USAR (USAR)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicBelow-average fundamentals indicated by Piotroski score of 2/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of USAR exhibit severe distress, characterized by a negative ROIC-WACC spread that signals value destruction rather than capital appreciation. This deterioration is driven primarily by an anomalous net margin contraction to -18,110.7%, which overwhelms the modest 11.9% gross margin and suggests catastrophic operating leverage or accounting anomalies rather than sustainable pricing power. The DuPont decomposition implies a collapse in profitability that cannot be offset by asset turnover or financial leverage, as evidenced by the negative return on invested capital. Compounding this structural weakness is a Piotroski F-Score of 2/9, indicating significant deterioration across nine key financial health criteria and placing the entity well below the median threshold for fundamental stability typically required in quantitative screening models.
Valuation metrics are rendered difficult to interpret due to the absence of positive earnings, rendering traditional P/E comparisons against historical averages or sector peers mathematically invalid. Without profitable operations, any discounted cash flow (DCF) model would rely on highly speculative terminal growth assumptions and negative free cash flows, resulting in a fair value that likely reflects liquidation scenarios rather than ongoing business continuity. Consequently, the current market price implicitly prices in an expectation of total capital loss or extreme restructuring, as standard valuation multiples fail to capture the severity of the earnings collapse reflected in the reported margins.
The risk profile is exacerbated by the combination of negative returns on invested assets and a failing fundamental score, which typically correlates with high idiosyncratic volatility and low Fama-French alpha potential for value-oriented strategies. Insider activity data was not provided to assess management alignment during this downturn, leaving the trajectory dependent entirely on external capital injections or operational pivots that are currently unquantifiable from the available dataset. The convergence of negative ROIC, a failing Piotroski score, and hyper-negative net margins presents an asymmetric risk-reward profile where downside protection is minimal while upside potential remains contingent on unforeseen turnaround events 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
Balance Sheet Health
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.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like XME or VTWO, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell USAR shares regardless of USAR's individual fundamentals. We estimate $213M of passive capital is structurally linked to USAR through 4 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on USAR's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 4 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in USAR to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If USAR (USAR) 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 USAR. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 4 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
USAR Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 23 USAR shares, reducing daily market volatility.
USAR (USAR) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 4.2% of the XME (XME) and 0.1% of the VTWO (VTWO). Across 4 tracked ETFs, approximately 10M shares (4.4% 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 USAR Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 4 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
USAR 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 USAR over the past year sits near $16.69 (14% of 252-day volume). The current price of $30.70 trades 83.9% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target. The highly concentrated volume profile (14% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
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 | 43,203 | $25.42 | $1.1M |
| 2026-05-13 | 361 | $25.55 | $9,223.55 |
| 2026-05-11 | 21,016 | $26.96 | $566,591.36 |
| 2026-05-08 | 2,981 | $26.38 | $78,638.78 |
| 2026-05-07 | 260 | $28.60 | $7,436 |
| 2026-05-04 | 143,668 | $26.33 | $3.8M |
| 2026-05-01 | 21,515 | $25.97 | $558,744.55 |
| 2026-04-30 | 464 | $22.03 | $10,221.92 |
| 2026-04-29 | 366,399 | $22.77 | $8.3M |
| 2026-04-28 | 55,633 | $23.51 | $1.3M |
| 2026-04-24 | 67,329 | $23.09 | $1.6M |
| 2026-04-23 | 29,179 | $25.41 | $741,438.39 |
| 2026-04-22 | 89,049 | $22.85 | $2.0M |
| 2026-04-21 | 83,351 | $22.58 | $1.9M |
| 2026-04-20 | 214,992 | $19.95 | $4.3M |
| 2026-04-17 | 111,140 | $18.43 | $2.0M |
| 2026-04-16 | 52,084 | $18.35 | $955,741.4 |
| 2026-04-15 | 11,783 | $16.99 | $200,193.17 |
| 2026-04-14 | 178,187 | $16.79 | $3.0M |
| 2026-04-13 | 37,030 | $16.15 | $598,034.5 |
| 2026-04-10 | 171,615 | $16.72 | $2.9M |
| 2026-04-09 | 146,951 | $16.78 | $2.5M |
| 2026-04-07 | 40,452 | $15.28 | $618,106.56 |
| 2026-04-06 | 23,638 | $15.92 | $376,316.96 |
| 2026-03-31 | 2,753 | $14.23 | $39,175.19 |
| 2026-03-30 | 38,382 | $15.42 | $591,850.44 |
| 2026-03-27 | 16,925 | $16.00 | $270,800 |
| 2026-03-26 | 205,932 | $16.64 | $3.4M |
| 2026-03-24 | 376,547 | $17.39 | $6.5M |
| 2026-03-20 | 3,194 | $17.81 | $56,885.14 |
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.
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 | |
| MP | 0.622 | 0.720 | Moderate |
| ASTS | 0.428 | 0.576 | Moderate |
| ACHR | 0.416 | 0.641 | Moderate |
| ONDS | 0.403 | 0.466 | Moderate |
| UEC | 0.345 | 0.590 | Moderate |
| RKLB | 0.320 | 0.513 | Moderate |
| LEU | 0.285 | 0.514 | Low correlation |
| BE | 0.266 | 0.524 | Low correlation |
| FCX | 0.252 | 0.471 | Low correlation |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare USAR 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.