GNW (GNW)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 0.2.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of GNW present a stark divergence between capital allocation efficiency and profitability metrics. The company generates an ROIC of 0.5%, which sits significantly below the estimated WACC of 8.8%, resulting in a negative spread of -8.3% that indicates value destruction rather than creation through core operations. This inefficiency is compounded by weak financial health indicators; a Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 suggests moderate but not robust operational stability, while an Altman Z-Score of 0.2 signals a high probability of distress or insolvency according to standard bankruptcy prediction models. Despite these structural concerns, the DuPont decomposition reveals that earnings are supported by thin net margins of only 3.1%, and revenue growth has contracted slightly year-over-year at -0.5%, further eroding the operating leverage required to drive returns above the cost of capital.
Market pricing currently reflects a multiple compression relative to historical norms or sector peers, evidenced by a trailing P/E ratio of 14.9x. While this valuation appears modest on the surface, it does not fully account for the negative ROIC-WACC spread and elevated distress risk implied by the Altman Z-Score. A rigorous DCF analysis would likely struggle to justify current prices given that cash flows are being discounted at a rate higher than the returns generated by invested capital, implying that the market may be pricing in stagnation rather than sustainable growth. The discrepancy between the low multiple and the deteriorating fundamental quality suggests the stock is trading on limited upside potential unless there is a material reversal in operating efficiency or capital structure optimization.
No specific risk factor deltas, insider activity data, or Fama-French alpha metrics were provided to further refine the risk-reward profile beyond the intrinsic valuation gaps identified above. The combination of negative economic value added and proximity to bankruptcy thresholds creates a scenario where traditional growth narratives are unsupported by underlying cash flow generation capabilities.
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 KIE or SLYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell GNW shares regardless of GNW's individual fundamentals. We estimate $127M of passive capital is structurally linked to GNW through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on GNW'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 GNW to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If GNW (GNW) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP (LNC) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with GNW. 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.
GNW Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest GNW Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-07 | 790 | $9.17 | $7,244.3 |
| 2026-05-04 | 5,980 | $8.81 | $52,683.8 |
| 2026-04-23 | 18,411 | $8.79 | $161,832.69 |
| 2026-04-22 | 18,418 | $8.83 | $162,630.94 |
| 2026-04-21 | 6,962 | $8.85 | $61,613.7 |
| 2026-04-16 | 30,797 | $8.67 | $267,009.99 |
| 2026-04-15 | 27,200 | $8.60 | $233,920 |
| 2026-04-13 | 27,200 | $8.75 | $238,000 |
| 2026-04-07 | 4,639 | $8.54 | $39,617.06 |
| 2026-04-06 | 4,665 | $8.39 | $39,139.35 |
| 2026-04-02 | 4,666 | $8.19 | $38,214.54 |
| 2026-04-01 | 4,700 | $8.12 | $38,164 |
| 2026-03-30 | 4,700 | $7.99 | $37,553 |
| 2026-03-20 | 16,920 | $7.98 | $135,021.6 |
| 2026-03-19 | 11,302 | $7.98 | $90,189.96 |
| 2026-03-18 | 5,089 | $8.07 | $41,068.23 |
| 2026-03-17 | 11,336 | $7.99 | $90,574.64 |
| 2026-03-16 | 11,400 | $7.94 | $90,516 |
| 2026-03-09 | 11,404 | $8.43 | $96,135.72 |
| 2026-03-06 | 11,398 | $8.52 | $97,110.96 |
| 2026-03-05 | 11,347 | $8.56 | $97,130.32 |
| 2026-02-19 | 5,200 | $8.86 | $46,072 |
| 2026-01-27 | 39,503 | $8.33 | $329,059.99 |
| 2026-01-05 | 178 | $8.97 | $1,596.66 |
| 2025-12-22 | 8,843 | $9.17 | $81,090.31 |
| 2025-11-18 | 428 | $8.27 | $3,539.56 |
| 2025-11-17 | 396 | $8.53 | $3,377.88 |
| 2025-11-10 | 65,343 | $8.67 | $566,523.81 |
| 2025-11-05 | 271 | $8.53 | $2,311.63 |
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 GNW 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.