Marten Transport Ltd. (MRTN) Revenue-to-Profit Sankey Flow & SEC XBRL Financials

Per the Roarable RQD rating, MRTN scores 48 out of 100, a letter grade of D, with the verdict label "Roarable Sell — Underperform / Distribution Warning." The five pillars are:

• Fundamental Cash Engine: 12 / 20. Per the RQD rating, ROIC is 2.5% and FCF yield is 9.73%. Read together, the free-cash-flow yield looks meaningful on its face, but the low ROIC indicates that the capital base is producing little return relative to what is invested in it. For a prospective investor, the upside case here depends on cash generation being sustainable rather than a function of reduced capital spending or working-capital movements.
• Whale / 13F Flow: 3 / 20. Per the RQD rating, this pillar reflects institutional accumulation and options positioning. It is the weakest pillar in the set, indicating that the institutional signal currently provides little support to the thesis.
• Insider Conviction: 11 / 20. Per the RQD rating, this reflects SEC Form 4 and Congressional PTR cluster flow. The score is moderate; the source data does not supply the underlying transaction detail, so the direction of the flow cannot be confirmed from this dossier.
• Macro Regime Fit: 9 / 20. Per the RQD rating, beta is 1.0 and sector sensitivity is weighed here. A beta of 1.0 means the stock is expected to move in line with the broader market, offering neither a defensive cushion nor an explicit high-beta amplification. The score suggests the current macro regime is not a strong tailwind.
• Forensic Balance Sheet: 13 / 20. Per the RQD rating, Altman Z is 2.5, Piotroski F is 5/9, and Debt/Equity is 0.5. These are mid-range readings: a Z-score of 2.5, a Piotroski score of 5 out of 9, and modest leverage together describe a balance sheet that is neither distressed nor strong.

Valuation tradeoff. Per the market data, the trailing P/E is 55.1 and the forward P/E is 51.2, against EPS (TTM) of 0.21. An investor paying these multiples is paying for earnings recovery that the trailing financials do not yet show. The EV/EBITDA of 40 reinforces this point. The 9.73% FCF yield and 2.04% dividend yield are the principal income-oriented offsets to an otherwise demanding valuation, but the investor must weigh whether that cash yield is durable.

Net assessment. The RQD framework points toward caution: the combination of low ROIC, weak institutional flow, a stretched earnings multiple, and a neutral macro fit produces a sell-leaning verdict. Upside would require evidence of margin repair and ROIC improvement, neither of which the source data demonstrates.

Per the SEC financials, operating income and net income declined across the three reported periods, from $90.1M and $70.4M in FY 2023 to $22.9M and $17.4M in FY 2025. Per the market data, gross, operating, and net margins are each reported as 0%, and revenue for FY 2024 and FY 2025 is reported as $0.0M; these values do not allow a meaningful margin analysis and should be treated with caution. Per the Roarable RQD rating, ROIC is 2.5%, the Altman Z-Score is 2.5, and the Piotroski F-Score is 5/9. Per the RQD rating, Debt/Equity is 0.5, indicating a moderate leverage posture; the reported debt figures are N/A for each period.

• RISK WATCH — Earnings miss: A headline reports that Marten Transport missed Q3 earnings and revenue estimates.
• RISK WATCH — Cost pressure: A separate headline attributes weakness in Q3 to cost pressures.
• MARKET WIRE — Margin strain: A headline cites Q3 earnings and margin strain as pressure on the stock price.
• MARKET WIRE — Pricing: A Seeking Alpha headline describes better pricing alongside thin margins.
• MARKET WIRE — Profit and freight market: A Globe and Mail headline reports a Q3 profit increase amid a tightening freight market, which runs counter to the miss headlines.
• MARKET WIRE — Options activity: A TradingView headline asks whether options traders are positioned ahead of news.

Per the news feed, the flagged items are two RED risk-watch headlines and four YELLOW market-wire headlines. The headlines conflict: one reports a Q3 profit improvement while others report an earnings miss and cost-driven weakness. Per the Butterfly Supply-Chain Graph, the supply chain is "NONE," with no butterfly links and no proprietary signals.

• What are the actual reported revenue figures, given that the source shows $0.0M for two periods and 0% for all margins?
• What is the EPS history by period, since EPS is reported as N/A for every reported year?
• What drove the decline in operating and net income from FY 2023 to FY 2025, and is the Q3 earnings miss a continuation of that trend?
• What is the debt balance and maturity profile, since debt is N/A in every period?
• Which insider and institutional transactions underlie the insider and whale pillar scores?