ELV
Elevance Health, Inc.Evidence as of 2026-09-02Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it — not a rating or a recommendation.
+0.4 on a −2 to +2 scale — was +0.5 before the debate changed the read.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled — the rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
Mixed (+ 0.4 of a possible + 2; was + 0.5 before debate) · confidence high. Reported revenues sit around the $ 50,000,000,000 range: $ 49,776,000,000 for Q2 2025 (fiscal quarter ended 2025-07-13), $ 50,711,000,000 for Q3 2025 (fiscal quarter ended 2025-10-14), $ 50,181,000,000 for Q1 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-04-15) and $ 50,474,000,000 for Q2 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-07-10), showing only small quarter-to-quarter fluctuation.
Net income and operating income bounced within the periods: quarterly net income of $ 1,743,000,000 (Q2 2025), $ 1,180,000,000 (Q3 2025), $ 1,764,000,000 (Q1 2026) and $ 1,463,000,000 (Q2 2026) implying net margins near 3.5% to 2.3%. Operating income moved from $ 2,425,000,000 to $ 1,295,000,000 then to $ 2,086,000,000 and $ 1,763,000,000 across those same quarters. Capital-return signals and balance-sheet flows are consistent with shrinking share counts (diluted shares down from 225,800,000 to 217,900,000 across the windows and point-in-time common shares falling to 216,869,290 as of 2026-07-10), $ 1,124,000,000 of repurchases in Q1 2026, rising cash and cash equivalents ($ 9,491,000,000 → $ 9,657,000,000 → $ 10,232,000,000) and mildly lower long-term debt ($ 31,896,000,000 → $ 31,118,000,000 → $ 31,044,000,000).
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else — no outside knowledge, no browsing — so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC — revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter — and reports which way the trend is running.
Reported revenues were: $49,776,000,000 for Q2 2025 (2025-04-01 to 2025-06-30), $50,711,000,000 for Q3 2025 (2025-07-01 to 2025-09-30), $50,181,000,000 for Q1 2026 (2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31), and $50,474,000,000 for Q2 2026 (2026-04-01 to 2026-06-30); these figures show revenue around the $50B range with small quarter-to-quarter fluctuations rather than large moves.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001156039-25-000114Net income (quarterly) was $1,743,000,000 for Q2 2025, $1,180,000,000 for Q3 2025, $1,764,000,000 for Q1 2026, and $1,463,000,000 for Q2 2026, implying net margins of about 3.50% (Q2 2025), 2.33% (Q3 2025), 3.52% (Q1 2026) and 2.90% (Q2 2026) when matched to the revenue figures above.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001156039-25-000114Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Nothing in this slice of the evidence rose to a claim — a quiet read, which itself is information.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full — its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet — its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
Reads the signal panel above — momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta — and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
Momentum over the past 6 months is +43.4% and ranks in the 93th percentile of the 547-stock research universe on 2026-09-01.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-09-01weakened in debateMomentum measured as the 12_1 signal is +38.1% and ranks in the 77th percentile of the 547-stock research universe on 2026-09-01.
Moneyta signal set · 2026-09-01weakened in debateReads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
As of 2026-09-02T13:45:47.228469+00:00 the security is a holding in the IVV ETF.
ETF constituents · market dataThe reported weight in IVV is 0.13% of that fund as of 2026-09-02T13:45:47.228469+00:00, indicating a small position within that ETF's portfolio.
ETF constituents · market dataReads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
A headline reports that Elevance Health has underperformed its industry peers over the past year while noting analysts are moderately optimistic about the stock.
News · finance.yahoo.com · 2026-09-02Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Co. increased its position in Elevance Health by 5.4% during the second quarter, per a filing referenced in a headline.
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-09-02Reads parsed Forms 3/4/5 — who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
No insider transactions on file in the trailing 180 days.
Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
Under the stated inputs and assumptions, today's price implies an FCF growth rate of -0.1479 (about -14.79% per year).
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closePrice-to-free-cash-flow (P/FCF) on the trailing twelve months is 6.92 and trailing FCF is $12,785,000,000.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeDebate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score — the argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
The evidence set jointly supports a favorable read: strong multi-month price momentum (market-0, market-1) and a sustained technical setup (market-5 golden cross) pair with valuation metrics that are historically attractive on simple multiples (valuation-1 P/FCF 6.92; valuation-2 P/E 14.62 and TTM EPS). Capital-return activity and share-count decline (fundamentals-3, fundamentals-6) provide direct, company-specific evidence of shareholder-focused capital allocation, while cash balances have increased modestly and long-term debt has edged down (fundamentals-4, fundamentals-5), supporting balance-sheet flexibility. These company-level fundamentals and market signals are corroborated by several buy-side actions in the news/consensus (news-1, news-4; street consensus buy counts), strengthening the connected interpretation that valuation, free cash flow scale (valuation-1), and active buybacks materially support a bull case. The strongest bear points (elevated realized volatility and multi-year drawdown) are contested by low market sensitivity measures (market-2 beta 0.29, correlation 0.11), indicating the security’s price moves have been relatively idiosyncratic rather than tightly coupled to the broad market.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.32
28 surviving claims rest on 15 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 29% of them, and 96% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
The read is relatively stable: most claims survived debate and they draw on a moderate number of distinct sources. However, a single analyst/actor accounts for a non-trivial share of surviving items and nearly all desk assertions survived review, which raises the risk that unchallenged assumptions or correlated source errors could make the bundle overconfident. Treat these findings as informational signals that warrant corroboration from fresh, independent documents before assigning strong weight.
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment — when the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here — no outside knowledge, no browsing — and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
12 filings· 1 cited
SEC XBRL filings
Quarterly figures as filed with the SEC, read straight from EDGAR's structured data — not retyped or estimated.
Read by Mercer+0.6 to the score
1 signal set
Moneyta signal set
Computed from our own end-of-day price history and ranked against the whole research universe. No AI involved.
Read by Nash+0.1 to the score
1 holdings record
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis+0.5 to the score
8 headlines· 2 cited
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
1 computation
Valuation inputs
TTM cash-flow figures from the company's own XBRL filings, priced with the stored closing price. Implied growth and multiples only; no fair-value dollar figure reaches the desk, by design.
Read by Archercontext only
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
1 record· 0 cited
Analyst consensus
Third-party consensus, shown for context only — it never enters Moneyta sentiment.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal — the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
Get this for the tickers you actually hold
Plus the one thing no sample can show: how each name correlates with your portfolio, and what hides inside your funds.
The full terminal on ELV Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.