TGTX (TGTX)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 7.5. Beneish M-Score of 22.78 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency of TGTX is currently constrained by a negative ROIC-WACC spread of -4.0%, indicating that the firm's current return on invested capital falls short of its cost of equity, which suggests value destruction despite aggressive top-line expansion. This operational dynamic contrasts sharply with an exceptionally high net margin of 72.6% and gross margin of 83.7%, coupled with revenue growth accelerating at 87.3% year-over-year; however, the DuPont decomposition implied by these figures points to earnings quality concerns rather than sustainable economic moats. Fundamental integrity metrics reinforce this skepticism: a Piotroski F-Score of only 4/9 signals weak financial strength relative to peers, while an Altman Z-Score of 7.5 places the company in the "safe" zone regarding bankruptcy risk but fails to address earnings reliability issues highlighted by a concerning Beneish M-Score of 22.78, which often flags potential accounting manipulation or aggressive revenue recognition practices.
Valuation metrics present a complex dichotomy where the current P/E ratio of 11.5x appears compressed relative to the company's explosive growth rate and elevated margins, yet this discount may reflect market pricing in significant downside risk regarding earnings durability rather than an undervalued opportunity. Without explicit historical averages or sector benchmarks provided for comparison, the low multiple cannot be definitively characterized as cheap; instead, it likely serves as a hedge against the precarious balance between hyper-growth figures and deteriorating fundamental scores that suggest future cash flows may not sustain current profit levels. The market appears to be pricing in a scenario where high margins are either one-time anomalies or unsustainable given the negative spread on capital deployment, necessitating caution before assuming the low valuation represents a margin of safety.
The convergence of these factors creates a risk-reward profile heavily skewed toward uncertainty rather than alpha generation under traditional value frameworks. While the revenue trajectory is robust, the combination of negative ROIC-WACC and elevated red flags in earnings quality metrics suggests that any apparent undervaluation based solely on P/E compression may be illusory if underlying fundamentals continue to erode capital efficiency or reporting integrity.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. 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 XBI or SLYG, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TGTX shares regardless of TGTX's individual fundamentals. We estimate $287M of passive capital is structurally linked to TGTX through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on TGTX'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 TGTX to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TGTX (TGTX) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Bloom Energy Corp. Class A (BE) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with TGTX. 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.
TGTX Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest TGTX Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TGTX Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does TGTX convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
TGTX converts -19% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, negative FCF conversion — the company is consuming cash faster than it generates EBITDA, which is unsustainable long-term. The 119% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-3.9%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying 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 | 39,537 | $42.65 | $1.7M |
| 2026-05-12 | 1,772 | $43.14 | $76,444.08 |
| 2026-05-11 | 19,544 | $42.86 | $837,655.84 |
| 2026-05-08 | 116,034 | $43.03 | $5.0M |
| 2026-05-07 | 1,109 | $41.97 | $46,544.73 |
| 2026-05-06 | 123 | $36.10 | $4,440.3 |
| 2026-05-05 | 1,354 | $35.71 | $48,351.34 |
| 2026-04-30 | 29,276 | $33.58 | $983,088.08 |
| 2026-03-31 | 25,042 | $31.51 | $789,073.42 |
| 2026-03-30 | 5,764 | $31.75 | $183,007 |
| 2026-03-27 | 94 | $31.98 | $3,006.12 |
| 2026-03-26 | 468 | $31.82 | $14,891.76 |
| 2026-03-24 | 1,108,087 | $30.45 | $33.7M |
| 2026-03-23 | 1,323,589 | $30.07 | $39.8M |
| 2026-03-20 | 29,548 | $30.36 | $897,077.28 |
| 2026-03-17 | 2,653 | $28.77 | $76,326.81 |
| 2026-03-16 | 48 | $27.96 | $1,342.08 |
| 2026-03-06 | 51,408 | $29.03 | $1.5M |
| 2026-02-27 | 2,536 | $30.90 | $78,362.4 |
| 2026-02-19 | 73,613 | $29.23 | $2.2M |
| 2026-02-17 | 7,498 | $28.50 | $213,693 |
| 2026-02-09 | 62,935 | $28.86 | $1.8M |
| 2026-02-03 | 62 | $29.18 | $1,809.16 |
| 2026-02-02 | 92 | $29.43 | $2,707.56 |
| 2026-01-30 | 42,196 | $30.00 | $1.3M |
| 2026-01-27 | 6,771 | $30.68 | $207,734.28 |
| 2026-01-26 | 42,409 | $31.20 | $1.3M |
| 2026-01-23 | 51 | $31.63 | $1,613.13 |
| 2026-01-21 | 29,095 | $30.94 | $900,199.3 |
| 2026-01-20 | 91,613 | $30.57 | $2.8M |
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 TGTX 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.