TXG (TXG)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 5/9, Altman Z 6.4. DCF fair value of $11 implies 54% downside based on model assumptions.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics present a stark contradiction between robust top-line expansion and deteriorating capital efficiency. While revenue grew 5.2% year-over-year, supported by an impressive 69.0% gross margin, the company is generating negative net margins of -6.8%, driving ROE to -5.5%. This collapse in profitability is primarily attributable to a sharp decline in operating leverage rather than asset turnover or equity multiplier issues; the DuPont decomposition reveals that weak margins are the sole driver of this underperformance. Consequently, capital allocation has become destructive, evidenced by an ROIC-WACC spread of -21.2%, indicating that returns on invested capital fall significantly below the cost of financing. Although qualitative risk screens show a moderate Piotroski F-Score of 5/9 and a safe Altman Z-Score of 6.4 suggesting low bankruptcy probability, the negative Beneish M-Score hints at potential earnings quality concerns, while the -14.05% annualized Fama-French alpha signals significant underperformance relative to size and value factors.
Valuation metrics reflect these fundamental headwinds with a substantial discount to intrinsic models. The current price implies a DCF fair value of $11, representing a 54.0% downside from the algorithmic baseline. This wide gap suggests the market is pricing in persistent cash flow destruction despite growth narratives that assume high future expansion rates; specifically, the model projects an implied free cash flow growth rate of 20.3% over ten years to justify current valuations, a premise inconsistent with recent margin erosion and negative ROIC. The stock's heavy tilt toward the Growth factor (HML: -0.822) further exposes it to valuation compression if earnings quality does not improve rapidly, as the weak profitability factor score of -0.899 confirms that current operations are failing to generate sustainable economic rents necessary for premium multiples.
Insider activity reinforces skepticism regarding future prospects, with $1,294,013 in net selling over the last 90 days. This outflow coincides with the divergence between strong gross margins and negative bottom-line results, suggesting management may view current operations as less attractive than alternative capital deployments or exit strategies. The combination of a deeply negative ROIC spread, significant insider distribution, and valuation disconnected from realized profitability creates a high-risk environment where any further margin contraction could exacerbate the gap between market price and fundamental reality.
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 5% YoY revenue.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 15.7% | 17.7% | 19.7% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $12 | $11 | $10 |
| 3% | $12 | $11 | $10 |
| 4% | $13 | $11 | $10 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $30.71.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=17.7%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $11 (-54.0%). 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.
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 ARKG or ARKK, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TXG shares regardless of TXG's individual fundamentals. We estimate $303M of passive capital is structurally linked to TXG through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on TXG'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 TXG to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TXG (TXG) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies CRISPR THERAPEUTICS AG (CRSP) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with TXG. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 9 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
TXG Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 9 TXG shares, reducing daily market volatility.
TXG (TXG) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 6.2% of the ARK Genomic Revolution ETF (ARKG) and 2.5% of the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK). Across 9 tracked ETFs, approximately 13M shares (10.7% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. This level of passive ownership means index rebalances can create outsized volume events.
ETFs with Highest TXG Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TXG 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 TXG over the past year sits near $12.84 (17% of 252-day volume). The current price of $30.71 trades 139.3% 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.
TXG Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does TXG convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
TXG converts 3329% 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 (-21.2%), 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-04 | 8,996 | $22.43 | $201,780.28 |
| 2026-04-27 | 35,762 | $22.08 | $789,624.96 |
| 2026-04-24 | 7,350 | $21.42 | $157,437 |
| 2026-04-22 | 1 | $22.97 | $22.97 |
| 2026-04-20 | 17,136 | $26.08 | $446,906.88 |
| 2026-04-17 | 13,815 | $25.24 | $348,690.6 |
| 2026-04-13 | 97 | $23.27 | $2,257.19 |
| 2026-04-10 | 24 | $23.00 | $552 |
| 2026-04-07 | 424 | $21.89 | $9,281.36 |
| 2026-03-31 | 29 | $19.81 | $574.49 |
| 2026-03-25 | 275 | $19.81 | $5,447.75 |
| 2026-03-24 | 60,436 | $19.14 | $1.2M |
| 2026-03-20 | 58,689 | $18.38 | $1.1M |
| 2026-03-19 | 51,111 | $17.35 | $886,775.85 |
| 2026-03-18 | 55,607 | $18.09 | $1.0M |
| 2026-03-12 | 3 | $20.46 | $61.38 |
| 2026-03-04 | 142 | $22.62 | $3,212.04 |
| 2026-03-02 | 45,986 | $23.05 | $1.1M |
| 2026-02-27 | 29,654 | $22.13 | $656,243.02 |
| 2026-02-19 | 130 | $19.57 | $2,544.1 |
| 2026-02-17 | 37,650 | $18.12 | $682,218 |
| 2026-02-11 | 74,000 | $19.15 | $1.4M |
| 2026-02-03 | 5,094 | $19.95 | $101,625.3 |
| 2026-01-29 | 222 | $21.08 | $4,679.76 |
| 2026-01-22 | 113 | $22.68 | $2,562.84 |
| 2026-01-21 | 554 | $22.05 | $12,215.7 |
| 2026-01-20 | 200 | $20.52 | $4,104 |
| 2026-01-16 | 164 | $21.20 | $3,476.8 |
| 2026-01-09 | 499,326 | $19.29 | $9.6M |
| 2026-01-08 | 20 | $19.99 | $399.8 |
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 | |
| ILMN | 0.579 | 0.430 | Moderate |
| TMO | 0.564 | 0.450 | Moderate |
| IQV | 0.552 | 0.440 | Moderate |
| A | 0.548 | 0.406 | Moderate |
| MTD | 0.533 | 0.372 | Moderate |
| TWST | 0.522 | 0.486 | Moderate |
| NDSN | 0.505 | 0.416 | Moderate |
| PACB | 0.500 | 0.525 | Moderate |
| PSNL | 0.496 | 0.524 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare TXG 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.