M (M)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicStrong operational fundamentals (Piotroski 7/9) with Altman Z of 2.6. Beneish M-Score of -1.79 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 company's capital efficiency presents a mixed picture, characterized by an ROIC of 5.8% that fails to clearly exceed the cost of equity required for value creation, despite an ROE of 12.8%. This return on equity is primarily driven by financial leverage (Equity Multiplier at 3.60x) rather than operational profitability or asset efficiency, as evidenced by a modest net margin of 2.5% and moderate asset turnover of 1.40x. While the Beneish M-Score of -2.58 suggests low earnings manipulation risk, the Piotroski F-Score of 6/9 indicates marginal fundamental strength, compounded by negative revenue growth of -3.6% year-over-year which signals potential headwinds in core business dynamics.
Valuation metrics currently reflect significant market skepticism regarding future cash flows and growth prospects. Trading at a forward P/E of 7.7x, the stock appears substantially discounted relative to its historical norms and sector peers, yet this compression may be justified by the deteriorating top-line trajectory rather than an undervalued opportunity. The DCF model implies a fair value of $63; however, such a valuation relies on specific assumptions about future growth rates that must overcome the current revenue contraction to materialize. Essentially, the market is pricing in limited upside potential unless operational margins expand or leverage decreases sufficiently to boost intrinsic returns without increasing financial risk.
Risk factors are highlighted by recent insider activity showing $120,743 net selling over the last 90 days, which often precedes downward revisions in analyst expectations. Although no specific Fama-French alpha data is provided to quantify style-based performance deviations, the combination of negative revenue growth and reliance on leverage for ROE suggests a fragile equity risk profile. The divergence between high gross margins (40.3%) and low net margins indicates that operating expenses are eroding profitability, creating uncertainty around whether current valuation levels adequately compensate for execution risks or if further downside remains priced in.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 8.7% | 10.7% | 12.7% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $76 | $56 | $44 |
| 3% | $88 | $63 | $48 |
| 4% | $106 | $71 | $52 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.7%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $63 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
✅ 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.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
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 XRT or VFQY, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell M shares regardless of M's individual fundamentals. We estimate $229M of passive capital is structurally linked to M through 8 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on M's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in M to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If M (M) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Lam Research Corp. (LRCX) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with M. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 15 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
M Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest M Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 15 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
M Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does M convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
M converts 38% 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 63% reinvestment rate signals aggressive capacity expansion. However, the ROIC-WACC spread is negative (-4.3%), suggesting reinvested capital is destroying shareholder value.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-13 | 6,290 | $18.52 | $116,490.8 |
| 2026-05-06 | 27,481 | $19.28 | $529,833.68 |
| 2026-05-04 | 1,112 | $19.69 | $21,895.28 |
| 2026-04-23 | 550 | $20.20 | $11,110 |
| 2026-04-20 | 193 | $19.54 | $3,771.22 |
| 2026-04-13 | 2,062 | $18.86 | $38,889.32 |
| 2026-04-10 | 1,735 | $19.14 | $33,207.9 |
| 2026-03-24 | 153 | $18.03 | $2,758.59 |
| 2026-03-23 | 3,591 | $17.87 | $64,171.17 |
| 2026-03-19 | 45,900 | $17.72 | $813,348 |
| 2026-03-17 | 239,987 | $17.09 | $4.1M |
| 2026-02-24 | 2,077 | $21.27 | $44,177.79 |
| 2026-02-18 | 26 | $22.24 | $578.24 |
| 2026-02-17 | 377 | $21.63 | $8,154.51 |
| 2026-02-09 | 2,029 | $22.70 | $46,058.3 |
| 2026-02-04 | 1,789 | $21.23 | $37,980.47 |
| 2026-01-27 | 4 | $20.26 | $81.04 |
| 2026-01-22 | 9 | $21.21 | $190.89 |
| 2026-01-21 | 4 | $21.30 | $85.2 |
| 2026-01-20 | 1,449 | $21.74 | $31,501.26 |
| 2026-01-15 | 770 | $21.19 | $16,316.3 |
| 2026-01-13 | 311 | $21.93 | $6,820.23 |
| 2026-01-12 | 378 | $23.17 | $8,758.26 |
| 2025-12-22 | 2,954 | $23.83 | $70,393.82 |
| 2025-12-18 | 443 | $23.13 | $10,246.59 |
| 2025-12-15 | 7,688 | $24.15 | $185,665.2 |
| 2025-12-11 | 150,696 | $23.26 | $3.5M |
| 2025-12-09 | 51 | $22.13 | $1,128.63 |
| 2025-12-08 | 51 | $22.85 | $1,165.35 |
| 2025-12-05 | 1,769 | $22.32 | $39,484.08 |
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 M 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.