VVX (VVX)

$2.1B
Market Cap
27.8
P/E Ratio
0.13
Beta
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 8/9Altman Z 2.4 Gray ZoneBeneish M -2.63 CleanROIC−WACC -0.3%

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Strong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 8/9) with Altman Z of 2.4.

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

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The fundamental economics of VVX present a nuanced profile where operational efficiency metrics diverge from capital allocation returns. Despite an exceptional Piotroski F-Score of 8/9 and a robust Beneish M-Score of -2.63 indicating low earnings manipulation risk, the company's ability to generate value is constrained by thin profitability; with net margins at just 1.7% and gross margins of 8.3%, returns are driven more by volume than pricing power or operational leverage. This structural weakness culminates in a negative ROIC-WACC spread of -0.2%, signaling that the firm's current return on invested capital fails to cover its cost of equity, effectively destroying shareholder value despite strong financial health indicators like an Altman Z-Score of 2.4 which suggests a low probability of bankruptcy.

Valuation multiples reflect significant optimism relative to underlying performance, as the current P/E ratio of 27.8x stands in stark contrast to the modest revenue growth trajectory of 3.6% annually. The market appears to be pricing in substantial future expansion or margin improvement that is not currently supported by fundamental flows, creating a potential disconnect between price and intrinsic value. A DCF analysis places fair value at $358; however, without explicit current share price data provided in the input, the precise premium or discount cannot be calculated directly from these figures alone. The implied growth assumptions required to justify such a valuation multiple appear aggressive given the limited margin expansion visible in recent results.

Risk assessment highlights a critical delta between financial stability and capital efficiency. While the low Altman Z-Score mitigates distress risk, the persistent negative spread between ROIC and WACC introduces long-term value erosion risks that are not captured by standard solvency metrics. Investors must weigh the safety of earnings quality against the mathematical reality that current operations do not generate sufficient returns to sustain or grow enterprise value without significant improvements in margin expansion or asset turnover efficiency.

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

DCF Sandbox

Interactive

Sensitivity Matrix

TG ↓ / WACC →6%6.6%8.6%
2%$334$283$185
3%$442$358$217
4%$658$490$262

Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs .

Pre-computed DCF: WACC=6.6%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $358 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

8/9
Piotroski F-Score
Strong — high operational efficiency and profitability signals
2.4
Altman Z-Score
Grey Zone — between 1.8 and 3.0 thresholds. Thresholds: >3 safe, 1.8–3 grey, <1.8 distress.
-2.63
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

8.3%
Gross Margin
1.7%
Net Margin
6.4%
ROIC
6.6%
WACC
ROIC − WACC Spread: -0.3%— Negative spread.
+3.6%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+124.6%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
170.1M
Free Cash Flow

Balance Sheet Health

2.02x
Debt / Equity
1.22x
Current Ratio
2.2x
Interest Coverage
2.4x
Net Debt / EBITDA
5.97%
FCF Yield
295.8M
EBITDA

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✓ Beat
Est: $0.93
Act: $0.98
+5.1%
Q3
✓ Beat
Est: $1.04
Act: $1.33
+27.5%
Q2
✓ Beat
Est: $1.21
Act: $1.37
+13.1%
Q1
✓ Beat
Est: $1.34
Act: $1.56
+16.5%

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

10.3
Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
1.96
Price/Book
480186
Avg Volume
$75.00
52W High
$42.09
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$68M
Tracked Passive Exposure
2
ETFs Holding VVX
0.50%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$13B
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like XAR or VIS, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell VVX shares regardless of VVX's individual fundamentals. We estimate $68M of passive capital is structurally linked to VVX through 2 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on VVX's daily trading dynamics.

Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 2 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.

ETF Contagion Visualizer

Simulate a price drop in VVX to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

VVX Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
VVXEpicenterVISETFXARETFCATLow RiskRKLBLow RiskGELow RiskGEVLow RiskCRSLow Risk
VVX Price Drop (%)0

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

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 2 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

VVX Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
VVX

ETFs with Highest VVX Exposure

Float lock-up computed from 2 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

VVX Capital Efficiency

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

Free Cash Flow
$170M
EBITDA
$296M
FCF Conversion
58%
Reinvestment Rate
42%
58% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)
ROIC
6.4%
ROIC − WACC Spread
-0.3%

VVX converts 58% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a healthy conversion rate indicating efficient capital management — the business generates substantial cash after reinvestment. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-0.3%), 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
2026-05-125,050$69.18$349,359
2026-05-07272$76.53$20,816.16
2026-04-011$68.50$68.5
2026-03-3021$68.32$1,434.72
2026-03-172,200$67.15$147,730
2026-03-125,445$70.34$383,001.3
2026-03-101$73.06$73.06
2026-02-1934$69.08$2,348.72
2026-02-0556$65.27$3,655.12
2026-01-2610$69.90$699
2026-01-23138$69.73$9,622.74
2025-12-22241$53.48$12,888.68
2025-12-176,165$55.48$342,034.2
2025-11-06149$56.25$8,381.25

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 VVX 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.