We use cookies for behaviour analytics. Learn more
Financials · Equity Analysis
Blue Owl Capital Inc. (OWL) Stock Analysis - DCF Valuation & AI Disruption Risk
By Anton Ladnyi, CFA · ex-Goldman Sachs · ex-J.P. MorganPublished Updated
OWL — Q2 2026 was mixed: FRE +9% to $392.2M and AUM +15% to $319B, but GAAP net income to Class A shares fell 35% YoY to $11.4M (margin 9.4% vs 12.0% prior year); the Girard Sharp investigation into OBDE→OBDC merger claimants remains unresolved with no settlement news, keeping conviction constrained at a still-rich ~49x FRE multiple.
Composite rating with analyst overlay — not individualized investment advice.
How Is This Rating Calculated?
A.L. Capital Advisory Equity Composite model · calculated 2026-08-15. Four calculation steps, in order — steps 1, 2 and 4 are rules-based; step 3 is a disclosed qualitative analyst overlay mapped to a fixed numerical scale:
1. Margin of safety → quantitative grade
OWL's margin of safety is +6.39% (base case $13 vs. price $12.22). Margin of safety here is defined as (fair value − price) / fair value — this is the formula the quant grade below is actually assigned from. It is not the same figure as the gauge's "Upside to Base" pill above, which uses (fair value − price) / price and will read a larger number for the same inputs. For comparison, the pure (unblended) DCF output alone implies a margin of safety of +12.59% (pure DCF base $14 vs. price $12.22) — the gap between this and the +6.39% blended figure above reflects the analyst-consensus blend.
Blended valuation margin-of-safety bands
Margin of safety
Quant grade
Score
MOS > 20.00%
Strong Buy
5.0
10.00% < MOS ≤ 20.00%
Buy
4.0
−10.00% < MOS ≤ 10.00%
Hold
3.0
−20.00% < MOS ≤ −10.00%
Reduce
2.0
MOS ≤ −20.00%
Avoid
1.0
2. Auto fundamental penalty
Earnings growth -14% in -5% to -20% range (mild deterioration): -0.5 · total: -0.5
Automatic fundamental-penalty rules
Rule
Threshold
Penalty
P/E extreme
Forward (or trailing) P/E > 80x
−1.0
P/E elevated
Forward (or trailing) P/E 50–80x
−0.5
Earnings deterioration, significant
Earnings growth < −20%
−1.0
Earnings deterioration, mild
Earnings growth −5% to −20%
−0.5
Stagnant top-line
Revenue growth < 3%
−0.5
Unsustainable dividend
Payout ratio > 120%
−0.5
Rules are cumulative (multiple can fire on the same ticker) and purely mechanical — no analyst judgment is involved in step 2.
3. Thesis conviction modifier
Analyst conviction: very low · modifier: -1.00. This is a qualitative analyst judgment on the written thesis, mapped to a fixed numeric modifier below — it is not algorithmically derived from a measurable indicator.
Analyst-conviction modifier scale
Conviction level
Modifier
Very High
+1.00
High
+0.60
Medium
+0.00
Low
-0.60
Very Low
-1.00
General guidance for the assigning analyst (not an algorithmic rule — conviction is assigned by editorial judgment on the written thesis, not computed): Very High/High — multiple thesis pillars confirmed by the most recent reported quarter, no unresolved red flags. Medium — mixed evidence, or a thesis not yet differentiated enough to lean either direction. Low/Very Low — one or more thesis pillars deteriorating, or a material data-quality concern. Assigned and reviewed each time the underlying thesis is updated (see the thesis "last updated" date on this page).
Rating sensitivity: without the -1.00 analyst-conviction overlay, OWL would score 2.50 and carry a Hold rating instead of Reduce. The overlay is the deciding factor between these two ratings.
This is the exact formula the model runs — not a post-hoc explanation. Source: composite_grade.py, A.L. Capital Advisory Equity Composite.
OWL Price Target & Rating
OWL's composite rating is Reduce (quantitative grade: Hold), with elevated downside risk (CVaR -33.1%), and quality metrics (net margin 3%, ROE 6%). Blue Owl Capital Inc. (OWL) trades at $12.22 with a Reduce composite rating and a quantitative grade of Hold: a trailing P/E of 101.8x at a 627% premium to sector median, net margins of 2.7%, a blended fair-value range of $10–$19 suggesting a +6% margin of safety, beta 1.19 (moderate risk profile).
What Is OWL's DCF Intrinsic Value and Blended Fair Value Range?
OWL's blended fair-value range is $10–$19 (base case $13), against a current price of $12.22.
OWL blended fair-value gauge — bear case $10, base case $13, bull case $19, current price $12.22.
Price & DCF data as of
How Does OWL's Margin of Safety Change as the Price Moves?
Drag to simulate OWL's price moving between the blended bear ($10) and bull ($19) fair-value anchors — left for a price fall, right for a rise — and see how the margin of safety vs A.L. Capital Advisory's $13 blended base-case fair value changes. Starting point: the page's as-of price of $12.22 on 2026-08-15.
DCF Assumptions
Two-stage earnings-based DCF on forward EPS of $0.99 (Yahoo Finance forwardEps: provider-aggregated next-fiscal-year consensus estimate, not a fixed trailing-12-month window): explicit 5-year forecast at the stage-1 growth rate below, discounted at the CAPM cost of equity, plus a Gordon Growth terminal value at the terminal growth rate, also discounted at the CAPM cost of equity. This model discounts projected EPS — an equity-level metric — directly, not free cash flow, so the cost of equity is the theoretically correct discount rate; this is not a debt-weighted WACC (no cost of debt or capital-structure weighting is applied). Source: A.L. Capital Advisory DCF engine (api.py).
DCF assumptions by scenario
Input
Bear
Base
Bull
Stage-1 (near-term) growth
3.60%
8.00%
12.00%
Terminal growth
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
CAPM cost of equity (discount rate)
12.11%
11.21%
10.31%
Forecast horizon
5 years
5 years
5 years
CAPM cost of equity = risk-free rate (4.70%, a live 10-year Treasury yield (Yahoo Finance ^TNX) fetched at page-generation time, 2026-08-15T11:35:57+00:00 UTC) + beta (1.19) × 5.5% equity risk premium, floored at 6% and capped at 18%. Stage-1 growth is a sector-level base rate (bear/bull apply 0.45x/1.50x multipliers); terminal growth is held constant across scenarios. Bear/bull cost of equity applies a ±8% relative adjustment to the base rate, clamped to the same 6–18% band.
The DCF output above is not the final intrinsic value shown elsewhere on this page. It is blended with the Wall Street analyst consensus price target to avoid extreme single-model divergence, weighted by analyst coverage depth (17 analysts covering this stock → 35.00% DCF / 65.00% consensus). The blended figure is the intrinsic value used for margin-of-safety and the composite rating.
DCF-to-intrinsic-value blend by scenario
Scenario
Pure DCF value
Analyst target used
Blended intrinsic value (displayed)
Bear
$10.64
$9.00
$9.57
Base
$13.98
$12.56
$13.05
Bull
$18.24
$20.00
$19.39
Blended value = (35.00% × pure DCF) + (65.00% × analyst target). Bear/bull scenarios blend against the analyst low/high target rather than the mean.
Analyst-coverage-to-consensus-weight tiers
Analyst coverage
Weight
0–1 analysts
0.00% consensus / 100.00% DCF
2–4 analysts
40.00% consensus / 60.00% DCF
5–19 analysts
65.00% consensus / 35.00% DCF
20+ analysts
75.00% consensus / 25.00% DCF
The consensus weight is a fixed step function of analyst coverage depth (above), not adjusted for target age, dispersion, or outliers — the mean/low/high analyst targets are used as reported by the data provider with no filtering.
Key Takeaways
Valuation: Reduce composite rating; Hold quantitative grade — P/E 101.8x — blended fair-value range $10–$19 implies +6% margin of safety
Risk: CVaR -33.1% (95th percentile, 1-month) indicates high tail exposure; beta of 1.19 amplifies broad market moves in both directions
Strengths: 3% net margin, 6% ROE dominate the factor profile
Catalyst: Girard Sharp investigation resolution/settlement (still no timeline); a second large GP stake exit demonstrating repeatability post-SpaceX; whether GAAP net income margin recovers toward the low-teens in Q3.
Bear catalyst: Investigation results in a material settlement or new disclosure gaps emerge; GAAP margin compresses further below 9%; FRE growth decelerates below 10% YoY.
OWL — Quantitative SnapshotAugust 2026
RatingReduce
Price$12.22
Why ReduceModestly above estimated intrinsic value — risk/reward skewed to the downside at current price; watch for a pullback to the Hold boundary
Main riskP/E of 101.8x creates asymmetric downside on any earnings disappointment
Tail riskCVaR -33.1% over one month at the 95th percentile
Blended fair-value range$10–$19 blended fair-value range; margin of safety +6%
Best useCore large-cap Financials holding — not a source of diversified sector exposure
Next watchEarnings surprise deceleration trend — monitor next quarter delivery closely
How Does OWL Score on the Five-Factor Quantitative Model?
OWL's composite five-factor score is 2.4/5, led by Momentum (3.0/5) and weakest on Quality (1.0/5).
OWL five-factor radar — Value 2.0, Quality 1.0, Momentum 3.0, Volatility 3.0, Size 3.0 (out of 5).
Value
2.0 / 5
Quality
1.0 / 5
Momentum
3.0 / 5
Volatility
3.0 / 5
Size
3.0 / 5
OWL Five-Factor Quantitative Scores
Factor
Score
Value
2.0 / 5
Quality
1.0 / 5
Momentum
3.0 / 5
Volatility
3.0 / 5
Size
3.0 / 5
What Is OWL's AI-Era Durability and Disruption Risk?
AI Disruption Risk: Elevated
Blue Owl's Digital Infrastructure Fund III closed at $7 billion, well above its $4 billion target and at hard cap, bringing the strategy's cumulative raise to $34 billion across more than 90 facilities in 25-plus markets, and the firm has continued expanding via the roughly $1 billion IPI Partners acquisition and a $750 million additional investment in its Chirisa/PowerHouse AI data-center joint venture. The disruption risk is concrete and already visible: Blue Owl's flagship BDC, OBDC, cut its dividend to $0.31 per share and saw NAV fall to $14.41 from $14.81 as credit spreads widened, and a planned OBDC II merger was cancelled after a roughly 20% NAV-discount controversy exposed how illiquid, semi-liquid vehicles can mark down sharply even when underlying loans perform -- a dynamic that also applies to its retail-facing digital-infrastructure vehicle ODIT, where a share-repurchase plan is the only real liquidity source. Investors should watch OBDC's NAV trend and non-accrual rate, plus whether ODIT ever needs to gate its repurchase plan.
Key Metrics
OWL Key Metrics — Blue Owl Capital Inc. 2026
Metric
Value
Current Price
$12.22
P/E Ratio (TTM)
101.8x
Forward P/E
12.4x
P/S Ratio
10.0
EV/EBITDA
12.8
Beta
1.19
Net Margin
2.7%
ROE
5.7%
Debt/Equity
77.4%
Dividend Yield
6.46%
CVaR (95%, 1M)
-33.1%
Market Cap
$29.8B
1-Month CVaR Methodology
The 1M CVaR-95 figure shown in Key Metrics, the peer comparison table and this page's hero card is computed as follows:
Lookback: most recent 1 year of daily prices.
Return input: daily log returns on dividend/split-adjusted close prices.
Confidence level: 95% (worst 5% of the resulting rolling-month observations).
Quantile convention: floor-based cutoff — the worst floor(N × 0.05) rolling-month observations (minimum 1), not a rounded or interpolated percentile.
CVaR: arithmetic mean of that worst-5% tail, expressed as a percentage.
Corporate actions: reflected via adjusted-close pricing (dividends and splits are accounted for).
1M CVaR-95 by lookback window
Method
1M CVaR-95
Trailing 1-year historical
-33.1%
Trailing 3-year historical
-27.0%
Trailing 5-year historical
-25.9%
The 1-year figure is what appears elsewhere on this page. Because it is built from overlapping 21-day windows over a single year, it reflects roughly the last ~11 non-independent tail events and is sensitive to the specific market regime of that year — treat it as a trailing-window historical estimate, not a structurally stable long-run risk parameter. The 3- and 5-year figures use the same methodology over longer, more regime-diverse histories.
This is a separate calculation from the 1-Day VaR/CVaR shown in the Tail Risk Profile chart below, which uses raw (non-overlapping) daily returns rather than rolling monthly sums — see that chart's own methodology note for the daily-horizon convention.
Tail Risk Profile
Historical Simulation · Daily Log Returns
OWL — Daily Return Distribution
Blue Owl Capital Inc. · 250 trading days · CVaR illustrated on real data
Aug 2025 – Aug 2026
Daily log returns
95%
-4.83%
1-Day VaR · 95%
95th-percentile loss threshold
-6.07%
1-Day CVaR · 95%
Avg loss in tail
13
Days in tail
of 250 sessions
250
Daily returns
Aug 2025 – Aug 2026
Historical VaR uses the nearest-rank convention: the worst observation within the tail (empirical (1−confidence) fraction of trading days). Historical CVaR is the arithmetic mean of all observations at or below that VaR threshold — so VaR is always included inside the CVaR tail, not one observation outside it.
Anton Ladnyi, CFA · A.L. Capital AdvisoryUpdated 2026-08-15
Rating Rationale
OWL — Q2 2026 was mixed: FRE +9% to $392.2M and AUM +15% to $319B, but GAAP net income to Class A shares fell 35% YoY to $11.4M (margin 9.4% vs 12.0% prior year); the Girard Sharp investigation into OBDE→OBDC merger claimants remains unresolved with no settlement news, keeping conviction constrained at a still-rich ~49x FRE multiple.
Investment Thesis
↑ Bull Case
Fee-Related Earnings grew 9% in Q2 to $392.2M, with LTM FRE up 15% to $1,578.6M and Distributable Earnings up 14% to $1,367.3M — core fee-generating engine still growing.
AUM reached $319B, a five-fold increase since listing five years ago, with Real Assets AUM up 25% YoY driving a $31.1B unfunded pipeline (~$380M future annual fees once deployed).
$7.8B of quarterly commitments raised shows fundraising momentum intact despite the overhang from the investigation.
Dividend held steady at $0.23/share, signaling management confidence in cash generation despite the GAAP earnings decline.
↓ Bear Case
GAAP net income attributable to Class A shares fell 35% YoY to just $11.4M, with margin compressing to 9.4% from 12.0% — a real deterioration beneath the FRE/AUM headline growth.
Girard Sharp investigation into the OBDE→OBDC merger remains unresolved with no settlement or resolution disclosed as of this update — governance/disclosure tail risk is still live.
Stock trades at ~49x FRE, a premium multiple that leaves no room for the GAAP earnings miss or a negative investigation outcome.
Jim Cramer and other commentators publicly questioned balance sheet management following the print, adding to sentiment overhang.
What Changes the Rating
↑Catalyst:Investigation resolves without material financial penalty; GAAP net income margin recovers above 12%; a second GP stake realization at 5x+ or insurance AUM crosses $50B.
↓Model downgrade conditions:Investigation results in a material settlement or new disclosure gaps emerge; GAAP margin compresses further below 9%; FRE growth decelerates below 10% YoY.
Anton’s personal note
The rating on OWL is driven by a factor profile that is genuinely mixed — there is no clean narrative here, which is itself a signal worth taking seriously. The variable I track most closely is gross margin trajectory. That multiple can only be sustained if operating leverage is real — specifically whether the margin profile at scale supports what the market is already pricing in, or whether that future still needs to be earned. The scenario that changes my read is a genuine valuation reset — not a small pullback, but a re-rating that reflects the actual risk profile. Until that happens, the risk/reward is not there.
— Anton Ladnyi, CFA
Earnings History
OWL Earnings History — EPS Surprise Rate 2026
Quarter
EPS Est. (consensus)
EPS Actual (adjusted, consensus basis)
Surprise
Q2 2026
$0.22
$0.22
+1.8% ✓
Q1 2026
$0.18
$0.19
+5.4% ✓
Q4 2025
$0.22
$0.24
+6.8% ✓
Q3 2025
$0.22
$0.22
-0.6% ✗
EPS Actual is on the same adjusted/non-GAAP basis as the consensus estimate it is compared against (excludes one-time items, consistent with how Wall Street EPS estimates are typically constructed) — it will generally differ from the company's GAAP diluted EPS as reported in its official financial statements. Verify the GAAP figure against the issuer's original earnings release if that basis is what you need.
How Has OWL Performed vs. Wall Street EPS Estimates?
OWL has beaten consensus EPS estimates in 3 of the last 4 reported quarters (75%).
OWL quarterly EPS — estimate vs. actual, 4 most recent reported quarters, 75% beat rate.
Earnings Projections
OWL Forward EPS Consensus Estimates 2026
Quarter
EPS Est.
YoY EPS
Analysts
Q3 2026
$0.23
+4.5%
15
Q4 2026
$0.25
+3.1%
15
Q1 2027
~$0.19
+0.0%
16
Q2 2027
~$0.25
+13.6%
16
~ Estimated from annual consensus — not a direct analyst survey
What Are Wall Street's EPS Estimates for OWL?
Wall Street's next-quarter consensus EPS estimate for OWL is $0.23.
OWL consensus EPS estimates, next quarter $0.23, 4 quarters shown.
OWL — P/E 101.8x · Beta 1.19 • Composite rating: Reduce · Quantitative grade: Hold • CVaR from one-year daily history · historical simulation
Editorial Analyst Scenarios
Revenue growth × exit multiple (editorial, not mechanically reproducible from disclosed inputs) · hover each scenario for detail · current price $12.22
▼
Bear Case
$6
-50.9%
Implied NTM P/E: 6.5x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
7% revenue CAGR · 26 exit multiple
◆
Base Case
$11
-10.0%
Implied NTM P/E: 12.0x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
14% revenue CAGR · 33 exit multiple
▲
Bull Case
$18
+43.2%
Implied NTM P/E: 19.1x (target ÷ next-4Q consensus EPS — distinct from the exit multiple below, which is applied to a later-year EPS estimate)
21% revenue CAGR · 43 exit multiple
How Correlated Is OWL With Its Sector Peers?
6 of 10 peer pairs correlated above 0.60, indicating partial historical diversification — some pairs move together closely enough to blunt the benefit of holding both.
OWL pairwise correlation heatmap across 5 peers — 6 of 10 pairs above 0.60.
6 of 10 peer pairs correlated above 0.60, indicating partial historical diversification — some pairs move together closely enough to blunt the benefit of holding both.
Extended Analysis — Buy, Hold or Sell? Risk Factors. Portfolio Fit.
Is OWL a buy, hold, or sell?
OWL carries a quantitative grade of Hold. The trailing P/E of 101.8 sits 627% above the Financials sector median of 14.0x — a premium that demands sustained earnings delivery. Our two-stage, EPS-based DCF model produces a pure model range of $11–$18. After blending with Street consensus targets, the displayed fair-value range is $10–$19 — implying a +6% margin of safety vs. blended base fair value at the current price of $12.22. The width of the range reflects genuine uncertainty in the terminal growth rate assumption: the correct framework is a probability-weighted distribution over scenarios, not a single point estimate. See the DCF valuation framework for full methodology.
The company has beaten estimates in 75% of the last 4 reported quarters. The most recent quarter delivered a 1.8% earnings surprise. Analyst estimate revisions are trending upward.
What are OWL's key risk factors?
With a beta of 1.19, OWL exhibits an above-market risk profile relative to the broad market. The 95th-percentile CVaR of -33.1% on a one-month horizon should inform position sizing directly: at a 10% portfolio weight, this standalone tail outcome corresponds to approximately 3.3% of portfolio value before accounting for correlations with other holdings — not a marginal portfolio CVaR contribution, which depends on the full covariance structure. Net margins of 2.7% fall below the Financials sector average of 28%, suggesting margin pressure. The balance sheet is conservatively leveraged at 77% debt-to-equity.
The options market shows a put/call ratio of 4.94, reflecting a notably bearish skew in derivative positioning. Implied and realized volatility are roughly aligned at 51.3% and 51.3% respectively. Insiders have been net sellers to the tune of $1805.1M over the disclosed transactions from 2024-09-03 to 2026-05-07. While routine dispositions are common, the magnitude bears watching. Short interest of 19.2% of float is elevated, reflecting meaningful bearish positioning.
How does OWL fit in a diversified portfolio?
At typical HENRY portfolio weights — 10–20% of the equity allocation — OWL carries a beta of 1.19, meaning it amplifies broad market moves proportionally. The appropriate weight is not a function of conviction alone, but of the full covariance structure across all holdings. See the Ledoit-Wolf covariance framework for the methodology behind these calculations.
Among closely correlated names, OWL shows the strongest co-movement with BX (0.74), KKR (0.71), APO (0.70). Investors seeking diversification should note these correlation dynamics when constructing multi-asset portfolios. With the top peer correlation at 0.74, adding OWL to a portfolio that already holds these names provides limited marginal diversification benefit — particularly during stress events when correlations converge toward 1.0.
True portfolio risk is a function of the full covariance structure across all holdings — not individual stock metrics. The Portfolio Health Check quantifies this at the portfolio level: it surfaces hidden concentration, marginal CVaR contributions, and the degree to which your overall allocation deviates from an optimal risk-adjusted mandate. The OWL analysis here is a single node in that larger structure.
What is OWL's AI-Era Durability & Disruption Risk Score?
Blue Owl's Digital Infrastructure Fund III closed at $7 billion, well above its $4 billion target and at hard cap, bringing the strategy's cumulative raise to $34 billion across more than 90 facilities in 25-plus markets, and the firm has continued expanding via the roughly $1 billion IPI Partners acquisition and a $750 million additional investment in its Chirisa/PowerHouse AI data-center joint venture. The disruption risk is concrete and already visible: Blue Owl's flagship BDC, OBDC, cut its dividend to $0.31 per share and saw NAV fall to $14.41 from $14.81 as credit spreads widened, and a planned OBDC II merger was cancelled after a roughly 20% NAV-discount controversy exposed how illiquid, semi-liquid vehicles can mark down sharply even when underlying loans perform -- a dynamic that also applies to its retail-facing digital-infrastructure vehicle ODIT, where a share-repurchase plan is the only real liquidity source. Investors should watch OBDC's NAV trend and non-accrual rate, plus whether ODIT ever needs to gate its repurchase plan.
What is OWL's intrinsic value and DCF price target?
A.L. Capital Advisory's model produces a blended fair-value range (25% pure DCF, 75% analyst consensus for well-covered names) of $10 (bear case) to $19 (bull case) for Blue Owl Capital Inc. (OWL). At $12.22, the margin of safety vs. blended base case is +6% (positive = discount to fair value; negative = premium). The bear-to-bull spread reflects genuine sensitivity to the two dominant DCF inputs: the terminal growth rate and the CAPM cost of equity (this model discounts EPS, an equity-level metric, so the cost of equity rather than a debt-weighted WACC is the applicable discount rate). Terminal value typically accounts for 60-80% of total intrinsic value in most equity DCF models, which is why a range is more analytically sound than a point estimate. The central analytical question is not what the DCF outputs as a single number but which growth trajectory the current market price already discounts. All DCF analysis follows CFA Institute standards and is conducted by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: DCF Valuation Framework →
Is OWL a buy or sell in 2026?
Blue Owl Capital Inc. (OWL) carries a Reduce composite rating from A.L. Capital Advisory, consisting of a Hold quantitative grade plus an analyst-conviction overlay. The quantitative grade is set by margin-of-safety band; the overlay is an additive analyst adjustment disclosed in the page's rating-calculation breakdown. Five-factor model scoring (Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, Size) and CVaR tail-risk measurement are shown separately on the page and are not inputs to this specific composite-rating formula. At $12.22, the margin of safety vs. blended base fair value is +6% (blended fair-value range: $10 bear – $19 bull). That places the current price in the Fair Range zone of A.L. Capital Advisory's DCF framework, which sets the quantitative grade component before the analyst-conviction overlay is applied. Composite factor score: 2.4/5. Strongest factor: Momentum (3.0/5). Weakest factor: Quality (1.0/5). Trailing P/E: 101.8x. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Rating Methodology (this page) →
What is the average analyst target price for OWL?
Wall Street consensus target for OWL: $12.56 (+2.8% upside from the current price of $12.22). The analyst target range spans $9.00 (most bearish) to $20.00 (most bullish). Consensus recommendation: Buy. Note that analyst price targets typically reflect a 12-month forward horizon and are derived from a blend of DCF, comparable-company, and sum-of-the-parts analysis. A.L. Capital Advisory's Reduce composite rating is calculated from the blended margin-of-safety grade, applicable automatic fundamental penalties, and a disclosed qualitative analyst-conviction overlay — not from five-factor scores or CVaR, which are supporting diagnostics shown elsewhere on this page. The displayed blended fair value combines the standalone DCF output with Street consensus for well-covered names (see the DCF Assumptions box for the exact blend weight), so it does not track Street consensus mechanically, but it is not fully independent of it either. When the composite rating and the Street consensus recommendation diverge, the divergence itself is informative: it can reflect differences in time horizon, valuation methodology, or the degree to which the current price already discounts the consensus case. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Data & Sources (this page) →
How does OWL score on Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, and Size?
OWL five-factor scores (A.L. Capital Advisory, 1–5 scale): Value 2.0/5 (below average) — measures the trailing P/E multiple versus the sector median (not the DCF or blended fair-value range, which are separate metrics on this page); Quality 1.0/5 (weak) — captures profitability metrics including return on equity (ROE: 5.7%) and net margin (2.7%) — sustained above-peer ROE and margins are the model's proxy for economic moat and pricing power; Momentum 3.0/5 (neutral) — reflects recent price trajectory and earnings surprise consistency; Volatility 3.0/5 (neutral) — inverse measure derived from beta, where lower historical volatility earns a higher score; Size 3.0/5 (neutral) — market capitalisation rank (mega-cap $1T+ scores 5/5). Composite: 2.4/5. Factor scores above 4.0 signal a tailwind in that dimension; below 2.0 signals a material headwind. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory.
What is OWL's tail risk and CVaR?
The 95th-percentile Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) for OWL on a one-month horizon is -33.1%. CVaR represents the expected average loss in the worst 5% of monthly outcomes — a more conservative tail risk measure than standard VaR, which only marks the loss threshold. Beta of 1.19 indicates above-market systematic sensitivity with amplified drawdown exposure — beta measures historical sensitivity to market moves, not total volatility. For reference, a diversified S&P 500 ETF carries a one-month CVaR of roughly -8% to -12% in normal market conditions; individual equity CVaR is higher due to idiosyncratic risk. At the portfolio level, what matters is the marginal CVaR contribution of each holding — not its standalone figure. The A.L. Capital Advisory Portfolio Health Check quantifies each position's marginal tail-risk contribution across your entire holdings. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology →
What would trigger a rating upgrade or downgrade for OWL?
Upgrade trigger: Upgrade to Strong Buy on evidence of accelerating earnings surprise magnitude combined with improvement in the Value factor score — specifically if the current 101.8x P/E is supported by an upward revision to DCF terminal growth assumptions. Downgrade trigger: Continued earnings misses or deteriorating balance sheet quality reducing the Quality factor score below 2.0/5. These triggers are reassessed each time the underlying fundamentals, price, or earnings data refresh — the current Reduce rating is not held on a fixed review calendar. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Rating Methodology (this page) →
Does OWL consistently beat earnings estimates?
OWL has beaten consensus EPS estimates in 3 of the 4 most recently reported quarters (75%) — indicating consistent delivery across the latest 4 reported quarters. The most recent reported quarter beat consensus by 1.8%. Sustained above-consensus delivery supports both the Momentum and Quality factor scores and provides a tailwind to the current rating. Across the 4 most recently reported quarters with valid consensus data, a beat rate above 70% signals consistent execution in this model, while a rate below 50% typically corresponds to a Momentum factor score of 3.0/5 or below. Earnings surprise magnitude and direction are incorporated into the Momentum and Quality dimensions of the five-factor scoring model. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Earnings History (this page) →
How does OWL contribute to portfolio risk and diversification?
OWL carries a beta of 1.19 (high-volatility / growth-sensitive relative to the broad equity market). A beta above 1.0 means the position amplifies market moves in both directions at a typical portfolio weight. Strongest peer co-movement: BX (0.74), KKR (0.71), APO (0.70). Holding OWL alongside these names in the same portfolio increases concentration risk. True portfolio risk is a function of the full covariance structure — a single stock's beta does not reveal its marginal contribution to portfolio tail loss. The A.L. Capital Advisory Portfolio Health Check quantifies concentration risk (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index), pairwise correlations, and marginal CVaR contribution across all your holdings. If a single position such as this one makes up an outsized share of your net worth — employer stock, RSUs, or concentrated equity compensation — a Strategic Session builds the sequencing plan and the written allocation that follows from it. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: Ledoit-Wolf Covariance Framework →
What quantitative methodology does A.L. Capital Advisory use to analyse OWL?
A.L. Capital Advisory analyses Blue Owl Capital Inc. (OWL) using a four-part quantitative research framework grounded in CFA Institute standards (not all four parts feed the composite rating formula directly — see below). (1) DCF Valuation: a two-stage earnings-based DCF that projects EPS (not free cash flow) under bear and bull assumptions, discounts at the CAPM cost of equity (the applicable rate for an equity-level metric like EPS, not a debt-weighted WACC) to produce an intrinsic value range with margin-of-safety calculation. (2) Five-Factor Scoring: each equity is scored 1–5 on Value, Quality, Momentum, Volatility, and Size. (3) CVaR Tail Risk: 95th-percentile Conditional Value at Risk from historical simulation of daily returns on a one-month horizon. (4) Earnings Surprise Analysis: quarterly beat rate and magnitude, shown for context alongside the factor scores. The current Reduce composite rating for OWL is calculated separately from this broader framework: it consists of a Hold quantitative grade, any automatic fundamental penalty, and a disclosed qualitative analyst-conviction overlay — see this page's Rating Methodology section for the exact formula. Five-factor scoring, CVaR and earnings surprise analysis below are supporting research diagnostics shown separately on this page; they are not direct numerical inputs into this specific composite-rating calculation. Analysis by Anton Ladnyi, CFA (ex-Goldman Sachs, ex-J.P. Morgan) · A.L. Capital Advisory. Full methodology: DCF Valuation Framework → · CVaR & Tail-Risk Methodology →
Stress-Test This View Live
Run OWL in Asset Lens
Live DCF valuation, Monte Carlo simulation, options flow intelligence, and full factor decomposition — updated in real time. Free, no account required.
Retrieved 2026-08-15T11:35:57+00:00 (UTC); see per-quarter analyst counts in Earnings Forecast; individual target ages/dates are not disclosed by the data provider
Most recent exchange settlement date on file with the data provider (exact settlement date not exposed by the provider's API; retrieved 2026-08-15T11:35:57+00:00 UTC)
[6] DCF valuation, five-factor model & composite rating
Calculated 2026-08-15T11:35:57+00:00 (UTC); see Rating Methodology above for the exact formula
Hand-authored thesis commentary (bull/bear case, catalysts, AI-Era Durability Score narrative) is cross-checked against the company's own investor-relations disclosures at time of writing; figures presented as A.L. Capital Advisory estimates are proprietary forecasts, not company guidance, unless explicitly attributed to the issuer.
Market-session status above is derived from the page's UTC generation time using standard NYSE hours (9:30am–4:00pm ET regular session); it does not account for US market holidays and may be inaccurate on those dates.
Download this page's underlying data: JSON → · CSV →
Legal Disclaimer & Important Notices
This analysis is produced using a systematic quantitative framework applied to market data and does not constitute investment advice. Prose commentary is AI-assisted and generated from structured quantitative inputs. All data and metrics are as of 2026-08-15 and are point-in-time estimates subject to revision without notice. CVaR figures are based on historical simulation and do not guarantee future outcomes. DCF ranges and upgrade/downgrade triggers are forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and may not materialise. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This analysis does not account for individual circumstances, tax position, or investment objectives — consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions. This content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute regulated investment advice under MiFID II or FCA guidelines. This content is not intended for US persons or residents of jurisdictions where its distribution would be contrary to local law or regulation. This service is not directed at residents of Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, or Poland. The author may hold long or short positions in securities mentioned in this analysis. Nothing on this page represents a solicitation to buy or sell any security. A.L. Capital Advisory is an independent private advisory practice and is not affiliated with Blue Owl Capital Inc.
CFA Portfolio Advisory — OWL
Discuss this analysis, position sizing, or your full portfolio mandate with Anton Ladnyi, CFA.
