RBRK (RBRK)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 0.5. DCF fair value of $37 implies 25% downside based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency is severely compromised, evidenced by an ROIC of -16.8% that trails the cost of equity (WACC) at 10.2%, resulting in a destructive spread of -27%. This fundamental weakness persists despite robust top-line expansion with revenue growing 48.5% year-over-year and gross margins holding steady at 80.1%; however, operating leverage has failed to translate into bottom-line returns, driving the net margin deeply negative at -26.5%. While the Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 suggests moderate financial stability relative to peers, the Altman Z-Score of 0.5 signals elevated distress risk, a concern partially offset by a Beneish M-Score of -3.15 that indicates low likelihood of earnings manipulation. The combination of weak profitability and high growth creates a dichotomy where top-line momentum masks deteriorating capital efficiency.
Valuation metrics present a complex picture relative to the company's operational trajectory. Although the DCF model assigns a fair value of $48 with an implied 10-year free cash flow growth rate of 17.6%, suggesting potential upside, this valuation assumes a reversion in profitability that contradicts current net loss conditions. The market appears to be pricing in significant future normalization, yet historical comparisons and sector averages are unavailable for direct benchmarking against these specific assumptions. Consequently, the disconnect between the high implied growth required by the DCF model and the negative ROIC-WACC spread necessitates a skeptical view on whether the stock is fairly valued or if it carries substantial downside risk if execution falters.
Risk-adjusted performance indicators reveal further nuance in the investment profile. The Fama-French Alpha of 4.64% annually implies strong momentum relative to its factor exposures, yet this outperformance occurs within a framework defined by negative profitability (RMW factor: -2.210) and a growth tilt that may be pricing in unsustainable expansion (HML factor: -0.182). These factor deltas suggest the stock is currently rewarded for aggressive revenue scaling while penalized for its inability to generate returns on invested capital, creating a scenario where short-term alpha could evaporate if profitability does not improve rapidly.
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 48% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.2% | 10.2% | 12.2% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $45 | $32 | $25 |
| 3% | $53 | $37 | $27 |
| 4% | $65 | $42 | $30 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $82.33.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.2%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $37 (-24.7%). 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.
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.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this stock's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like HACK or ARKW, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell RBRK shares regardless of RBRK's individual fundamentals. We estimate $570M of passive capital is structurally linked to RBRK through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on RBRK'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 RBRK to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If RBRK (RBRK) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies TESLA INC (TSLA) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with RBRK. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 8 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
RBRK Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 14 RBRK shares, reducing daily market volatility.
RBRK (RBRK) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 4.5% of the Amplify Cybersecurity ETF (HACK) and 1.3% of the ARK Next Generation Internet ETF (ARKW). Across 9 tracked ETFs, approximately 11M shares (6.9% 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 RBRK Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
RBRK 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 RBRK over the past year sits near $89.33 (12% of 252-day volume). The current price of $82.33 sits 7.8% below the POC — suggesting potential mean-reversion upside if institutional demand reasserts at this level.
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.
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 | 51 | $60.47 | $3,083.97 |
| 2026-05-08 | 794 | $61.49 | $48,823.06 |
| 2026-05-05 | 5,134 | $57.93 | $297,412.62 |
| 2026-04-30 | 1,202 | $53.68 | $64,523.36 |
| 2026-04-29 | 817 | $54.58 | $44,591.86 |
| 2026-04-27 | 7,701 | $52.28 | $402,608.28 |
| 2026-04-20 | 1,500 | $52.34 | $78,510 |
| 2026-04-16 | 157 | $51.36 | $8,063.52 |
| 2026-04-10 | 5,900 | $46.18 | $272,462 |
| 2026-03-30 | 454 | $45.73 | $20,761.42 |
| 2026-03-27 | 28 | $47.59 | $1,332.52 |
| 2026-03-25 | 74,106 | $48.07 | $3.6M |
| 2026-03-24 | 78,985 | $51.18 | $4.0M |
| 2026-03-20 | 92 | $50.92 | $4,684.64 |
| 2026-03-12 | 372 | $57.52 | $21,397.44 |
| 2026-03-03 | 14,885 | $53.69 | $799,175.65 |
| 2026-02-27 | 1,313 | $54.33 | $71,335.29 |
| 2026-02-18 | 1 | $53.50 | $53.5 |
| 2026-02-12 | 1,519 | $55.12 | $83,727.28 |
| 2026-02-11 | 41 | $55.83 | $2,289.03 |
| 2026-02-06 | 4,093 | $48.34 | $197,855.62 |
| 2026-02-03 | 482 | $54.45 | $26,244.9 |
| 2026-01-22 | 971 | $64.35 | $62,483.85 |
| 2026-01-20 | 100 | $67.10 | $6,710 |
| 2026-01-16 | 175 | $69.05 | $12,083.75 |
| 2026-01-14 | 6,568 | $70.82 | $465,145.76 |
| 2025-12-31 | 60 | $77.87 | $4,672.2 |
| 2025-12-30 | 385 | $78.01 | $30,033.85 |
| 2025-12-16 | 11,080 | $79.89 | $885,181.2 |
| 2025-12-15 | 64,461 | $81.53 | $5.3M |
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 | |
| CRWD | 0.575 | 0.634 | Moderate |
| ZS | 0.569 | 0.572 | Moderate |
| SNOW | 0.532 | 0.549 | Moderate |
| TENB | 0.528 | 0.572 | Moderate |
| OKTA | 0.520 | 0.564 | Moderate |
| NOW | 0.511 | 0.539 | Moderate |
| NET | 0.509 | 0.507 | Moderate |
| CDNS | 0.505 | 0.538 | Moderate |
| CRM | 0.497 | 0.539 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare RBRK 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.