RDDT (RDDT)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health metrics are strong: Piotroski 7/9, Altman Z 49.4 (above 3.0 safe zone threshold). Beneish M-Score of -2.20 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 fundamental economics reveal a distinct tension between operational profitability and capital efficiency. While the DuPont decomposition highlights exceptional margin expansion—driven by an impressive 24.1% net margin amplified by robust revenue growth of 69.4%—the return on invested capital (ROIC) of 11.8% falls significantly short of the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) at 19.5%, resulting in a negative spread of -7.7%. This indicates that current operations are destroying shareholder value despite high accounting returns, as the equity multiplier's modest contribution to an 18.1% ROE cannot offset the inefficiency relative to financing costs. Qualitative signals offer some counterbalance; the company maintains strong financial health with a Piotroski F-Score of 7/9 and a highly secure Altman Z-Score of 49.4, while the Beneish M-Score of -2.20 suggests earnings are unlikely to be manipulated.
Valuation metrics suggest the market is pricing in aggressive future growth that may not yet materialize at current operational scales. Trading at a forward P/E of 48.9x, which likely exceeds historical norms and sector peers given the unknown sector classification, implies high expectations for margin durability or turnover acceleration beyond the current 0.68x asset turnover rate. The DCF fair value estimate of $53 serves as a critical anchor; if realized earnings growth fails to justify this multiple expansion while ROIC remains below WACC, the stock faces significant downside pressure from mean reversion risks rather than organic fundamental improvement.
Insider activity presents a notable risk delta that warrants scrutiny against the bullish valuation narrative. Over the past 90 days, net insider selling totaling $56.5 million signals potential confidence divergence at the management level, contrasting with the high Piotroski score which typically reflects improving fundamentals. While the low Beneish M-Score and strong Z-score mitigate bankruptcy or earnings manipulation fears, the combination of negative ROIC-WACC spread, elevated valuation multiples, and substantial insider outflow creates a complex risk/reward profile where operational efficiency must improve drastically to support current pricing assumptions.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 17.5% | 19.5% | 21.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $59 | $52 | $46 |
| 3% | $61 | $53 | $47 |
| 4% | $64 | $56 | $49 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=19.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $53 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
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 VOX or VOT, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell RDDT shares regardless of RDDT's individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.7B of passive capital is structurally linked to RDDT through 8 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.
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 RDDT to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If RDDT (RDDT) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Facebook Inc. Class A (META) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with RDDT. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 11 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
RDDT Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest RDDT Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 13 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
RDDT Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does RDDT convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
RDDT converts 149% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-7.7%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | 4,826 | $163.95 | $791,222.7 |
| 2026-05-04 | 1,523 | $166.48 | $253,549.04 |
| 2026-04-23 | 1,363 | $164.31 | $223,954.53 |
| 2026-04-21 | 23,102 | $166.28 | $3.8M |
| 2026-04-20 | 16,977 | $163.80 | $2.8M |
| 2026-04-14 | 12,602 | $149.35 | $1.9M |
| 2026-04-13 | 207 | $139.73 | $28,924.11 |
| 2026-04-09 | 7,372 | $145.00 | $1.1M |
| 2026-04-07 | 1,973 | $138.34 | $272,944.82 |
| 2026-04-06 | 7,666 | $136.00 | $1.0M |
| 2026-04-02 | 19,345 | $136.18 | $2.6M |
| 2026-04-01 | 436 | $134.65 | $58,707.4 |
| 2026-03-26 | 43,226 | $139.63 | $6.0M |
| 2026-03-25 | 2,300 | $136.12 | $313,076 |
| 2026-03-20 | 6,728 | $138.12 | $929,271.36 |
| 2026-03-11 | 44,137 | $134.13 | $5.9M |
| 2026-03-10 | 54,278 | $138.86 | $7.5M |
| 2026-02-23 | 1,100 | $150.17 | $165,187 |
| 2026-02-17 | 235 | $139.65 | $32,817.75 |
| 2026-02-05 | 58 | $152.69 | $8,856.02 |
| 2026-02-02 | 139 | $180.27 | $25,057.53 |
| 2026-01-29 | 24,012 | $193.14 | $4.6M |
| 2026-01-26 | 700 | $218.88 | $153,216 |
| 2026-01-23 | 92 | $214.54 | $19,737.68 |
| 2026-01-21 | 70,139 | $225.36 | $15.8M |
| 2026-01-15 | 25 | $252.38 | $6,309.5 |
| 2026-01-14 | 1,091 | $258.93 | $282,492.63 |
| 2026-01-12 | 1,107 | $244.56 | $270,727.92 |
| 2026-01-06 | 13,771 | $244.05 | $3.4M |
| 2026-01-05 | 1,884 | $241.89 | $455,720.76 |
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 RDDT 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.