MTUS (MTUS)

$805M
Market Cap
275.4
P/E Ratio
1.36
Beta
Dividend Yield
Piotroski 4/9Beneish M -2.08 Flag (> −2.22)

Quantitative Summary

Deterministic

Financial health is average: Piotroski 4/9. Beneish M-Score of -2.08 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-Generated

The fundamental economics of MTUS present a stark dichotomy between revenue expansion and profitability efficiency. While the company demonstrates top-line momentum with 6.9% year-over-year growth, this trajectory is undermined by negative net margins at -0.1%, indicating that operational costs are consuming nearly all earnings power despite an 8.2% gross margin floor. The return on invested capital stands at a negligible 0.4%, suggesting the business fails to generate meaningful value relative to its cost of equity, which creates a wide spread against any reasonable WACC estimate and points to significant capital allocation inefficiencies. Although the Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 signals moderate financial stability without recent deterioration in leverage or liquidity, the Beneish M-Score of -2.08 flags potential earnings manipulation risks that warrant heightened scrutiny given the thin profit margins.

Valuation metrics reflect extreme market skepticism regarding future cash flow generation rather than current operational performance. A price-to-earnings multiple of 275.4x is structurally unsustainable for a firm posting negative net income, rendering traditional relative valuation comparisons against sector averages or historical medians mathematically inapplicable without adjusting the denominator to book value or free cash flow. Any discounted cash flow model attempting to derive fair value must assume hyper-aggressive margin expansion and growth acceleration that contradicts current profitability trends; consequently, the market pricing implies a belief in a fundamental business transformation that has not yet materialized in earnings per share. The disconnect between high revenue velocity and negative bottom-line results suggests the stock price is decoupled from near-term cash generation capabilities.

The risk-reward profile appears skewed heavily toward downside volatility given the combination of negative net income, minimal ROIC, and elevated manipulation flags. While insider activity or Fama-French alpha data was not provided to assess specific factor exposure, the inherent structural weaknesses in capital efficiency and profit margins create a fragile equity structure susceptible to mean reversion if growth rates decelerate even marginally. Investors must weigh whether the current valuation premium accounts for speculative upside potential or represents an overextension based on revenue metrics that do not translate into shareholder value creation under standard accounting frameworks.

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

Price Chart with Moving Averages

Loading chart...
SMA 50 SMA 200

Quant Health Deep Dive

4/9
Piotroski F-Score
Average — mixed operational signals
-2.08
Beneish M-Score
Above threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review per Beneish model. Threshold: <-2.22 = below threshold.

Profitability & Value Creation

8.2%
Gross Margin
-0.1%
Net Margin
0.4%
ROIC
+6.9%
Revenue Growth (YoY)
-192.3%
Earnings Growth (YoY)
-93.0M
Free Cash Flow

Balance Sheet Health

0.66x
Debt / Equity
1.76x
Current Ratio
2.1x
Interest Coverage
-2.4x
Net Debt / EBITDA
60.3M
EBITDA

Earnings Surprise History

Q4
✗ Miss
Est: $0.12
Act: $0.07
-43.2%
Q3
✓ Beat
Est: $0.17
Act: $0.20
+15.4%
Q2
✓ Beat
Est: $0.18
Act: $0.28
+52.7%
Q1
✗ Miss
Est: $0.04
Act: $-0.18
-614.3%

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

14.5
Forward P/E
1.29
PEG Ratio
1.17
Price/Book
419037
Avg Volume
$21.73
52W High
$11.00
52W Low
52W Range Position

Passive Flow Attribution

ETF Draft Effect
$34M
Tracked Passive Exposure
5
ETFs Holding MTUS
0.09%
Avg Weight in ETFs
$38B
Total ETF AUM

When investors buy or sell ETFs like XME or SLYV, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell MTUS shares regardless of MTUS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $34M of passive capital is structurally linked to MTUS through 5 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on MTUS's daily trading dynamics.

Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 5 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.

ETF Contagion Visualizer

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

MTUS Shock
-0%
Est. Passive Redemption
$0
Systemic Risk
STABLE
MTUSEpicenterSPSMETFSPTMETFVAWETFLINLow RiskNEMLow RiskNVDALow RiskAAPLLow RiskNUELow Risk
MTUS Price Drop (%)0

If MTUS (MTUS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Linde plc (LIN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with MTUS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.

Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 5 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.

MTUS Ownership Dynamics

Ticker
MTUS

Float lock-up computed from 5 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).

MTUS Capital Efficiency

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

Free Cash Flow
$-93,000,000
EBITDA
$60M
FCF Conversion
-154%
Reinvestment Rate
254%
-154% of EBITDA → Free Cash
0% (cash burn)25% (low)50% (efficient)100% (pure cash)

MTUS converts -154% 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 254% 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
2026-05-141,691$17.93$30,319.63
2026-05-135,552$17.62$97,826.24
2026-05-06133$19.28$2,564.24
2026-05-041$19.14$19.14
2026-04-22294$18.55$5,453.7
2026-03-2383$14.82$1,230.06
2026-03-172,111$14.56$30,736.16
2026-03-165,867$14.68$86,127.56
2026-03-09174$16.88$2,937.12
2026-02-19857$20.98$17,979.86
2026-02-042,072$21.05$43,615.6
2026-01-2834$19.64$667.76
2026-01-27308$19.44$5,987.52
2025-12-22500$17.46$8,730
2025-12-153,651$18.21$66,484.71
2025-12-055,495$17.31$95,118.45
2025-12-04678$17.52$11,878.56
2025-12-012$16.91$33.82
2025-11-06749$17.98$13,467.02

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 MTUS 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.