RXO (RXO)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 2.5.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of the business reveal a significant divergence between top-line expansion and capital efficiency. While revenue growth accelerates at 26.2% year-over-year, indicating robust market demand or pricing power, this momentum is not translating into profitability, evidenced by negative net margins of -1.7%. This operational drag results in an ROIC-WACC spread of -15.7%, signaling that the company is currently destroying value relative to its cost of capital despite high turnover implied by strong sales velocity. The DuPont decomposition suggests that leverage or asset intensity may be masking weak margin expansion, as the firm struggles to convert this rapid revenue scale into bottom-line returns necessary for sustainable compounding.
Quality metrics present a mixed signal regarding financial stability and earnings integrity. The Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 indicates moderate fundamental strength but lacks the robustness typically associated with high-quality compounders. Conversely, an Altman Z-Score of 2.5 places the firm in the "gray zone" between safety and distress, warranting close monitoring of liquidity buffers against potential downside risks. However, a Beneish M-Score of -2.65 strongly suggests low probability of earnings manipulation, lending credibility to the reported financials even as profitability remains elusive. The market appears willing to price this growth trajectory into current valuations, yet the persistent negative spread between returns on invested capital and the weighted average cost of capital creates a structural headwind that must be resolved before intrinsic value can appreciate meaningfully.
Synthesizing these factors, the risk/reward profile hinges entirely on management's ability to bridge the gap between aggressive revenue scaling and margin accretion. The current data structure implies that while top-line execution is exemplary, the underlying capital allocation efficiency remains critically impaired. Investors must assess whether this negative ROIC-WACC spread is a temporary phase of heavy reinvestment or a structural flaw in the business model that could erode equity value over time given the proximity to financial distress thresholds indicated by the Altman score.
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.
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.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XTN or SLYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell RXO shares regardless of RXO's individual fundamentals. We estimate $121M of passive capital is structurally linked to RXO through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on RXO'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 RXO to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If RXO (RXO) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies MATSON INC (MATX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with RXO. 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.
RXO Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 28 RXO shares, reducing daily market volatility.
RXO (RXO) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 4.4% of the XTN (XTN) and 0.5% of the SLYV (SLYV). Across 7 tracked ETFs, approximately 6M shares (3.6% 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 RXO Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
RXO 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 RXO over the past year sits near $15.96 (17% of 252-day volume). The current price of $26.95 trades 68.8% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target. The highly concentrated volume profile (17% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
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.
RXO Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does RXO convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
RXO converts -22% 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 122% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-15.7%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 8,134 | $20.05 | $163,086.7 |
| 2026-05-07 | 13,626 | $19.62 | $267,342.12 |
| 2026-05-05 | 2,053 | $17.70 | $36,338.1 |
| 2026-05-01 | 92 | $19.97 | $1,837.24 |
| 2026-04-28 | 237,303 | $19.43 | $4.6M |
| 2026-04-24 | 712 | $19.30 | $13,741.6 |
| 2026-04-17 | 18,461 | $17.98 | $331,928.78 |
| 2026-04-15 | 9,931 | $16.24 | $161,279.44 |
| 2026-04-13 | 1,678 | $16.06 | $26,948.68 |
| 2026-04-10 | 1,892 | $16.01 | $30,290.92 |
| 2026-04-08 | 210 | $15.49 | $3,252.9 |
| 2026-04-06 | 3,027 | $14.94 | $45,223.38 |
| 2026-04-02 | 5,969 | $15.08 | $90,012.52 |
| 2026-03-31 | 969 | $13.76 | $13,333.44 |
| 2026-03-30 | 40 | $13.88 | $555.2 |
| 2026-03-26 | 1,146 | $14.38 | $16,479.48 |
| 2026-03-25 | 987 | $13.92 | $13,739.04 |
| 2026-03-24 | 1,409 | $13.31 | $18,753.79 |
| 2026-03-23 | 6,277 | $13.23 | $83,044.71 |
| 2026-03-20 | 3 | $13.62 | $40.86 |
| 2026-03-18 | 1 | $13.00 | $13 |
| 2026-03-17 | 34,095 | $11.96 | $407,776.2 |
| 2026-03-16 | 232 | $12.12 | $2,811.84 |
| 2026-03-05 | 1,446 | $16.53 | $23,902.38 |
| 2026-03-04 | 461 | $16.44 | $7,578.84 |
| 2026-03-03 | 3,633 | $16.27 | $59,108.91 |
| 2026-03-02 | 11,805 | $15.96 | $188,407.8 |
| 2026-02-27 | 377 | $15.58 | $5,873.66 |
| 2026-02-24 | 23,747 | $14.66 | $348,131.02 |
| 2026-02-23 | 421 | $15.76 | $6,634.96 |
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 | |
| ODFL | 0.655 | 0.598 | Moderate |
| SWK | 0.582 | 0.487 | Moderate |
| OC | 0.573 | 0.487 | Moderate |
| PCAR | 0.562 | 0.531 | Moderate |
| BLDR | 0.561 | 0.485 | Moderate |
| EMR | 0.557 | 0.544 | Moderate |
| NDSN | 0.550 | 0.444 | Moderate |
| JBHT | 0.546 | 0.409 | Moderate |
| XRAY | 0.525 | 0.469 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare RXO 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.