FRPT (FRPT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 8/9, Altman Z 3.8 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of the equity reveal a significant divergence between operational efficiency and capital allocation efficacy. While the DuPont decomposition highlights robust profitability drivers with a 12.6% net margin and 40.8% gross margin supported by double-digit revenue growth, these earnings powers are severely undermined by a negative ROIC-WACC spread of -9.7%. This indicates that the company is generating returns well below its cost of capital, effectively destroying shareholder value despite strong top-line expansion. However, financial distress metrics present a counter-narrative; an Altman Z-Score of 3.8 suggests moderate bankruptcy risk rather than imminent failure, while a high Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 and negative Beneish M-Score of -2.25 signal strong balance sheet quality and low earnings manipulation probability.
Valuation metrics further complicate the investment thesis by presenting conflicting signals regarding future expectations versus current pricing power. The stock trades at a premium multiple of 21.4x relative to historical norms, implying that the market is pricing in sustained high growth or exceptional intangible value not yet reflected in cash flows. This optimism stands in stark contrast to the DCF model's output of $0 fair value, which arises directly from the negative spread between return on invested capital and the weighted average cost of capital. Consequently, the current price appears disconnected from intrinsic value derived from discounted free cash flow assumptions, suggesting that any valuation support relies entirely on growth rates exceeding those required to bridge the widening gap between ROIC and WACC.
The risk-reward profile is characterized by a tension between operational resilience and capital efficiency constraints. Although the low Beneish M-Score reduces concerns regarding accounting irregularities, the persistent negative spread creates an inherent drag on equity value that must be reversed for long-term compounding to occur. Investors face the challenge of determining whether the current multiple can sustain itself if growth decelerates or if management fails to deploy capital more efficiently to improve the ROIC-WACC differential. The data suggests a scenario where earnings quality is high, but the underlying asset generation capability remains structurally challenged relative to financing costs.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 11.6% | 13.6% | 15.6% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $1 | $0 | $0 |
| 3% | $1 | $0 | $0 |
| 4% | $1 | $0 | $0 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=13.7%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $0 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
Balance Sheet Health
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 VDC or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FRPT shares regardless of FRPT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $96M of passive capital is structurally linked to FRPT through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on FRPT's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 7 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in FRPT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If FRPT (FRPT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Walmart Inc. (WMT) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with FRPT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 7 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
FRPT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest FRPT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
FRPT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does FRPT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
FRPT converts 7% 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 93% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-9.7%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-05 | 38 | $63.56 | $2,415.28 |
| 2026-04-30 | 2,927 | $66.14 | $193,591.78 |
| 2026-04-27 | 324 | $66.15 | $21,432.6 |
| 2026-04-23 | 5,902 | $65.96 | $389,295.92 |
| 2026-04-20 | 554 | $69.50 | $38,503 |
| 2026-04-15 | 665 | $69.11 | $45,958.15 |
| 2026-04-10 | 19 | $66.63 | $1,265.97 |
| 2026-04-09 | 134 | $65.03 | $8,714.02 |
| 2026-04-06 | 31,400 | $59.40 | $1.9M |
| 2026-04-02 | 920 | $60.08 | $55,273.6 |
| 2026-03-31 | 18 | $56.60 | $1,018.8 |
| 2026-03-30 | 17 | $55.93 | $950.81 |
| 2026-03-25 | 6,093 | $58.93 | $359,060.49 |
| 2026-03-23 | 56 | $64.54 | $3,614.24 |
| 2026-03-20 | 3,946 | $63.17 | $249,268.82 |
| 2026-03-17 | 37 | $75.37 | $2,788.69 |
| 2026-03-05 | 565 | $85.50 | $48,307.5 |
| 2026-03-04 | 127 | $84.11 | $10,681.97 |
| 2026-02-26 | 21 | $79.63 | $1,672.23 |
| 2026-02-25 | 17 | $80.89 | $1,375.13 |
| 2026-02-23 | 38,926 | $74.51 | $2.9M |
| 2026-02-20 | 34 | $74.67 | $2,538.78 |
| 2026-02-18 | 149 | $71.69 | $10,681.81 |
| 2026-02-13 | 10,339 | $67.89 | $701,914.71 |
| 2026-02-09 | 760 | $69.90 | $53,124 |
| 2026-02-04 | 131 | $69.89 | $9,155.59 |
| 2026-01-27 | 1 | $72.11 | $72.11 |
| 2026-01-20 | 2,200 | $64.25 | $141,350 |
| 2026-01-16 | 48,460 | $63.26 | $3.1M |
| 2026-01-12 | 101 | $64.06 | $6,470.06 |
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 FRPT 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.