MEXA  โ€ข  NASDAQ  โ€ข  CGCT US equities ยท completed weekly research
MEXA
๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ NASDAQ ยท Financial Services ยท Shell Companies

CGCT beta and relative strength

Cartesian Growth Corporation III Class A Ordinary Shares

CGCT is weakening below benchmark with higher sensitivity to QQQ.

Week ending Latest completed weekly edition
Next update 15:40 UK ยท after Stage Analysis
One-year beta 1.46Higher sensitivity ยท Rising
Movement explained 16%41% weekly correlation
Relative strength-58.57Weakening below benchmark
Downside beta 3.93Upside beta 0.88
One-year excess return-79.2%-54.0% stock ยท 25.2% benchmark
Directional participation

CGCT in rising and falling QQQ weeks

These percentages count what actually happened in completed weeks. They describe historical participation, not certainty about the next move.

Latest 52-week reading Directional participation is mixed

The stock sometimes follows the benchmark, but neither direction has been consistently dependable.

58% of directional weeks moved the same way.
When QQQ rose48%

CGCT also rose in 48% of 29 rising benchmark weeks.

When QQQ fell52%

CGCT also fell in 52% of 23 falling benchmark weeks.

Market state now Range-bound market with active movement
-0.5% over 13 weeks21.8% volatility

After 9 earlier matches by market direction, often separates from the benchmark.

Joined rising weeks40%
Joined falling weeks25%
Limited sample ยท 38% same-direction rate ยท 0.49 beta
Benchmark fit

CGCT sensitivity to QQQ

The benchmark relationship is partial and explains 16% of weekly movement over the latest year. Current beta is 1.46 and is rising.

Likely beta range0.55 to 2.36

A wider range means the beta estimate is less precise.

Beta stability34/100

How consistently rolling beta has held its level and direction.

Annualised alpha-89.0%

The weekly regression intercept annualised; it is historical, not expected return.

Tracking error60.4%

Annualised volatility of returns above or below the benchmark.

Relationship directionRelationship forming

+24.7 point change in movement explained across two distinct 26-week windows.

Beta and benchmark fitBeta is useful with context
Weaker benchmark fitStronger benchmark fitLower sensitivityHigher sensitivity

The estimate carries information, but direction, stability or the likely range should be checked before relying on it.

Historical one-week sensitivity
If QQQ rises 1%+0.88%historically associated CGCT move
If QQQ falls 1%-3.93%historically associated CGCT move
Likely beta range 0.55 to 2.36 ยท width 1.81
Can the beta be trusted?Partial relationship
Movement explained16%
Stability34%
Directional agreement58%

Rolling beta

26-week estimates show whether market sensitivity is rising or falling.

Move across the chart to inspect a completed week.
Rolling betaMarket-like beta 1.00

Rolling relationship strength

Correlation shows direction; explained movement shows how useful the relationship has been.

Move across the chart to inspect a completed week.
CorrelationMovement explained
PeriodBetaCorrelationMovement explainedAlphaExcess returnTracking error
6 months2.1050%25%-184.7%-72.5%83.1%
1 year1.4641%16%-89.0%-79.2%60.4%
Relative strength

CGCT relative strength against QQQ

The score compares the stock/benchmark ratio with its trailing 52-week average. Above zero means the ratio is above trend; direction shows whether that advantage is building or fading.

Relative-strength trend

Current score -58.57 ยท 13-week change -74.66

Move across the chart to inspect a completed week.
Relative strengthZero baseline

Stock, benchmark and worthwhile peers

Each path starts at 100. Sector and industry appear only when their Market Structure indexes have enough constituents.

Move across the chart to inspect a completed week.
Sector ยท Financial Services-58.4 points

versus sector over 13 weeks ยท 992 constituents ยท 8% correlation

Industry ยท Shell Companies-53.7 points

versus industry over 13 weeks ยท 218 constituents ยท 16% correlation

Sensitivity to Financial Services0.51 beta

1% of weekly movement explained by the sector over one year.

Sensitivity to Shell Companies6.56 beta

3% of weekly movement explained by the industry over one year.

Return components

13-week and 52-week returns relative to QQQ

This is a return bridge, not a claim of cause. It starts with the benchmark return, then shows the difference added at sector, industry and ticker level.

Last 13 weeks-52.8 points vs benchmark
Broad market-0.5%
Sector difference+5.6%
Industry difference-4.7%
Ticker difference-53.7%

The largest source of relative weakness was the ticker difference. CGCT returned -53.2%; QQQ returned -0.5%.

Last 52 weeks-79.2 points vs benchmark
Broad market+25.2%
Sector difference-20.2%
Industry difference-1.8%
Ticker difference-57.3%

The largest source of relative weakness was the ticker difference. CGCT returned -54.0%; QQQ returned 25.2%.

Market conditions

CGCT in rising and falling benchmark weeks

Downside beta is higher than upside beta, so weak benchmark weeks have carried more sensitivity.

Upside beta0.8848% upside capture
Downside beta3.93202% downside capture
Current splitMore exposed in falling markets-3.05 beta gap
ConditionWeeksCGCT averageQQQ averageBetaBeat benchmark
Benchmark up29+1.10%+2.29%0.8817%
Benchmark down23-3.72%-1.84%3.9374%
Strongest benchmark weeks10+5.94%+4.05%-3.7730%
Weakest benchmark weeks10-7.66%-3.12%8.0260%
Quieter benchmark weeks26-1.42%+0.23%-0.5546%
Historical extremes

Strongest and weakest 13-week relative periods

Distinct 13-week windows prevent one long move from filling the list with overlapping dates.

Strongest relative periods

2026-03-20 to 2026-06-12+27.8 pts

CGCT 49.3% ยท QQQ 21.5%

The return pattern shows that the ticker moved beyond its peer backdrop.
2025-12-12 to 2026-03-06+5.5 pts

CGCT 1.5% ยท QQQ -4.0%

The return pattern shows that the industry added to the move.
2025-08-29 to 2025-11-21+-2.1 pts

CGCT 1.2% ยท QQQ 3.3%

The return pattern shows that the sector moved the same way.

Weakest relative periods

2026-05-01 to 2026-07-24-53.7 pts

CGCT -50.5% ยท QQQ 3.2%

The return pattern shows that the industry added to the move, and the ticker moved beyond its peer backdrop.
2025-08-08 to 2025-10-31-13.0 pts

CGCT 0.7% ยท QQQ 13.7%

The return pattern shows that the sector moved the same way, and the industry added to the move.
2026-01-30 to 2026-04-24-5.8 pts

CGCT 0.8% ยท QQQ 6.6%

The return pattern shows that the sector moved the same way.
Pressure and timing

Drawdowns and lead/lag relationship

The strongest link is in the same week. Lead/lag evidence is treated as secondary because timing relationships can change quickly.

Drawdown from each rolling high

Worst available drawdown: CGCT -69.9% ยท QQQ -10.3%

Move across the chart to inspect a completed week.
CGCT drawdownQQQ drawdown
Ticker leads 2w
-9%
Ticker leads 1w
9%
Same week
39%
Benchmark leads 1w
-19%
Benchmark leads 2w
-8%
Observable signals

Signals that would confirm or change the reading

These are conditions to monitor, not price targets or forecasts.

Relative strengthBelow the zero baseline

A sustained move above zero would mark a meaningful repair in the stock/benchmark ratio.

Up/down beta-3.05 upside-minus-downside gap

Downside beta is higher than upside beta. A narrowing gap would be the first sign of better asymmetry.

Exposure trendBeta is rising

Rising beta means broad-market moves are carrying more weight; falling beta means ticker-specific forces are carrying more weight.

Peer confirmation-53.7 points versus Shell Companies over 13 weeks

Strength shared by the peer group is broader; strength confined to the ticker is more company-specific and usually less stable.

Method and limits

Data and interpretation limits

Data
Completed weekly observations from 2025-07-04 to 2026-08-21 ยท 60 aligned weeks.
Current reading
52 weeks; rolling charts use 26 weeks.
Relative strength
Stock/benchmark ratio compared with its trailing 52-week average.
Peer evidence
At least 10 sector constituents and 5 industry constituents. Thin groups are excluded.
Boundary
Historical relationship analysis, not a forecast or a statement of cause. Historical relationships can break without warning.

Evidence context