TXNM (TXNM)

$6.4B
Market Cap
39.6
P/E Ratio
0.17
Beta
2.90%
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 5/9Altman Z 0.8 DistressBeneish M -2.49 CleanROIC−WACC -3.0%

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Financial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 0.8.

Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The fundamental economics present a dichotomy between robust top-line expansion and thin capital efficiency. While revenue growth of 9.9% suggests momentum, the return on invested capital sits at a modest 3.2%, indicating that the business generates limited excess returns over its cost of equity. This weakness is underpinned by low asset turnover of 0.18x; however, the DuPont decomposition reveals that this inefficiency is being artificially buoyed by an elevated equity multiplier of 3.49x, signaling significant leverage usage to drive a 4.4% return on equity rather than organic operational strength. Despite these capital efficiency concerns, integrity metrics appear stable with a Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 and a Beneish M-Score of -2.49, suggesting the financial statements lack obvious manipulation red flags even as margins compress slightly relative to the high gross margin baseline.

Valuation multiples reflect aggressive pricing for this growth profile rather than value-based fundamentals. The current price-to-earnings ratio of 39.6x sits substantially above what would be justified by a 7.0% net margin and sub-par ROIC, implying that market participants are heavily discounting future hyper-growth or assuming a structural improvement in capital efficiency not yet visible in historical data. This premium valuation leaves little room for error if the high equity multiplier fails to translate into higher absolute returns as leverage ratios normalize over time.

Insider activity remains neutral with zero flow over the last 90 days, offering no directional signal from management regarding near-term catalysts or risk mitigation strategies. Without additional Fama-French alpha data or sector-specific comparative metrics provided in the input, the primary risk-reward dynamic hinges on whether the market can sustain this high multiple despite the current disconnect between low ROIC and elevated valuation expectations.

Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

5/9
Piotroski F-Score
Average — mixed operational signals
0.8
Altman Z-Score
Distress Zone — below 1.8 threshold per academic model. Thresholds: >3 safe, 1.8–3 grey, <1.8 distress.
-2.49
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

62.4%
Gross Margin
7.0%
Net Margin
3.2%
ROIC
6.2%
WACC
ROIC − WACC Spread: -3.0%— Negative spread.
+9.9%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
-37.4%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
-611.4M
Free Cash Flow

DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition

Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.

7.0%
Net Profit Margin
NI ÷ Revenue
×
0.18x
Asset Turnover
Revenue ÷ Assets
×
3.49x
Equity Multiplier
Assets ÷ Equity
=
4.4%
Return on Equity
⚠️ High equity multiplier — ROE is being amplified by leverage, not operational excellence.

Balance Sheet Health

2.49x
Debt / Equity
0.55x
Current Ratio
1.7x
Interest Coverage
5.5x
Net Debt / EBITDA
-5.33%
FCF Yield
934.9M
EBITDA

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✗ Miss
Est: $0.20
Act: $0.19
-4.2%
Q3
✗ Miss
Est: $0.41
Act: $0.25
-39.2%
Q2
✗ Miss
Est: $1.44
Act: $1.33
-7.9%
Q1
✗ Miss
Est: $0.64
Act: $0.48
-24.4%

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.

Loading drawdown chart...

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.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Fundamentals

18.0
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
1.88
Price/Book
1M
Avg Volume
$59.52
52W High
$47.69
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$484M
Tracked Passive Exposure
8
ETFs Holding TXNM
0.08%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$606B
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like VPU or MDYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TXNM shares regardless of TXNM's individual fundamentals. We estimate $484M of passive capital is structurally linked to TXNM through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on TXNM'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 TXNM to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

TXNM Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
TXNMEpicenterVBETFVIGETFVYMETFNEEHigh RiskSOHigh RiskDUKHigh RiskCEGMed RiskAEPHigh Risk
TXNM Price Drop (%)0

If TXNM (TXNM) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies NextEra Energy Inc. (NEE) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with TXNM. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 12 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

TXNM Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
TXNM

Float lock-up computed from 12 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

TXNM Capital Efficiency

How efficiently does TXNM convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.

Free Cash Flow
$-611,433,000
EBITDA
$935M
FCF Conversion
-65%
Reinvestment Rate
165%
-65% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)
ROIC
3.2%
ROIC − WACC Spread
-3.0%

TXNM converts -65% 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 165% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-3.0%), 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.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-04-249,400$59.00$554,600
2026-04-1043,142$59.06$2.5M
2026-04-09119,714$59.17$7.1M
2026-04-0876,572$59.13$4.5M
2026-04-0233,385$58.69$2.0M
2026-04-0133,382$58.46$2.0M
2026-03-069,606$58.96$566,369.76
2026-02-1125,970$59.16$1.5M
2025-12-221,788$58.75$105,045
2025-11-21739$57.79$42,706.81

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 TXNM 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.