RWT · Real estate(real estate investment trusts) · 10 years of annual accounts filed with the SEC · latest fiscal year ended 2025-12-31
Signed in, this page also says what this company is inside your own portfolio: its weight, its share of your risk, and what buying or selling some of it would change. Sign in ›
On the accounting screens, it passes 1 of 5 Piotroski tests; 2 of the six cross-checks between its statements fire.
Revenue, fiscal 2025—
Operating margin—gross margin —
Return on invested capital—24.3% on average over 3 years
Free cash flow—
Net debt ÷ EBITDA—net debt —
Piotroski F-score1/5tests of improvement passed
Is it growing?
Revenue and the operating income it turns into. Growth that does not reach operating income is growth bought with margin.
RevenueOperating income
-0.25B00.25B0.50B0.75B1.00B
2016
2017Operating income 261.0M
2018Operating income 369.7M
2019Operating income 656.4M
2020Operating income -138.4M
2021Operating income 764.8M
2022Operating income 369.0M
2023Operating income 630.9M
2024Operating income 175.4M
2025Operating income 37.9M
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Compound growth a year
3 yrs
5 yrs
9 yrs
Operating income
-53.2%
—
—
Dividend per share
-7.3%
+0.6%
—
Shares
+3.6%
+2.7%
—
Falling shares are buybacks: each remaining share owns more of the company.
Does it earn more than its capital costs?
Margins say how much of each sale is kept; return on invested capital says how much the business earns on the money it needs to operate. Growth only creates value when that return is above the cost of the capital.
Return on invested capital
Return on invested capital
-20%0%20%40%60%
2016
2017
2018Return on invested capital 9.0%
2019Return on invested capital 15.1%
2020Return on invested capital -4.6%
2021Return on invested capital 13.9%
2022Return on invested capital 8.4%
2023Return on invested capital 50.5%
2024
2025
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Economic profit
Needs a cost of capital, which comes from the valuation below.
Return on equity
-7.1%
Return on assets
-0.3%
Asset turnover
—
Is the profit cash, and where does the cash go?
Net income is an accounting opinion; free cash flow is what was left in the bank after investing. Stock-based pay does not leave the bank — shareholders pay it through dilution — so it is shown taken off as well.
Net incomeFree cash flowAfter stock-based pay
-750M-500M-250M0250M500M
2016
2017Net income 140.4M
2018Net income 119.6M
2019Net income 169.2M
2020Net income -581.8M
2021Net income 319.6M
2022Net income -163.5M
2023Net income -2.3M
2024Net income 54.0M
2025Net income -70.0M
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Per share
Earnings per shareFree cash flow per shareDividend per share
-$6-$4-$2$0$2$4
2016
2017Earnings per share $1.38Dividend per share $0.87
2018Earnings per share $1.09Dividend per share $0.88
2019Earnings per share $1.24Dividend per share $0.95
2020Earnings per share $-5.11Dividend per share $0.74
2021Earnings per share $2.25Dividend per share $0.65
2022Earnings per share $-1.39Dividend per share $0.95
2023Earnings per share $-0.02Dividend per share $0.76
2024Earnings per share $0.41Dividend per share $0.70
2025Earnings per share $-0.54Dividend per share $0.76
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Shares outstanding
Diluted shares
100M120M140M160M
2016
2017Diluted shares 102.0M
2018Diluted shares 110.0M
2019Diluted shares 136.8M
2020Diluted shares 113.9M
2021Diluted shares 142.1M
2022Diluted shares 117.2M
2023Diluted shares 116.3M
2024Diluted shares 132.1M
2025Diluted shares 130.3M
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Debt and liquidity
Debt is not bad in itself; debt the business cannot service in a bad year is. Net debt is debt minus cash, and below zero the company holds more cash than it owes.
Net debt
01B2B3B4B
2016
2017
2018Net debt 2.2B
2019Net debt 2.1B
2020Net debt 1.5B
2021Net debt 3.4B
2022Net debt 3.5B
2023Net debt 2.9B
2024
2025
2016201720182019202020212022202320242025
Net debt ÷ EBITDA
—
Interest coverage
0× operating income ÷ interest
Current ratio
— current assets ÷ current liabilities
Cash conversion cycle
—
Three classic screens of the accounts
Each asks a different question of the same statements — is it improving, does it look like a company heading for distress, do the accounts resemble ones that were manipulated. None is a verdict; each shows what moves it.
Piotroski F-score
Is the business improving? Nine yes-or-no tests, this year against last.
1of 5 tests passed
✕ProfitableReturn on assets above zerofailed
✕Cash from operationsOperating cash flow above zerofailed
✕Profitability improvedReturn on assets higher than a year beforefailed
✕Profit backed by cashOperating cash flow above net income (low accruals)failed
–Less long-term debtLong-term debt as a share of assets fell — not reportedno data
–More liquidCurrent ratio higher than a year before — not reportedno data
✓No new sharesShare count did not growpassed
–Better gross marginGross margin higher than a year before — not reportedno data
–Sells more per assetAsset turnover higher than a year before — not reportedno data
Where it misleads: it measures change, not level. An excellent business that stood still for a year scores low; a poor one recovering from a disaster scores high.
Altman Z''-score
Does the balance sheet look like those of companies that went bankrupt?
The accounts lack a line it needs (retained earnings, current assets or liabilities).
Beneish M-score
Do the accounts resemble those of companies that manipulated their earnings?
The accounts lack too many of the lines it needs.
Where the statements disagree
Cross-checks between the income statement, the balance sheet and the cash flow for the latest year, each with the benign reading and the worrying one.
Reported profit comfortably exceeds the cash generated (-70M against -10,095M).
Benign
Growth consuming working capital, or the seasonality of the year-end.
Worrying
Profit held up by accounting entries that do not turn into money.
The effective tax rate is -56.2%.
Benign
A favourable geographic mix, or legitimate tax credits.
Worrying
Not sustainable; projecting it forward inflates the valuation.
What is it worth, under which assumptions?
A company is worth the cash it will generate, brought back to today. This model projects revenue with growth that fades over the years, applies a free cash flow margin, and discounts the result at the cost of capital. Every assumption says where it came from, and all of them can be changed.
The SEC accounts lack the lines needed for revenue, free cash flow or the share count, so there is no DCF for this company.
What it has filed lately
The last twelve months at the SEC, most important first: annual and quarterly reports, events, large holders and insiders.
Every Form 4 filed in the last twelve months, read line by line: 6 filings by 6 people. Open-market purchases and sales are counted apart from awards, option exercises and shares withheld for taxes.
Bought on the open market$968,8406 purchase(s) by 6 insider(s)
Sold on the open market—none in the period
Under pre-arranged plans—of the sales followed a 10b5-1 plan set months earlier
A Form 4 says what happened, when, how many shares and at what price. It does not say why: a sale can be diversification, a tax bill or a plan fixed months earlier, and an award is pay, not a purchase. Nothing here is a reason to buy or sell anything.
Companies like this one
Same SEC industry (real estate investment trusts) first, then the rest of real estate.
Accounts from the company's own SEC filings; lines some companies do not report are shown as a dash rather than estimated. The risk-free rate is the 10-year US Treasury yield. A DCF is a way of making assumptions explicit, not a forecast: it states what the company would be worth if the assumptions held. The scores are screens that point where to look, not verdicts. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell.
