TEM (TEM)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 1.8. Beneish M-Score of -1.18 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 this entity present a stark dichotomy between top-line expansion and bottom-line erosion. While revenue growth surged 83.4% year-over-year, the company operates with a net margin contraction to -19.3%, driving ROIC into negative territory at -9.2%. This profitability weakness is mathematically evident in the DuPont decomposition; despite an equity multiplier of 4.63x indicating significant leverage and gross margins holding steady at 62.7%, asset turnover remains modest at 0.56x, resulting in a severely depressed ROE of -49.9%. Credit risk metrics further highlight operational fragility, with the Piotroski F-Score registering only 4/9, suggesting limited financial strength relative to peers.
Valuation and market pricing appear disconnected from these deteriorating profitability fundamentals. The stock exhibits strong momentum characteristics, evidenced by a substantial annualized Fama-French alpha of 33.23% and a clear growth tilt with an HML factor of -0.843. However, this aggressive price appreciation is occurring alongside severe weakness in the RMW (Robustness of Margins) dimension, which scores -2.179. The market appears to be pricing in future margin recovery or continued revenue scaling that has not yet materialized in earnings per share, creating a potential divergence between current valuation multiples and sustainable cash flow generation given the negative net income environment.
Insider activity introduces additional cautionary signals into the risk-reward profile. Over the past ninety days, insiders have executed net selling totaling $33 million, a significant outflow that often precedes periods of elevated downside volatility or reflects internal skepticism regarding future guidance. When combined with the weak profitability factor and negative ROIC, this insider behavior suggests management may not be fully aligned with current market expectations or optimistic growth narratives. The convergence of high valuation premiums driven by revenue momentum against deteriorating unit economics and significant insider distribution creates a complex setup where short-term alpha generation could face headwinds if margin expansion fails to accelerate rapidly enough to offset the negative returns on invested capital.
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.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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.
Fama-French 5-Factor Exposure
Academic factor model decomposition — what's really driving this stock's returns.
Fama-French 5-Factor Model. Data: Kenneth French Data Library. Regression over 3 years of daily returns.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like ARKG or ARKK, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell TEM shares regardless of TEM's individual fundamentals. We estimate $690M of passive capital is structurally linked to TEM through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on TEM's daily trading dynamics.
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 TEM to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If TEM (TEM) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies CRISPR THERAPEUTICS AG (CRSP) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with TEM. 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.
TEM Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 12 TEM shares, reducing daily market volatility.
TEM (TEM) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 8.0% of the ARK Genomic Revolution ETF (ARKG) and 4.7% of the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK). Across 8 tracked ETFs, approximately 14M shares (8.2% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. As passive ownership grows, index inclusion changes may increasingly drive price discovery.
ETFs with Highest TEM Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 8 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
TEM Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for TEM over the past year sits near $59.06 (11% of 252-day volume). The current price of $49.62 sits 16.0% below the POC — suggesting potential mean-reversion upside if institutional demand reasserts at this level.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. 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 | 747,761 | $45.90 | $34.3M |
| 2026-05-13 | 377,337 | $46.95 | $17.7M |
| 2026-05-12 | 1,615 | $48.46 | $78,262.9 |
| 2026-05-08 | 382,652 | $49.47 | $18.9M |
| 2026-05-04 | 256 | $55.00 | $14,080 |
| 2026-04-28 | 5,298 | $52.68 | $279,098.64 |
| 2026-04-27 | 91,210 | $52.12 | $4.8M |
| 2026-04-24 | 116,632 | $51.44 | $6.0M |
| 2026-04-23 | 35,312 | $55.51 | $2.0M |
| 2026-04-22 | 89,616 | $55.15 | $4.9M |
| 2026-04-21 | 8,469 | $56.78 | $480,869.82 |
| 2026-04-20 | 145,444 | $55.87 | $8.1M |
| 2026-04-16 | 137,937 | $56.41 | $7.8M |
| 2026-04-15 | 44,653 | $49.53 | $2.2M |
| 2026-04-14 | 55 | $45.98 | $2,528.9 |
| 2026-04-13 | 100 | $42.94 | $4,294 |
| 2026-04-10 | 57,998 | $44.16 | $2.6M |
| 2026-04-09 | 8,712 | $47.50 | $413,820 |
| 2026-04-06 | 187,798 | $47.39 | $8.9M |
| 2026-04-02 | 20,696 | $47.03 | $973,332.88 |
| 2026-03-31 | 62 | $42.37 | $2,626.94 |
| 2026-03-30 | 57,559 | $42.62 | $2.5M |
| 2026-03-27 | 6,754 | $45.53 | $307,509.62 |
| 2026-03-26 | 102,518 | $46.76 | $4.8M |
| 2026-03-25 | 2,218 | $48.83 | $108,304.94 |
| 2026-03-24 | 565 | $49.14 | $27,764.1 |
| 2026-03-23 | 21,935 | $46.96 | $1.0M |
| 2026-03-20 | 54,156 | $48.74 | $2.6M |
| 2026-03-19 | 12,439 | $48.69 | $605,654.91 |
| 2026-03-18 | 2,899 | $50.84 | $147,385.16 |
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.
SEC Comment Letters
SEC correspondence with the company regarding their filings. Comment letters often flag disclosure deficiencies, accounting concerns, or material omissions.
Source: SEC EDGAR correspondence. Comment letters are public records of SEC staff review of company filings.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| PSNL | 0.544 | 0.532 | Moderate |
| ACHR | 0.502 | 0.601 | Moderate |
| ROK | 0.477 | 0.427 | Moderate |
| RXRX | 0.467 | 0.541 | Moderate |
| TRMB | 0.466 | 0.498 | Moderate |
| TWST | 0.458 | 0.489 | Moderate |
| HOOD | 0.448 | 0.555 | Moderate |
| EMR | 0.448 | 0.501 | Moderate |
| MTD | 0.441 | 0.335 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare TEM to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.