RLI (RLI)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 1.7.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency reveals a distinct tension between high profitability and modest asset productivity. While the DuPont decomposition indicates that Return on Equity is driven primarily by exceptional net margins of 21.4% rather than operational leverage or asset turnover, this strength comes with a significant constraint: an ROIC-WACC spread that compresses to just 6.6%. This narrow margin suggests limited economic moat durability compared to peers where organic growth funds returns more aggressively. Compounding this structural observation is the weak Piotroski F-Score of 4/9, which signals deteriorating fundamental quality relative to historical norms despite the impressive bottom-line performance.
Valuation metrics present a compelling divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at approximately 13.1x earnings, the multiple sits notably below typical sector benchmarks for high-margin insurers or reinsurance firms, implying the market is discounting future prospects aggressively. This compression aligns with the low revenue growth trajectory of 6.3% YoY, which fails to justify a premium valuation despite robust profitability. However, discounted cash flow analysis suggests a substantial gap between current prices and fair value estimates of $157, indicating that the stock may be undervalued if long-term margin expansion can materialize as modeled by institutional algorithms.
Recent insider activity introduces a counter-narrative to the mixed fundamental signals; net buying totaling over $403,000 within the last 90 days suggests management confidence in near-term catalysts that are not fully reflected in current valuations or standard risk models. While the low F-Score and sub-par revenue growth delta highlight execution risks, the combination of deep value pricing relative to DCF fair values and active insider accumulation creates a scenario where downside protection may be priced in while upside remains dependent on margin durability rather than volume expansion.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $191 | $140 | $110 |
| 3% | $224 | $157 | $119 |
| 4% | $274 | $178 | $131 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $157 (+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
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
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 KIE or MDYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell RLI shares regardless of RLI's individual fundamentals. We estimate $287M of passive capital is structurally linked to RLI through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on RLI'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 RLI to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If RLI (RLI) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORP (CINF) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with RLI. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 14 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
RLI Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest RLI Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 16 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
RLI Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does RLI convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
RLI converts 117% 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 | 56 | $47.77 | $2,675.12 |
| 2026-04-30 | 1,086 | $51.15 | $55,548.9 |
| 2026-04-28 | 91 | $51.45 | $4,681.95 |
| 2026-04-24 | 892 | $54.94 | $49,006.48 |
| 2026-04-16 | 242 | $58.35 | $14,120.7 |
| 2026-04-13 | 1,469 | $58.00 | $85,202 |
| 2026-04-10 | 387 | $58.69 | $22,713.03 |
| 2026-04-08 | 1,069 | $57.78 | $61,766.82 |
| 2026-04-07 | 17,315 | $58.03 | $1.0M |
| 2026-03-27 | 36 | $57.30 | $2,062.8 |
| 2026-03-26 | 5 | $56.97 | $284.85 |
| 2026-03-23 | 15 | $57.96 | $869.4 |
| 2026-03-10 | 3 | $61.03 | $183.09 |
| 2026-03-06 | 13,080 | $61.34 | $802,327.2 |
| 2026-03-05 | 53 | $62.23 | $3,298.19 |
| 2026-03-02 | 811 | $62.32 | $50,541.52 |
| 2026-02-26 | 43 | $61.65 | $2,650.95 |
| 2026-02-20 | 9,444 | $60.81 | $574,289.64 |
| 2026-02-04 | 1,407 | $59.65 | $83,927.55 |
| 2026-01-27 | 19,891 | $58.48 | $1.2M |
| 2026-01-26 | 19,572 | $56.97 | $1.1M |
| 2026-01-23 | 2,259 | $57.25 | $129,327.75 |
| 2026-01-22 | 2,250 | $59.06 | $132,885 |
| 2026-01-05 | 2 | $62.48 | $124.96 |
| 2025-12-31 | 5,622 | $64.57 | $363,012.54 |
| 2025-12-09 | 76 | $62.07 | $4,717.32 |
| 2025-12-04 | 30,784 | $62.65 | $1.9M |
| 2025-11-24 | 2 | $64.15 | $128.3 |
| 2025-11-12 | 23,972 | $62.05 | $1.5M |
| 2025-11-10 | 30 | $62.12 | $1,863.6 |
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 RLI 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.