OWL (OWL)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of OWL present a distinct divergence between top-line momentum and bottom-line efficiency. While revenue growth accelerates at 25% year-over-year, suggesting strong market demand or pricing power evidenced by a robust 54.5% gross margin, the company's ability to convert these sales into equity value is severely constrained. The DuPont decomposition reveals that a meager net margin of 2.8%, compounded by low asset turnover of 0.23x and moderate leverage of 2.06x, drives an ROE of merely 1.3%. This structural inefficiency results in a negative spread between the return on invested capital (ROIC) of 3.5% and the cost of equity, indicating that current operations are destroying value relative to capital requirements. Despite these operational headwinds, financial stability metrics remain resilient; a Beneish M-Score of -2.78 signals low earnings manipulation risk, while a Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 reflects moderate fundamental strength without recent deterioration or significant improvement.
Valuation analysis suggests the market may be pricing in an optimistic trajectory that ignores current capital efficiency constraints. With a DCF-derived fair value estimated at $54, investors must assess whether this target implicitly assumes margin expansion or asset lightening to justify the premium over intrinsic cash flow generation. The disconnect between high revenue growth and sub-3% ROIC implies significant upside potential if operational leverage improves, yet it also carries substantial downside risk should margins compress further given the already thin net profit line.
Insider activity remains neutral with zero net flow over the past 90 days, offering no clear signal of management's immediate conviction regarding future capital allocation or strategic shifts. The combination of high growth velocity and low profitability creates a high-variance profile where the stock could re-rate sharply if DuPont components like asset turnover improve, or decline precipitously if margin compression occurs without corresponding efficiency gains.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $67 | $48 | $37 |
| 3% | $79 | $54 | $40 |
| 4% | $97 | $62 | $45 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $54 (+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
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 VBK or VOT, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell OWL shares regardless of OWL's individual fundamentals. We estimate $303M of passive capital is structurally linked to OWL through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on OWL'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 OWL to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If OWL (OWL) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with OWL. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 8 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
OWL Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest OWL Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
OWL Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does OWL convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
OWL converts 134% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag.
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 | 3,633 | $9.77 | $35,494.41 |
| 2026-05-13 | 820,173 | $10.00 | $8.2M |
| 2026-05-12 | 77,876 | $10.08 | $784,990.08 |
| 2026-05-11 | 27,857 | $10.56 | $294,169.92 |
| 2026-05-07 | 24,602 | $10.54 | $259,305.08 |
| 2026-05-06 | 8,519 | $10.75 | $91,579.25 |
| 2026-05-05 | 39,247 | $10.12 | $397,179.64 |
| 2026-04-30 | 37,934 | $8.88 | $336,853.92 |
| 2026-04-29 | 37,901 | $8.86 | $335,802.86 |
| 2026-04-28 | 53,844 | $8.92 | $480,288.48 |
| 2026-04-27 | 1 | $9.18 | $9.18 |
| 2026-04-24 | 1 | $9.42 | $9.42 |
| 2026-04-23 | 9,738 | $9.92 | $96,600.96 |
| 2026-04-22 | 35,800 | $9.87 | $353,346 |
| 2026-04-21 | 65,540 | $9.89 | $648,190.6 |
| 2026-04-20 | 500 | $9.85 | $4,925 |
| 2026-04-16 | 29,255 | $9.92 | $290,209.6 |
| 2026-04-15 | 25,342 | $9.17 | $232,386.14 |
| 2026-04-13 | 1,894 | $8.23 | $15,587.62 |
| 2026-04-10 | 420,128 | $8.28 | $3.5M |
| 2026-04-09 | 123,191 | $8.32 | $1.0M |
| 2026-04-07 | 1,000 | $8.45 | $8,450 |
| 2026-04-06 | 4,084 | $8.57 | $34,999.88 |
| 2026-04-02 | 99,706 | $8.71 | $868,439.26 |
| 2026-04-01 | 35,472 | $9.13 | $323,859.36 |
| 2026-03-31 | 68,925 | $9.07 | $625,149.75 |
| 2026-03-27 | 169,046 | $9.02 | $1.5M |
| 2026-03-26 | 6,191 | $9.03 | $55,904.73 |
| 2026-03-25 | 318,927 | $8.96 | $2.9M |
| 2026-03-24 | 6,340 | $9.09 | $57,630.6 |
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 OWL 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.