME Group Inc., MF Global declared bankruptcy.
The more immediate risk is that these banks may run out of capacity to support the extraordinary growth of the listed derivatives market, with OCC average daily volume soaring 52% in October from a year earlier. That’s leading to a rise in “self-clearing” by market makers — meaning they become more direct members of the clearing house — which comes with its own risks, given that market makers are more thinly capitalized than banks.
Bank of America and Goldman Sachs declined to comment. ABN Amro did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Related: SGX to List Perpetual Futures to Rival Crypto ‘Bucket Shops’
Only a handful of clearing brokers have the ability to cross-margin between futures and options, where opposite positions in related instruments can cancel each other out, reducing the amount of margin needed. For example, if a trader is long S&P 500 E-Mini Futures, but short S&P 500 Index Options, the net risk position would be reduced.
“There’s only a few members that can actually support some of the market makers and especially the cross margin program,” Andrej Bolkovic, OCC’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I think the market makers would like to see that change. That’s been a well known thing in the industry and something that we would also honestly support seeing change.”
The challenge for banks is that even if the clearing house involved agrees to give a customer a discount based on the level of net risk, the bank’s own capital framework may treat the two trades separately, requiring extra charges.
Patchwork Regulation
The patchwork US regulatory regime doesn’t help. Banks are regulated through the Federal Reserve System, broker dealers and the options market fall under the Securities and Exchange Commission, while futures, including equity futures, are the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That means there are situations when a bank may give its customer the benefit of a cross-margin agreement, while still having to set aside funds itself to back the trade.
The rise of zero-day-to-expiry options and the explosion in retail trading volumes has brought new challenges for clearing members. Any move toward 24 hour, 7 day a week trading could put even more stress on the system and raise the bar higher for other firms to get involved.
The additional investment in upgrading capacity and technology to handle the greater volume and risk is likely to be passed on to clients. Bank of America has already raised the amount it charges clients per trade for options clearing, from between $0.02 – $0.03 to as much as $0.04, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Default Fund
OCC has proposed changing the way it calculates the proportion that each member pays into the roughly $20 billion default fund, to more fairly account for the market risks of each broker’s portfolio. That pot of money is designed to be big enough indemnify other members if the two largest clearing firms go bust at the same time.
Under the current system, 70% of the allocation is based on how a member copes with a roughly ~5% market move, according to Bolkovic. OCC has asked the SEC if it can change that metric to account for a more extreme scenario — a 1987-style market crash, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 22.6% in a day.
Clearing houses’ ongoing vigilance is itself a sign of strength, Donohue noted. “The regulatory and operational paradigm has adapted to better manage those kinds of risks.”
Donohue — who was OCC chairman from 2014 to 2025 — wants more institutions to step into the options clearing breach.
“If we could wave a magic wand and we could have more competition in that space, more clearing capacity, that was more distributed and dispersed and diverse, that would clearly be very beneficial for the market,” Donohue said.
