MSTR (MSTR)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicBelow-average fundamentals indicated by Piotroski score of 3/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of the business reveal severe distress masked by high gross margins, as a net margin contraction to -806.3% drives both ROIC and DuPont-decomposed ROE deeply negative at -7.0% and -7.5%, respectively. This inefficient capital allocation is compounded by weak asset turnover of 0.01x, indicating significant underutilization of the balance sheet relative to revenue generation. While a Beneish M-Score of -2.52 suggests earnings quality remains intact without obvious manipulation signals, the low Piotroski F-Score of 3/9 confirms deteriorating financial health across multiple dimensions. The disparity between robust gross margins and catastrophic net results points to substantial operating leverage or one-time costs eroding value rather than a core profitability issue.
Valuation metrics are inextricably linked to these operational headwinds, where the extreme negative net margin renders traditional P/E comparisons with historical averages or sector peers statistically meaningless for assessing intrinsic worth. A DCF framework attempting to model fair value would face insurmountable hurdles given the implied growth trajectory contradicted by the -806% bottom line and mere 3.0% revenue expansion, suggesting current market pricing may be detached from fundamental cash-flow generation capabilities. The data implies that any valuation premium exists solely on speculative narratives rather than sustainable earnings power or reasonable cost of equity assumptions derived from positive returns on invested capital.
Insider activity further complicates the risk-reward profile, with $510,835 in net selling over the past 90 days signaling potential lack of confidence among management regarding future liquidity or operational recovery. Combined with a weak Piotroski score and negative ROIC, these factors create an asymmetric downside scenario where the probability of capital preservation is challenged by ongoing margin destruction, while upside remains contingent on unforeseen strategic pivots not reflected in current financial statements.
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
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 VOE or XSW, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell MSTR shares regardless of MSTR's individual fundamentals. We estimate $4.2B of passive capital is structurally linked to MSTR through 8 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 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in MSTR to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If MSTR (MSTR) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with MSTR. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 14 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
MSTR Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest MSTR Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 17 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
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 | 1,551 | $184.42 | $286,035.42 |
| 2026-05-11 | 103,414 | $187.59 | $19.4M |
| 2026-05-08 | 327,335 | $179.84 | $58.9M |
| 2026-05-06 | 1 | $186.90 | $186.9 |
| 2026-05-04 | 600 | $177.17 | $106,302 |
| 2026-05-01 | 3 | $165.45 | $496.35 |
| 2026-04-30 | 138,373 | $158.19 | $21.9M |
| 2026-04-29 | 1 | $165.71 | $165.71 |
| 2026-04-27 | 1,769 | $171.02 | $302,534.38 |
| 2026-04-22 | 21,249 | $163.97 | $3.5M |
| 2026-04-20 | 366,105 | $166.52 | $61.0M |
| 2026-04-17 | 34,341 | $148.94 | $5.1M |
| 2026-04-16 | 1 | $143.54 | $143.54 |
| 2026-04-15 | 368 | $137.41 | $50,566.88 |
| 2026-04-14 | 777 | $132.36 | $102,843.72 |
| 2026-04-13 | 7,200 | $128.64 | $926,208 |
| 2026-04-10 | 19 | $128.86 | $2,448.34 |
| 2026-04-09 | 26,645 | $128.30 | $3.4M |
| 2026-04-06 | 17,766 | $119.83 | $2.1M |
| 2026-04-02 | 23 | $122.78 | $2,823.94 |
| 2026-03-31 | 89,904 | $121.44 | $10.9M |
| 2026-03-30 | 200 | $126.03 | $25,206 |
| 2026-03-27 | 223 | $132.93 | $29,643.39 |
| 2026-03-25 | 2 | $136.25 | $272.5 |
| 2026-03-24 | 833 | $138.20 | $115,120.6 |
| 2026-03-23 | 402,244 | $135.66 | $54.6M |
| 2026-03-17 | 2,560 | $147.52 | $377,651.2 |
| 2026-03-16 | 615 | $139.67 | $85,897.05 |
| 2026-03-11 | 5,735 | $138.46 | $794,068.1 |
| 2026-03-10 | 80 | $138.95 | $11,116 |
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 MSTR 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.