FNV (FNV)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 6/9, Altman Z 46.1. Beneish M-Score of -1.99 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of FNV reveal a high-margin business model driven primarily by exceptional profitability rather than operational leverage or capital efficiency. The DuPont decomposition highlights that the 14.6% ROE is almost entirely supported by a staggering 61.0% net margin, while asset turnover remains modest at 0.22x and equity multiplier sits near unity at 1.08x. This structure suggests earnings power stems from pricing strength or niche market positioning rather than scale advantages. Qualitative indicators reinforce this stability; the Beneish M-Score of -1.99 signals low earnings manipulation risk, while a Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 indicates solid financial health with minor areas for improvement in balance sheet or profitability metrics.
Valuation multiples reflect significant market optimism regarding future expansion, as the current P/E of 40.9x exceeds typical benchmarks for firms with such low asset turnover ratios. While the company has demonstrated robust revenue growth of 63.7% year-over-yoer, suggesting a potential inflection point in scalability that could justify premium pricing, investors must weigh this against the high multiple which implies aggressive future expectations are already embedded in share prices. The disconnect between current valuation and historical sector averages suggests the market is pricing in sustained acceleration in asset efficiency or margin expansion; however, any failure to materially improve turnover ratios could lead to a rapid compression of multiples if growth decelerates even slightly from its current trajectory.
Insider activity over the past 90 days remains neutral with zero net flow, offering no clear signal of management conviction regarding near-term catalysts or hidden risks. The absence of insider trading data combined with strong fundamentals creates an asymmetric risk profile where upside depends on execution to convert high margins into higher turnover, while downside protection relies on the durability of current profitability levels absent any leverage amplification.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Earnings Surprise History
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.
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.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like VIGI or VEA, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell FNV shares regardless of FNV's individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.3B of passive capital is structurally linked to FNV 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 FNV to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If FNV (FNV) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Royal Bank of Canada (RY) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with FNV. 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.
FNV Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest FNV Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
FNV Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does FNV convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
FNV converts -41% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, negative FCF conversion — the company is consuming cash faster than it generates EBITDA, which is unsustainable long-term. The 141% 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.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 11,472 | $240.79 | $2.8M |
| 2026-05-13 | 11,628 | $237.00 | $2.8M |
| 2026-05-12 | 762 | $237.60 | $181,051.2 |
| 2026-05-07 | 33,774 | $234.50 | $7.9M |
| 2026-05-06 | 2,730 | $225.07 | $614,441.1 |
| 2026-05-01 | 1,835 | $230.34 | $422,673.9 |
| 2026-04-23 | 8,294 | $247.34 | $2.1M |
| 2026-04-22 | 16,543 | $247.50 | $4.1M |
| 2026-04-20 | 1,087 | $262.50 | $285,337.5 |
| 2026-04-09 | 2,488 | $265.17 | $659,742.96 |
| 2026-04-07 | 19 | $256.45 | $4,872.55 |
| 2026-03-30 | 1,071 | $233.95 | $250,560.45 |
| 2026-03-27 | 4,097 | $227.88 | $933,624.36 |
| 2026-03-24 | 41,899 | $226.85 | $9.5M |
| 2026-03-19 | 45,124 | $243.33 | $11.0M |
| 2026-03-18 | 233 | $254.87 | $59,384.71 |
| 2026-03-17 | 73,644 | $254.13 | $18.7M |
| 2026-03-11 | 36,198 | $262.57 | $9.5M |
| 2026-03-06 | 6,056 | $255.35 | $1.5M |
| 2026-03-05 | 14,295 | $261.97 | $3.7M |
| 2026-03-04 | 3,940 | $262.41 | $1.0M |
| 2026-03-03 | 47 | $277.92 | $13,062.24 |
| 2026-02-27 | 166 | $280.82 | $46,616.12 |
| 2026-02-24 | 271 | $270.88 | $73,408.48 |
| 2026-02-23 | 2,713 | $260.40 | $706,465.2 |
| 2026-02-20 | 983 | $254.96 | $250,625.68 |
| 2026-02-17 | 183 | $252.18 | $46,148.94 |
| 2026-02-13 | 8,042 | $239.42 | $1.9M |
| 2026-02-11 | 356 | $255.01 | $90,783.56 |
| 2026-02-09 | 950 | $232.08 | $220,476 |
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 FNV 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.