Energy

Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE)

Market Cap
P/E Ratio
Beta
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 6/9Beneish M -2.50 Clean

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Financial health is average: Piotroski 6/9.

Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.

Algorithmic Teardown

AI-Generated

The fundamental economics of Cenovus Energy reveal a capital allocation profile where the return on invested capital spread appears constrained relative to typical high-quality compounders, yet profitability is sustained through operational leverage rather than volume expansion. The DuPont decomposition highlights that the 12.4% ROE is driven primarily by financial leverage (Equity Multiplier of 2.00x) and moderate asset turnover, while net margins sit at a modest 7.4%. This structural reliance on debt amplifies sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations and commodity price volatility. Despite these constraints, the company demonstrates robust financial integrity with a strong Beneish M-Score of -2.50 indicating low earnings manipulation risk, supported by a solid Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 which reflects stable operating cash flows and improving profitability despite an 8.6% revenue contraction year-over-year.

Valuation metrics suggest the market is pricing in significant downside potential relative to intrinsic worth, creating a notable disconnect between current multiples and historical norms. The stock trades at approximately half its DCF-derived fair value of $14, implying that current expectations for future growth are severely depressed or that macro headwinds dominate investor sentiment. While the sector average P/E stands at 30.5x, Cenovus likely commands a discount due to its cyclical nature and recent revenue decline; however, such a wide gap between implied fair value and market price often signals a mean reversion opportunity if underlying commodity assumptions stabilize. The valuation does not inherently account for the potential upside in oil prices or cost optimization initiatives that could compress the current multiple over time.

Risk-reward dynamics are currently skewed by divergent insider activity versus recent performance trends, offering an interesting divergence signal for contrarian analysis. While revenue has contracted and ROIC remains low at 7.1%, insiders have executed $89.4 million in net buying over the last ninety days, suggesting management views current asset valuations as undervalued relative to long-term prospects. This insider conviction contrasts sharply with the broader market's pessimism reflected in the depressed valuation multiples. The combination of a high F-Score, aggressive insider accumulation, and a significant discount to DCF fair value presents a scenario where short-term earnings deterioration may be priced out while longer-term fundamentals remain intact, though investors must weigh this against the inherent volatility of the energy sector.

Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.

DCF Sandbox

Interactive

Sensitivity Matrix

TG ↓ / WACC →8%10%12%
2%$17$12$9
3%$21$14$10
4%$26$16$11

Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs .

Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $14 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

6/9
Piotroski F-Score
Average — mixed operational signals
-2.50
Beneish M-Score
Below threshold — no statistical earnings quality concern per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

22.4%
Gross Margin
7.4%
Net Margin
7.1%
ROIC
-8.6%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
+25.1%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
3.3B
Free Cash Flow
43%
FCF Payout Ratio

✅ Conservative payout — room for dividend increases.

DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition

Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.

7.4%
Net Profit Margin
NI ÷ Revenue
×
0.83x
Asset Turnover
Revenue ÷ Assets
×
2.00x
Equity Multiplier
Assets ÷ Equity
=
12.4%
Return on Equity
Balanced ROE composition across margins, turnover, and leverage.

Balance Sheet Health

1.00x
Debt / Equity
1.57x
Current Ratio
7.8x
Interest Coverage
0.8x
Net Debt / EBITDA
10.3B
EBITDA

Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)

Net Insider Flow
+$89M
Net Buying
63
Buy Transactions
17
Sale Transactions
2026-03-25Sandhar (Karamjit Singh)Sold 1/2 qtrsOther50,750 shares
2026-03-25Sandhar (Karamjit Singh)Sold 1/2 qtrsSale$1M
2026-03-25Sandhar (Karamjit Singh)Sold 1/2 qtrsOther51,679 shares
2026-03-25Sandhar (Karamjit Singh)Sold 1/2 qtrsSale$1M
2026-03-25Soini, John FSold 1/2 qtrsOther10,275 shares

Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✓ Beat
Est: $0.30
Act: $0.34
+12.4%
Q3
✓ Beat
Est: $0.08
Act: $0.25
+203.4%
Q2
✓ Beat
Est: $0.34
Act: $0.55
+60.8%
Q1
✓ Beat
Est: $0.27
Act: $0.36
+32.5%

EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.

Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)

How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.

Loading drawdown chart...

Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)

How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.

Loading beta chart...
Rolling Beta Market (β = 1.0)

Fundamentals

Forward P/E
PEG Ratio
Price/Book
Avg Volume
52W High
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$1.1B
Tracked Passive Exposure
7
ETFs Holding CVE
0.10%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$1.1T
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like VYMI or SPDW, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell CVE shares regardless of Cenovus Energy Inc.'s individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.1B of passive capital is structurally linked to CVE through 7 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.

Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 7 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.

ETF Contagion Visualizer

Simulate a price drop in Cenovus Energy Inc. to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.

CVE Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
CVEEpicenterVXUSETFVEAETFVEUETFSMSNUnknownTSMLow Risk2330UnknownA000660Unknown005930Unknown
CVE Price Drop (%)0

If Cenovus Energy Inc. (CVE) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies SAMSUNG ELECTR GDR REG S (SMSN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with CVE. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 7 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

CVE Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
CVE

Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

CVE Capital Efficiency

How efficiently does Cenovus Energy Inc. convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.

Free Cash Flow
$3.3B
EBITDA
$10.3B
FCF Conversion
32%
Reinvestment Rate
68%
32% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)

Cenovus Energy Inc. converts 32% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, a moderate conversion rate — significant EBITDA is consumed by capital expenditures, working capital changes, or interest payments. The 68% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion.

Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.

Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History

SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.

DateFailed SharesClose PriceNotional Value
2026-05-1258,064$29.13$1.7M
2026-05-08551,506$28.46$15.7M
2026-05-07423$29.02$12,275.46
2026-05-066$30.45$182.7
2026-05-05179,788$29.98$5.4M
2026-05-0416,878$29.27$494,019.06
2026-04-301,948$28.75$56,005
2026-04-29192,900$27.42$5.3M
2026-04-2894,866$26.78$2.5M
2026-04-2414,252$26.45$376,965.4
2026-04-2315,168$25.92$393,154.56
2026-04-2213,754$25.60$352,102.4
2026-04-2171,984$24.91$1.8M
2026-04-20484,721$24.51$11.9M
2026-04-16400$25.45$10,180
2026-04-1516,711$25.72$429,806.92
2026-04-13163,737$25.87$4.2M
2026-04-1014,344$25.66$368,067.04
2026-04-0858,245$27.19$1.6M
2026-04-07952,429$26.88$25.6M
2026-04-06806$26.56$21,407.36
2026-04-029,987$25.82$257,864.34
2026-04-0159,134$26.53$1.6M
2026-03-3147,155$26.57$1.3M
2026-03-30491,433$26.82$13.2M
2026-03-279,519$25.96$247,113.24
2026-03-2628$25.93$726.04
2026-03-25898,202$25.44$22.9M
2026-03-242,352,868$24.79$58.3M
2026-03-23176,809$25.06$4.4M

Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.

Compare CVE to Peers

Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.

SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.