ROIC Explained: What Return on Invested Capital Says About a Business and Its Stock

Two companies each earn $100 million a year in operating profit after tax. One needed $500 million of capital to produce it; the other needed $2 billion. The first earns 20% on its capital and the second earns 5%. Return on invested capital, or ROIC, is the ratio that separates them, and it answers a question that earnings growth alone cannot: how much money did it take to produce those profits?

That makes ROIC one of the most useful numbers in corporate finance. It is a weaker guide to which stocks to buy. The academic research supports a premium for profitable companies measured several ways, but none of the standard factor models uses ROIC, the published profitability results change with small definition choices, and a high-ROIC company bought at a high enough price is a poor investment. ROIC earns a place in a DIY investor’s process in a few specific cases, listed near the end.

What ROIC measures

The basic definition divides net operating profit after tax (NOPAT) by the capital that debt and equity holders have put into the business’s operations:

Measured from the financing side, invested capital is roughly equity plus debt minus cash the business does not need to operate. Aswath Damodaran defines it as fixed assets plus non-cash working capital and uses the capital in place at the start of the year; some analysts use the average of the starting and ending balances.¹ ROIC also splits into two parts:

A grocery chain with a 3% margin can earn a high ROIC by turning its capital over many times a year. A utility with a 15% margin can earn a low one because it needs a large asset base for every dollar of sales. Margin alone misses the second half of the product.

Why ROIC and ROE differ

Return on equity divides net income by shareholders’ book equity, so it depends on how the company is financed. For a business earning ROIC on its operations and paying an after-tax rate $r_d$ on its debt:

Take a business with a 10% ROIC. Financed entirely with equity, its ROE is 10%. Borrow at 4% after tax to fund half the capital, so debt equals equity, and ROE becomes 10% + 1 × (10% − 4%) = 16%. The operations did not change. ROIC stays at 10% in both cases, which is why it is the better ratio for comparing businesses with different balance sheets, and why buybacks funded with debt can lift ROE without improving the underlying business.

ROIC against the cost of capital

ROIC by itself is half a comparison. Capital has an opportunity cost, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which is the return debt and equity investors could expect elsewhere for similar risk. The gap between the two is what creates or destroys value:

A company earning 6% on its capital when investors require 8% is shrinking their wealth even if its revenue and earnings rise every year. Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart and David Wessels of McKinsey turn this into what their valuation textbook calls the key value driver formula:²

Here $g$ is the long-run growth rate and RONIC is the return on new invested capital. To grow at $g$, a company has to reinvest $g / \text{RONIC}$ of its profit; whatever is left can be paid out. The formula says growth has no fixed value. Its sign depends on whether RONIC is above or below WACC.

Hold the cost of capital at 8% and growth at 4% a year forever. A company earning 20% on new capital is worth 20 times next year’s operating profit. One earning exactly 8% is worth 12.5 times at any growth rate, the same as if it never grew. One earning 6% is worth 8.3 times, less than the no-growth value: in that case growing destroys value, and growing faster destroys more. The calculator below lets you change each input.

The distinction between ROIC and RONIC matters in practice. Today’s ROIC describes the capital already in place. The value of future growth depends on what the next dollar earns, and a company with a high historical ROIC that has run out of high-return projects can still destroy value by reinvesting heavily.

A great business can still be a poor investment

The same formula shows why a high ROIC does not by itself mean a high expected return. Under the assumptions above (20% return on new capital, 4% growth, 8% cost of capital), paying 20 times earnings gives a buyer a long-run return of 8%, the cost of capital. Paying 70 times earnings for the same company, with nothing else changed, gives about 5.1% a year. The business is excellent in both cases. The return depends on the price.

Markets know this, and quality companies do trade at higher prices. Fama and French’s valuation logic predicts that, holding price-to-book and investment fixed, more profitable firms should have higher expected returns.³ The puzzle documented by Cliff Asness, Andrea Frazzini and Lasse Heje Pedersen is that the price premium for quality has been small: quality explained only about 10% of the cross-sectional variation in price-to-book, and high-quality stocks went on to earn more than junk.⁴ That is a claim about how the market has priced a broad set of traits, and the quality minus junk guide covers its weak record since 2016. It is a narrower claim than “high-ROIC stocks beat the market.”

Where ROIC sits in the factor research

Robert Novy-Marx found that gross profits divided by assets had “roughly the same power as book-to-market” in predicting returns. From 1963 to 2010, the most profitable fifth of stocks beat the least profitable by 0.31% a month (t = 2.49), value-weighted, despite trading at higher valuations.⁵ Eugene Fama and Kenneth French then added a profitability factor, RMW (robust minus weak), to their five-factor model. It sorts on operating profit (revenue minus cost of goods sold, selling and administrative costs, and interest) over book equity, and averaged 0.25% a month (t = 2.92) from 1963 to 2013.⁶ Kewei Hou, Chen Xue and Lu Zhang reached a profitability factor from investment-based asset pricing, using quarterly return on equity; it earned 0.58% a month (t = 4.81) from 1972 to 2012.⁷

Each of these measures profitability differently, and none is ROIC:

ROIC sits between operating profitability and return on assets. Like operating profitability, it excludes financing costs from the numerator, but it scales by all operating capital rather than by book equity alone. Ray Ball and coauthors found that a cash-based version of operating profitability outperformed profitability measures that include accruals and absorbed the accrual anomaly.⁸ The RMW guide and the cash-based profitability guide cover those factors in detail. The point for ROIC is that evidence for these measures is evidence for the economic idea they share. It does not transfer automatically to a ratio built from different accounting lines.

What the replication research says

Hou, Xue and Zhang later re-tested 452 published anomalies with common methods: NYSE breakpoints and value-weighted portfolios, which limit the influence of microcaps. 65% failed to clear a t-statistic of 1.96, and 82% failed a multiple-testing hurdle of 2.78. In the profitability category, 44.3% of 79 anomalies replicated.⁹

Their results also show how much the construction matters. Gross profits scaled by current assets earned 0.38% a month (t = 2.62); scaled by assets lagged one year, the same signal earned 0.16% (t = 1.04). Fama and French’s operating profitability to book equity earned 0.27% a month (t = 1.34) in their tests and did not replicate.⁹ ROIC involves more judgment calls than either of those ratios: what counts as excess cash, whether goodwill and leases belong in capital, whether to capitalize research spending. A separate study of quality definitions by Jason Hsu, Vitali Kalesnik and Engin Kose found return premia for profitability, accounting quality, payout and investment, and little for earnings stability or leverage.¹⁰

Do ROIC funds deliver profitability exposure?

A few ETFs select stocks on ROIC directly or on ratings built from it. VanEck’s MOAT tracks a Morningstar index of companies rated “wide moat,” meaning Morningstar analysts expect them to keep a competitive advantage for at least 20 years, judged in part by returns on invested capital relative to the cost of capital. From those, the index holds the stocks trading at the lowest prices relative to Morningstar’s fair value estimates.¹¹ Pacer’s LCOW takes S&P 500 companies with ten consecutive years of positive free cash flow and ranks them on free cash flow margin and free cash flow return on invested capital,¹² and VictoryShares’ GFLW picks large companies with the highest free cash flow return on invested capital before ranking on growth.¹³ We regressed their monthly returns on the Fama-French five factors plus momentum, alongside QUAL, AVUV and the total market.¹⁴

Summitward calculation through August 2026, each fund over its full history. Fama-French five factors plus momentum (202608 CRSP database); Newey-West t-statistics. *Under two years of returns; these loadings carry little information. Fund returns from Yahoo Finance adjusted closes.¹⁴

MOAT is the only ROIC-based fund with enough history to say much, and its profitability loading was indistinguishable from zero. That held when we dropped momentum from the model (0.11, t = 1.4) and in both halves of its history (−0.21 before 2020, 0.00 after, neither significant). Its large negative momentum loading fits an index that buys wide-moat companies when they look cheapest against Morningstar’s fair value estimates, which tend to be stocks that have recently fallen. QUAL, which ranks on return on equity, leverage and earnings variability, carried a significant RMW loading in both halves (0.24 and 0.14), and AVUV’s profitability screen showed up as clearly.¹⁴

This does not show that MOAT is a bad fund. Its annualized alpha over the full period was 1.7% with a t-statistic of 1.4, within the range chance would produce, and RMW is one of several profitability measures. It does show that a fund built on ROIC judgments does not automatically give you the profitability factor the research documents. LCOW and GFLW are too new to judge.

Accounting choices that move ROIC

There is no single standard formula, and data providers make different choices. Damodaran’s paper on return measures walks through the main adjustments.¹

• Research and other intangible investment. US accounting expenses most internally generated research and brand spending, so the capital that produced a software or drug company’s profits never appears in invested capital. Ryan Peters and Lucian Taylor estimated that intangible capital makes up almost half of firms’ total capital, and that counting it improves how well investment models fit.¹⁵ Damodaran capitalizes research spending and amortizes it, which lowers ROIC for research-heavy firms. A reported ROIC of 100% at a software company and 25% at an industrial company may describe more similar economics than the numbers suggest.
• Goodwill. A company that buys a business at a premium records goodwill; one that builds the same business internally does not. Including goodwill measures the return on all the money management spent, which is the right test of its acquisition record. Excluding it describes the operating economics of the businesses owned. Damodaran argues that any overpayment should stay in capital, while the part of goodwill that pays for the acquired firm’s future growth should not. In his 2007 data, including goodwill lowered return on capital across all firms from 13.02% to 11.13%.¹
• Excess cash. Cash the business does not need to operate is usually removed from invested capital, and its interest income from operating profit.¹ Deciding how much cash is excess is a judgment call.
• Leases. US companies have reported operating leases on the balance sheet since 2019. Whether a data provider counts them as capital, and adds the lease interest back to operating profit, can move ROIC for retailers, restaurants and airlines, and makes comparisons with pre-2019 figures unreliable.¹
• Very small or negative capital. Firms whose suppliers and customers fund their working capital can show tiny or negative invested capital. McKinsey warns that ROIC then becomes extremely large, very sensitive to small changes in capital, and volatile, and suggests economic profit divided by revenue instead.¹⁶
• Banks and insurers. For financial firms, debt and financial assets are the raw material of the business, so the split between operating and financing capital that ROIC depends on does not apply. Return on equity is the usual measure.

High returns on capital fade

Competition pulls unusually high profits toward the average as rivals copy what works. Fama and French estimated that profitability reverts toward its mean at about 38% a year, faster when it is below the mean and when it is far from it in either direction.¹⁷ McKinsey’s study of about 7,000 US nonfinancial companies found a median ROIC excluding goodwill of nearly 10% from 1963 to 2004, roughly in line with the long-run cost of capital, with wide gaps inside industries: software had a median of 18% and a 31-point spread between its top and bottom quartiles, while utilities had a median of 7% and a 2-point spread.¹⁸

Michael Mauboussin and Dan Callahan sorted Russell 3000 companies, excluding financials and real estate, into ROIC quintiles from 1990 to 2022 and tracked where they stood three years later. The most common outcome was to stay put: 48% of top-quintile companies were still in the top quintile, and 41% of bottom-quintile companies were still at the bottom. But 15% of top-quintile companies fell to the bottom, and 12% moved the other way. Changes in ROIC also showed up in shareholder returns. Companies that rose from the bottom to the top quintile earned 33% a year over the three years, while those that fell from top to bottom lost 11% a year; companies that stayed on top earned 20%.¹⁹ The large returns went to companies whose ROIC changed, which is hard to know in advance.

Some industries keep high returns for decades; McKinsey points to patents and brands in pharmaceuticals and consumer packaged goods as barriers that slow competition.¹⁸ But a single year’s ROIC says much less than a decade of it. For screening, a five- or ten-year median, its stability, and the direction it is moving all carry more information than the latest figure.

ROIC and reinvestment

The value driver formula has a second input that a ROIC screen ignores: how much the company can reinvest at that return. A business earning 50% on capital that can reinvest only a sliver of its profit is a cash machine with a short runway. One earning 25% that can reinvest half its profit at similar returns for years compounds faster.

This also reconciles two ideas that seem to conflict. Factor models reward companies that invest conservatively: in Fama and French’s framework, holding valuation and profitability fixed, more investment predicts lower returns.³ Fundamental investors prize companies that reinvest heavily. Both can hold if the investment penalty applies mainly to low-return firms.

Francesco Franzoni, Daniel Obrycki and Rafael Resendes test that idea in a July 2026 Financial Analysts Journal paper. Their model says new investment raises a firm’s value, and should predict higher returns at a given valuation, when profitability exceeds the cost of capital; an appendix derives the same result from ROIC and growth in invested capital. In US stocks from 1963 to 2024, excluding financials, the usual gap between heavy and light investors was −0.39% a month (t = −3.19) among unprofitable firms and only −0.05% (t = −0.38) among profitable ones. A factor built on profitability and investment together earned an alpha of about 0.25% a month against the Fama-French five-factor model, 0.20% after their estimate of trading costs.²⁰

Three caveats apply. It is one recent paper. Its tests use cash-based operating profitability and asset growth, so ROIC appears only in the theory. And two of the authors are partners at The Applied Finance Group, which uses variations of the approach in its strategies, and Franzoni has consulted for the firm, as the paper discloses. The result matches the corporate finance logic above, but it needs independent replication.

ROIC inside a value portfolio

The most useful job for a profitability measure may be telling cheap productive companies apart from companies that are cheap because they are failing. Novy-Marx found that profitability and value strategies were negatively correlated (−0.57) and that combining them earned 0.71% a month (t = 5.87) with a higher Sharpe ratio than either alone.⁵ The value traps guide shows what the cheap, unprofitable corner of the market has returned since 1963.

Avantis and Dimensional already do this inside their small-cap value funds, using operating profitability measures to book equity rather than ROIC. AVUV’s RMW loading of 0.23 in the table above is that screen showing up in its returns. A very strict profitability screen could push a small-cap value fund away from the small, cheap stocks that give it its size and value tilt, so these funds use profitability as one input alongside price rather than as the main sort.

The Magic Formula

Joel Greenblatt’s Magic Formula ranks stocks on earnings yield (operating earnings to enterprise value) and return on capital, then buys the best combined ranks. It applies the idea this guide supports: productive businesses at reasonable prices. Greenblatt reported annual returns of 30.8% from 1988 to 2004 against 12.4% for the S&P 500, in his own backtest.²¹

Independent tests are less flattering to the return-on-capital half. Wesley Gray and Tobias Carlisle found that, from 1974 to 2011, ranking on earnings yield alone beat the two-factor formula by more than 2% a year; the return-on-capital ranking added nothing.²² A test on Nordic stocks from 1998 to 2008 found higher returns than the market index but no statistically significant alpha against the CAPM or the Fama-French three-factor model.²³ A 2026 literature review found the formula beat its benchmarks in most markets studied, with results that depended on transaction costs, firm size and market conditions.²⁴

When ROIC justifies an allocation

We would not add a dedicated “high-ROIC” sleeve to a diversified portfolio. A screen that buys the 50 highest trailing-ROIC stocks ignores price, favors research-heavy and asset-light industries for accounting reasons, breaks down for financials, rewards one-year peaks that tend to fade, and has no published evidence of a premium beyond the profitability factors you can already get cheaply. ROIC does earn a role in these cases:

• As a junk filter inside value. If you own a small-cap or value fund, prefer one that screens out unprofitable companies. That is the use with the strongest evidence, and funds such as AVUV, DFSV and DFAT already do it with operating profitability.
• Paired with a price measure. A rule that combines ROIC with earnings yield, free cash flow yield or another enterprise-value multiple has economic logic that ROIC alone lacks. In Gray and Carlisle’s Magic Formula test, the return-on-capital ranking added nothing beyond the price ranking.
• Paired with reinvestment. If you are looking for compounders, look for a long record of high returns on capital and evidence that the company can put more capital to work at similar returns.
• In individual stock analysis. If you research a handful of companies, ROIC is one of the most useful numbers you can compute, because you can adjust the accounting yourself: capitalize research, decide on goodwill, strip excess cash, and compare it with a cost of capital and with the price.

If you want a profitability tilt in a fund portfolio, the question to ask is how much of it you already have. A total-market fund has almost none. A profitability-screened small-cap value fund already carries about as much as a quality ETF, as the quality minus junk guide found. Adding a fund labeled “quality” or “moat” on top may add little profitability exposure, as MOAT’s loadings show.

How Summitward helps

The ROIC calculator above is free. With a Summit subscription, the Portfolio page runs a Fama-French five-factor regression on your own holdings and reports the RMW loading, the same test we ran on MOAT and QUAL, so you can see how much profitability exposure you already own before adding a fund for it. The backtesting tool shows factor attribution for a hypothetical portfolio, so you can check a candidate fund’s loadings before you buy it. And the written financial plan stores an investment policy statement with version history, where you can record the size of a factor tilt and the conditions for changing it. An advisor can test a proposed fund lineup the same way in the backtesting tool and use the plan to record why a tilt is there.

Key Takeaways

• ROIC measures business economics. It is after-tax operating profit over the capital used to produce it, and unlike ROE it does not rise when a company adds debt.
• Growth is worth something only above the cost of capital. When new capital earns less than WACC, faster growth lowers a company’s value.
• The price sets your return. Under one set of assumptions (20% return on new capital, 4% growth, 8% cost of capital), paying 70 times earnings instead of 20 cuts the long-run return from 8% to about 5%.
• The evidence supports profitability broadly. Gross profitability, operating profitability and ROE factors have earned premia; a separate ROIC premium has not been shown, and results depend on construction.
• ROIC labels do not guarantee factor exposure. MOAT showed no measurable RMW loading from 2012 to 2026, while QUAL and AVUV did.
• Use ROIC with price and reinvestment. It works best as a filter inside value or in single-company analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good ROIC?

One above the company’s cost of capital, sustained for years, and compared with firms in the same industry. McKinsey found a median ROIC excluding goodwill of nearly 10% for US nonfinancial companies from 1963 to 2004.¹⁸ In Damodaran’s January 2026 data, US nonfinancial firms in aggregate earned 15.1% on capital against a 7.7% cost of capital. Industry spreads varied widely, from 56 points above the cost of capital for tobacco to 13 points below it for coal.²⁵

What is the difference between ROIC and ROE?

ROE is net income over shareholders’ equity, so borrowing to buy back shares raises it even if the business is unchanged. ROIC is operating profit after tax over all the capital in the business, debt and equity, so it measures the operations independent of financing.

How do you calculate ROIC?

Multiply operating income (EBIT) by one minus the tax rate to get NOPAT, then divide by invested capital: operating working capital plus net fixed assets and other operating assets, or equivalently debt plus equity minus excess cash. Decide up front how to treat goodwill, leases and research spending, and apply the same choices to every company you compare.

Is ROIC a factor like value or profitability?

Not in the standard models. Fama-French uses operating profitability to book equity, the q-factor model uses return on equity, and Novy-Marx used gross profits to assets. ROIC belongs to the same family, but we are not aware of peer-reviewed evidence that it carries a premium beyond those factors.

Should I buy MOAT or another high-ROIC ETF?

Only if you want what it actually holds. In our regression from 2012 to 2026, MOAT showed no measurable exposure to the profitability factor and a strong negative momentum loading, so it behaves differently from a profitability tilt. If your goal is profitability exposure, a quality ETF or a profitability-screened value fund delivered more of it.

Why does ROIC not work for banks?

ROIC separates operating capital from financing, and for a bank or insurer the borrowed money is the operating capital. Return on equity, along with measures specific to the industry, is the usual way to judge financial firms.

Related Guides

• RMW Explained: The Profitability Factor for the Fama-French profitability factor and how Avantis and Dimensional measure it.
• Quality Minus Junk for AQR’s broad quality factor, its record since 2016, and the quality exposure of common funds.
• Cash-Based Operating Profitability for the accrual-free profitability measure and why it outperformed.
• Cheap for a Reason: Value Traps for what cheap, unprofitable stocks have returned.
• Growth Stocks and Expected Returns for breaking a stock’s return into yield, growth and a change in its multiple.
• Stock Valuation for DIY Investors for discounted cash flow models, where return on capital sets reinvestment.
• Beyond Fama-French for the q-factor model and how fund alphas change across factor models.

Sources

1. Aswath Damodaran, “Return on Capital (ROC), Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) and Return on Equity (ROE): Measurement and Implications,” NYU Stern working paper, July 2007. stern.nyu.edu
2. Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart and David Wessels, Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies, 8th ed., Wiley, 2025. The key value driver formula. mckinsey.com
3. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Profitability, Investment and Average Returns,” Journal of Financial Economics 82(3), 2006, 491–518. doi.org
4. Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini and Lasse Heje Pedersen, “Quality Minus Junk,” Review of Accounting Studies 24(1), 2019, 34–112. doi.org
5. Robert Novy-Marx, “The Other Side of Value: The Gross Profitability Premium,” Journal of Financial Economics 108(1), 2013, 1–28. Tables 1 and 2. doi.org
6. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” Journal of Financial Economics 116(1), 2015, 1–22. Table 4. doi.org
7. Kewei Hou, Chen Xue and Lu Zhang, “Digesting Anomalies: An Investment Approach,” Review of Financial Studies28(3), 2015, 650–705. doi.org
8. Ray Ball, Joseph Gerakos, Juhani T. Linnainmaa and Valeri Nikolaev, “Accruals, Cash Flows, and Operating Profitability in the Cross Section of Stock Returns,” Journal of Financial Economics 121(1), 2016, 28–45. doi.org
9. Kewei Hou, Chen Xue and Lu Zhang, “Replicating Anomalies,” Review of Financial Studies 33(5), 2020, 2019–2133. Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.4. doi.org
10. Jason Hsu, Vitali Kalesnik and Engin Kose, “What Is Quality?” Financial Analysts Journal 75(2), 2019, 44–61. doi.org
11. VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (0.46% expense ratio), index reconstitution summary dated September 18, 2026. vaneck.com
12. Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (0.49% expense ratio), fund page as of September 29, 2026. paceretfs.com
13. VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (0.50% gross expense ratio, 0.39% net under a waiver through October 31, 2026), fact sheet as of June 30, 2026. vcm.com
14. Summitward calculation: monthly fund returns from Yahoo Finance adjusted closes, Fama-French five factors and momentum from the Ken French data library (202608 CRSP database), Newey-West standard errors with six lags. Script and printed output: summitward-research
15. Ryan H. Peters and Lucian A. Taylor, “Intangible Capital and the Investment-q Relation,” Journal of Financial Economics 123(2), 2017, 251–272. doi.org
16. McKinsey & Company, “Comparing Performance When Invested Capital Is Low.” mckinsey.com
17. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Forecasting Profitability and Earnings,” Journal of Business 73(2), 2000, 161–175. doi.org
18. Bin Jiang and Timothy M. Koller, “A Long-Term Look at ROIC,” McKinsey Quarterly, 2006 No. 1. mckinsey.com
19. Michael J. Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, “ROIC and the Investment Process,” Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Consilient Observer, June 6, 2023. Exhibits 9 and 10. morganstanley.com
20. Francesco Franzoni, Daniel J. Obrycki and Rafael Resendes, “Profitability Meets Investment: The Wealth Creation Effect in Stock Returns,” Financial Analysts Journal 82(3), 2026, 78–110. Appendix A.3 for the ROIC derivation; conflict disclosure in the author notes. doi.org
21. Joel Greenblatt, The Little Book That Beats the Market, Wiley, 2005.
22. Wesley R. Gray and Tobias E. Carlisle, Quantitative Value, Wiley, 2012, as summarized in Ben Bochman’s CFA Institute review, May 16, 2013. cfainstitute.org
23. Victor Persson and Niklas Selander, “Back Testing ‘The Magic Formula’ in the Nordic Region,” master’s thesis, Stockholm School of Economics, 2009. hhs.se
24. Krzysztof Podgórski, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Greenblatt’s Magic Formula across International Stock Markets: Literature Review,” Research Papers in Economics and Finance 10(1), 2026. doi.org
25. Aswath Damodaran, “EVA Economic Value Added by Sector (US),” data as of January 2026. stern.nyu.edu

Author disclosure

Summitward has no business relationship with VanEck, Morningstar, Pacer, Victory Capital, BlackRock, Avantis, Dimensional, Vanguard or any firm mentioned here and receives no compensation from them. Figures labeled as Summitward calculations are historical measurements over the stated window, not forecasts. Nothing here is investment advice.