RDVT (RDVT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9).
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company exhibits robust fundamental quality, characterized by a high gross margin of 83.7% and an impressive net margin expansion to 14.6%, indicating strong pricing power or cost discipline relative to peers. This profitability is underpinned by significant revenue growth of 20.0% year-over-year, suggesting the business model scales effectively without immediate signs of stagnation. Financial integrity appears solid based on a high Piotroski F-Score of 7 out of 9 and a negative Beneish M-Score of -2.86, which collectively signal low earnings manipulation risk and strong financial health despite the ROIC-WACC spread not being explicitly quantified in the provided dataset; however, the combination of double-digit margins and growth typically implies an efficient capital deployment strategy that drives return on equity through margin expansion rather than leverage or asset turnover alone.
Valuation metrics present a notable divergence between current market pricing and intrinsic value estimates. The stock trades at a premium multiple of 51.6x earnings, which is substantially elevated relative to historical norms for firms with similar growth profiles unless the sector average implies even higher multiples due to scarcity. While specific historical comparisons are absent from the data, such a high forward P/E suggests the market is pricing in sustained acceleration beyond the current 20% revenue run rate or expects margin compression risks that have not yet materialized. In contrast, the discounted cash flow model assigns a fair value of $48, implying that if growth assumptions hold steady and risk premiums remain constant, there may be limited upside potential from current levels unless earnings power expands significantly to justify the existing multiple.
Risk assessment relies heavily on the assumption that future performance mirrors recent trends; however, the absence of sector-specific beta data or Fama-French alpha metrics prevents a precise evaluation of whether this premium is justified by superior risk-adjusted returns compared to the broader market. The high valuation leaves little margin for error regarding execution risks, particularly if revenue growth decelerates from its current 20% trajectory or if operating leverage fails to maintain these exceptional net margins as scale increases. Investors must weigh the certainty of strong historical fundamentals against the sensitivity of a 51.6x multiple to any deviation in future cash flow projections inherent in the DCF framework.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $58 | $44 | $35 |
| 3% | $68 | $48 | $37 |
| 4% | $83 | $55 | $41 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $48 (+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 XSW or VFQY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell RDVT shares regardless of RDVT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $15M of passive capital is structurally linked to RDVT through 3 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on RDVT's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 3 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in RDVT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If RDVT (RDVT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with RDVT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 3 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
RDVT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest RDVT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 3 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
RDVT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does RDVT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
RDVT converts 76% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | 27 | $49.09 | $1,325.43 |
| 2026-04-14 | 1,342 | $36.59 | $49,103.78 |
| 2026-04-01 | 7,401 | $34.60 | $256,074.6 |
| 2026-03-31 | 276 | $34.40 | $9,494.4 |
| 2026-03-06 | 10 | $46.28 | $462.8 |
| 2026-03-03 | 124 | $43.18 | $5,354.32 |
| 2026-02-27 | 287 | $43.45 | $12,470.15 |
| 2026-02-13 | 740 | $40.61 | $30,051.4 |
| 2026-02-11 | 246 | $42.09 | $10,354.14 |
| 2026-02-02 | 166 | $45.48 | $7,549.68 |
| 2026-01-23 | 209 | $49.98 | $10,445.82 |
| 2026-01-22 | 1,503 | $49.21 | $73,962.63 |
| 2026-01-08 | 540 | $53.35 | $28,809 |
| 2026-01-07 | 465 | $52.43 | $24,379.95 |
| 2026-01-02 | 384 | $56.95 | $21,868.8 |
| 2025-12-10 | 898 | $56.64 | $50,862.72 |
| 2025-12-04 | 758 | $55.48 | $42,053.84 |
| 2025-11-07 | 5,100 | $59.42 | $303,042 |
| 2025-11-06 | 40,000 | $54.53 | $2.2M |
| 2025-11-04 | 100 | $54.01 | $5,401 |
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 RDVT 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.