TDW (TDW)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 3.6 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold). DCF fair value of $377 implies 329% upside from current prices based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency of TDW demonstrates a robust ROIC-WACC spread of +3.1%, indicating that the firm generates returns exceeding its cost of capital, though this advantage is modest relative to high-growth peers. This profitability profile is underpinned by exceptional margin quality rather than operational leverage or asset turnover; specifically, a net margin of 24.7% and gross margin of 29.8% suggest strong pricing power or low variable costs, even as revenue growth stagnates at just 0.5% year-over-year. Financial integrity metrics further reinforce the balance sheet's stability, with a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 signaling fundamental strength and an Altman Z-Score of 3.6 placing the entity well within safe territory for bankruptcy risk, while a Beneish M-Score of -2.35 effectively rules out earnings manipulation concerns.
Despite these operational fundamentals, valuation metrics present a significant divergence between current pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow models. The stock trades at 12.8x forward earnings, representing a 52% premium over its five-year historical average of 8.5x, which implies the market is currently assigning higher growth expectations than recently realized performance supports given the near-flat revenue trajectory. However, DCF analysis suggests a fair value of $377 with an implied upside of 328.8%, creating a stark contrast where traditional multiples appear stretched while absolute valuation models indicate substantial undervaluation based on long-term free cash flow assumptions. This discrepancy highlights that current pricing may be decoupled from recent operational reality, potentially reflecting either market anticipation of future margin expansion or a structural re-rating not yet materialized in earnings per share growth.
The risk-reward profile is characterized by low financial distress probability but ambiguous growth dynamics; the negative ten-year implied FCF growth rate of -3.8% directly contradicts the high DCF upside, suggesting that long-term cash generation assumptions vary wildly depending on terminal value sensitivities or discount rate inputs. While insider activity and specific risk factor deltas are not provided to refine this view, the combination of a stagnant revenue base with elevated valuation multiples creates an environment where downside protection relies heavily on margin durability rather than top-line acceleration. Investors must weigh whether the current premium reflects hidden catalysts absent from historical averages or if it represents a mispricing relative to the company's demonstrated ability to maintain high margins despite flat sales volumes.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
The growth rate the market implicitly expects over the next 10 years to justify today's price. Compare with historical growth of 1% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.8% | 9.8% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $473 | $319 | $231 |
| 3% | $617 | $377 | $259 |
| 4% | $904 | $465 | $297 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $74.91.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.8%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $377 (+328.8%). 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.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-30 | $0.0100 | 0.0% |
| 2017-12-28 | $0.0100 | -99.9% |
| 2015-12-02 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2015-09-02 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2015-06-03 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2015-03-04 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2014-12-03 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2014-09-03 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2014-06-04 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2014-02-28 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2013-12-04 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
| 2013-09-04 | $8.0645 | 0.0% |
Dividend and split data from SEC filings and market data. Amounts are per share, not adjusted for splits. Source: yfinance.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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 XES or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TDW shares regardless of TDW's individual fundamentals. We estimate $155M of passive capital is structurally linked to TDW through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on TDW'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 TDW to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TDW (TDW) 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 TDW. 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.
TDW Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 24 TDW shares, reducing daily market volatility.
TDW (TDW) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 3.7% of the XES (XES) and 0.4% of the SLYG (SLYG). Across 7 tracked ETFs, approximately 2M shares (4.1% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. As passive ownership grows, index inclusion changes may increasingly drive price discovery.
ETFs with Highest TDW Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TDW Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for TDW over the past year sits near $57.20 (14% of 252-day volume). The current price of $74.91 trades 31.0% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target. The highly concentrated volume profile (14% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
TDW Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does TDW convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
TDW converts 81% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 3.1% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 669 | $81.50 | $54,523.5 |
| 2026-05-12 | 45,527 | $81.33 | $3.7M |
| 2026-05-08 | 16,396 | $77.86 | $1.3M |
| 2026-05-07 | 12 | $81.72 | $980.64 |
| 2026-05-06 | 58,539 | $85.01 | $5.0M |
| 2026-05-05 | 508 | $87.08 | $44,236.64 |
| 2026-05-01 | 1,438 | $89.33 | $128,456.54 |
| 2026-04-30 | 9 | $88.33 | $794.97 |
| 2026-04-29 | 80 | $86.67 | $6,933.6 |
| 2026-04-23 | 3,922 | $85.64 | $335,880.08 |
| 2026-04-20 | 1,388 | $85.25 | $118,327 |
| 2026-04-17 | 31 | $84.37 | $2,615.47 |
| 2026-04-14 | 217 | $87.83 | $19,059.11 |
| 2026-04-13 | 36,031 | $86.10 | $3.1M |
| 2026-04-09 | 53 | $87.84 | $4,655.52 |
| 2026-04-08 | 2,299 | $86.25 | $198,288.75 |
| 2026-04-07 | 30 | $85.32 | $2,559.6 |
| 2026-04-06 | 212 | $84.38 | $17,888.56 |
| 2026-03-31 | 12,624 | $81.89 | $1.0M |
| 2026-03-30 | 434 | $82.40 | $35,761.6 |
| 2026-03-25 | 42 | $76.90 | $3,229.8 |
| 2026-03-23 | 169 | $72.48 | $12,249.12 |
| 2026-03-19 | 941 | $75.27 | $70,829.07 |
| 2026-03-16 | 673 | $76.76 | $51,659.48 |
| 2026-03-11 | 2,177 | $76.94 | $167,498.38 |
| 2026-03-10 | 7,292 | $81.00 | $590,652 |
| 2026-03-09 | 3,845 | $77.79 | $299,102.55 |
| 2026-03-05 | 17 | $83.80 | $1,424.6 |
| 2026-03-04 | 7,991 | $87.67 | $700,570.97 |
| 2026-03-02 | 12 | $79.42 | $953.04 |
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.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| NE | 0.649 | 0.660 | Moderate |
| SDRL | 0.609 | 0.564 | Moderate |
| VAL | 0.524 | 0.447 | Moderate |
| RIG | 0.516 | 0.516 | Moderate |
| OII | 0.513 | 0.486 | Moderate |
| NOV | 0.513 | 0.534 | Moderate |
| MUR | 0.507 | 0.478 | Moderate |
| PTEN | 0.506 | 0.472 | Moderate |
| WFRD | 0.506 | 0.416 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare TDW to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.