RRC (RRC)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 2.8.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe company demonstrates robust fundamental economics characterized by a high-quality earnings profile, evidenced by a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.70 that strongly suggests low manipulation risk. The DuPont decomposition reveals that the 15.2% ROE is primarily driven by exceptional profitability rather than leverage or asset efficiency; specifically, a net margin of 22.0% acts as the dominant multiplier, while an equity multiplier of only 1.72x indicates conservative capital structure usage compared to high-leverage peers. Although the provided data does not explicitly state WACC to calculate the ROIC spread, the combination of strong revenue growth at 27.3% and sustained gross margins near 37.0% implies a widening operating leverage that supports long-term value creation relative to cost of capital.
Valuation metrics present a mixed signal regarding market pricing versus intrinsic worth. The current P/E multiple of 17.1x appears compressed when viewed through the lens of its superior margin expansion and growth trajectory, yet it remains distinct from any provided sector benchmark for direct comparison. A DCF analysis suggests an implied fair value of $24, which serves as a critical anchor against current market prices; however, this valuation assumes specific long-term growth rates that may not materialize if the 27.3% revenue expansion decelerates. The market's willingness to trade at 17.1x earnings could reflect either skepticism about sustaining such high margins or an anticipation of future multiple contraction, creating a divergence between fundamental quality and current pricing levels.
Risk assessment is complicated by conflicting signals regarding ownership dynamics versus operational strength. While the internal financial metrics paint a picture of a resilient business with low distress risk (supported by implied Altman stability from its strong profitability), insider activity over the last 90 days shows $2,689,517 in net selling. This significant outflow suggests that management or major shareholders may perceive current valuations as adequate or anticipate headwinds not immediately visible in quarterly results. The interplay between a high F-Score and substantial insider divestiture warrants close monitoring to determine whether the sell pressure is opportunistic profit-taking or indicative of undisclosed strategic shifts, ultimately defining the risk-reward asymmetry for potential entrants.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 8% | 10% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $32 | $20 | $14 |
| 3% | $42 | $24 | $16 |
| 4% | $62 | $30 | $19 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=8.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $24 (+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 XOP or MDYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell RRC shares regardless of RRC's individual fundamentals. We estimate $791M of passive capital is structurally linked to RRC through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on RRC'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 RRC to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If RRC (RRC) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with RRC. 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.
RRC Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest RRC Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 14 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
RRC Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does RRC convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
RRC converts 41% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. The 59% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 3.0% confirms that reinvested capital creates 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 212 | $41.26 | $8,747.12 |
| 2026-05-11 | 3,704 | $40.52 | $150,086.08 |
| 2026-04-22 | 1 | $41.67 | $41.67 |
| 2026-04-06 | 31 | $43.45 | $1,346.95 |
| 2026-04-02 | 961 | $43.50 | $41,803.5 |
| 2026-03-27 | 19,808 | $46.83 | $927,608.64 |
| 2026-03-25 | 23 | $45.94 | $1,056.62 |
| 2026-03-23 | 175,613 | $44.47 | $7.8M |
| 2026-03-19 | 63 | $43.48 | $2,739.24 |
| 2026-03-18 | 10,163 | $43.36 | $440,667.68 |
| 2026-03-17 | 78,137 | $43.59 | $3.4M |
| 2026-03-16 | 248 | $43.51 | $10,790.48 |
| 2026-03-13 | 9,689 | $42.88 | $415,464.32 |
| 2026-03-09 | 63 | $41.49 | $2,613.87 |
| 2026-03-06 | 255,670 | $41.83 | $10.7M |
| 2026-02-26 | 2 | $39.13 | $78.26 |
| 2026-02-23 | 300 | $39.71 | $11,913 |
| 2026-01-30 | 106,307 | $37.45 | $4.0M |
| 2026-01-29 | 4,357 | $36.74 | $160,076.18 |
| 2026-01-27 | 2,497 | $36.69 | $91,614.93 |
| 2026-01-26 | 488 | $36.34 | $17,733.92 |
| 2026-01-22 | 1,764 | $36.24 | $63,927.36 |
| 2026-01-16 | 10 | $33.60 | $336 |
| 2026-01-15 | 3,191 | $33.43 | $106,675.13 |
| 2026-01-14 | 983 | $33.74 | $33,166.42 |
| 2026-01-12 | 29 | $33.45 | $970.05 |
| 2026-01-08 | 35 | $34.67 | $1,213.45 |
| 2026-01-02 | 2,415 | $35.26 | $85,152.9 |
| 2025-12-29 | 244 | $35.32 | $8,618.08 |
| 2025-12-26 | 48 | $35.25 | $1,692 |
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 RRC 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.